You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Saturday, November 01, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Article image
Thomas Magstadt
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Sunday 27 January 2013
A list of urgent matters that Congress will dither over or simply ignore in the coming weeks and months includes gun control, bank regulation and the budget among many more.

Five Signs ‘Liberals’ in Congress are Faking It

Article image

We can't afford to go on letting fake liberals who ask for our money and our votes hide behind empty rhetoric while consorting with the same old paymasters and special interests.  They have enabled Tea Party Republicans and it is now quite clear they intend to continuing to do so.  Presented with a Hobson's choice, freedom to act in the absence of any alternative. We must defeat them before we can defeat the extreme right.  

What follows is a short list of urgent matters I predict Congress will dither over or simply ignore in the coming weeks and months.  Readers are invited to add to this list.

Sign #1  The filibuster –  

Harry Reid and company used rhetorical flourishes about filibuster reform as a smokescreen to hide the shameful fact that they had no intention of fixing a rule that makes impossible to get any measures President Obama backs (and we voted for) passed.  Senate Democrats have no desire to change the rules.  As things stand, they can pretend to care and blame the filibustering Republicans for inaction. But don't take my word for it:

Exhibit  A – From the Washington Post:  "Senate leaders reached a deal Thursday that keeps the chamber’s long-standing, 60-vote threshold for halting a filibuster but streamlines some of the chamber’s more cumbersome procedures. ... [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid and [Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell are presenting the draft proposal to their caucuses Thursday afternoon, and if they get a positive response, the changes could come to a vote by the end of the day. ... The key new proposal allows the elimination of one filibuster vote during the 'motion to proceed' to a bill, when the chamber begins considering legislation. Republicans have increasingly filibustered the motion to begin debating legislation to either slow passage of or block bills altogether."

Exhibit B – Here's David Weigel with the real story that, sadly, says it all: "Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin has been backing filibuster reform packages for most of his Senate career. A group of reporters stopped him today on his way into the caucus meeting where the party will be told the virtues of what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell agreed on. Harkin fluttered open his binder, pulled out the new rules, and read them slowly, grimly. 'They're baby, baby steps,' he said. He'd wanted the Democrats to go ahead and change the Senate rules with 51 votes, and Reid had forestalled that. ... Bloomberg's Jim Rowley asked the obvious follow-up: Should Obama go on vacation?  'He can go out and give wonderful speeches, things like that,' said Harkin. 'But with the House in the hands it's in, and the fact that the Senate, now, you have to have 60 votes to pass anything... well, I daresay that Obama's package, his very aggressive proposals, will not get very far. They'll be so watered down that they won't be recognizable.'"

Exhibit C -  An email from Elizabeth Warren "I'm disappointed by the filibuster reform deal we passed in the Senate last night."  The "deal" passed by a vote of 86-9…

Sign #2:  Gun control –  

President Obama struck the right chord on gun control in his inaugural speech, but there is one big difference between the president and every Democrat in the House and Senate: he doesn't ever have to stand for re-election again.  (Note that he, too, was careful not to offend the NRA before the November election.)  The fact that our legislators love being in Congress more than they love any principle or obligation, that there is no honor among these thieves, will be displayed in tawdry Technicolor if even a pale imitation of gun-control legislation gets to the floor of either house.

Consider, for example, this story in the New York Times: "During a lengthy and at times emotionally wrenching news conference, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California on Thursday announced legislation that would ban the sale and manufacture of 157 types of semiautomatic weapons, as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The bill, which Ms. Feinstein [a fine Democrat, be it noted] said she would introduce in the Senate on Thursday afternoon, would exempt firearms used for hunting and would grandfather in certain guns and magazines. The goal of the bill, she said, would be 'to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.' ... Since the expiration of a ban on assault weapons in 2004, there has been a deep reluctance among lawmakers to revisit the issue. They cite both a lack of evidence that the ban was effective and a fear of the powerful gun lobby, which has made significant inroads at both the state and federal level in increasing gun rights over the last decade."  

