Evolution of Dispossession

Evolution of Dispossession
How to Steal a Country?

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

How Low Can They Go?

It's time for a change ....

Is Congress Necessary?


The question sounds preposterous of course, but let's take up this query in a serious manner. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators, and these 535 elected officials have the stated duty to speak on behalf of over 300,000,000 Americans. What a farcical notion! One person representing the views of 560,000 Americans, on average ! It is folly to think this system is a good system.

After the successful defeat of British tyranny, the Constitution was written as a contract between the governed and the government. If one were to take the time to re-read the Constitution today, one would be awestruck with how prescient the framers were when they set up the provisions of the Constitution . It was clearly designed to keep the government in check, and out of the daily affairs of the citizens.

In the late 1700's the many rural communities could not very well voice their concerns to the government directly. It took weeks for a single piece of mail to arrive at its destination. Of course, electing someone to represent the whole of the community in the nation's capital was the proper way to provide a practical voice to "we the people". But let's consider the notion of this system of representation today. Do Americans in the year 2007 need a middle man? Are we still constrained by the lack of technological means to make our voice heard by our government? Does our cyclical system of pulling levers entitle us to call ourselves a democracy when our Congress and our Executive branch give little weight to what the people actually want between the elections?

The USA is not a democracy. The USA is a representative republic, and it seems to me that the system of representation has become corrupted by the myriad of special interests. There are 67,000 registered lobbyists in Washington DC, which is about 125 per elected member of Congress. These lobbyists try to push their various agendas, and the obvious question is our the constituents being served? Every day we Americans hear of a new scandal, ever-debauching corruptive influences. Whether its Jack Abramoff, whose links to Tom DeLay effectively ended his political career (and others as well), or William Jefferson's $90,000 popsicle, or Duke Cunningham's "menu" of services for sale, our Congress has been hijacked from "we the people" and diligently serves the plethora of special interest groups like AIPAC, Big Pharma, Big Banking, Big Oil, and the list goes on and on and on.

Another question Americans should consider : why do we Americans have but 2 choice when it comes to selecting a President? Why must we allow ourselves to be herded into one of two political parties, when Canada, France, and many other functioning democracies can select from a number of candidates from political parties with very diverse views?

There was a poll last spring in which President Bush received an approval rating of 31%. The same poll indicated that Congress had an approval rating of 18%. That's incredible! To think that less than one in five Americans approve of our Congress is mind-boggling.

Largely I would say that Americans are now discontent more than ever with their government. Most Americans feel deceived about the Iraq War. A CBS poll concluded that some 53% doubted the findings of the 9-11 Commission Report, while 28% rejected the findings outright. This is not a fringe group but a significant cohort of Americans. Americans clearly do not trust the official report of the 9-11 attacks, nor the government which commissioned the investigation. If Americans knew more about the fraudulent Federal Reserve System and how this group of international bankers has bankrupted this country and destroyed our once-strong gold-backed currency, there would be another revolution.

So what can we do?

Very simply, Americans need to ask some tough questions. If our Congressional system is an irreparable failure, why keep it? If our Congress has shown its tendency to be corrupted by the dark forces at work, perhaps it's just a commentary that the system itself was flawed from the beginning. If the original notion of Congressional representation was designed to give the commonfolk a voice, then let's ressurect that original vision by instituting the national referendum.

A national referendum allows citizens to vote on every issue. There would be no more political parties. No more polarized squabbles. No more corruptive influences over our Congressional body. AIPAC could whine for more military aid for Israel. If the American people want to foot the bill for that, then it should be their choice. If Americans want to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, then we could. If the American people want to use tax dollars to fund a national healthcare system, instead of funding an illegal and propaganda-riddled campaign in distant Iraq, then we could. If Americans want to declassify the documents pertaining to the Kennedy assassinations or 9-11, then we could. If Americans wanted to dissolve the CIA, then we could.

Imagine ....

Of course Winston Churchill said the best argument against a national referendum is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. A referendum would be a huge responsibility for the US citizen. Americans would have to get off their derrieres and learn about crucial issues in order to make informed choices. Americans would need to read more and watch reality TV shows less. Americans would need to shed their skin of general apathy when it comes to their political leanings.

But if the US calls itself a democracy, then let's scrap our notions that Congress works for "we the people". I do not think Congressional representation is effective at serving the interests of the country. 535 human beings cannot speak on behalf of 300,000,000 and Americans should unite to make the national referendum a reality. Of course, those entrenched in power will never readily cede that power, which is the best justification for the national referendum.

No comments: