1. rebecca.casstevens@gmail.com

    it is important to elucidate the false narrative of what really happened on 9/11/01.

  2. As it appears too much money in politics placates the need, for struggling Americans to succeed!

  3. It may be satire but there is a lot of truth to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4nSjPdT788

    • And the corrected pyrimid diagram: http://i.imgur.com/TDgUdWW.png

      • pewestlake pewestlake

        I like the Juice Rap videos. Very clever. Our pyramid isn’t intended to be as inclusive or descriptive as the one used in their video. The comparison is intended to make the concept more accessible to people who believe western civilization has left classism and economic servitude to an elite ownership class in the past. Thanks for sharing it, though. I think there are some inferences that aren’t proven but overall a useful tool.

    • VictorMTA VictorMTA

      We considered referencing Brand’s book, Revolution; but he’s often difficult to take seriously.

      Thanks for adding the link to his interview.

  4. Mary Wildfire

    I want to argue right now with two of your principles. Both are naive and inadequate.
    First the one that says among other things on elections that persons would be limited to $X per election. There is an easier, simpler and more effective approach. We should make it flat out illegal to spend ANY money to get someone elected. This requires that all media outlets be compelled, free in exchange for their use of the public airwaves or perhaps for a small set sum, to air or print position papers by every candidate, and debates between candidates. If removing the financial screen means we have too many candidates, we could institute another round of primaries. Of course media companies will oppose this provision–they get a huge influx of cash from campaigns. Thus they will never support any limits.
    Second, the limitations proposed on corporate power. POCLAD had put out a pamphlet showing that all these restrictions and more WERE imposed on corporations in the beginning, but they used their increasing economic power to buy political power and thus to throw off the restrictions, one by one–the whoring of the state of Delaware facilitated this process. It seems to me this outcome is inevitable. Large corporations will always have enough power in a capitalist system to get their way politically, at the cost of democracy and the public good. Thus we need to make large corporations ILLEGAL.

    • VictorMTA VictorMTA

      Mary, we’re supportive of compelling media outlets to allow all candidates on the ballot equal access, but campaigns would still be expensive for literature, online ads, staff, offices, etc. The advantage of $X.00/year/voter is the media would not inherently oppose the idea since they would still get money. They’d rally and campaign against your idea and fight it tooth and nail. $50/year/voter would actually ADD money to the cost of elections.

      We do support the breaking up of large corporations and limiting the size of corporations. James Madison considered large and growing corporations that continued into perpetuity to be “an evil,” and so do we. We would like to see the Sherman Anti-trust Act enforced again. We just didn’t think to add that to the list of democratic principles.

      • Mary Wildfire

        I’m still gonna argue on the campaign one. I don’t see why a candidate needs literature, workers or ads. In our present system, of course; but our present system has led to and been caused by a key ingredient in the dysfunctionality of elections. voter ignorance and apathy. If all that was allowed was issue papers in newspapers, and on the airwaves, and debates in both places, then voters would decide on the basis of these things–issues, proposals, stances–rather than on who looks cool on a billboard with zero content or whose attack ad against the opponent was more effective. Why is an increasingly radicalized US population voting for minimum wage laws, fracking bans, marijuana legalization…and Republicans? Because the current system makes it all about money, and voters are easily manipulated. True, what i propose would be fought desperately by the media, which is an enormous barrier. But appeasing the enemy leads to cooptation and a failure of genuine change.

        • yes, mary’s point is well-taken. even the playing field; focus the attention on absolutely equalized “issue papers in newspapers, and on the airwaves, and debates in both places.”

          • Mary is absolutely correct! If we want a future that runs on true equality of access to government, then starting with the premise that citizens need to contribute funds in exchange for that access (which is what it always was, always is, and always will be) immediately leads to differential treatment of citizens by their government based on wealth, which equals failure of the stated object.

            If the problem is ‘(private) money in politics,’ then the solution is ‘no (private) money in politics,’ plain and simple. Of course, elections will always cost money; the operative question is *where that money comes from.*

            All of the noise about (obvious!) opposition from the 1% and the media outlets they own and control, the expensiveness of our existing flawed methods of campaigning, and the false need for private contributions so that citizens will have so-called “skin in the game” are all just that: *noise.* And it all reflects an appalling failure of imagination, I’m very sorry to say.

            The signal, by contrast, is quite pure and simple: if we start off our political reforms with anything that legitimizes the measurement of the necessarily unequal size of citizens’ wallets (yes, even at $1 per person!), then we will end up right where we are today: oligarchy. The relative size of private citizens’ wallets with respect to government is only of interest to those who believe that citizens with less money should have less influence.

            Roads & seaports, armies & navies, schools & government buildings — all of these are expensive, just like our current bloated elections. Somehow–and for millennia–human beings managed to build and maintain all of those different types of public goods with *public money* raised from taxes. Free and fair elections are the *most essential* of all public goods; they can only exist as truly free and truly fair if they are paid for with purely public money!

            • VictorMTA VictorMTA

              Patrick, the scheme of $X.00/person/election will have to be partially public funded. X can be any amount, but it will be what Congress decides in a democratic compromise. Unlike public funding for campaigns, a voucher or voter debit card idea has support from conservatives. Public funding of elections does not.

              If everyone is allowed to contribute equally and no one is allowed to contribute more than the maximum ($X.00), that’s political equality, not oligarchy. You can’t just make up false claims because an idea does not align perfectly with your preferred ideal. $X.00/person/year for political contribution would be fair.

              The value of X will be a compromise coming out of Congress. We can radically reduce the cost of campaigns by making electioneering communications free on TV and radio, but we can’t render them free. The costs of traveling around the country running for president costs a lot.

              Also, no one is saying that qualified citizens (registered voters) would have to contribute their allotment (X). If we’re going to abolish plutocracy or oligarchy, then we have to limit the amount that can be spent on political activities.

