Posted by TruthSaga on 03/01/11

Liberty At Large - My Blog!

It is noteworthy to examine the "Pledge of Allegiance," no where in the pledge do we give allegiance to a democracy, but "to the Republic for which it stands.." (4 USC Sec. 4 ). Since, 1892 when the pledge was introduced, there seemed to be an understanding of the United States Republic form of government.

Direct democracy described by Greenberg as a "direct, face-to-face participation by ordinary people by people of their own governance is practiced."(22) This form of government may have worked with the the Greeks, Kibbutz, and town hall meeting's of New England, but I see some potential of direct democracy having a place here, in the United States.

Utilizing the networks of television and the internet, I see the potential of a form of direct democracy being utilized to benefit the United States. In 1992, Ross Perot's presidential run brought up the issue of "electronic town halls," where he introduced his idea to create an electronic town hall:

"I would create an electronic town hall where, say, every week or so we would take a single major issue to the people. We would explain it in great detail and then we would get a response from the owners of the country - the people - that could be analyzed by congressional district so that the Congress - no if's, and's and but's - would know what the people want. Then the boys running around with briefcases representing special interests would be de-horned - to use a Texas term." - Ross Perot (Krauthammer)

The argument of "the sheer size and social complexity"(Greenberg 24) of the United States would be minimized when we introduce technology into the political process. Just as we have advanced our communication, business, and trade through technology. We could consider the positive and negative benefits of introducing technology to embrace a small form of direct democracy.

Work Cited:

"4 United States Code Sec. 4." 2010. Print.

Greenberg, Edward. The American Political System: A Radical Approach. New York: Longman, 1989. Print.

Krauthammer, Charles. "Ross Perot and the Call-In Presidency." Time. 13 Jul. 1992. Web. 18 Jan. 2011.

< http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,975992,00.html >

Posted 03/05/11 Willij4lib Monroe, WA

Great post TruthSaga, It is to be a constitutional Republic form of Government by Rule of Law and not that of a democracy. When we hear the words We the People, what does this represent? Every breathing human being? No it does not because there are many that have no respect for a Constitutional Republic by their actions. The Declaration of independence being one of the most basic principal documents in which to decide from and which direction is chosen from these basic principals. This says it is not every breathing human being then doesn't it and the reason it says this is because when you put in Life as in all life means you do the actions of respecting life and those who respect it and for those who do not to CHALLENGE them because they are NOT. Then we have the acts of Liberty that are very defined when one has any form of Government whether democratic or Constitutional Republic will make no difference and the act is to stop Governmental despotism and including any of those making it possible (yes, Bankers) and means to be free from despotic Government by our actions to KEEP and hold it in this manner. And finally and believe it or not one of the most important basic principals in the direction of sustaining life and that is to pursue objectives, products and accomplishments that achieve such achievement and all who go against this movement are the resistance to its means. Another words no happiness is achieved without producing acts into the direction of preserving a Constitutional Republic as we truly understand it to be with these basic principals fully applied daily and not only every 200 years. So Democracy or MOB RULE does not make such choices because it is not based on these principals what so ever. And those who stand as a constitutional Republic realize it is these actions in which to sustain one and with out them will come Democracy, Oligarchy and finally death of a Republic at all. This means with full clarity and understanding that “ We the People” Represents all those who have chosen to live as a Constitutional Republic by doing the actions of these basic principals to the means of such a Constitutional Republic for WHICH IT STANDS, or is created to stand or by the actions to keep it standing as a Republic and all those doing the opposing actions are NOT a part of the REPUBLIC and are shown to us by the action in the direction of OLIGARCHY. LOL, that should piss off a few mixed up Americans or people actually calling themselves Americans by not doing the acts of Americanism as define by a Constitutional Republic by RULE OF LAW, and I hope it does because the OUTRAGE is the Oligarchy we are starring at and not the words I use to define a Republic as it is defined. I pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the “UNITED STATES” of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it STANDS!!!! I pledge me to this idea as united with other like minded Sovereignties of this land called America for a Republic for which I stand along side all those who stand as in United Sovereignties. To be a Republic because WE ALL SAY SO BY OUR DECISION TO DO SO which is an act of deciding to do so as in individuals with this authority unto ourselves and that of no other and our acts in parallel with this decision to be so. Those that are confused are confused because we have the will to decide, we have the will to produce by this will in which we all are entitled to by life itself. We can decide the direction of a Republic and we can decide the direction of Oligarchy but all those who have chosen a Republic did so based on the certain principals within our Declaration of Independence and we should all learn to control ourselves and understand these documents in their entirety as were intended and announced as intended. Yes you may call me the bastard child of yourselves or the thought provoker or of the strong willed determined to live as none other than a Constitutional Republic by my choice with other choices in the direction of this choice and no other determinism. Suck it up big boy its time to pay attention to your surroundings because of your own lack of movement allowed it to happen in the first place by standing down and forgetting to STAND UP at all. Lets see what they have to say about this TruthSaga because I think I may have sunk the dagger into the bowls of all those not living up to their own claims of anything let alone We the People as A Constitutional Republic. OUCH!!!

