Sunday, February 13, 2011
Obama: Egyptians Are Too Dumb for Democracy
Friday, February 11, 2010
Obama: Egyptians Are Too Dumb for Democracy
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Flip-flopping over events in Egypt, President Obama and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have decided that it would be a bad idea for unelected Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak to immediately resign from office. Their reason? Under Egypt's constitution, Mubarak's departure from power would require national elections to be held within 60 days.
What's wrong with that? Obama and Clinton say that the Egyptian people could not adequately organize themselves for elections in such a short period of time. Therefore, Obama and Clinton cavalierly suggest, it is preferable for the Egyptian people to continue suffering under brutal and tyrannical U.S.-supported tyranny until September.
In other words, according to Obama and Clinton the Egyptian people are simply too dumb to organize elections and run campaigns within a 2-month period of time.
Of course, another possible reason is that free-wheeling elections could bring people to office who don't like the U.S. government, especially because it's the U.S. government that has been propping up the dictatorship that has been oppressing the Egyptian people for 30 years.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there special elections sometimes in the United States that are held within a short period of time? But of course, no doubt Obama and Clinton would say that those elections are run by Americans, and everyone knows how smart Americans are.
Well, actually, not so! In reality, the powers-that-be in the United States consider American voters to be dumb too. That's the ostensible rationale behind ballot-access barriers all across the United States, including burdensome petitioning requirements, limits on campaign contributions, and tens of thousands of election regulations, all of which are designed to ensure that American voters are not confused by too many candidates on the ballot.
Here in Virginia, for example, rarely are voters treated to more than two candidates for statewide office. The reason? Horribly burdensome and expensive petitioning requirements. For example, if a poor, inner-city African American who opposed the racism of the drug war wanted to run for statewide office, for all practical purposes he would not be able to do so. Why? First, he would be required to secure 10,000 valid signatures from registered voters, which means he would have get about 16,000 to be safe. Could he get all the signatures from his part of town? Nope. He would be required to get them from all across the state, which means he would have to spend money on travel and hotels while securing the signatures. Then, he would have to find places that would permit him to get signatures, including in certain parts of Virginia in which well-to-do white people might well not like being approached for a signature by a poorly dressed, inner-city black calling for drug legalization.
The real purpose of ballot-access restrictions, both at the state and federal levels, is to preserve the Democrat-Republic monopoly grip on power. As I have long pointed out, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans. They belong to one party the welfare-warfare party and their fights are over who is going to get to control the reins of power and the largess that comes with such power.
The determination that Republicans and Democrats have to continue their monopoly control over American politics is no different, in principle, than the determination by Mubarak's party to maintain its decades-long monopoly control in Egypt. That's why Obama and Clinton and many Republicans can sympathetize with Murbarak's opposition to quick elections in Egypt. They know that such democratic "chaos" could easily upend monopoly control over the political system.
Several years ago, there was a quick election for governor in California. Due to some quirk in the election law, anyone could run for governor in the election without having to comply with the standard burdensome ballot-access restrictions. My recollection is that there were about 50 candidates for governor. It was an exciting, free-wheeling election in which people got to consider a wide range of candidates and positions and then make their choice.
Some would undoubtedly argue that the voters were too dumb to be able to consider so many candidates, as evidenced by their election of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Others would say: So what, democracy entails the right of people to elect whomever they want to public office. Still others would say: Everyone should have the right to run for office, and it was a good thing that California voters had so many choices.
But that was an exception. Take my word for it: Thanks to ballot-access barriers established by the monopoly party here in Virginia, voters will never get to choose between 50 candidates for governor, including any poor, inner-city African-American from Richmond or Norfolk. The powers-that-be have ensured that their monopoly hold on power will never be threatened by democratic "chaos." And they get away with it by intimating that voters are just too dumb for democracy anyway, just like the people of Egypt.
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-02-11.asp
What is with conservatives?
What is with conservatives?
February 13, 2011 by Jeffrey Tucker
Ron Paul wins the CPAC vote. He was the only candidate who even made mention of Egypt! My guess is this: conservatives like to imagine that they hold the same principles that Ron does, but the difference is that they are able to "govern in the real world" and so have eventually must embrace someone who believes the opposite.
The modern GOP is irresponsible and dangerous
The modern GOP is irresponsible and dangerous
by Laurence Lewis
by Laurence Lewis
Attempting to repeal insurance reform would be bad enough. Attempting
draconian budget cuts during a halting recovery from a deep recession
would be bad enough. Making fools of themselves by wasting time
reading selections from the Constitution while doing absolutely
nothing to create jobs would be bad enough. Launching a war on women
would be bad enough. Whining about deficits while proposing policies
that would actually increase them would be bad enough. The entire
Republican approach of knowing nothing and doing nothing, unless it is
to attempt a return to the prevailing values of the Thirteenth
Century, is so corrupt and irresponsible that it would defy credulity,
were we not already so accustomed to it as to take it for granted. But
it's even worse.
