madmark.myfastforum.org

Mark · Site Admin Joined: 13 Nov 2007 Posts: 1052

This is a comment I posted in the thread in response to David Sirota's article, Were Democrats Elected With a Mandate to Attack "The Left?" here:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-ent...crats-elected-mandate-attack-left

(Comments aren't visible unless you click on "comments.")

MostCrucial.info, the site that Bret Hughes linked, is right on the money until you get to the bottom line where it calls for restoring Constitutionality. As Erik Lords correctly notes, the Constitution was deeply flawed to begin with, so that wouldn't help.

As for monitoring Obama closely, as Wayne Wohler suggests, that could be entertaining, but without accountability it would be nothing more.

If somebody is doing a job and you are watching them, there are different possibilities depending upon your relationship. If you are just a casual passerby, you can admire their work, criticize their work, or react however you wish, but you have no way to hold them accountable. If on the other hand, you happen to be their boss, you can reward them for doing a good job or fire them for doing a bad job. That's accountability and that's what we don't have.

The Constitution, in order to "protect the big money boys," was careful not to allow us to vote directly for President or Vice-President. This doesn't mean merely that we can vote for Electors, it means that the popular vote is NOT the sole, final, determining, or controlling factor in who the President will be. The Constitution didn't foresee that the superdelegates of political parties would do the nominating, and it was careful not to give us any way to hold the representatives of the big money boys accountable. We cannot impeach, recall, or remove any official of the federal government directly, we have to ask Congress, people we cannot hold accountable, to do it for us, and since we cannot hold them accountable, why should they?

One of the ways in which the two-party system maintains its iron lock on U.S. politics is that the Republicans own and control most of the mainstream media and the Democrats own and control most of the alternative media. Websites on the political left (and neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would be recognized by any European or Latin American country as being centrist, no less leftist, as both are far to the right of any political center) are few and far between and always underfunded.

While some gullible fools cling to the absurd belief that people we cannot hold accountable are our representatives, elected officials themselves know that once they take office they are accountable only to those who made the big donations or control the alphabet agencies that will assassinate them if they don't do whatever the military-industrial complex and the big money interests demand. They got their visit from the economic hitmen long before they ever got a top spot on a major party ticket.

The Declaration of Independence states that legitimate governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed and the way that governments demonstrate the consent of the governed is by holding elections. Once you vote, it doesn't matter who you voted for or who wins, you have consented and thereby legitimized the government. If you happen to oppose your government's policies (things like wars of aggression, globalization, bailouts, etc., tend to anger some), you have also, by voting, criminalized yourself. If you should decide to protest a government you've voted for, you are opposing a legitimate government and you're the one who legitimized it.

The only proven effective nonviolent way to delegitimize a government is to boycott its elections. It worked to discredit the Apartheid regime in South Africa. When the regime could only show that 10% of the people had voted, it no longer had the consent of the governed, no longer could be considered a legitimate government, other nations could no longer use that excuse to support it, and the opposition were no longer criminals but freedom fighters. An election boycott also discredited the Batista dictatorship in Cuba.

By all means monitor the Obama administration closely, if we aren't subjected to more false-flag shocks to justify more wars and then put into detention camps if we protest, but when you understand that there is no accountability, instead of taking to the streets, which will only justify adding more billions to the Homeland Security budget to suppress civil unrest, consider not voting.

Unless there was accountability, something our Constitution denied us, we are not voting for representatives, we are voting for which puppet we find more photogenic, and the wealthy elites remain in control.

Of course the Democrats have a mandate to attack the left, or to start new wars, or to do whatever they want to do or are told to do by their big money bosses. They can work closely with McCain, reward Lieberman, continue the Bush/Cheney agenda, and it is all because by voting you gave them your power, delegated to them your authority, and granted them your mandate to do whatever they want.

When you vote for somebody you cannot hold accountable, it is not a real vote or a voice in government, it is a sham.

It would make no difference whether Obama and Biden took office or McCain and Palin took office. They don't make policy themselves -- they all take orders from the same Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and other policy-making bodies.

Figure it out. Don't vote for people you can't hold accountable. Not even if the elections aren't rigged. Not even if third parties aren't excluded from the media and from debates. If you can't hold somebody accountable, it is totally irresponsible to entrust them with your children, your checkbook, or your country.

No accountability = No vote!