Sign #3:  Bank regulation –  

Here's William Black, a leading authority on control fraud in the financial industry and corporate crime: "…President Obama intends to appoint Jacob Lew as Treasury Secretary Geithner's replacement. Most people assume that Geithner is a creature of Wall Street through direct employment, but Geithner never drew a paycheck directly from Wall Street. Geithner worked for a wholly-controlled subsidiary of Wall Street - the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Lew is the real deal, another brick in Obama's creation of Wall Street on the Potomac." 

What it means (Black again):  "…(1) Obama prefers to have Wall Street guys run finance (despite coming to power because Wall Street blew up the world), (2) the revolving door under Obama that connects Wall Street and the White House has been super-charged, and (3) even very short stints in Wall Street have made Obama's finance advisers wealthy. The obvious is vitally important, and it is largely ignored by the most prominent media. The obvious aspects help explain why Obama's economic policies have been incoherent, ineptly explained, inequitable, and often slavishly pro-Wall Street at the expense of our integrity and citizens."

If Black is correct – and if (as the inscription at the entrance to the National Archives says)  "the past is prologue" – don't expect the President or Democrats in Congress to initiate tough action to re-regulate banks "too big to fail" or the Justice Department to go after CEO's "too big to prosecute" any time in the next four years. 

Here's an excerpt from a recent Real News interview with Bill Black –   

Interviewer: "So, Bill, President Obama says that banks are no longer to be able to take risks with your money, and they're going to have a living will. So they're not going to be too big to fail, 'cause, he says, we're not bailing you out again. So are we really now protected from all these things that triggered the 2008 crisis?"

Black: "No, you're not protected from any of those things. And it's because both parties refuse to protect us against either of those things. So let's take it in pieces.

Of course they're using other people's money, because that's what banks do. They use other people's money. So our money is still at risk. The major issue is with regard to the systemically dangerous institutions. These are about the 20 largest banks in the United States, and maybe about 15 outside the United States. And the administration is telling us that as soon as the next one fails—and it's a question of when, not if—it will cause a global, systemic financial crisis.  

So the fairly obvious question we asked was: why would you allow that? Why wouldn't you get rid of the 20 largest banks' systemic danger? And it turns out that is not particularly hard to do, because these banks are massively too big to be efficient. In other words, we've got a tremendous win-win-win.

…And we've run a real-world test, right? We had a global disaster, a global, worldwide—nearly worldwide recession. In the United States alone the household sector lost $11 trillion. And we still have nobody in either party seriously willing to take on and shrink the banks."

Sign #4:  Campaign finance reform –

Five Supreme Court justices say giving money to political candidates to steal elections and thwart majority rule is a form of free speech.  It's right there in the First Amendment.  Go have a look!  No mention of corporations in the First Amendment?  Look again.  It clearly references "the right of the people" and corporations are people if The Five say so…

From "This Corrupt(ed) Republic" – an article that went to the top of the "most popular" list at Reader Supported News in the fall of 2012:

"The growing wealth gap, the power of television to shape public perceptions of reality, and the unrestricted flow of private funds into political campaigns combine to transform Madison’s “commercial republic” into a republic so corrupted by billionaire bankers, hedge fund managers, venture capitalists, and casino moguls that voters can expect no honesty, truth, or even serious discourse from the politicians who run for office. Under such circumstances elections are a farce.

How did we get to this impasse? There’s no simple answer, but the Reagan Revolution that eulogized the 'free' market and deregulated business and banking while cutting taxes and pursuing a costly futuristic 'Star Wars' military fantasy played a big role in radically changing the distribution of wealth and power in this country. The Bush tax cuts finished what Reagan started. Since the early 1980s, the rich have gotten fabulously richer while the middle class has gone sideways or backwards. But even this widening wealth gap that now defines and drives the US economy doesn’t explain what’s happened to the political system.