Imagine there was an impending global crisis that was estimated to
displace up to 200 million people, worldwide, and imagine the
geopolitical consequences of dealing with such. Imagine its damage
would cost global GDP from 5 to 20 percent. Imagine it was expected to
devastate global plant life, including dangerously reducing crop
yields and causing devastatingly increased wildfires. Imagine if the
very base of the food chain was threatened. Imagine if the scientific
evidence was overwhelming, and pretty much every significant
scientific body in the nation was warning about it. Imagine if other
nations were charging ahead on developing the new technologies it
demands, while irresponsible inaction in this country already was
costing billions in lost investments. With all that, you'd think
responsible politicians might want to do something about it. You'd
think they might want to save lives and the economy and ecosystems and
the food supply. But that assumes that the politicians themselves were
capable of thinking.
When faced with the greatest crisis in known human history, this is
how the Republicans are responding:
Republicans on the House of Representatives energy committee on
Wednesday aired their proposal to block the Environmental Protection
Agency from reducing greenhouse gases and to reverse the agency's
scientific finding that climate change is dangerous.
While the plan might be blocked in the Senate or vetoed by President
Barack Obama, the comments during Wednesday's hearing were a fresh
indication of the depth of opposition in Congress to action on
reducing U.S. carbon pollution. Supporters of the measure to revise
the Clean Air Act to take away the EPA's authority to regulate this
type of pollution said that curbing emissions would be too costly.
Too costly. Compared to a loss of 5 to 20% of global GDP?
The EPA's planned regulations "would boost the cost of energy, not
just for homeowners and car owners, but for businesses both large and
small," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., the author of the legislation.
"EPA may be starting by regulating only the largest power plants and
factories, but we will all feel the impact of higher prices and fewer
jobs."
Higher prices and fewer jobs? Compared to a loss of 5 to 20% of global
GDP, the endangerment of the base of the food chain, and hundreds of
millions of people displaced, worldwide? Is it possible to think
smaller? Is it possible to be smaller? It's not only that Republicans
don't seem to understand what's really happening to the climate, it's
that they don't even seem to care to find out. It's one thing to be
uninformed, it's another to be willfully ignorant-- about the most
dangerous crisis humanity has ever faced.
As recently written (firewalled) by Bruce Alberts, the Editor-in-Chief
of the leading scientific journal, appropriately named Science:
Over the long run, any nation that makes crucial decisions while
ignoring science is doomed. Consider, for example, the decision about
how much arsenic should be allowed in drinking water supplies. There
is no one "right answer" to this or many other policy questions, but
it is critical that national legislation be based on what science
knows about potential harm. It is therefore disturbing that so many
lawmakers elected to the new U.S. Congress reject the overwhelming
scientific consensus with respect to human-induced climate change. It
will be difficult to make wise choices with such attitudes. The
question now facing the United States is not only how to effectively
reinject the facts of climate science back into the core of this
particular debate, but also how to ensure that good science underlies
all legislative decisions.
And distilling it to the pure political calculation, Andrew Leonard has this:
Bush's EPA refused to regulate greenhouse gases, dragging its feet
even after the Supreme Court ruled, by a tight 5-4 margin (with
Anthony Kennedy the deciding vote between liberal and conservative
justices), that under the terms of the Clean Air Act, greenhouse gases
qualified as pollutants. The Court not only found that the EPA had the
authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but would be required
to do so if the agency determined that there was scientific evidence
that greenhouse gases posed a threat to public health. In November
2009, the EPA determined that greenhouse gases did pose such a threat,
and the wheels went into motion.
And he notes that one more Bush appointee on the Court and the ruling
likely would have gone the other way. He also points out that a
Republican EPA likely wouldn't have ruled that greenhouse gases
threaten public health. The manifest irresponsibility of the
Republicans on this most critical of issues is, in itself,
justification for doing everything possible to ensure they don't soon
again have control of the issue.
Leonard:
The Republican drive to rewrite the Clean Air Act so as to make the
Supreme Court's ruling irrelevant and shackle the EPA is just the
latest skirmish in this primal battle, but all the hollering about
job-killing regulations should not obscure the fact that the EPA is
proceeding according to plan. The steady rollout of guidelines and
standards will not be easy to stop. So far, the courts have generally
upheld the EPA's authority -- Texas is 0-3 in legal challenges -- and
even if Republicans do manage to get some EPA-killing legislation
through the Senate, they'd still face the likelihood of a presidential
veto.
Slate's tireless political reporter/blogger David Weigel had the same
impression of Obama's speech to the Chamber that I did earlier today
-- the president made no concessions and signaled no real shift in
policy. He defended his signature legislation, which the Chamber
opposed, and even as he made rhetorical gestures on regulatory policy,
his EPA is hard at work enforcing limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
Environmentalists who want the EPA to continue doing so should be
thinking hard about how to re-elect Obama, because if a Republican
moves into the White House, it will all come to a screeching halt,
again.
