A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2009 AND THEREAFTER



Rich People Versus Politicians



Sometimes I wish there were a humane way to get rid of the rich. Without the rich for whipping boys, we might be able to concentrate on what's best for the 99 and a half percent of the rest of us.

Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, with about $60 billion in assets each, are America's richest men. With all that money, what can they force us to do? Can they take our house to make room so that another person can build an auto dealership or a casino parking lot? Can they force us to pay money into the government-run retirement Ponzi scheme called Social Security? Can Buffett and Gates force us to bus our children to schools out of our neighborhood in the name of diversity? Unless they are granted power by politicians, rich people have little power to force us to do anything.

A GS-9, or a lowly municipal clerk, has far more life-and-death power over us. It's they to whom we must turn to for permission to build a house, ply a trade, open a restaurant and a myriad of other activities. It's government people, not rich people, who have the power to coerce and make our lives miserable. Coercive power goes a long way toward explaining political corruption.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich's hawking of Barack Obama's vacated U.S. Senate seat; Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel's alleged tax writing favors; former Rep. William Jefferson's business bribes; and the Jack Abramoff scandal are mere pimples on the government corruption landscape. We can think of these and similar acts as jailable illegal corruption. They pale in comparison to what's for all practical purposes the same thing, but simply legal corruption.

For example, according to the Miami Herald, by March 2008, the powerful Florida Fanjul sugar family had given over $300,000 to politicians and political committees. They didn't fork over all that money to help politicians to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Like businessmen who approach Charlie Rangel, Rod Blagojevich and William Jefferson, they give politicians money because they want a favor in return -- namely import restrictions on sugar so they can charge Americans higher prices. In the case of the Fanjuls, and thousands of others buying favors, they are engaged in legal corruption.

Legalized corruption is widespread and that's the job of 35,000 Washington, D.C., lobbyists earning millions upon millions of dollars. They represent America's big and small corporations, big and small labor unions and even foreign corporations and unions. They are not spending billions of dollars in political contributions to encourage and assist the White House and Congress to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. They are spending that money in the expectations of favors that will be bestowed upon them at the expense of some other American or group of Americans.

This power helps explain, for example, why a seat on the House Ways and Means Committee, not to mention its chairmanship, is so highly coveted. For the right price, a tax loophole, saving a company tens of millions of dollars, can be inserted into tax law, a la the Charlie Rangel scandal. At state levels, governors can award public works contracts to a generous constituent. At the local levels mayors can confer favors such as providing subsidies for sports stadia and convention centers. When politicians can give favors, they will find buyers.

The McCain-Feingold law was to get "money out of politics" but more money was spent in the 2008 election cycle than ever. The only way to reduce corruption and money in Washington is to reduce the power politicians have over our lives. James Madison was right when he suggested, "All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." Thomas Jefferson warned, "The greatest calamity which could befall us would be submission to a government of unlimited powers." That's what today's Americans have given Washington -- unlimited powers.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 2009



Why a Bill of Rights?



Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights? The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with our God-given rights. Think about it. Why in the world would they have written the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech and the press? The answer is that in the absence of such a limitation Congress would abridge free speech and free press. That same distrust of Congress explains the other amendments found in our Bill of Rights protecting rights such as our rights to property, fair trial and to bear arms. The Bill of Rights should serve as a constant reminder of the deep distrust that our founders had of government. They knew that some government was necessary but they rightfully saw government as the enemy of the people and they sought to limit government and provide us with protections.

After the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there were intense ratification debates about the proposed Constitution. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton expressed grave reservations about Thomas Jefferson's, George Mason's and others' insistence that the Constitution be amended by the Bill of Rights. Those reservations weren't the result of a lack of concern for liberty. To the contrary, they were concerned about the loss of liberties.

Alexander Hamilton expressed his reservation in Federalist Paper No. 84, "(B)ills of rights ... are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks, "For why declare that things shall not be done (by Congress) which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given (to Congress) by which restrictions may be imposed?" Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gave it authority to do. Powers not granted belong to the people and the states. Another way of examining Hamilton's concern: Why have an amendment prohibiting Congress from infringing on our right to picnic on our back porch when the Constitution gives Congress no authority to infringe upon that right in the first place?