The fact that wealth easily translates into political power is nothing new. But it’s never been so easy as it is now. In 2010 five judges sitting on the United States Supreme Court opened the floodgates, ruling that any amount of private money spent to influence the outcome of public elections counts as a form of free speech protected under the First Amendment. According to the reasoning of the five 'deciders' in the Citizens United case, campaign finance reform aimed at protecting or restoring the integrity of elections is therefore unconstitutional!"

Try to imagine a scenario wherein this Congress moves to counter a Supreme Court that has clearly gone off the constitutional rails.  (If you can, help me out 'cause I can't.)  

Sign #5:  The battle of the budget – 

A few facts:  Partly as a result of the Bush tax cuts of 2001, 2003 and 2005, taxation of the wealthy, in President Barack Obama's words, 'is at its lowest level in half a century'… 

1) In the past 10 years the income of the top 1% has risen by 18%, while that of blue-collar male workers has fallen by 12%.

2) In the early 1950s, the federal-state-local revenue structure changed from one in which high income tax returns on average paid over 4 times the percentage of the average for the bottom fifty percent; today, the bottom half pay one-fourth more as a percentage of adjusted gross income (AGI) than the top one percent.

3) Based on estimated gross income the lowest fifty percent of tax returns, on average, now pay nearly two-thirds more as a percent of total income than the top one percent of tax returns.

4) At least half the nation’s wealth has been effectively excluded from the tax rolls."  

Obama was right to focus on our unfair loophole-riddled tax system.  Unfortunately, he waited until he was campaigning for re-election and he failed to note that he was part of the problem:  after all, had he not agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts?

Why does Washington continue to ignore the advice our best and brightest economists who urge stimulus not austerity – more, not less spending – in times of high unemployment and slow growth? And why not state the obvious: that revenues (taxes) are vital to the state and society?  In other words, what's needed now is targeted deficit reduction (cut defense, not Social Security), targeted tax increases (on the rich and corporations, not the middle class), and, yes, targeted spending hikes (on infrastructure, education, and health care).

A debt-ceiling band-aid allows Congress to back away from the "fiscal cliff" for a few months but doesn't fix anything.  Nor does it commit the Republican to giving an inch taxes or spending.  A prediction: there will no serious tax reform nor deep cuts in "defense" spending .  But the Tea Party caucus in Congress will whittle away at Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and will relentlessly denounce "Obamacare" and any attempt control the skyrocketing cost of medical care.

There will eventually be a showdown – or charade – over the federal budget.  Given the Republicans' intransigence and the Democrats' disposition for duplicity don’t expect a big Wall Street sell-off any time soon. Rather, expect a Washington sell-out.



Author pic
ABOUT Thomas Magstadt

Tom Magstadt earned his Ph.D. at The Johns Hopkins University School of International Studies. He is the author of "An Empire If You Can Keep It: Power and Principle in American Foreign Policy," "Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions and Issues," and "Nations and Governments: Comparative Politics in Regional Perspective." He was a regular contributor to the Prague Post in 1998-99 and has published widely in newspapers, magazines and journals in the United States. He was a Fulbright Scholar in the Czech Republic in the mid-1990s and a visiting professor at the Air War College in 1990-92. He has taught at several universities, chaired two political science departments, and also did a stint as an intelligence analyst at the CIA. He is a member of the board of the International Relations Council of Kansas City. Now working mainly as a free-lance writer, he lives in Westwood Hills, Kansas.

The US was at its height of

The US was at its height of shared wealth and productivity from WWll until Reagan, when we began our decline. We could consider looking into the policies that built and strengthened the massive middle class that we once had. Instead of paying (via generous annual tax cuts) corps to ship our jobs out, tax them at pre-Reagan rates. Restore the social safety net, which is absolutely vital to keeping families together, housed and fed through economic downturns, enabling them to get back on their feet; all the money that previously went into welfare was, but necessity, immediately rolled into local economies via necessary consumer purchases (i.e., economic stimulus -- while saving lives/preserving families). Today, a single job loss can result in losing absolutely everything, only to find that we really did cut the rungs off of that proverbial ladder out of poverty. These two factors -- essentially paying corps to shut our jobs down, while eliminating the safety net -- has resulted in a steady shrinking of the middle class, therefore a continued shrinking of consumer spending/the economy.

Harry Reid must've forced to

Harry Reid must've forced to give up his leadership....sign my petition -"sign on.org....tell the Dems no more support till this traitor is removed!
Diana butsch

Harry Reid must've forced to

Harry Reid must've forced to give up his leadership....sign my petition -"sign on.org....tell the Dems no more support till this traitor is removed!
Diana butsch

Harry Reid must've forced to

Harry Reid must've forced to give up his leadership....sign my petition -"sign on.org....tell the Dems no more support till this traitor is removed!
Diana butsch

Harry Reid must've forced to

Harry Reid must've forced to give up his leadership....sign my petition -"sign on.org....tell the Dems no more support till this traitor is removed!
Diana butsch

Harry Reid must've forced to

Harry Reid must've forced to give up his leadership....sign my petition -"sign on.org....tell the Dems no more support till this traitor is removed!
Diana butsch

Perhaps, it is past time that

Perhaps, it is past time that we start running and electing third party liberals. I'm talking about Real Liberals that will bring this country back from where it has gone. These liars who pretend to be liberal and continue to pal around with the republicans need to go. Our safety net needs protection from these Tea Party Airheads who haven't a clue what they are doing to us senior citizens. I worked hard for my retirement money and I will not let these snotty nosed idiots get rid of it. Our money is in Defense and the Wall Street Banker's pockets as well as our own Congress and Senators who have lined their own pockets at our expense. They all need to be in jail for what they have done to us.

Before going into the five

Before going into the five signs - i.e. five big impending issues which will be likely occasions of fake-liberal sell-out- Magstadt motivates his exercise by telling us that 'we must defeat them', these fake liberals. How does he propose to bring about such 'defeat', and how can we ensure that such 'defeat' - which anyhow seems improbable on the needed massive scale - would in fact make a difference for very long? Unfortunately his op-ed cops out on these key operative questions.

The default Left position

The default Left position seems to be that Democratic politicians and Democratic compromises are so deeply disappointing that we must either defeat the "fake" liberals before we do anything else, or display our Left credentials by cynically dismissing them all and remaining aloof. I would argue that neither approach works very well. The first never happens and the second relinquishes the field to others. If we are to influence politics in the U.S., we must first be heard. To be heard we must compete. More on that here: http://inandoutwithjeff.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-american-left-should-co...

What a collossal waste of

What a collossal waste of words...Magstadt couldn't put the tail on the donkey eyes wide open. Let me help you Thomas. Washington has been subverted and is no longer responsive to anything in a sane manner, and is in fact on the edge of insanity. It is a pathetic illusion, sustained for those who are afraid to internalise what the reality is and to buck up like adults.....come out from under your blankie, stop sucking your thumb, and quit crying that the babysitter is being mean because the sitter is about to get a whole lot more meaner.

"It's the policies, stupid."

"It's the policies, stupid." The most stunning thing about today's generation is their gullibility when it comes to the marketing of politicians. Just because someone wears a "D" badge doesn't mean he/she is liberal/progressive! Consider the Clintons as an outstanding example. Bill Clinton is well to the right of Reagan in both domestic and international policies, especially in social and labor issues. Hillary Clinton is marketed as a liberal, in spite of her long support of such right wing/corporatist policies as NAFTA (shipping jobs out) and workfare (super-cheap replacement labor). When it comes to policies, today's Dem Party leadership is actually well to the right of such historic staunch conservatives as Richard Nixon, especially in socio-economic policies. By contrast (and oddly, on a single issue), we hear liberal criticism of Barack Obama, whose policies are actually the most progressive we've seen since the mid-1970s. If you want progressive policies, you have to keep pressuring politicians to represent your interests, and not just hope they will.

And the Number 1 sign that

And the Number 1 sign that 'Liberals' in Congress are Faking It:

They belong to the 'Progressive Caucus.'

The Sierra Club has decided

The Sierra Club has decided to use civil disobedience for the first time in its 121 history because petitions simply don't work.

Peaceful protests are only going to give the police an excuse to violently crack down on civil disobedience (Remember Lt. Peppermacer Pike of the UC-Davis campus police?!). The kourts are more than happy to throw non-violent people in prison and rob them with exhorbitant fines.

We are at a crossroads in this world where the words of Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers need to be heeded if we value representative democracy --our government should fear the people, the people should never fear their government in America.

OMG the entire government is

OMG the entire government is fake, so are the mass media. They're all a hoax superimposed over the reality that clandestine, malevolent, esoteric forces are having their way with humanity. And if they're as sadistic as I think they are, you deeply invested, hyper-partisan ideologues must keep them tickled pink.

Politics and media are

Politics and media are businesses, and are marketed according to what a few people in boardrooms believe will sell at any given time. (Both have rather poor track records. ) Businesses are about profits, not truthfulness. There's certainly nothing esoteric about either. With rare exception, both are merely tools, neither good nor bad. It's up to people to become well-enough informed to know the difference between hype and fact, and when possible, make use of these tools to promote the best interests of ordinary people.

The following is an excerpt

The following is an excerpt from “A Basic Call to Consciousness”, the Hau de no sau nee Address to the Western World made in Geneva, Switzerland in 1977.

“The majority of the world does not find its roots in Western culture or traditions. The majority of the world finds its roots in the Natural World, and it is the Natural World, and the traditions of the Natural World, which must prevail if we are to develop truly free and egalitarian societies.

It is necessary, at this time, that we begin a process of critical analysis of the West's historical processes, to seek out the actual nature of the roots of the exploitative and oppressive conditions which are forced upon humanity. At the same time, as we gain understanding of those processes, we must reinterpret that history to the people of the world. It is the people of the West, ultimately, who are the most oppressed and exploited. They are burdened by the weight of centuries of racism, sexism, and ignorance which has rendered their people insensitive to the true nature of their lives.

We must all consciously and continuously challenge every model, every program, and every process that the West tries to force upon us. Paulo Friere wrote, in his book, the "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," that it is the nature of the oppressed to imitate the oppressor, and by such actions try to gain relief from the oppressive condition. We must learn to resist that response to oppression.

The people who are living on this planet need to break with the narrow concept of human liberation, and begin to see liberation as something which needs to be extended to the whole of the Natural World. What is needed is the liberation of all the things that support Life -- the air, the waters, the trees -- all the things which support the sacred web of Life. “

copyright © 1978 by Akwesasne Notes, Mohawk Nation, Via Roseveltown, NY

Note especially the last two sentences of the third paragraph, if you are born of the West. Read them again, this time word by word.

If you fail to govern yourself, first and singular, how can you possibly expect that electing a government to do the job for you will somehow succeed where you have failed?

You will achieve precisely what we suffer under: hired guns seeking a niche in the food chain of wealth. Nevermind that they have been given the ultimate 1% funded makeover to sell them as a true and fearless leader. They are instead universally feared leaders, and loathed, and - to add one more element to Dr. Hunter Thompson’s famed doublet – despised leaders.

Conversely, if you are successful in governing yourself, then you have the wherewithal to choose those people whose judgment you trust and respect as friends, mentors, leaders.

The latter lies entirely outside and is antithetical to any political process or economic system that I am aware of. Therein lies an interesting choice that few people ever summon the will and courage to make.

