Mrs. Clinton, learn your government types

Politicians are supposed to be the ones who choose their words carefully. It just seems to me that of all the words to describe the government of America, the politicians ought to get it right. Some do, I suppose, but the one who will do anything (no matter how lewd) to be president more than anything continually botches this one. Badly.

Mrs. Clinton continually talks of the integrity of our democracy, indicating that everyone needs to have the chance to vote. That's all fine and dandy. However, America is not a democracy, and was never intended to be one. The Framers openly discussed the issue of "tyranny of the majority," and set up America's government to avoid such a thing. Granted, in many of our municipalities, the election process is democratic, but once the chosen individual takes office, that individual does not necessarily have to act in accordance with the will of the people, but serves merely as their representative.

Mrs. Clinton, of all people, ought to know that America is probably best described as a representative republic. It is democratic in its choosing of representatives, but once those representatives take office, they are charged with acting in response to the interests (or, more correctly, what they believe to the the best interest of the people, whether the people are aware of it or not), but not as their proxy representatives. I say she ought to know this better than anyone because she has continually contrasted herself against George W. Bush (and rightly so), who is the epitome of representative democracy and not direct democracy. If our representatives acted as our de facto proxy representatives, including the president, then the Iraq war would be over, because the majority of the populous (above 72% as of late) disapprove of it and want it to end. But since this is a representative republic, once the elected official takes office, that individual acts to serve in our "best interest."

I'm not knocking representative republics, direct democracies, or any other form of "-archies." I'm just getting a bit tired of hearing Mrs. Clinton repeatedly talk of democracy as if her appointment to the presidency would be the result of a direct democratic process. She was right there at the front of the sidelines in 2000 when Al Gore lost his bid for president because America is not a true direct democracy. The electoral college provides shelter from the "tyranny of the majority," as much as I lament to admit it (I'm wondering if we would still be at war with "East Asia" ala 1984 had Gore won according to the popular vote).

Do Americans care about Big Brother?

According to Time magazine, not really.

It appears that most Americans merely shrug at the idea that the Bush administration has exchanged our right to privacy, illegal search & seizure, right to habeus corpus, and other essential civil liberties for the promise of physical protection from supposed evil-doers.

Time magazine, I’m calling you out.

The article plays devil’s advocate and posits that in each case where Big Brother has illegally stretched out his arm to take our civil rights, that no harm or foul has come of it. Really? Why doesn’t the article mention the likes of Donald Vance? Or Jose Padilla? Both were American citizens who were plucked from the crowd and thrown into the slammer without being charged with a crime, both of which were denied their right to a writ of habeus corpus, and both were illegally tortured (while the Bush administration was vehemently denying that it tortured). In the case of Padilla, he was eventually given a trial, but only after a few years of incarceration and torture, to the point that his defense hinged upon insanity claims (due to the torture). [Incidentally, he was found guilty].

The article also mentions that America has ‘bought’ into Big Brother’s assault on civil liberties. Well, no, that’s not the case. In the case of the PATRIOT Act, the congress moved to pass it too quickly for anyone to analyze the nearly 1,000 page proposal in time to enable intelligent discourse on the matter. And the public had no understanding of it either (not that this matters in a representative republic – America is NOT a democracy). Essentially, the removal of certain civil liberties does not represent the American public’s endorsement of any of it. All it means is that the public hasn’t had ample opportunity to refute or remove it from the table. At best, the voters’ displeasure with Republican rubber-stamping and the turnover of the legislative branch to the Democrats ought to have been a beacon to the executive and legislative branches that we’re not only tired of things like the war, but we’re tired of the shenanigans that followed it, including the removal of key civil liberties.

Whether or not the government has or will abuse its new-found powers is irrelevant; the problem I have is that the door is open for it to do so. Furthermore, once these liberties are taken from us, you can bet the farm that they’ll never come back.

Ron Paul formally steps down

On Thursday, Ron Paul released a video on his website (see below) in which he indicates that his run for president is now over. Ron was labeled early on by the mainstream media as a kook. I think the reason they did this is because they didn't understand what he was talking about. "Sound money, what the hell does that mean?" What they didn't notice is that Ron Paul understands the ROOT of most of the problems, and offers many one-issue and multiple-issue voters a form of requiem from the mess caused by President Bush.

For example, if you are a liberal Democrat, you probably want an end to the Iraq war. You feel duped into it based on Bush's manipulation of false intelligence. Ron Paul was the only candidate with any momentum who was not only against the war in Iraq from the beginning, but who also pledged for immediate and total withdrawal once elected.

Maybe your a conservative Republican and you feel the government has become too large and cumbersome on American business/economy. Ron Paul is the only candidate who wanted to ensure a scaling back of the government's global hegemony, cutting out unnecessary programs, etc.

But there are concerns that face both parties. Ron Paul knows what to do about free market economics and sound money, what to do about moral issues such as abortion, and what to do about state's rights.

I am sad to say that Paul's presidential bid is out, but it's good to know that he'll still be around in the House. Please take careful note in his video below.



UPDATE:

Also of interest to you - please compare and contrast Ron Paul's concession announcement with that of Mitt Romney, probably the worst candidate on both sides. Mitt indicates that the election of Obama or Clinton is a concession to terrorism. What a moron.