Alexander Hamilton added that a Bill of Rights would "contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more (powers) than were granted. ... (it) would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power." Going back to our picnic example, those who would usurp our God-given liberties might enact a law banning our right to have a picnic. They'd justify their actions by claiming that nowhere in the Constitution is there a guaranteed right to have a picnic.

To mollify Alexander Hamilton's and James Madison's fears about how a Bill of Rights might be used as a pretext to infringe on human rights, the Ninth Amendment was added that reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In essence, the Ninth Amendment says it's impossible to list all of our God-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress. The Tenth Amendment is a reinforcement of the Ninth saying, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." That means if a power is not delegated to Congress, it belongs to the states of the people.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean absolutely nothing today as Americans have developed a level of naive trust for Congress, the White House and the U.S. Supreme Court that would have astonished the founders, a trust that will lead to our undoing as a great nation.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2009



Lying Propaganda



Michael Moore's new film, "Capitalism: A Love Story" will be released next month. I've neither seen nor read reviews of the film, except for a short piece in the London Telegraph (9/6/09) titled "Michael Moore film calls capitalism evil." Aware of Michael Moore's previous films, I know that it will be at best a misleading story about capitalism. So let's do some defensive mental preparation, not about the film but what is and what is not capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership and control over the means of production. The distribution of goods and services and their prices are mainly determined by competition in a free market. Under such a system the primary job of government is to protect private property, enforce contracts and ensure rule of law.

There has never been a pure free market capitalistic system just as there has never been a pure communist or socialist system, where there is government ownership of the means of production and each individual has equal access to society's resources. However, we can rank economies as to whether they are closer to capitalism or closer to communism or socialism. If one ranked countries according to whether they were closer to the capitalistic end of the spectrum or the socialistic or communistic end, then ranked countries according to per capita GDP and finally rank countries according to Freedom House's "Map of Freedom in the World," he would find a pattern that is by no means a coincidence. The people in those countries closer to the capitalist end of the economic spectrum have far greater income and enjoy greater human rights protections than those toward the socialist and communist end.

According to the London Telegraph article, Moore's film features priests who say capitalism is anti-Christian by failing to protect the poor. This is pure nonsense and revealed as such by asking, "If you're an unborn spirit, condemned by God to a life of poverty but allowed to choose the country in which to be poor, would you choose a country near the communist end of the economic spectrum or the capitalist end?" If you chose the United States, you'd find that according to the government surveys, the typical "poor" American has cable or satellite TV, two color TVs, and a DVD player or VCR. He has air conditioning, a car, a microwave, a refrigerator, a stove, and a clothes washer and dryer, and whether he has health insurance or not, he is able to obtain medical care when needed. Try to find that in Cuba, Russia, China or North Korea. If we buy into the nonsense of Moore's priests, the world's poor people are incredibly stupid. Whether fleeing legally or illegally, their destination country is likely to be closer to capitalism than their departure country.

Most of our country's serious problems can be laid at the feet of Congress and the White House and not at capitalism. Take the financial crisis. One-third of the $15 trillion of mortgages in existence in 2008 are owned, or securitized by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, the Federal Housing and the Veterans Administration. Banks didn't mind making risky loans and Wall Street buyers didn't mind buying these repackaged loans because they assumed that they would be guaranteed by the federal government: read bailout by taxpayers. Under a capitalist system, financial institutions would not have been intimidated or encouraged into making risky loans and neither would they have been bailed out if they did so.

Social Security, Medicare and its coverage of prescription drugs have an unfunded liability that exceeds $100 trillion. When those roosters come home to roost, they will make the financial meltdown we've been though look like child's play.

Not withstanding all of the demagoguery, it is capitalism not socialism is that made us a great country and its socialism that will be our undoing.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

Since the over-the-air media benefit from the use of radio spectrum that belongs to the people, and other media companies like the cable and satellite companies are the beneficiaries of right-of-way and other privileges over public lands and air space, they owe it to the country to set aside a portion of time, bandwidth, web space, etc. for political candidates to use for election campaigns. We should not enrich the media companies in the process of taking out the influence of money out of public policy decisions. European countries are ahead of us in this regard.

People need to stop being SHEEPLE and take it to the street., boycot corporations, banks, wall street Thank god the world may end in 2012, even GOD says She's had enough of this criminal behavior!

THIS COUNTRY IS MORALLY BANKRUPT. THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY. WE NEED TO GET THE PEOPLE INTO THE STREETS!

A large organization of people, such as AARP together with others, should take the initiative after a members referendum. Let's hope

AARP is all about the insurance industry, profits not people!!!! I watched as they approved the last health reform , doughnut holes, that take, your dough and throw you in a hole!!

I quite agree. AARP endorsing the donut-hole medicare coverage was such a betrayal of old people that I won't join AARP. (And I'm 63 years old and get their advertisement junk mail constantly.)

I think many problems in our system could be alleviated through proper campaign finance reform. Undue influence of a few powerful individuals and organizations through campaign financing and lobbying is undermining the will of the people of the United States.

My idea for campaign finance reform stems from the idea that representatives are not actually representing their constituents. They are representing those who contribute the most to their campaigns no matter where they come from. Therefore, money for campaign financing should only come from INDIVIDUALS from WITHIN A DISTRICT represented by an elected official.

More specifically, campaign contributions should ...
• ... only come from individual, human PERSONS, not organizations.
o If a district has a large population, there will be plenty of money to run a campaign.
o If a district is small, a person could campaign door-to-door or use public funding.
o I don’t care what they say, corporations DO NOT have human rights.
• ... only come from individuals living WITHIN a representative’s constituency.
o Someone running for office in one state should not take money from someone in another
state because that representative does not, or should not represent anyone outside of
their district.
o The higher the office, the wider the constituency (i.e., state senate vs local town council),
so financing would grow proportionally.
• ... be limited to a maximum per person amount.
o So as not to give any single person undue influence.

This should also apply to propositions such as Prop 8 in California where much of the contributions in favor of the proposition came from out-of-state.

This sounds very workable, along with term limits and we might get close a Democracy again, but asking our corrupt system to approve limits on itself is impossible. Have they ever NOT voted themselves a raise when the rest of us, who pay that bill, don't even get to go out to a movie? It needs to be a constitutional amendment only voted on by the people, as individuals, legislators only get one vote like the rest of us , lobbyists only get one vote, corps are entities, systems, not individuals and don't get a vote. Money be damned!

THE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK. IT REQUIRES DRAMATIC CHANGES, BUT THE MAJOR AGENT OF CHANGE IS THE U.S. CONGRESS WHICH WILL NEVER CHANGE THINGS THAT BENEFIT THEMSELVES REGARDLESS OF THE NEEDS OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS. HOW CAN THE SPIRAL BE BROKEN?

I would like to share an open letter I wrote to President Obama, I would also like to add that the same applies to every Lawmaker that is following his path.
Anyone that agrees with me may feel free to repost it, email it or use it to get the truth to as many people as they can, we can fight back at those that are willing to sell their Soul to Wall Street.

Dear President Obama;
What has happened to your personal values?
By allowing a Health Care package to pass that includes a cut to the Social Security Benefits and Medicare to the ones that depends on it for survival and medical care, you have betrayed the very back bone of America.
By allowing it to pass with a Mandate to force everyone to buy coverage from the greedy insurance companies you are giving in to a "dictatorship" controlled by them.
You are clearly willing to penalize the very people who are struggling to "JUST" survive, to enrich the powerful insurance and drug companies
By allowing it to pass without either a single payer or public option you will prove to the people of America that you did not tell us the truth.
As time passes I am seeing you as a very weak person, a person that will compromise your values for the approval of the Corporations and Conservatives.
I and millions of voters voted for you because we thought you would stand up for what you said in your speeches during your campaign, we voted for a change in Government policies, "Not a changed Barack Obama"
Not only are you compromising the elderly, disabled, poor and minimum wage earners of America, you are compromising the Democratic Party, I do not want to believe that you are aware of the number of people you are hurting by your Conservative decisions.
Please Mr. President !
Either keep your word to those that voted for what they believed you would stand for, or step aside, we had eight years of broken promises and deceit and we can't allow another Presidential term to proceed that is following the same path of destruction.
Martha Leftwich
Alabama

i'm very young and uneducated on how the whole goverment thing works. how do we "pay attention" to the power of big money?

