Yes. Like when trekkers get near, Tom—shiny, empty potato chip bags upon the altars.

/P

THE-NOT-VOTER
7 Save the Children of Latvia
President Valdis Zatlers of Latvia blames Latvia’s financial failure on Latvian children.
Link and more at http://the-not-voter.blogspot.com/

[size=5]THE-NOT-VOTER
9 The Informed Not-Voter[/size]

It is long overdue that the voter be given the opportunity to exercise hh (his-her) right to vote according to hh political orientation. The so-called democratic voting system today has long been flawed by repressing the full extent of a voter’s voting rights by holding voting to within a single political system and forbidding citizens to vote against it.

That is to say, the liberal democratic voting system has distinct parallels with the voting system of former Soviet Union, which, too, restricted the voter’s right to vote to a given set of candidates.

The present so-called “democratic” vote is limited to voting for a previously registered group of parties, which are legitimated if on Election Day they receive a given percentage of the public’s vote . In Latvia this percentage is 5% or more. However, it the voter decides that there are no parties that hh cares for (for whatever reasons of personal choice), hh is not given the opportunity to cast a NOT-VOTE. In other words, the voter is not given the opportunity to cast a vote against the ruling government system per se.

Whatever the merits of the Latvian Constitution (Satversme, a translation of the German word “Verfassung”), its capture by a partidocratic government, that is to say, a government whose inner core has been captured by certain corporate interests, has been compromised. Thus, the Latvian electorate has been manipulated by a government, which, to use the voters’ expression, “has stolen the nation”.

The particular “democratic system” of government in Latvia has been limited to “Parliamentary Democracy” and to the exclusion of a directly elected Democratic government. In short, the Government and not the electors control the Constitution by the method of institutionalized capture. However, democracy—if it is to have more than a cynical meaning—means that the sovereigns of the State and the Constitution are the people, the electors. The government is but the representative of the electors for a limited time, usually, four to five years.

As the system in Latvia stands at the present time, a voter cannot through hh vote bring about a truly changed government, but must, to use another people’s idiom, repeatedly “vote for the same old crabs”. It is time that the voters of Latvia understood that after twenty years of their “freedom” controlled by a captured government, they owe it to themselves to cast a NOT-VOTE. If they fail to do so, they not only vote themselves yet another corrupt government, but declare them selves as less sovereigns, more cowards.

Notwithstanding attempts by the “old crabs” to form a Unity Party (for an “honest” government of course), said coalition is simply another game of musical chairs. While the Unity Party ought to be working to institute the NOT-VOTE, it has manifested no such intentions. Indeed, the Unity may be planning to seize the Constitution in an even tighter grip than heretofore. They may take the current coalition government in Britain as their example for such an exercise.

The coalition of Liberal Democrats and Tories in England wish to institute a law that would require that 55% of British MPs must approve any move to dissolve the Parliament. The plan to check a sovereign people’s right to request and dissolve the government (by going to the Queen) is in the name of “strong and stable government”. In the British case, this amounts to a gerrymander of the Constitution, because the dismissal of government would not be possible unless a large number of the ruling government’s deputies rebelled and voted against their own party. As an opposition member to the British government has stated, the institution of a de facto “fixed term parliament” will result in a “zombie government……………………………To read more, please click on the last link below………………………

If you copy this blog for your files, or copy to forward, or otherwise mention its content, please credit the author and http://the-not-voter.blogspot.com/

jandžs - okay, we get the idea - don’t freakin vote. Labi. Un? What specific, real courses of action would you have a govt or non-govt take? Real please…. not framework…. real.

THE-NOT-VOTER
The 4th Awakening=NOT-VOTE

The Tenth Amendment of the American Constitution states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In brief, as states Professor Thomas DiLorenzo: “The real purpose of the [American Civil] war was to end once and for all the ability of American citizens to control the federal government by possessing the powers given to them by the Tenth Amendment, including the power of nullifying unconstitutional federal laws, and secession or the threat of secession.”

On the “Big Stakes” playing fields, President Abraham Lincoln was against state powers and the people’s right to escape a centralized government, while Thomas Jefferson believed that the Tenth Amendment was the cornerstone of the Constitution. In effect, it was Lincoln, according to Professor DiLorenzo, who broke the back of democracy. This created conditions that would give corporations the rights of individuals, which enabled these “individuals” to use corporate money to create individuals in the image of merciless giants.

The Tenth Amendment for the United States is currently dead de facto if not to the nth degree yet, though there are people who still struggle to keep it alive de jure. I support them and even insist that the rights to de jure be always alive to become de facto when the time arrives.

What needs to come to the surface by some kind of mass action that is not-violent—yet at the same time brings terror to government officials—that signals that the days when the suppression of the people’s sovereign right over themselves are over. On the political arena this right may be asserted by building a successful NOT-V0TE campaign that reduces the number of votes on voting day to below 50%, preferably bringing % down to 20% or lower. After years of calling for reform of government and receiving vacuous support from politicians who know that “reform” is an empty word, the time is for the least of direct actions that citizens may perform: NOT-VOTE; yet achieve a revolutionary result. The silence of the media over alternatives to the existing system—for example, one in which the NOT-VOTE is a guaranteed freedom—will find the pinprick that breaks the silence.

The prick is likely to come from the people, the populace, the feared Populismus Tyrannus Rex, which has replaced the once despised Jew in as the enemy of real or would be Oligarchs Club.