            • Mary Wildfire

              Maybe the real question I need to ask you, Victor, is what you see as the objective. This project was presented as an approach to radical change, but some of the provisions seem seriously inadequate…unless theactual objective is minor reform. On elections, what you propose seems to boil down to repealing Citizens United, McCutcheon and Buckley v Valeo and calling it good. Certainly those decisions made the situation worse but the system we had in 1975 was hardly fair and democratic. You point out that media corporations would oppose the kind of drastic change I advocate; but they will also oppose your tepid reforms. You expect the details to be settled by Congress…a Congress chosen by the current, immensely corrupt and unfair system. a Congress ready to pass clearly unconstitutional and outrageous unpopular legislation if that’s what NSA/FBI/CIA/XYZ or Corporations United request.
              You also ignored my point about the other factor in modern elections: that current practice makes for content-free campaigns, in which the choice turns on pandering nonsense and dishonest ads. Some of that is the fault of the lazy electorate, but why reward it? I see no reason candidates HAVE to travel, or have staff (other than advisers on technical matters). Sure, they travel a lot now because many voters are influenced by whether candidate X “came to my state/town” and whether s/he touched my hand. But any voter who loses interest when such matters drop out of sight, or when there is no longer focus on who’s ahead, or whose wife dresses better, or who has been accused of an affair, is welcome to stop voting–we’ll have a better outcome when those who choose to vote base their decisions on POLICY and policy alone.
              I acknowledge that even were my proposal to be implemented, it would not eliminate one percent rule, not as long as we have private ownership of media, because moneyed interests could still influence voters’ opinions about issues.
              Okay, we may still need a SMALL amount of money for elections…how about this? Another radical idea: let’s have a hefty tax on advertising, like 100%. Instead of a tax deduction for blanketing the airwaves or landscape with your “message.” you’d have to pay into a fund the same amount you spent on the advertising agency. Along with raising funds, this would be a “Tax bads not goods” policy that would much reduce the number of ads we’re all subjected to

            • Victor, thanks for your thoughtful response. You correctly point out the difference between our two approaches: “Unlike public funding for campaigns, a voucher or voter debit card idea has support from conservatives. Public funding of elections does not.”

              You appear concerned here in majority with the crooked state of political affairs today; I am principally concerned with the essence of justice and democracy. I mean, who cares what conservatives, moderates or liberals think when they are defending fundamental wrongs? Am I not to stand up for what’s right because knuckleheads of one or another political persuasion might oppose righteous changes in our society? Would any real movement for social change in history have succeeded had it held that attitude? Herein lies the difference of opinion, I perceive.

              In my judgment, we are standing in a moment of history where something a bit stronger than political pragmatism is called for. You allude to that moment in the title of your well-written piece here, calling for a kind of revolution. It made me think of Susan B. Anthony and the struggle for women’s suffrage in our country (the periodical she published was actually called ‘The Revolution’). When she and many other great women of her time first began to organize for women’s rights in the mid-1800s, no ‘conservative’ support attended them –none at all. In fact, the ‘conservatives’ often became violent in word and deed whenever the women activists spoke of their equality. But the women of that time had something on their side that the ‘conservatives’ didn’t have: *they were absolutely right.* That, and they also had the deep, fiery courage of their convictions.

              A lot changed as a result of that early women’s rights movement, piece by piece. By 1920, not only had women gotten the vote nationwide, they were also no longer barred from entering college and most professions. All in all, it took those women’s equality activists about 70 years to correct a fundamental error in the original framing of the Constitution, consonant with a fundamental error in the structure of their society.

              *The problem before us today of to whom our elected officials should properly answer is absolutely no different in duration or depth of error.*

              You wrote: “If everyone is allowed to contribute equally and no one is allowed to contribute more than the maximum ($X.00), that’s political equality, not oligarchy.” Victor, there are many people within the borders of this country, and they all deserve to be heard equally by the government here. You gloss completely over all of the citizens who will not be able to contribute the $X: homeless, poor, even lower-middle class citizens just scraping by, maybe more, depending on the actual amount. All those millions of people appear not to exist in your calculus of “political equality” as your quote explains it, but they are still human beings–and citizens–who should be equal before their government. In ignoring them, you have, in my opinion, described a type of mild oligarchy, and you are definitely, in fact, defending a variant of the existing system where wealthier people count more than the less-wealthy.

              Were the change you favor implemented, things might be broader-based for a while than in our present system, but they would all inevitably flow back to near-total oligarchy. Why? Because Lessig’s uninspired $X/person voucher idea hasn’t challenged the underlying fundamental error upon which our present extreme oligarchy first began –in fact, it defends it and desires to enshrine it in the Constitution: measuring people’s power in government is best done by the size of their pocketbooks. It was dead wrong in 1789, and it’s still dead wrong today.

              Essential wrong cannot be bargained with. It simply must be struggled against and overcome. Measuring people in terms of wealth–no matter how simple or obscure or partially-publicly-funded the rules are–is still measuring people in terms of wealth. No equality–political or otherwise–can *ever* come of that. If we want that future, there’s no need to do anything; we’re already here, and the folks at the top have already won. They will remain safely in control, *especially so with their Congress setting the specific rules.* If, instead, we want the future that puts every citizen of this country on a truly equal political footing, then the revolution must begin first in our thinking and then set out on the long, worthy road to real equality and justice.

    • richard hughes

      But if giving a politician money were illegal, the corporate influence in politics would be minimal. Of course the “revolving door” would have to be closed, and any other paths to corporate political power closed, but I think disallowing large corporations is a non-starter in the real world, and unnecessary.
      But eliminating money in politics is an absolute necessity. Other countries have taxpayer financed campaigns of limited duration.
      It would also be necessary to reinstate the limitations on propaganda that Reagan scrapped. “Give a politician money, go to jail” should be sacrosanct.

    • Jack Oren

      I don’t think any of you get it. Election finance reform will not fix anything; the last campaign finance reform bill we got, McCain-Feingold 2002, it was actually an attack on the First Amendment. There is no solution in or with Congress: Congress is the problem. Congress, the Electoral College, and especially the Senate were designed to prevent too much democracy, to protect the privileges of the rich from “the tyranny of the majority”—from democracy. The same men who wrote those fine words about liberty and equality that stirred the “lower classes” into fighting and dying in their revolution stole that revolution, writing a constitution that put them, the wealthy, America’s landed gentry, in power, that denied the men who did the actual fighting and dying the vote, and the wealthy have been buying themselves elections OR buying those we elect, and writing the laws so that it is legal for them to rob us blind, ever since.

      We may have needed representative government when it was a day’s ride on a good horse just to the county seat; ordinary people couldn’t take time from daily survival to do politics. Now you can be in Washington, D.C. as fast as you can boot up a PC. We no longer need to elect people to pretend to represent our interests, most of whom are corrupted by the banking/war-making/energy cartels even before they board the plane to Washington. Modern communications, especially the internet, makes Congress obsolete. We can make our own laws. We can’t screw things up any worse than Congress already has.