JSI

Nothing is really changed in

Nothing is really changed in principle. The only reason lip service is given to liberal causes is because the GOP bungled so badly that if one planned to destroy this country, they would not succeed any better. Eight years of Bush/Dick were the crowning of the idiocy and aberration of the US political system when they asserted "YOU ARE WITH THE GOP OR WITH THE ENEMY".... Subsequent to that, we had a virtual dictatorship of the 1% over the 99% with disastrous political, social, economic consequences that brought this country to its knees. The only saving party available was the Ass, so they found an undetectable MORMON with shady dealings to run for GOP who was a loser before the process even started. Liberals with long term solutions are still cut out of the process and the 1% still rules. A small portion of them pretend they are unhappy (insurance due to health care "reform", maybe a couple of weapon manufacturers if the gun control becomes law). The 99% is still out of the decision loop and are appeased with social legislation (women can die in the battlefield like men, bisexuals have insurance coverage). No one talks about the rights of the 99%, their lives being manipulated by banksters, insurance, CEOs/officers without direct representation in the legislative arena. Ninety percent of the population is working people. Yet there is not a single working man/woman in the legislature. Lawyers, bidnessmen overwhelmingly run the rule making agenda given to them by the 1%. Given all of that, I still think Mr. O. is better than any of the GOP 1% tail-waggers.

Norman, You're so right

Norman, You're so right though you confused me by referring to "the Ass," which is the symbol for the Democratic Party when referring to Romney. When you state that there is "not a single working man/woman in the legislature," I presume you mean at the federal level. That's because it take so much money to run for office and a willingness to compromise your principles to bring in the bucks to win. Down here at the state level in solidly blue California, I'm finding the same to be true. Because I'm not wealthy, have no wealthy friends, and refuse to compromise my principles, "you can't win" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In the mid 80s the DLC

In the mid 80s the DLC decided the Democratic Party had moved too far to the left (ie, supported civil rights and woman's right to chose) and set sights on a spot in the political spectrum to the right of the moderates and corporatists in the Republican Party, but to the left of the rightwing social agenda of the Republican base. Their goal was not just to co-opt the Republican's financial base (in retaliation for the Republican's capture of the Southern Democrats) but also to split the Republican Party asunder. Mission largely accomplished. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA (which of course infuriated Republicans - neither Reagan nor Bush the Elder had gotten NAFTA passed), eliminated welfare, deregulated Wall Street, etc. And Obama has outdone Clinton in passing "free trade" deals, expanding the Bush administration's assault on civil liberties, expanded the wars in the Muslim world, etc - and Obama's only halfway through his 8 years.

The only people I know who call themselves "liberals" anymore are the rank and file of the Democratic Party who think that because they support civil rights and a woman's right to choose they really are "liberals" .. but drone strikes are a better way to wage perpetual war (just fine with them), the alleged threats to our civil liberties are just so much rightwing extremist Alex Jones paranoia, and the violent crackdowns on the Occupy movement couldn't possibly have been coordinated by the White House.

And a lot of those same people now call themselves "progressive". For them it's all about the divisive social issues both parties use to keep us divided, ignoring the economic and foreign relations disasters both parties support.

Thanks Mountain Man 23 for

Thanks Mountain Man 23 for making the important point about the wars against Muslims. (I'd also add that it makes very little sense for us to have troops in Japan and Korea so many decades after World War II.)

I think we can get a good count of the true progressives by adding up the votes for Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson and a few other third party candidates. There were probably some progressives who voted for Obama as the lesser of two evils, but not so many i think --- anybody who cast such a vote should now come out of the closet and denounce the evil they voted for each time he orders another drone strike or similar immoral act.

So first task is probably education so that people can get that wars against others are wrong---even if those others speak a different language, or worship God in a slightly different way, or have different skin pigmentation.

The Demopublicans are nothing

The Demopublicans are nothing more than Mom & Dad. Dad is an abusive and violent drunk, who cares only about his work and making money. Mom is powerless against him, but is caring and nurturing, and actually listens to us. But the bottom line is they married each other and at the end of the day go to bed together. Each blames the other for everything but neither is truly interested in changing anything as long as they get to rule together. The Demopublican system is a hopeless trap, and believing either party is willing, ready or able to fix it is nothing short of delusion.