Congressional Democrats have been far from perfect, and they and the
White House justly have been criticized for not pushing hard enough to
pass climate legislation. But the EPA regulation of greenhouse gases
is something significant the administration can do on its own. And it
is. But the Republicans aren't satisfied with merely killing good
legislation, they're also trying to undermine any positive effort the
administration attempts. They're not only trying to prevent effective
measures from being enacted, they're trying to block any that have
been enacted. They could not be more crazed and craven. Given the
gravity of the growing crisis, they are not just shockingly
irresponsible, they are dangerous. They may be the most irresponsible
coalition of politicians ever.
More:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/13/943151/-The-modern-GOP-is-irresponsible-and-dangerous
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
ATLAS SHRUGGED: Trailer now available
ATLAS SHRUGGED: Trailer now available
This flick should make the "progressives" even crazier than they are now (if that's possible).
Clarence
--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (ronpaul-642@meetup.com)
This message was sent by Clarence Jaeger (clarencejaeger@att.net) from The Murfreesboro Ron Paul Campaign For Liberty Meetup Group.
To learn more about Clarence Jaeger, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here
Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 | support@meetup.com
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
A conservative gathering of Obama-bashers at CPAC, Pawlenty and Romney Clash and Bash
A comical, but scary gathering, indeed.
A conservative gathering of Obama-bashers at CPac
Pawlenty, Romney bash Obama at CPAC
But Rep. Ron Paul of Texas gets the loudest response on the second day
of the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Reporting from Washington — On a seeming collision course toward the
2012 Republican presidential nomination, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney
spoke to cheering crowds Friday at the second day of a gathering of
the nation's conservatives, blasting President Obama for what they
said was his failure to lead on national security and the economy.
While Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, and Romney, the
former Massachusetts governor, have not formally declared their
intentions, their White House ambitions appear more evident every day.
Romney's wife, Ann, introducing him to the packed house at the
Conservative Political Action Conference, came close to an admission,
saying that she "hoped" to see her husband elected. And when Romney,
who has been on a nationwide tour, said at one point "if I decide to
run for president," some in the room chortled.
But neither Pawlenty nor Romney, nor any of the other featured
speakers here Friday, which included possible 2012 contenders Sen.
John Thune (R-S.D.) and Republican Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, could
compete with the rowdy reception given Rep. Ron Paul, the Texas
libertarian.
Paul, an isolationist Republican who advocates eliminating the Federal
Reserve, was cheered by a raucous, whistling crowd. His supporters
have flooded CPAC in recent years, and last year Paul won the
presidential straw poll there.
"There is truly a revolution going on in this country," Paul said. "We
don't need to just change political parties; we need to change our
philosophy of what this country is all about."
The speeches came on the same day Fox News released a poll showing
that Obama would defeat any of the well-known potential GOP candidates
in the field, including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who aren't attending the conference.
Obama would defeat Palin in a head-to-head matchup by more than 20
points, the poll results indicated. Only Romney and Huckabee came
within 8 points of the president.
Romney, who famously ended his 2008 bid here three years ago, told a
packed hotel ballroom that "an uncertain world has been made more
dangerous by the lack of clear direction from a weak president."
Obama's "proposed policy of engagement with Iran and North Korea won
him the Nobel Peace Prize," Romney said. "How's that worked out? Iran
armed Hezbollah and Hamas and is rushing toward nuclear weapons. North
Korea fired missiles, tested nukes, sunk a South Korean ship and
shelled a South Korean island."
Strikingly, even as protesters in Cairo celebrated the departure of
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Romney did not mention the crisis.
He had been the first potential 2012 candidate to call for Mubarak's
exit.
Pawlenty also suggested Obama had been weak on foreign affairs and had
not stood up to "Iran, Russia, and our adversaries in the Middle East,
including Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood," the Islamic political
movement in Egypt.
"Bullies respect strength, not weakness," Pawlenty said. "So when the
United States of America projects its national security interests here
and around the world, we need to do it with strength."
On the economy, Romney accused Obama of a lack of focus. "The
president who took office on Jan. 20, 2009, should have had one
central mission — put Americans back to work; fight for every job," he
said.
Romney was met by a supportive, if not wildly enthusiastic, crowd.
Tellingly, he scarcely mentioned the healthcare overhaul legislation,
a popular target at the conference; he was an architect of a similar
bill when he was governor of Massachusetts.
Instead, Romney stayed with what is likely to be the core message of
his presidential campaign: that he has unmatched experience in
economic matters given his work as a businessman, venture capitalist
and organizer of the 2002 Olympics.
Pawlenty, unlike some other potential 2012 candidates, has a
compelling personal story. He detailed how as a teenager in a
blue-collar family in St. Paul, Minn., his mother died and his father
lost his job at a trucking company.
"At a young age, I saw up close the face of loss, the face of
hardship, the face of losing a job, and I saw in the mirror something
else: the face of a very uncertain future," he said. "I know Americans
are feeling that way today. I know that feeling — I've lived it."
More:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cpac-20110212,0,4345001.story
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)