      Things never change. Congress allowed the railroad barons to steal vast public lands, minerals and timber beginning with the Railroad Acts of the 1860s, and allowed resources (on which we should be paying Native Americans royalties) that should have lasted us forever to be plundered so that, for example, people in Oregon now buy lumber from Canada. Right Now Congress is allowing the oil companies to destroy vast groundwater resources that will be needed by all future generations, while they suck newly reachable oil out of the ground as fast as they can, ship it in Molotov-cocktail trains through our cities and towns, putting millions of us at risk of dying in fire every day, and refine it and sell it overseas. And now the oil companies want Congress to allow them to sell the unrefined crude overseas—no refinery jobs or added value—which will mean a tenfold increase, or more, in oil trains through cities, and immolated people. And congress—especially this one—will let them.

      This is our “new energy security?”

      I just read that one billion barrels of oil have already come out of the Bakken Shale Formation; if the USGS is right, and the field only contains 4.3 billion barrels, then it’s already ¼ gone. The oil companies can’t get it gone fast enough to suit themselves, because that will bring back scarcity, high prices, higher profits, and their meta-excuse (we all knew Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons) for war for other people’s oil. And the bankers behind the oil companies are the same ones behind Amerika’s war machine, and they make even more money from war than they do from oil–and in return for more than a century of fighting their neocolonial wars for them, coming home in body bags and maimed in body and mind, and making the rest of the world hate us enough to fly airplanes into our skyscrapers, we now “owe” them $20 trillion.

      This will never change because of the fundamental, fatal flaw in representative democracy—representatives, who will always represent the deepest pockets. WE DON’T NEED THEM ANYMORE. We simply have to wake up, get off our asses, and represent ourselves.

  5. thanks, victor for informing me that
    “Unlike public funding for campaigns, a voucher or voter debit card idea has support from conservatives. Public funding of elections does not.”
    the need for pragmatism-at-its-best is needed.

    great dialogue, much appreciated.

  6. First of all I want to thank-you for a piece full of level headed wisdom and links to other thought provoking articles. I also appreciate the tone of the comments and responses. It seems obvious that change is needed, but we need to keep our minds open and work together not with the certainty of fanaticism, but the ability to adapt to reality as we experiment in solving the insane situation we’ve created.

    I want to feel hopeful when I see that there are others who realize that we are in the middle of an era that needs revolutionary changes to save us, but I wonder how far we are from the tipping point. As an American ex-patriot I get terribly depressed when I return to the US and see the vast majority of people seem upset, but still content enough (or perhaps truly brainwashed) in front of disgusting reality TV and wandering the aisles of Walmart. My heart longs for change and I hope that sites like yours are the beginning of the revolution.

    As a writer and revolutionary, and not as an act of self promotion, I’d like to tell you about my satirical novel, “Revolution American Style.” Deep inside I want to believe that my own artistic desire for revolution is an indicator that things are approaching the tipping point of the French and American Revolutions where only a small percentage, some have argued that it is as little as 5%, were convinced that a major paradigm change was in order. Since my goal is to join the cause for widespread change (and not making money) you can get the Ebook free on Smashwords at: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/402906 or if you prefer the paperback it is available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-American-Style-Political-Fairy/dp/0983926506/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1420951864&sr=1-1&keywords=revolution+american+style+acuna.

    There is an argument that suggests that when artists start creating around certain themes that changes are coming. I hope this is true and that in my small way I am a part of that gathering energy. We’re currently working on a project that we hope will empower children to change the world. Will definitely be following your blog and hoping that soon the collective will slap themselves on the forehead and sigh, “oh, that’s what they meant.”

  7. Scott Amorian

    I just found this site. It has some good points and some bad ones. I want to see some necessary governmental changes made, and I would appreciate some support like the folks here, but I see some issues with this discussion. To help stop you from going down some dead end paths, I’ll take a moment and give you some useful feedback.

    To get an amendment passed you will need the support of 3/4’s of the States to ratify the amendment, which means that you need a lot of support from the general public. If that level of support does not exist at the outset, no credible attempt will be made to start a proposal for an amendment.

    You need support from a lot of people on the political left and right. You’ve alienated half those folks. Therefore you are not going to get the support you need. Your efforts are dead before they get started.

    Do you realize that the way you discuss things that conservatives bristle at, such as man-made global warming and green energy, you lost half the audience who’s support you need? If you want everyone to pull together you can’t do that kind of thing. You need to stay on a single subject and couch it in such a way that folks on the left and right agree with.

    The topic you are discussing is how to take away of the ability of the wealthy to legally bribe public officials. The wealthy bribe public officials for one of two reasons: They want to make a profit, or they want to keep from losing the money they already made. If the economy were screwed up too badly, the wealthy would lose a lot of money, so when government officials start to act in ways that will screw up the economy, the wealthy bribe them to stop. As much as it sickens and saddens me to say this, much of the stability of our economy and therefore our government comes from the ability of the wealthy to legally bribe public officials to not do things that are too economically stupid.

    So, what you are proposing is the put an end to the ability of the wealthy to protect their money. Or at least that is the perception of the wealthy. They will fight you tooth and nail. They will do so by bribing the people who would make the amendments you want. You won’t win that fight.

    If you are going to do something that could threaten the wealth of the powerful, you must first allay their fears. What credible alternative to the bribeaucracy are you proposing to put in place of their control? How will you better protect their wealth than they can do by legally bribing public officials?

    You seem to advocate a more direct democratic control. Yet democracy always destroys itself, and that is exactly what the wealthy fear.

    The system of checks and balances is not working, at least not in the way that was expected by the Framers. Perhaps that system needs a correction. I, personally, have no doubt that a fourth branch of government is needed to provide better oversight of the legislative and executive branches, and that the Court, which gives some oversight to the legislature and executive, must not be appointed by the same legislature or executive, but rather by a more neutral party such as a congress of state governors.

    The problem you face is the problem of proposing a correction that the overwhelming majority of the public will support, and that the wealthy in a bribeaucracy will support. You must propose it in such a way that is not offensive to large groups of people. The proposal that the Constitution be amended is so threatening to a lot of people that anything that adds to the threat will make it politically unpalatable.

    I would like to see you being more successful. You need to make a correction to your presentation. You need to think through your proposals a little farther so you gain support instead of creating antipathy towards your proposals. So far I see some movement in the right direction, but you seem to advocate revolution for the sake of revolution.

    How do you propose to create stable and rational government that will protect the privileges of wealth and democracy, while at the same time preventing the well known abuses of wealth and democracy? I’m not seeing a credible answer to that question here. I’m seeing long winded complaints about the abuses of the wealthy, and unrealistic proposals for change, but that’s about all. I believe you can do much better than that.