Senator Sanders, please, please keep up your work of information. I am sooooo sick of Congress' inaction and how major corporations are killing the citizenry of this country. Too many lobbyist, too much $ thrown at them, many of them are just a bunch of whores & pimps. I am sooo sick. Things have to change. Voters have to be educated and act. God bless you, son.

Dear Senator,

Though I know it is the popular solution, I really don't see why we should use public funds to keep broadcasters rich and preserve the role of money in political campaigns when we, the American public, already own the airwaves by law. The restriction of our voting rights was limited, during the early part of our democracy, by rules directly excluding women, African Americans, and the poor. Now, we can pretty much all of us vote, who want to, but our choices are limited to those candidates who are able to capture our attention through their preferred access to the airwaves. Television has become the gatekeeper for the rich, and it acts through the exorbitant financial hurdle it puts in the way of any candidate, to exclude those who are not able to gain the support of the corporates.
But, if we're serious about electoral reform, why can't we simply require broadcasters to make available a sufficient number of hours on an equitable basis to all qualified candidates for office (based perhaps on a certain number of signatures or something like that), simply as part of the cost of gaining a public license to utilize the airwaves for commercial purposes the rest of the time?
I would be delighted to hear your thoughts on this possibility, and thanks for the good work you are doing.

This is the best suggestion that I have heard so far. There is no justification for the broadcasters charging millions upon millions of dollars to carry election news (which is what political advertisements are, in a sense), when we own the airwaves. We should have the FCC amend the terms of licensing radio and TV stations to require carrying political ads for free. The license terms already include a clause that the station is supposed to be operated for the benefit of the community, but that seems to have been forgotten. Especially make sure that small, first-time, third-party and minority candidates get good coverage, not just the Big Two.

Cable is only a little more complicated. Every cable company enjoys a monopoly in a community. Again, the cable is supposed to benefit the community in return for using the public space for a right of way to run the cables through. So make them carry political advertisements and programs.

It this is done right it can help to take back America.
Have a good day.

Thanks, Terrance. You have a good day too.

By the way, it could be that politics would get sufficiently interesting again to that public broadcasters attract large audiences to political speech and events, an could even sell broadcast rights to cable operators...? A little bit of a stretch, but maybe.

When are the voter going to wake up and start voting the ones out that does not listen to them.
I think it is time the people took back control of Washington! They can only do that by voting these traitors out.
I don't care if you are a Democrat, Republican or any of the other Parties, when you see a Lawmaker selling his soul to lobbyists {VOTE THEM OUT} Obama promised that he would get rid of the lobbyists, when is he going to keep his promise?

Hi Martha,
The situation has gone beyond the point of just 'vote the bums out'. It is the machines that count the votes and the people who own THEM who need to be eliminated first. If we can manage to eliminate THOSE frauds then we might be able to rid ourselves of the corrupt politicians. Alternately, people across the nation can set one specific day for the politicians to have fixed the situations/problems they have caused (no exceptions), or their respective constituencies hang the lot of them from the nearest trees. The government is bought,owned, and controlled right now, and it isn't by "we the people". The only realistic remedy is that which our Founding Fathers took with King George and the British Empire. Freedom is never free.

Tis is exactly what I have been thinking. Thanks for your effort.

Yes, Senator Sanders. You couldn't be more correct. Unless we have publicly-funded elections, we will lose our democracy. Our elections have already degenerated into contests of TV video clips. Whoever can afford the most pretty and convincing videos wins. Corporatocracy would be a disaster for America and the world.

Yes, thank you Senator Sanders. We must have publicly-funded elections or we will lose our democracy. Already, elections have degenerated into a competition of TV videos. Whoever can afford the most videos wins. That is no way to run the greatest and most powerful country on Earth. Corporatocracy bodes ill for the future of the human race.

Dear Sen Sanders:
Last Saturday afternoon I attended a public meeting at the Cornwall High School in Cornwall, NY sponsored by Congressman John Hall. It was quite informative in many ways. I suspect that most people expected a few of the usual blowhards would make their usual well-rehearsed protestations in a forlorn attempt to purge their frustrations – and they did.