Posted 03/06/11 Gardentoolnumber5 San Diego, CA

Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Representative democracy: Two thousand wolves and one thousand sheep electing two wolves and a sheep who vote on what to have for dinner. Constitutional republic: Two thousand wolves and one thousand sheep electing two wolves and a sheep who vote on what to have for dinner, but are restricted by a Constitution that says they cannot eat sheep. The Supreme Court then votes 5 wolves to 4 sheep that mutton does not count as sheep. Liberty: Well-armed sheep contesting the above votes.

Posted 03/08/11 TruthSaga San Jose, CA

Gardentoolnumber5 - I like it!!! Willi - Hopefully, everyone takes a look at your comment and take an educated look at what it means to defend liberty!

Posted by TruthSaga on 02/16/11

The President is more than a chief administrator, the President is the face of the most powerful democracy in the world, and “..the nation's leading celebrity.”(Dye & Zeigler. 220) His power over the psychology of the population is to simplify government policy, unify the country, and provide a sense of security to the nation. The President formal powers are serving as “..chief administrator, chief legislator, party leader, chief diplomat, commander-in-chief, and chief of state.” (Dye & Zeigler. 221)

In a time of crises, the President has several formal powers at his disposal, but the checks and balances of our government, keeps the president from obtaining a monopoly over the countries policy decisions. The president may be the chief executive of the country and has the power to appoint, but only “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”(Dye & Zeigler 224) However, there are some situations where presidents and congress have ignored the rule of law, such an example is the order of military forces from President Ford to George W. Bush. “President Ford ignored the act in sending U.S. Forces to rescue the U.S. Ship Mayaguez...” and in recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, “Congress voted overwhelmingly to approve the use of force in both countries.”(Dye & Zeigler. 226) Without passing a Declaration of War or considering the War Powers Act.

The question needs to be raised, “Is this the role our government should have?” Simply, ignoring the Constitution and laws passed by Congress, and conducting covert actions around the world, “..for nearly ten years of the Afghan rebels fighting Soviet occupation of their country during the Soviet-Afghanistan War (1978-1988).”(Dye & Zeigler. 230) or a policy of freedom, and at the very least a national debate on how far the president can stretch these formal powers. Phillip M. Giraldi, a former CIA specialist makes a strong case on the subject, “It might seem naïve to suggest it, but America and its people would be best served by returning to simple solutions. The federal government should represent the interests of the people, not an amorphous world community that wants a certain kind of stability and order that ultimately benefits international elites more than it does the average citizen of any land.”(Giraldi. C4L. 2011)

Work Cited:

Dye, Thomas R and Harmon Zeigler, Late. “The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon
Introduction to American Politics.” Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009.

Giraldi, Phillip M. “The Perils of Intervention.” Campaign For Liberty, Article. Campaign For Liberty, 2 Feb. 2011. Web. 15 Feb. 2011 < http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1325 >

Posted by TruthSaga on 02/02/11

(This is a question we had to answer in one of my classes in school, although I was limited in how far I could move the conversation, I thought it would be interesting to raise the discussion here.)