    • VictorMTA VictorMTA

      Scott, revolution is not a preference; it’s a necessity. The power elite in both parties, a political duopoly, are corrupt, backing the corporate agenda rather than the interests of the American people.

      This understanding that the corporate elite must be displaced led in this piece for proposed principles, not policy proposals. If bullet points are “long winded,” how can I spell out ideas to “create stable and rational government without boring some readers. The piece is long enough, and challenged principles will have additional posts published to defend ideals with policy proposals, like the $X.00/voter/year idea to institutionalize political equality. We don’t feel the need to create government; we need to make the one we have work for the people, not the corporations pushing the TPP for example. I’m not a supporter of direct democracy, but ballot measures can be employed more at the state level. We aim to overturn bad Court decisions, not start out new with another constitution. We feel the 13th Amendment was revolutionary for the slaves, and the 28th will be revolutionary for the 99%.

      The one issue you believe is alienating for conservatives has been addressed with a short video on climate change. Remember, the principle is survival trumps profits. The logic of worst-case scenarios is to act now and radically to stop the further extraction of fossil fuels and transition to a new energy sector. Humanity cannot afford to lose this fight against the corporate interests with vested interests in fossil fuels. It’s late and the current direction is accelerating toward climate collapse.

      • Scott Amorian

        Well, I thought I would give it try and see if you were game. It looks you are too deep into whatever ideological soup you are in to discuss stuff with me rationally. Too much argue. Not enough listen.

        Let me give you one more pointer and I’ll move on and let you do your thing here.

        The problem with political donations is that they are bribes. To separate the politicians from the bribes, the knowledge of who gave money to the politician’s campaign must be anonymized. By capping campaign funds and anonymizing the source of the funds, a great deal of corruption can be brought to an end. For that to happen an objective third party must be brought into play to monitor the financing and to call fouls on misbehavior.

        If your movement cannot convince me (and about 100 million other voters just like me) that my nest egg is secure, I will not in any way be supportive of anything you are doing. You need to start with that fact. Hope you realize it someday.


        (No, sorry. I won’t be reading your reply.)

    • VictorMTA VictorMTA

      Patrick Conway wrote: “You gloss completely over all of the citizens who will not be able to contribute the $X: homeless, poor, even lower-middle class citizens just scraping by, maybe more, depending on the actual amount.”

      EVERY registered voter would be given a Voter Debit Account. Voters who pay income tax would have the first $X.00 returned to them as a voucher credit to their VDA. Registered voters, who do not make enough to pay income tax, would have their VDA credited from a tax on corporate profits. Last year, ExxonMobile had enough profit in one quarter to pay for every citizen’s VDA.

      Patrick then claims, “Lessig’s uninspired $X/person voucher idea hasn’t challenged the underlying fundamental error upon which our present extreme oligarchy first began –in fact, it defends it and desires to enshrine it in the Constitution: measuring people’s power in government is best done by the size of their pocketbooks. It was dead wrong in 1789, and it’s still dead wrong today.”

      If every registered voter had a VDA, then the size of their pocketbooks would be rendered moot. Political equality can be enshrined in the Constitution as an amendment. My partner, Paul Westlake, is the amendment writer, so consider this a very rough draft:
      Section 1) American democratic order will be enforced as one person, one vote and regulated to provide all citizens with equal opportunity to financially contribute to political activities.
      Section 2) Congress shall have power to enforce this article and to regulate campaign finance in federal elections by appropriate legislation.

      Patrick then asked, “who cares what conservatives, moderates or liberals think when they are defending fundamental wrongs?”

      We care about what conservatives, moderates and liberals, i.e., the American people, think when they (consider) get(ting) involved in a revolution to legalize democratic order in the United States. After a revolution, we’ll still have conservatives, moderates and liberals. The difference will be THEY, not the corporations, will be in charge.

      The people defending fundamental wrongs are akin to the early Americans siding with the Crown. They will learn to live in a democratic republic, or they can leave.

      • I think it interesting that you refer to early America as a democratic republic, Victor. It really wasn’t. It was a hyper-classist, racist, sexist oligarchy masquerading behind fancy words as some haven for liberty and equality. Real liberty and equality, however, were exclusively reserved for wealthy white males, and measuring private wealth in the political system became a cherished instrument of perpetuating that inequality.

        I submit that expenditure of private money in public elections has only ever had one purpose: making certain that wealthier interests will be able to influence and control outcomes. Disagree? Try giving us all a positive explanation here of why we wouldn’t be able to have a fully-functional and clean-running system of publicly-financed democratic elections *without resorting to empty phrases like ‘skin in the game’ or pointing out the obvious objections of extremist elements who benefit most from the existing sick system.*

        And to anyone watching this exchange, I offer the following thought experiment: imagine that instead of building and maintaining all the other public goods (like roads, schools and armies) in the usual way with our tax dollars, our society decided to give each of us the “equal opportunity” to contribute to the projects individually, and it would then reimburse each of us “the first $X.00 as a voucher credit” to our dedicated debit cards. Putting aside what ugliness happens with the folks who can afford to give a second, third or fourth (or millionth) un-reimbursed $X, let’s just ask a few questions:

        Would everyone choose to contribute to every necessary project? Would the same number and quality of roads get built in all areas, or might rural areas begin to get shorted? What if construction firms began organizing their neighbors to not contribute to a particular project unless their firm were awarded the construction contract? And would everyone still have equal access to the schools, even if someone had contributed less, or hadn’t contributed at all? What if an extremist wanted to include certain subjects and exclude others in a particular school they had always supported with regular and generous contributions? What if it wasn’t just one extremist, but hundreds, banded together? And would the army still hold allegiance to the country as a whole, or would it begin inexorably to associate its well-being with a smaller subset of people who gave to it most regularly? Would those contributors have an edge if the business they owned was attempting to become a supplier for that army? What if the most loyal contributors wanted the army to invade another country in order to enrich their personal fortunes, even though it was against the interests of the majority of the rest of the country? And might certain essential projects that richly deserve to be built never get built at all because too few people saw the great promise in them to provide appropriate funding?

        With all that complexity in mind, I ask you to consider one last question: wouldn’t it be *very much simpler* to just collect taxes from everyone and then pay jointly as a society for the many public goods we need, neatly skipping over all the free-rider, moral hazard, excessive influence and budgetary shortfall problems?