Almost all of their complaints seemed to involve the cumulative minutia and irrelevancies that accompany their lack of understanding and absence of any sense of meaningful control over the ever-changing social environment we all live in. It’s also an emotional outlet for a lifetime of being ignored by those who’ve fully developed and focused their knowledge, skills, abilities and efforts towards serving a greater common good.

At least one person that we met in the parking lot stated how proud he was of his libertarian beliefs. Somehow however, I suspect that his choice of naïve beliefs is a poor substitute for a quantitative pragmatic knowledge of governmental operations and public policy. Indeed, such people cannot seem to understand to what extent their ignorance allows them to be manipulated.

Although the media usually focuses on the noises such people make, neither the ranting and raving of any of the ideologues, sociopaths, psychopaths, fools, benighted boobs and other dysfunctional twits who regularly pour out their frustrations at public forums -– and on the floor of Congress -– should have any meaningful effect on the public policy decisions that should be made in the public’s best interests.

Unfortunately, the views of an oligarchy of vested interests that tends to dominate and ultimately determines most of the public policy discussions in this nation does have a disproportionally or inordinately high level of influence that is contrary to the best interests of the majority of the public.

It is increasingly obvious that despite their disingenuous denials, the money allegedly provided as campaign contributions offered directly and indirectly by well-established vested interests, their lobbyists and their other well-paid representatives has unduly influenced many - in both political parties.

In the current debate the primary aim of these primarily corporate organizations is obviously to maintain or increase their margins of profit through the maintenance of the status quo in the current health care environment by whatever means are at their disposal.

Those who become aware of the lies financed by such vested interests through the various media regularly debunk the propaganda being continuously promulgated by the seemingly intransigent right. Despite these measures the adherence of those on the radical right who seem to have been afflicted with authoritarian personality disorders to the big lie technique of Hitler and Goebbels continues without respite.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels

What the quotation from Goebbels fails to state is that the oligarchs, autocrats, sociopaths, demagogues and those with authoritarian personality disorders have been furthering the development and expanding their use of the big lie technique. Their psychopathology seems to induce antisocial actions that have the capacity to undermine representative government and ultimately produce a totalitarian state regime. The current health care debate seems to be one of their means to that end.

In the issue of providing national health care -- and in numerous other policy initiatives intended to serve the public’s legitimate needs -- the persuasive abilities of the many well-funded special and vested interests on members of Congress usually outweigh the essential needs of the public. To an increasing extent the more alert members of the voting public are aware of this form of legalized bribery.

Accordingly, whether action to eliminate such activities are -- or are not -- acted upon during future elections may be dependent on whether the voting public becomes far more capable of making fully informed value judgments based on optimal engagement of their critical thinking skills.

If however, we carefully examine the increasingly endemic dysfunction of government due to this corruption, it should be obvious to those involved in the legislative process -- as well as much of the voting public -- that substantive therapeutic treatment is required to reduce -- if not eliminate -- the lack of meaningful representation that is failing to serve the best interests of the vast majority of the people of the United States.

If those in the US ever expect to get anything done they'll have to remove the special interest money from the equation by going into a system based on direct public funding of all qualified candidates.

Ideally, this should be done in combination with obligatory competency examinations for all candidates in public policy and public administration that would be objectively graded and made available to voters at the beginning of a short thirty day campaign period. Indeed, those who desire to run for public office should probably be required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation as well.

If meaningful legislation intended to serve the public’s legitimate needs is to be the only function of Congress, I would strongly advise you to provide support -- and advise your colleagues to provide support and co-sponsor -- such pending "clean money” election finance reform legislation such as S. 752 and H.R. 1826.

Such legislation would certainly help end the reliance of all elected officials on the private, solicited, campaign funding system that increasingly undermines what should be a truly representative democratic system.

Your prompt, thoughtful, substantive and meaningful response would be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,


Abraham Moses Genen

@Randall Roberts
which states?