The Constitution's protection of freedom of the press, is the law of land and has been interpreted by the Court's, "..to mean that government may place, no prior restraint on speech or publication." (Dye & Zeigler. 132) In short, this interpretation by the Court's is to protect the press from being silenced or censored, from any current or future publication. The American press uses this protection to market itself like any other business free from certain restraints; if they can do it encourage viewership and profit, they'll do it!

As a result, we have seen a growing trend of "Sex Sells" and emotional impact news reporting that has left the good "wholesome" news, in the dust. The number of growing "Bad-news stories outnumber good-news stories ten to one." (Dye & Zeigler. 128) It is not the abuse of the American press's freedom, but more of the growth and profitability of a business, no longer monopolized by the limits of radio, television, and newspapers.

Some principled reporter's have found themselves facing jail time for their efforts in serving the citizens and not the interests of government, by releasing sensitive but revealing information. In the case, of Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who "..decided to accept a jail sentence rather than testify before a grand jury about one of her confidential sources,"(NY Times) this was a strong example. The releasing of sensitive material is nothing new, certainly to the New York Times, who won a famous ruling over the Federal Government when they published classified stolen material, known as the Pentagon Papers. The main discussion "..was the ability of the government to prevent publication of the stolen materials in order to protect national security." (Dye & Zeigler. 132) but the "Supreme Court rejected the national security argument and reaffirmed that the government may place no prior restraint on publication."(NY Times v. United States)

In the recent, Congressional and Presidential election's I feel the media abused their influence over the audience, not their freedom. Any moral code was pushed aside, as with any formidable candidate that rose in opposition to the "elites" agenda. The Republican Congressman, Ron Paul, who in the first primary debates stood in opposition with the parties issues when he stated, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. ... We've been in the Middle East," Paul said in explaining his opposition to going to war in Iraq. "Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting." Immediately, conservative media such as Fox News anchor Carl Cameron hammered Paul in the debate saying, he was "slapped down." Next, "Fox News excluded Paul from its Sunday night Republican debate with the big five -- Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Huckabee, Mitt Romney and John McCain. So Paul gets 10% in Iowa and gets excluded, but Rudy gets 4% and sits on the left end of the Fox Box desk. Hmmm."(LA Times)

Bernard Cohen, makes a valid point when he wrote: "The mass media may not be successful in telling people what to think, but the media are stunningly successful in telling their audience what to think about." (Cohen. 10)

Work Cited:

Cohen, Bernard. "The Press and Foreign Policy." Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1983. Print

Dye, Thomas R and Harmon Zeigler, Late. "The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon
Introduction to American Politics." Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009.

"Judith Miller Goes to Jail". New York Times, Editorial. New York Times, 7 Jul. 2005. Web. 1 Feb. 2011. < http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07thu1.html >

Malcolm, Andrew. "Ron Paul, muffled by Fox, wows Jay Leno." Los Angeles Times, Political Commentary. Los Angeles Times, 1 Feb. 2011. Web. < http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/ronpaulreigns.html >