        Now let’s ask one question more: why are we using private funds–fraught as they are with these many problems–to build and maintain the most important public good of them all: public elections? Is there any reason other than that it permits the kind of wealth-based political corruption that we all know and (most of us) hate? Seriously, if anyone has a clear, rational explanation of why involving even one iota of private money in public elections is anything other than *totally nuts,* please take a few seconds out and enlighten me on the basics here –I really don’t get it.

        I’m glad of debates like this one, Victor. Thanks for taking the time to talk a few things out with me (and very best regards to Paul!!). We have unpacked the essence of the disagreement between us rather clearly, I’d say. I’m not in favor of continuing the existing class-weighted political system with a few tweaks and a new debit voucher card. You appear (to my eyes) to be in favor of opening up the franchise a bit, maybe back to the way it was in the early 70s, but not fundamentally doing away with the ability of wealthier people to have a bigger say in controlling political outcomes. I wish the people of our country (and world) good speed in making a smart choice between these two alternatives.

        • VictorMTA VictorMTA

          Patrick, I meant the democratic republic the revolution will attempt to leave in its wake, not what the supporters of the Crown was left with. The next version will not be a “hyper-classist, racist, sexist oligarchy masquerading behind fancy words as some haven for liberty and equality.”

          You’re right about the purpose of the “expenditure of private money in public elections” to date because it has not been premised upon political equality. Keeping private money involved in elections using national and state VDAs keeps money in politics in the hands of the people where it should be, not the government. Practically, since we’ll be dealing with legislation, only an all democratic Congress and state legislature can establish public finance systems because conservatives don’t want their money to go to candidates they don’t support. I don’t want my tax money to go to candidates I don’t support. Also, without an amendment to empower Congress to regulate money, public finance can be exploited by a corporate puppet by participating in the system while his friend’s super PAC can bulldoze even more money into his/her “issue” ads because they don’t have to give to the candidate. S/he’s getting our money in a public finance pre-amendment environment. We’re against public finance before an amendment passes, but we feel that a voucher program backed by a tax on trans-national corporations to support those who have no income or capital-gains tax, would be a revolutionary outcome. Some money will always be in politics, and I’m not a government-trusting leftist. Decisions on money in politics ought to be left to the people, the voters who vote to get the VDA renewed for next year. Finally, I want to add that the post-office can administer the VBA system. They already are wide-spread into most communities, they already handle money. The VDA system would be IRS accounting and service. Postal workers need a new task as email replaces snail mail.

          The project of fair elections is not a public works project except in its administration, modifying the Post Office. The concerns about who spends what on whom or if at all are unimportant at worst. The X in $X.00 is not going to be enough to matter unless it’s aggregated into PACs or parties, both artificial persons (creations of the state) and potentially regulated. The project of fairness in elections will be an experiment in democratic progress, and I prefer to place my faith in the people donating their allotted voter dollars than to place my faith in the government, a corruptible unit. Money in politics needs to be radically dispersed, not centralized with the state. That’s a concentration of power the Framers would, I believe, be uncomfortable about. Instead of fighting factions with more factions, which Madison wrote of in Fed. Paper 10 and is what the Kochs and the Soros model, political equality would end faction as a factor in politics EXCEPT for the factions of party. I believe PACs should also be VDA vendors to exercise as voice of Americans with values common to them. Who else funds PACs and speaks on behalf of interest groups? The government? Under McCain-Feingold, which lead to Citizens United, PACs had to remain silent in time-frames before primaries and general elections. Real people (candidates) were given exclusive rights to the airwaves. The regulations under Art. 1, Sec. 3, have to concern money in holding elections, not speech. Real people should always have exclusive rights over the privileges of artificial creations. Another answer as to why we use private funds is because in a democratic order, political decisions should be with the voters, not the government. Public finance of elections sounds like a good idea, but knowing that twice the number of people claim to be conservative than liberal, I just do NOT want to fund the campaigns of candidates I oppose. That is why we don’t have public finance in NY according to the majority leader in the NY Senate. He knows he’s in a blue state. I know why progressives want to fund, through taxes, candidates they oppose in a largely conservative nation. It allows people who are not wealthy or well connected to run for office. Guess what. So would a VDA system.

          I really appreciate the civil tone of this debate and opportunity to defend and unfold more about how I conceive of political equality when it comes to money in politics. When it comes to proposed legislation, there are more weeds to dig into. VDA holders would be barred from selling their account info with penalties of temp. loss of participation if caught doing so. Buyers and thieves of VDA information would face criminal prosecution. We have the exact same concern, the “sick” plutocratic corporate-state that’s in place. I prefer the solutions to remain with the people in democratic manner rather than the state in a more social-democratic order. If people give their own money to candidates or PACs I don’t like, well, it’s their money. Public finance of elections uses my tax dollars to support candidates, who may also have their own super PACs, that I don’t like. No one likes paying taxes, but having conservatives pay for liberal candidates or liberals pay for conservative candidates is morally unacceptable. We don’t distrust the people; we distrust the wealthy few and their special, private (corporate) intereSt$. Leave the power to give political money with the people. Let them decide where to give it. This is a centrist, post-amendment reform that the left and the right could agree on. Public finance is not. A VDA system should be much easier to get passed through a Congress than a public finance system of elections will be, and it’s not a bad idea. It would level the playing field for all donors and establish political equality. I, too, wish the people of the United States and the world good speed in making a smart choice between these alternatives, but it’s the office holders who matter. In the end, they’ll decide the details of either system. There is no reason why separate states in the Union would not try to determine the most fair manner of holding elections. States are the right place for experimentation. The Constitution is the base of our principles, but equality, in anything other than rights (according to the myth) is absent. Applied political equality would end the reign of plutocrats and oligarchs and put the people, not the state (legislators, congresspersons & administrators) in control, financially, of who (registered and active voters) gets how much (X) to spend getting elected. Power to the people.

          The remainder of equality-based campaign finance reform would address now much candidates themselves can spend of their own money before and after getting on the ballot. The amounts would vary widely with location and office sought. The amounts allowed, generally, would be a compromise in divided government, low in leftist regimes/states and high in rightist regimes/states. Unfortunately, the essence of democratic order is not an issue on enough folks’ list of concerns when voting. A revolutionary could assert this principle without necessarily becoming a candidate for office.

  8. VictorMTA VictorMTA

    “You have to take on the Koch brothers and you have to take on Wall Street and you have to take on the billionaires,” he says, gesticulating madly and fuming about the “oligarchy” running government. “Not to get you too nervous,” he says, but “I think you need a political revolution.” As Sanders is learning, you can’t have a populist revolution without people.


  9. We’re Mad As Hell And We’re Not Going To Take It Anymore!!!!

  10. Joseph P. Freije

    Sad to say, but the only thing the people who have stolen America understand is bloodshed and threats of violence as ways to get things done. I am not going to belabor my credentials (I am overqualified to be a leader), but years ago I formed a company called the “Silent Unified Majority of Patriotic Americans.” The effort fell apart from LACK of support (FEAR of being involved) from Americans. I am the author of “THE NEW AND IMPROVED CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” which is an extensive foundation and framework for which I was seeking a large coalition to refine, as I do not believe one person can cover all the details that need to be covered. People from the U.S. government group have been to my house with guns, got in my face, made death threats, and told me to “shut up and back off.” I know their psychology and they know it. I told them that if I had an army of supporters, “things would change for the better.” When “things change for the better” for the majority of the people, that means the controls of the people who are the government are removed. I am just one man. My potential to remove the people from positions of “power to kill” are severely limited. There are just too many weeds that need to be pulled.

  11. Stephen J H

    President Dwight D Eisenhower left office on Jan. 20th 1961. In one of his last addresses to the American people he warned of the “military industrial complex”. His predecessor John F Kennedy was murdered by the very entity that President Eisenhower warned of. And “We the People” have not been represented in Washington DC since then.
    Now here we are over 50 years later, and the entire US political system is completely and totally corrupt. The US government and the corporations who own it work only to benefit themselves.
    And I can assure you that there will never be any “real” change. The only way there would ever be a chance for any “real” change is for there to be bloodshed, and a lot of it. And unfortunately the American people have been lulled asleep by the corporate owned media, and would never have the stomach for what it would take to get their country back.

    • Mary Wildfire

      Bloodshed rarely leads to positive change. But it would take a massive uprising, and I don’t see Americans–thanks to the corporate media, as you said–being willing to stick their necks out or just get off the couch…in sufficient numbers, at this time. But I believe there is more activism in this country now than there has been since the Sixties. I get bulletins from Popular Resistance daily–there is much more ferment going on in this country (and elsewhere) than you would think. The situation is not hopeless, but any real solution will not come from some topdown policy changes at the federal level–as you said, the federal government is way too corrupt for that to be a possibility. Work locally.

  12. Paul Hosse

    I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been writing about this for years now. I don’t see this as a Democrat vs Republican issue or even a Left vs Right matter. I think (actually, I hope) Amercians are waing up and seeing what’s going on around them. We are being divided every way possible—black vs white vs brown vs yellow or red; straight vs LGBT; working poor (former middle class) vs poor; conservative vs liberal, Occupy vs Tea Party, and so on. Anything to keep us divided and at each other’s throats. In reality, most Americans are centrist. Some are slightly to the Left and some slightly to the Right, but basically, most of us are somewhere in the middle. That’s why Indpendents are the largest political group in America yet the GOP and Democrats, together with the media insure that Indies don’t get to partisipate in the debates, get money, or win elections. As long as we’re fighting each other and not talking, we’re not focused on the elites at the top who are the source of our misery. Like “The Wizard of Oz”, play no attention to the man behind the curtain! Divided, we only slip together down toward facism, We are already, in fact, an oligarchy. We’ve lost our democratic republic. We’re on the edge of becoming a police state; some would say we are alreeady there. Many on the Right accuse the other side of “socialism” as if that’s somehow bad when “socialism” simply mean ownership by the people. They say we’re becoming “communist”, which means ownership by the State, yet is the State becoming more powerful or is it Wallstreet and the mega banks? Corporate control of the government is facism, and that’s what we face, whether the government is a equal partner or simply its manager doesn’t really matter to the economic serfs at the bottom.

    • VictorMTA VictorMTA

      Paul, where have you been writing about this? Online?

      • Paul Hosse

        Yes. I publish a non-partisan politcial blog. I’ve also done a few blogtalk radio interviews among other things. I thought this was an excellent article.

  13. MiguetT

    Very good points have been made here. The issues are not only political however, they are also economic and social issues all intertwined with one another.
    Most people are too involved with simple survival day to day and paycheck to paycheck (a by-product of economic inequality) to have the time to study these issues adequately, much less understand all of the ramifications for themselves and their families.
    Further, people are so bombarded with information that they do not have time (in their minds) to pay attention to detailed, and long position papers, posts or comments.
    To get and HOLD their attention, the issues must be boiled down to the basic points and how those points interact with one another.
    The proposed democratic principles listed in this article by Victor are a good beginning. Collection, Collating and republishing/posting to the basic premises with good graphs and charts is critical to catching and holding peoples attention….. And repeating the message over and over to set the issues in their minds is absolutely necessary.

  14. Jenny

    You need to include the animals. At the moment all non-human animals, domestic and wild are mere chattel property, Veganism is a peaceful revolution. If we all stop buying the products of animals or their bodies, the sellers will eventually go out of business, and we can have justice for the innocent animals. We will also reduce environmental damage caused by animal agriculture, and mitigate some climate change. Howdoigovegan.com.

    • Leslie

      Such a long road, so many long roads. The innocent, the forgotten, a story told through the ages we have forgotten the brutality of the human race to each other and non human animals.

      It feels so hopeless but I for one, and you apparently, take the side of compassion and kindness. I fear we are shouting into a void …

  15. David E.H. Smit

    Now, Oct. 5, 2015, that the TPP (& other Global Corporate Treaties/’Arrangements’) negotiations have been ‘completed’.

    by David E.H. Smith

    · China & BRICS can Kill TPP, et al, by Offering its Trade Partners Alternative to citizen Punishing Dispute Settlements (ISDS) & few other ‘Hearts & Minds’ choices? BRICS too ‘Humbling’ for Corporate America & Assocs.? Is a Kinder & Wiser BRICS too ‘Humbling’ for Corporate America & Assocs.? Corporate ‘U.S.’ is Leaving Grassroots America, et al, Fatally Vulnerable.

    · Can Piggy-backing 80% of products from China, BRICS, et al, on to Canadian products exported to the U.S. really lower the taxes of Canadian citizens by 7% if Corporate Canada increases our Taxes (Global Corporate Tribunal Penalties) by 2- 12%+?

    · Canada’s (US’s) Traditional Media (Corporate Canada, et al) seem to be Adjusting the TPP ‘Goal Posts’ in order to ‘Demonstrate’ how Canada Won more than it Lost & similarly in all of the other Traditional Media of the other TPP nations. How did ‘We’ all ‘Win’ if everyone else ’Lost’? Isn’t more accurate that the Global Corporations WON BIG time & ALL the citizens of the Trans Pacific nations LOST BIG time?