The only one that pops up in my mind offhand is New Hampshire, our neighbor state. Possibly Maine too. I read a rather long article about it a month or more ago and didn't count on mentioning it later, so I didn't think to remember the states involved so far. If I recall correctly there are a number of states from the southeast and the midwest but I cannot be more specific than that at the moment, sorry. I'll try to remember exactly where I read it and come back with as complete a list as I can. What I do remember is that it is a serious movement, not just a couple of states venting frustration with the feds. I'll do my best to find it again. I think the total number of states that have taken this action so far is 15-20. Like I said, I'll try to find it again and I'll leave the web address for the article so everyone who wants can check it out.
This isn't comparable to the secession of southern states and formation of the Confederacy in the 1860s. This is about the withdrawal of the states to remove power from the present federal gov't to be able to re-form a new one along more constitutional lines. The article was about the states who have taken that action already and are trying to build a block of states large enough to do it according to the Constitution. I'll do my best to find it again for you.

If the crystalization of Senator Sanders' remarks are that lobby groups hold tremendous power over congress through the campaign contributions - then perhaps he should step back and identify the problem, not the symptom.

While Senator Sanders is absolutely correct in his examples of corporate lobbyists successfully manipulating congress to the benefit of the sector they represent (health care, pharmeceuticals, oil etc...) why only single out the corporations? Why ignore the enormous influence of other types of lobby groups? Lobby groups formed to protect and enhance opportunities for corporations are only one type of the offices lining K Street.

Dear Sen. Sanders & all,

Thanks for all you do. Today was my first exposure to sandersunfiltered and it is always so refreshing to hear people speaking the truth, clearly, and demanding that humanity be respected first, as to our needs, as to our rights and as to our values.

I'm surprised, however, at how many respondents are talking about revolution and blood-letting.

That is not the way. In fact, as the bloody history of the last century, especially, has shown, that is the way that tyranny has reimposed itself upon us, in the United States as elsewhere.

The only way, I believe, that I strive to follow and urge you all to follow, is fully-commited, organized but non-violent action at every possible level of solidarity, from protest to interaction and dialogue, to publication and political action in our schools, in the marketplace and in the public arena. It's a big, big subject as we all know, but I have done a lot of thinking about it and have written a book that I recommend to you in all humility, available on Amazon, as follows:

http://www.amazon.com/YES-WE-MUST-Broken-System...

Any financial surplus that may result from its sale (pretty doubtful, based on experience so far) will be used in a good cause, I assure you.

Thanks, and my best to all.

Why do you assume that revolution includes bood-letting?

Hi. See the following phrases cut from other comments on the blog.

"I have to agree this problem can not be fixed... without a blood letting revolution"

"But we need to take arms to the government"

I understand that revolution can mean fundamental structural change without bloodshed, but it is usually used to connote change brought about through violence, and these days that kind of rhetoric all too readily serves to justify violent repression of would-be "revolutionaries".

For me, a far more revolutionary idea -- very difficult I admit, but correct -- is to renounce violence at the outset: it has really never worked anywhere, and THEN try to figure out how to bring about fundamental structural change that is based and implemented through the ideals of justice and absolute reverence for life.

Thanks for your question. Best regards.

Phil,
I just read your comment about a bloodless revolution, which is nicce if you can pull it off. I totally disagree with your statement, though, that violence has never really worked anywhere. Please read a history book and you'll see that it has generally been violence and warfare that has determined human history and who rules. Non-violent revolutions are a very rare breed. That structural change you mention is only usually accomplished after the present structure gets it's ass kicked, because they will try to maintain their power and influence. If you renounce violence at the outset of trying to gain change then YOU have lost already. The other side will have no such hesitancy about using violence and You will be eliminated. At the very least one must be able to hang the threat of violence over their heads to move them, even if you do manage to avoid using it and accomplish your bloodless revolution. I can appreciate your sentiments but quite honestly, they are pie in the sky and your evaluation of the situation is very,very poor. It is not the way the world works, no matter how much you want it to be that way.