http://libertyatlarge.com/dr/?p=57

Posted 02/04/11 Willij4lib Monroe, WA

Very good subject TruthSaga, Most of the major media outlets were purchased by some in the banking elite, then they hired people that they help educate and were good little boys and girls in school and did all they were asked to do. People with no real desire to reach outside their comfort zone of what they have been taut or influenced by and their own assumptions mislead them daily. But who doesn't want a cushy job after all the test passing, after all they did pass the test, they did what they were told, they are trained right from the get go. Then you have the intent who not only passed but they have some semblance of self so they go out and bring back stories and plead to have them front page. But their work is declined and they have a great salary, and a family and a mortgage and a new car. They have set all the traps that so many around them that were all good boys and girls to live the American dream. Slavery starts to set in, and they decide they must give up their soul to do what they do because they have worked so hard to comply with all that has been asked of them. Look how they have feed us all they were asked to feed us on every level of media, to satisfy the thirst for the American Dream (the Slavery) to the banking elite. Our conditioning is a long thought out process to direct our attention to, the same as our media. The persistent directing attention to becomes a habit of our nature, to look where we have been pointed unknowing of course. Yet what is it we look at? What we pick and choose or what some other picks and chooses? Our best focus in this country and please do not cry when I bring it to your attention is money, yep a lot of emphasis goes there doesn't it? It is the number one direction of all subject matter, it has the most focus of all subjects. So why is that exactly? Well if the bankers own the media as well as the companies that write your books and if they want this emphasized at this level they make it so. Then they turn around and make abundance's and shortfalls and surround it with controversial economic theories. But the one thing they are doing that they are not telling every one about is producing debt. The more money you want the more you will barrow and the more control they gain with each and every loan. Then they turn around and make it easy to get these loans and debt grows. But it gets bigger, they start conflicts and media and news agencies love this glory. They fund both sides and make it catastrophic and emotional and the debt raises even higher. But the truth revealed about the press is it is not the press at all, it is another fantastic manipulation by the banking elite to raise the debt to gain the control to limit the experience and the knowledge one will ever receive by what it is they put your focus on. And you are trained well all your life to comply to such an idea without thinking about it. Why is it sex sells? Because we had our attention on it from the time we were in grade school. It was brought to our attention and it was a way to train our sense of focus. Not to accomplish great relationships but rather to have lots of sensations that makes you feel good, the same that a lot of money does. It feels real good but it just does seem real, does it? Its a thought, isn't it?

Posted 02/04/11 TruthSaga San Jose, CA

Honestly, money did not cross my mind. Truly, that is more of a desire then, "Sex;" and I was the perfect example, of how programmed one could be. Can we agree, that the internet is the true "free press," or at least a path to find concrete information? Perhaps, the reason there is so much effort by the elites to "regulate it."

Posted 02/04/11 Willij4lib Monroe, WA

Absolutely, that is one thing the control freaks cannot handle is a bunch of “free will” educating each other without their control. If you are willing to weed through the assumptions and opinions to get something verifiable the internet is AWESOME!!! I believe if it actually works the internet will become 100 times what it is now. It really only matters if they jump on to educate or if the get on to spew things not tested, It is our own evaluation that we weed these out. Some of the best assumptions to me are labels, its like there is a line outside to jump on some label, look at me I am “A” what ever the label is because it has some of the same views. I never see anyone going I want to be “A” Individual, LOL. We could make that a label, I always put I am “A” producing American because that is what I do, I cant tell you how much I am siting and hoping all will jump on that band wagon especially without the act of producing but rather only thinking it is special. NOT! The controllers I am sure are devising some plan right now to control it. I know at work they stopped letting me go to this site because they call it political, I laugh because I google politics and then open up political sites and it lets me in. How ridiculous, so I responded to it and it asked me 3 questions and a comment. We will see what happens. I participate on the company blog too and I put something on there about politics to see what would happen and no one touched with a ten ft pole, I laugh my ass off. It is also very controlled with all these does and don'ts and it is there to recommend improvements or discuss company type issues but only the ones they want, LOL, go figure that. Its also part of the Elitist club of Corporatism, I think I saw it just below the queen of England somewhere. I better shut up they are probably LOOKING, LOL, needless to say so am I. Control this FREE WILL, sorry I already do please , thank you and good night.

Posted by TruthSaga on 09/14/10

I haven't been updating my C4L blog as often as my website, time to get back in touch.  I'm sure for most of you, this is "I already know" information.  For the most part, a majority of my blogs are targeted for friends and other's that aren't well versed in our R3volution.  Planting seed's as I like to call it!

How Free, is the Free Market?

I’m confident it wouldn’t take an individual more than a hour to surf the web or television and find an alleged intellectual, claiming the free market is somehow at fault for our bubble crisis or it’s somehow hindering our jobless recovery. First, we must consider that a free market can only function when it is; well you guessed it, free! A free market exist in the absence of government intervention into the market place; no regulation, targeted taxation, private central bankers artificially adjusting interest rates, and so on.