    · China & BRICS can Kill TPP, et al, by Offering its Trade Partners Alternative to citizen Punishing Dispute Settlements (ISDS)& few other ‘Hearts & Minds’ choices? BRICS too ‘Humbling’ for Corporate America & Assocs.? Is a Kinder & Wiser BRICS too ‘Humbling’ for Corporate America & Assocs.? Corporate ‘U.S.’ is Leaving Grassroots America, et al, Fatally Vulnerable.

    Prime Minister Harper (CAN.), the leaders of the other political parties operating in Canada, the executives of the parties, et al; et al;

    After serving you with; “NOTIFICATION of Pre-existing CHALLENGE(s) to the TPP, C-CITreaty (FIPPA),the CETAgrement, et al” on, or, about, 2013,
    do you think that it would prudent for both; Canadians & non Canadian who are the potential shareholders & non-shareholders of the businesses, industries& enterprises that will be generated by, or, effected by, the aforementioned agreements, treaties, &/or, partnerships, to wait for the findings regarding:

    ‘The Submission’ to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA:
    ‘The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of AMERICA, China, Canada, the EU, the Trans Pacific nations, et al
    the (harmless) Canadian NON shareholders, both; Native & non Native, et al’

    ‘The MERKEL (Chancellor of Germany) Letter; To Sue, or, Be Sued?’
    (see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com)?

    And, what, if anything, have you & the other leaders done that will ensure that those voters that have not been privy to the aforementioned agreements, treaties, &/or, partnerships, have the same, or, more time (ie. 10 years for non-lawyers) to read, consider, discuss, improve upon, &/or, reject, or, accept (with funding by corporate Canada to pay the requisite contingent of lawyers to work out; a) the dollar impact for the harmless taxpayers & the designers of the ‘original’ draft; corporate Canada and b) alternatives.

    Furthermore, what is the schedule of punitive penalties that the voters will receive from Corporate Canada & the federal government if/when the TPP, et al, Tribunals try to take trade penalties from the top of the taxpayers budgets in order that the Tribunals’ penalties don’t interfere with expanding our spending for health care, education, CPP & other services. That is to say; the TPP penalties are at the bottom of the ‘balanced’ budgets; after all other payments, compensations & suits by the provinces/municipalities against corporate Canada & the federal government as per ‘The Submission’ to The Supreme Court of Canada (see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com) & ‘The MERKEL (Chancellor of Germany) Letter’ (see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com)?

    And, ‘finally’, provinces, such as, Alberta, that allow Canadian corporations to pollute, frack for LNG, etc., do not set precedents for all of Canada, it merely allows foreign/global signatories to do pollute, frack for LNG, etc. in the jurisdiction of Alberta, but, these foreign corporations must maintain rigorous environmental standards that will not challenge the neighboring provinces, &/or, the other effected jurisdictions. Under these & other circumstances the corporations are deemed liable & fit to be sued by all of the effected jurisdictions of Canada.

    Please also remember Mr. Harper, et al, that if all of the harmless voters/taxpayers demand shares in the aforementioned businesses, industries& enterprises as a consequence of the encumbrances of their rights,& /or, the future marginalizing of their rights, the entire TPP & the other Global Corporate Treaties/’Arrangements’ come tumbling down as the cross-suing global corporations will be placed in the situation that we’ve discussed before whereby, the corporations will be in fact suing themselves without being able to totally pass along their liabilities, such as the secret Tribunals’ punitive penalties, to the harmless, voters/taxpayers.

    And, as the need to compensate Canadian; dairy farmers, auto manufacturers, fishermen, et al, has been created by corporation Canada in order for it & its shareholders to benefit directly from their secret ‘arrangements’, do you understand the need for the compensations to be taken from the gross earnings (trillions of dollars over the life time of the secretly growing scope of the TPP, et al) of the businesses, industries & enterprises that will be generated by, or, positively effected by, the aforementioned agreements, treaties, &/or, partnerships,

    and thus, the compensations will absolutely not be paid for in any part by the harmless voters/taxpayers, &/or, any of the potentially ‘indirect’ beneficiaries?

    As always, I look forward to reading about your thoughts, your questions, your feelings, your improvements, etc., & those of your fellow party leaders, the executives of the parties, et al, regarding the enclosed.

    If you should have any questions, or, problems with this issue, &/or, any other, I can be contacted at the numbers & addresses that I’ve previously provided you with.

    David E.H. Smith
    – Researcher
    – ‘Qui tam…’

    your signature

    View in browser

    TPP action

    The Harper government just signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-country trade deal that goes well beyond trade.

    Here are just some of the things that Harper gave away so that he could brag about concluding a deal during the final days of the election campaign. If you care about these issues, send a letter now to the political party leaders demanding they reject the TPP if elected.

    Our jobs: Tens of thousands of well-paid Canadian manufacturing jobs will be lost in the automotive and other sectors. I care about jobs »

    Our family farms and milk: American milk, which can include bovine growth hormone, will be allowed into the Canadian market, edging out our locally produced, hormone-free milk. I care about farms »

    Our health care: Pharmaceutical patents will be extended, delaying the release of more affordable generic drugs and adding billions to our annual public health care bill. I care about health »

    Our mail: New rules will affect our crown corporations including Canada Post, opening the door to privatization. I care about mail »

    Our environmental regulations: Canadian legislation and policies will be subject to lawsuits from foreign corporations, jeopardizing our environmental regulations and costing billions. I care about the environment »

    It’s time for fair trade deals that benefit communities, not just corporations.

    Tell our political parties where you stand and what you want the next government to do about the TPP. Send your letter now.

    Thank you so much for taking action,

    Sujata Dey
    Sujata Dey
    Trade Campaigner


    The Council of Canadians, 300-251 Bank Street, Ottawa, ON, K2P 1X3
    1-800-387-7177 | inquiries@canadians.org | http://www.canadians.org
    Facebook Page | @CouncilofCDNS
    Unsubscribe | Email preferences

  16. Ashley

    This is the happiest moment of my life having no longer to worry about paying bills as i have been settled for life. A lot has been said about atm hacking and blank card for cash withdrawal but it all seemed like a myth to me until i eventually lost my job few months back and the world seemed to be moving backwards. I went online in search of jobs and means to an end and there i found comments about STAR TECH AGENCY and how they deliver this card in less than 7 days with no risk involved and a far much lesser price compared to what the card itself can give you, i then made contact and in exactly 6 days latter my card and a manual was delivered to my home address here in the US and that same evening i used the card was able to take out $2000 for a start its been just 3 weeks and my life has taken a new shape. I simply want to say thank you to this company and help spread their fame abroad. If you ever are in need of this card definitely contact startechblankatmhackers@outlook.com and be rest assured of trusted and certified services.