Hi Randall. Thanks for your observations. I know that they are heartfelt, reluctant but tough-minded conclusions based on your own analysis of human history. But, I think they are wrong, despite a lot of historical evidence in your favor.
First, as to (relatively) non-violent liberation movements that have achieved important successes and contributed to long-lasting, fundamental political and social change, I would cite the lives and work of religious leaders like Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha; Jesus of Nazareth, and Martin Luther. More recently, have a look at the careers and thoughts of people like Ghandi in India, Lech Walesa and his Solidarity movement in Poland, Nelson Mandela in South Africa (yes, I know that the ANC also supported an armed insurgency, but I don`t think that is what ultimately gained them victory), and, currently, what people like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa are doing right now to bring about a so-called Bolivarian revolution in South America and beyond. (Yes, Chavez is a soldier, but he has not chosen violence as his means of bringing about change. He is also a consummate politician.)
While my statement that armed and violent revolutions have never achieved anything is probably a little too broad, (to some extent, I think the American revolution achieved some social progress, but it was mostly a political revolution that continued most of what the British had instituted on our shores, including, of course, slavery), by and large I stand on that statement. Certainly the millions sacrificed to the ideals of the Russian and Chinese revolutions did not, in my opinion, directly contribute to producing more justice for their people. More recently, violent revolutions like in Cuba and Nicaragua have mainly served to replace one set of tyrants and thieves with another.
Where are your examples of "successful" revolutions, and how, do you think, have they been successful, other than in taking power from one group and giving it to another?
I have read a couple of history books in my time, and have even written one, which I urge you to read. http://www.amazon.com/YES-WE-MUST-Broken-System...
But I will keep reading and observing myself, I promise.
Finally, you say that bloodless revolution is "not the way the world works". That is exactly what we need to change, don´t you see?
All the best.

It should be "Government BY the people - not BUY the people!" This is a bumper sticker that I wrote years ago that can be found in my webstore at Cafepress.com/zpc. The "zpc" stands for "zap political crap!"

One more question-
Several states across the nation have given notice to the federal government that if it's un-Constitutional practices and unfair methods of distributing money were not changed that they were going to withdraw from the union and re-form the federal government. The movement is gaining momentum. It seems to me that such an action is just what the nation needs to save it from the fascism that has made it's mark among us. What do you say to a re-formation of our federal government? I personally think it is probably the only way we are going to be spared a second revolution/civil war.

Our savings are mostly shot, we cannot find real insurance due to " pre-existing " conditions
{ read we have real lives, also - we don't live in a cave ).
I have not started a new career due to excessive liability / business coverage costs ( ? because I have no pre-existing conditions / experience !
Our remaining savings are only getting less than 1/2 % ! ! !
So, we are just not sure anymore which way to go.
Please, continue your fight you seem to be one of a handful that is really in touch with
what is really going on in the US currently. THANK YOU !

I would like to submit this question for Sen. Sanders-
In almost every previous war the United States has been involved in there has been some form of a Committee on the Conduct of the War among whose duties and powers was the ability to stop price gouging by corporations, monitoring of the stock market to prevent abuses, and generally overseeing the economy to make sure the nation wouldn't have an economic problem that would prevent the full execution of the war. One of the famous actions of such a committee during World War II was the prosecution of former president George W. Bush's grandfather for trading with the enemy (the Standard Oil scandal). Why is there no such committee now, when we are involved in 2 wars, courtesy of his grandson. There is an obvious need for it as the oil companies have been gouging the American people with their prices and the banks have gone haywire.

I have an idea for taking back our govt w/o having to 'take arms', and I think it can be done with little to no cost. The idea is to make an INTERNET POLITICAL PARTY to replace the corrupt system that is so entrenched. The platform for this new party would be:

1) it would be a networking site like facebook, organizing the party
2) anybody could join for free
3) anybody could create issues to discuss and vote on
4) party political candidates would be forbidden to accept any money at all from any source,
and be restrained to running their campaign based on the issues theyve discussed on the site.
5) candidates would be forbidden to spend any money at all on their campaign, at least thru
corporate media
6) once elected, candidates would be required to vote in campaign reform.

The running of the INTERNET POLITICAL PARTY would be patterned after the
RFC (request for comments) committees which established the standards for
the internet. The 'running' Im speaking of would primarily be the design of
the website, which would be ratified by majority vote of the members.

Perhaps it could be expanded to a publicly accountable voting system to stop
stolen elections, and facilitate online voting at any time. A 'vote' would have
a deadline, and that date would tally up a snapshot of the voting 'profiles' of
the members at that time.