So, before placing blame on free market capitalism, we must first come to an answer if free market conditions exist. The answer is no, it hasn’t, for almost the last 100 years. What seems to have been consistent for this long period in time, is that every recession / depression, somehow has been blamed on the free market by the market elites. One of my favorite explanations for the cause of the great depression: “the gold standard caused the great depression.” This is with the belief that the business cycle; recession’s, depressions, downturns, or slowdowns that occur after a boom faze are merely natural occurrences in an economy, and have nothing to do with artificially set rates and credit expansion. This is dead wrong.

The business cycle is an expected consequence from government meddling in the economy, as the nirvana of the boom takes place, we hear of the “new age” of central planning. But, when the correction (Recession) hits, it’s always a lack of regulation in the free market. The correction is the much needed hangover in the economy from all the cheap credit (easy money) that led to the capital projects that would of never been engaged in, under normal market conditions. Look at Cash for Clunkers, while the program was in place their was a boost in car sales but when the program ended, car sales nose dived off a cliff. Now, I’m sure that this program had something to do with helping sales in the newly acquired GM bailout, but, time will tell. What I’m getting at, is individuals prior to this program were either saving for future consumption / investment or spending their money somewhere else in the economy. All the program succeeded in doing is destroying paid-off assets, creating more debt, and pulling resources that could have been saved or used in capital projects in the future. How are we better off?

I know… it’s the free market’s fault!

Posted 09/15/10 Willij4lib Monroe, WA

Thank you TruthSaga, A free market is only as good as the people are free to compete by what they do and not by limitation. Free the people (Liberty) and watch the free market grow. It kind of sounds like the balance of nature doesn’t it? Imagine!

Posted 09/18/10 JahRed Simi Valley, CA

The free market is still there but it has changed that the idea of PR within the market has shifted society to a consumer based society which is based supplying base desires as opposed to supplying basic needs.. Look up info on Edward Bernays http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4127471896206528068# How to Brainwash a Nation http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4127471896206528068#docid=308175 2751625862941

Posted 09/18/10 JahRed Simi Valley, CA

Edward Bernays : on Propaganda and Public Relations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0OrT-8gXMs

Posted 09/18/10 JahRed Simi Valley, CA

Edward Bernays and the Art of Public Manipulation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiKMmrG1ZKU

Posted 10/21/10 rbhill Fresno, CA

Of course, the politicians offer a cure that is the same ailment that caused the disease. I actually disagree somewhat in your assessment of the free market. I would contend that free market systems always find a way to work, but are hindered by government meddling. Extensive black markets in the Soviet Union serve as an example. Also, much of China's recent economic growth can be attributed freeing the market of restriction, although their social liberties remain incredibly suppressed. So, while we do have many free market mechanisms at work in America, our market certainly is not completely free. What is your website? My blog is http://dailylib.wordpress.com. Stop by and drop a link to site so we can share thoughts!

Posted by TruthSaga on 07/22/10

(This is no way related to C4L, this is my personal blog on my experience in making phone calls as a private citizen)

I've spent most of my day phone banking for Peter Schiff U.S. Senate run today and to be honest I had mixed feelings about how effective it would be.  About 40 calls into it I had a handful of hangups and voicemails, pretty painless.  As I write this blog I'm at call #164 and now my feeling has changed completely.

I've been able to convince a number of Linda supporters to either look into Peter's campaign or switch all together!  I even spoke with a gentlemen that worked for a local newspaper that's leaning towards Peter and was going to research him a little more. 

For me, this was a good day spent making calls as a volunteer.  Will this result in a surge in Peter's polls - I don't know but being able to contact so many people and discuss basic economic principles, and even have some people switch camps or at least look at a short YouTube video was definitely worth this small effort. 

Posted 07/28/10 Flip Culver City, CA

Great Job! I've had a similar experience during some "phone banking" (sounds like a new BofA feature). I hope more people join us in the final stretch up to the primary

Posted 09/02/10 bujin00 Shawnee, KS

I like the disclaimer ;)