That's a great analogy! 

That's a great analogy!  Like some other commentators on this thread, I've been registered Green ever since I became a U.S. citizen back in the 1990's.   I didn't need to be told that Bill Clinton was Republican Lite--and took a lot of heat from my "liberal" friends for not supporting Al Gore in 2000, as if I had personally elected Bush.

Of course it was the Supremes who, indirectly, inflicted the Iraq debacle on us and then followed up with Citizens United.  To continue your analogy, the Supreme Court is like the liquor store on the corner, or maybe the corrupt bartender who keeps letting Dad get good and drunk before he goes home.

The last time anyone tried to do anything about an ultra-conservative Supreme Court was when FDR's "court-packing" proposal stalled in the Senate in the late 1930's.  Robert Caro's "Master of the Senate" has a detailed history of that fight and how, once he lost it, FDR could never again get any of his progressive bills through Congress.   He was like Obama--personally popular but politically neutered.  His first 100 days were all he got.

an excellent analogy

an excellent analogy

Michael Moore wrote quite

Michael Moore wrote quite eloquently of Bill Clinton being "The Best Republican President We Ever Had" and provided around 10 pages in support of his claim. His thoughts might be worth re-reading just now.

You ask what shall we

You ask what shall we do?

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these..."

It always begins slanted, quaint, slow, small, twiches & surges, then explodes again & again, the whirlwind the change.

Feel the wind, taste the air, we're there.

God don't bless America. We, the people...DO!

Posted: December 18, 2011 as Yesca_Again
(http://www.truth-out.org/why-constitutional-law-professor-cannot-sign-nd...)

Damn we ain't moved, nor blood flowed....Yet.

It is time to contact your

It is time to contact your Congressmen and Senators and tell them that you will not support them anymore until they start doing what is right for the People who pay them to serve our Country's needs.

The rich do not have to depend on the government to keep roofs over their heads and food on the tables. They can afford whatever they Need or Want.
The People who our Government serves deserve to be protected from Conservatives who don't care about us unless they need our votes. We also do not need to support 'Liberals' who allow bills to be "gerrymandered" to suit themselves and not the People.

By not pushing to pass Filibuster legislation that will allow more changes to be made to Protect the People the Democratic leadership has now shown us that they do NOT work for the People...just the Lobbyists who own them.

I am a lifelong Democrat and am seriously considering voting as an Independent or Green Party.

I think it is time for more than a Two Party system. We need more voices heard who really want to Serve the People...not the Party Leaders.

Ellenie Ash & greggerritt, et

Ellenie Ash & greggerritt, et al,

The country is being driven into the 2%er’s abyss & your...going to stomp your foot real hard.

That's a scary threat, to who, your cat?

No this is the times that try men's souls. Time the 2%ers must literally die for their sins against America, the world, humanity. With no compassion, just blind bloody, cruel justice. On them& their children, the ole what goes around comes around.

Or have you been able to ignore all the real human suffering, hunger, pain & misery, despondence, cruelty that flourishes in our land. So ‘voting Green’ is the forceful answer, resolve.

They don’t fear us, they the 2%ers laugh at us, we to them are merely nuisances, to be dealt with by their enablers. Suffer they must before things will change.

That applies to We, the people too, for our own negligence’s & avarices’ which welcomed this reality we live. Have we the courage, fortitude for what must come?

Unless you’re one of these ‘liberal’ too, Ellenie Ash & greggerritt, et al, please do more than just ‘vote green’. Our America needs heroes & martyrs more.

God don't bless America. We, the people...DO!

This is why I am a long

This is why I am a long standing member of the Green party. I will not vote for folks who will not tax the rich and will not shut down the military industrial complex and the empire.

Please keep me posted on the

Please keep me posted on the Democrats who fake being liberals on the above issues. Name names so I (and others) can at least send letters or emails.

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...