Hi Jay,
Sounds good but won't work, at least until the vote counters and the owners of those machines are made honest. It isn't the amount of votes one gets anymore that makes the difference, it is the controllers of the voting machines/counters. They hold the real power in elections in this nation.

REVOLUTION! My dear America is the only way. I realize it sounds radical. But we need to take arms to the government who has slept in the same bed as Corporate America for years. While "WE THE PEOPLE" sit and watch them Rape the future from our children and grand children. Sen. Sanders I apologize for this radical way of thinking but it is the only answer at this point. Pres. Obama is already in bed with the same institutions that caused all this mess. REVOLUTION is the only way!! Go back to the roots and foundations we formed this great democracy which ceases to exist. We are actually more Socialist than we realize in so many ways. I acquired a European citizenship one year ago because I could see there was no use in fighting IGNORANCE. I am comfortable paying 52% Taxes to have great schools, Low crime Rate, superior infrastructure, prime health coverage that cannot deny benefits and a retirement that will actually make me comfortable till I Pass on. Greed and the wrong idea of capitalism have destroyed the ideals from which was once a Great Nation. Radical Change is the only thing now that can turn our country back to the people. Revolution!!

¿How about a 'truth in packaging' law on congressmen? instead of an enameled flag pin, they should clearly post(on that same lapel) (in descending order of number of dollars) the amounts they collect from their masters in order that "WE" can tell who takes our vote & whether they cast their vote in WHOSE favor?

Senator Sanders,
You bring up good concerns, but rather than tackling the problem illegal fraud on Wall Street, your solution is public financing of campaigns. I'm afraid this is another distraction rather than solving the immediate problem. Even if public (government) financing of campaigns were enacted, that would not eliminate private spending on politics. The constitution guarantees the right to petition our government. Even if you eliminated private campaign contributions, corporations and unions would construct their own advertising campaigns independent of congress or specific representatives. The 2008 election cycle had the most restrictive campaign finance restrictions to date (with McCain-Feingold) and yet we spent the most ever.
The real reason so much money is going into politics is because government controls virtually every aspect of our lives and individuals, unions and corporations have a constitutional right to comment on this.
You are really suggesting that Congress has no integrity. Implying if they get campaign contributions, they will change legislation according to the preferences of the highest bidder. I submit that you should redirect your campaign from controlling the money to making the actions of congress more transparent to the American people. We should know which representative has inserted which final mark-up or amendment. Final bills should be required to be placed on the internet for 2 weeks for public review before a vote.
If your implication of lacking integrity is accurate, transparency is the solution not more control of private money and actions.

The fact the Supreme Court took the case of big corporation campaign funding tells me they are going to lift the ban an open the flood gates.

Corporate America already owns our Congress, this will be the beginning of the end of the American Empire. It will be looked back as the cornerstone that caused the fall of the USA.

Whatever "influence" corporations have on our elected officials will be felt 10 fold essentially turning a Democracy to a Corpocracy.

I have to agree this problem can not be fixed... without a blood letting revolution.

Declaring that corporations should, in many circumstances, be treated as persons under the Constitution was the greatest act of judicial activism in the history of American constitutional jurisprudence. Corporations and all other legal entities are creatures of statutes passed by state legislatures. The law of enterprise organizations has no place in constitutional law. Through state legislatures, we the people should be entitled to regulate statutorily created entities in any manner we see fit for the general good of society. We need a constitutional amendment providing that only human beings are "persons" within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. How can we get the ball rolling?

Of course, in order to change any laws regarding the campaign funding, we need the Congress, who will of course vote it down... These issues are embedded into the US political system, and cannot be fixed.

The #1 reason Americans lose their homes - MEDICAL BILLS. Yes, big money does control the agenda, now more than ever. Former senior regulator Bill Black, who actually did his job during the savings and loans debacle in the 80's was asked to comment on Timothy Geithner securing the Treasury Secretary position and stated that he got it by completely screwing up as the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In other words we don't really want people in power to stand up to big money, we promote individuals who are yes men.

What about our society presently indicates that we are living in a democracy when only the top 1% have the means to make their voices heard. Mr. Sanders, how can we come together to demand the rights that are inherent in a true democracy?