  17. SortingHat

    Our forefathers have said that American can have a Republic if it can keep it.

    We have allowed corporate banksters to run everything who are totally out of touch with reality as they only look at money figures and spreadsheets.

    For one of many examples look up the history of EA on wiki especially from about 2004 onward.

    I’d post longer but a lot of people online I have noticed seem to lack reading comprehension.

  18. Victor, I can’t find your emai. Would love to send you those 1/2 pages you asked for. Sharon

  19. Jimmy morris

    I can tell this is a left leaning article, that somehow thinks that global warming is something that normal people think about on a daily bases. It also thinks that somehow everyone is up in arms about about cops killing “innocent people.” Although these topics are important and debatable, they are not anything that would cause a revolution. If there is ever a revolution it will be because the working people will finally call “bullshit!”
    Most working people are sick of being called racist, homophobe, haters, all the while getting up in the early a.m. To go to work to pay for the crap that government sees as important. After a LIFETIME of working hard just to make ends meet then be told at the end of your career that the money they paid into social security is gone. When it comes down to a revolution, it will start and be taken up by the people that are fed up with paying for other people stuff. Hard working middle America not the nuts that have the ability to go march in protests, I have never marched in a protest because I am at WORK. After the last several decades we have become nothing more than the “makers” and the “takers.” I wonder if the thought of revolution would even come to the minds of Americans if you could only vote if you had a tax liability.

  20. Franklin Thompson

    The revolution, this author refers to is the not the one Thomas Jefferson was proposing.

  21. dennis napper

    This current form of government is far worse than what the founding fathers fought against and once they won they tried to make sure this country would not be never be like them and other failed forms of government. It was left up to the people. United they could stand and divided they would fall. Same as today that is why the government has made everything about division. The media has helped every step of the way. What the media has done should be criminal in every way. The American people are just as guilty as long as they are getting theirs most of them just look the other way. The evil that is this current for of government only exists because they police themselves. If there was real accountibility over them we would have a vastly better America. The people who are in power are bought and sold at will and if you think with all of the wealth involved anything short of the American people taking back this country by force than you are a fool and do not live in the real world. They are going to have to be drug out for they will not go quietly into the night. I do not wish anyone any harm but anything shot of hundreds of millions of Americans coming together and taking this country back there is a slight chance of no bloodshed but I doubt it. The long line of atrocities that our government already has has revealed them for who they truly are and there is no way around that. They make trillion dollar “mistakes” while some people are in prison over small amounts of pot. Our government ruins thousands of American lives very year but no cares unless it is them or they are involved with those people personally. Some people in this country are given everything they will ever own or have while the government will take everything an 89 year war veteran ever worked hard for because his pension cannot keep up with inflation and cannot pay all of his bills but the government tries to tell everyone that they are all about helping people. The cop that worked overtime to help pay for his cancer treatments while they are far too many people who will not even try to make something of themselves they just hold their hands out was the one that really got to me. I know of a little old lady that would cry herself to sleep at night because she was refused any pain relief because of the new government policies and I myself after a two story fall that I was lucky enough to live through workout any broken bones but was denied any pain medicine because according to those in charge I did not need it. A grown man cried like a baby all night long and the next couple of weeks because it was decided I did not need relief because of all the drug addicts actions. Taking away the rights of Americans because of the actions of a few people is as un-American as it gets. There is a reason the second amendment states shall not be infringed but because of a few nuts and most of whom should not be here to begin with I might add they want to in fringe uponcho that right. We cannot continue to be a nation of immigrants when they refuse to follow the laws and the worse of them want to do nothing but kill us all. Only a nation of fools and cowards could or would allow themselves to be governed in the ways this country is being run. George Washington turned over in his grave a long time ago even with all of the mistakes they made back then. Currently we have a mountain of problems and only a couple of ways to fix it and none of them will be easy but to do nothing would be foolish. To do nothing is nothing short of treason.

  22. the revolutionist

    I feel that talk about getting out of debt government officials and corrupt leaders are redundant what we need is a group of rebels who are willing to focus on what matters the people without the people there would not be a government in the first place without them the USA would not be a thing our founding fathers made our rights,our freedom by focusing on what matters and they were like us every day people like us whith an open mind and a free will I don’t give a dam about cash we don’t need cash we need rebels and we need a common focus what’s right. not a government

  23. Michael

    You lost me at Nickleback. You seriously could not have chosen a worse band and this isn’t opinion. They are arguably the mosted hated band in the world. In fact, if you say someone likes Nickleback it’s widely understood as a really bad insult. Just do a google search, some of it is funny. This is actually really funny. You write this really well thought out article and it’s great and next thing you know, BOOM Nickleback. I wish I could explain to you how emasculating that one statement was.
    I digress, long live the Republic!

    Still laughing at the theme song.

  24. This is our world we all have to realize Together that the world is not what it has to be its corrupted and it doesn’t even realize it. Realization of the truth is one of the biggest things and we all need it! We were brought up in this world we are taught what the ones before us knew and what they knew was corrupted and they don’t even realize it. I have i was corrupted it’s not my fault it’s no one’s fault, but it is our fault if we do not change it! The world we live in isn’t what it has to be WE TOGETHER can make the world we want we can’t do it alone we need each other we are all so blessed and we are all of one race the HUMAN RACE! And Earth is out home. The government is corrupted, we need to change this now!! We can make it happen you’re a human being the most extraordinary being/species on planet Earth and you have the most powerful tool in the universe in between your ears! We need each other to create a new world and new government and start the Revolution! The time is now.

    • Victor Tiffany

      Jill Stein is the last revolutionary left standing: http://citizensagainstplutocracy.org/

      • Victor Tiffany you last comment (9/5/17) is incredibly true. That is why I support #Jill2016. But I also want to say you have missed some important aspects of the movement including Blockadia, Idle No More and Black Lives Matter, to name a few. Solidarity.

  25. Alexander Hamilton

    All I could think about as I read this was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK4Wk_8PbcI…..Yes, I know I share the same name as THE Alexander Hamilton……and it’s ironic this musical is after him but……I didn’t choose my name….Ignore the irony….Please.

Comments are closed.