……………………………To read more and see links, please click on the last link below………………………

If you copy this blog for your files, or copy to forward, or otherwise mention its content, please credit the author and http://the-not-voter.blogspot.com/

Jandz
This is going to be fun answering for you must have been on drugs when reading about this.

Thomas DiLorenzo: “The real purpose of the [American Civil] war was to end once and for all the ability of American citizens to control the federal government by possessing the powers given to them by the Tenth Amendment, including the power of nullifying unconstitutional federal laws, and secession or the threat of secession.”
The civil war was all about slavery and nothing but. The crap about states rights was brought up by the southern states trying to justify their insurrection against the federal government and not be called traitors to the US Government as stated in the Constitution and not be hung. The Constitution is a whole document and one cannot pick and choose parts they like. It goes along with the “Gone With The Wind” movie of Sherman burning Atlanta. It never happened. Atlanta was burned by retreating Confederate soldiers trying to keep the full warehouses from falling in Sherman’s hands but too many people loved the movie and did not read history.
If “States Rights” was the issue then the South would have honored the rights of the Northern States right to not return escaped slaves back South and there would not have been war. States Rights works both ways.
Even today as I write this the far loony right is rewriting history in Texas schools by equating Jeff Davis with Lincoln, dropping Martin Luther King writings, giving credibility to “The Moral Majority” etc. I guess we in the USA can not make fun of Russia for rewriting history anymore. We have Texas.
You took the authors statements as facts but a search on the web I find his philosophy. I like his 1955 book but it does not pay the rent unless you have a very close comradeship with the banker.
“So, what does it mean to be a “liberal” or a statist in America today? Well, at least in the academic world, it means that you embrace the ideas of the German communist Herbert Marcuse, the “pop philosopher of the New Left” and the academic mentor of Angela Davis. Marcuse was a “celebrated” intellectual who taught at Harvard, Yale and Columbia. He opposed not only the “exploitation” of the working class that Karl Marx was known for, but work itself! “Don’t work, have sex,” was the theme of his 1955 book, Eros and Civilization.
Marcuse viewed science and the scientific method as “the enemy,” for it “denies the reality of utopia,” i.e., communism. He urged his fellow academics to oppose freedom of speech within academe, for such freedom produced too many criticisms of communism. Academe has taken this advice to heart, as is evidenced by the stifling political correctness that exists on virtually every campus. All opponents of socialism were to be denied free speech in Marcuse’s ideal world.
There is no need for logic, debate, and the free exchange of ideas, said Marcuse, for Marxism provides all the “correct” answers. This is also the ideology of the Straussians (discussed below), who believe that they, too, are in unique possession of THE TRUTH.
Following Marcuse, the politically-correct statists within academe believe that the totalitarian societies of the world represent “freedom” and that people “must be forced to be free,” i.e., to acquiesce in socialism. They tend to be blind followers of the man Flynn describes as “cultural Marxism’s evangelist.”
Sorry but you should find someone with more credibility before posting

courlander et al.,

“The civil war was all about slavery and nothing but.”

If it was all about slavery why did not the North let the South after the war go its separate way sans slavery.

Visu labu,

Bruno
I am bewildered by your comment letting the Southern States be . First they lost the war so the Union was secure and the South had to abide by the Constitution. They violated the Constitution of the USA which is a hanging offense and even after defeat did everything they could to maintain white supremacy. They lost “States Rights” until the Federal government released then from Federal occupation.
An example from the book “Lies across America’ By James Loewen ISBN 0-684-87067-3 I quote you about Southern government.

LOUISIANA New Orleans

“The Central Theme of Southern History,” according to Southern historian U. B. Phillips in a much-quoted article by that title, has been “a common resolve indomitably maintained—that it shall be and remain a white man’s country.” Not only in the South but all across America, the landscape perpetuates this mentality by commemorating white racists. In 1891 at the foot of Canal Street in New Orleans, where the business district meets the Mississippi River, the white civic leadership of New Orleans erected the most overtly racist icon to white supremacy in the United States. This monument celebrates the White League in what it called “The Battle of Liberty Place.” The monument’s checkered history offers something of a barometer showing the relative power of blacks and whites in this part of America, and the importance each group places on control of the landscape.
A chilling battle is enshrined here: an armed insurrection in 1874 against city and state governments. During Reconstruction, a biracial Republican coalition had won election to most state and city offices. The White League, white New Orleans Democrats determined to replace those officials with their own men, had planned their takeover at the elite Boston Club. Their platform made their objective clear: “Having solely in view the maintenance of our hereditary civilization and Christianity menaced by a stupid Africanization, we appeal to the men of our race…to unite with us…in an earnest effort to re-establish a white man’s government in the city and the State.”
On the morning of September 14, 1874, thousands of white Democrats gathered at the statue of Henry Clay then located in the Canal Street median at St. Charles Street. After incendiary speeches, at four in the afternoon about 8,400 whites attacked 3,000 black members of the state militia, 500 mostly white members of the metropolitan police, and 200 other local police officers, all under the command of Gen. James Longstreet. Longstreet had been a Confederate general; indeed, he was Lee’s senior corps commander at Gettysburg. After the war he came to believe, in accord with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, that blacks should have full rights as citizens including voting rights.
In fifteen minutes the White Leaguers routed Longstreet’s forces and captured him. Eleven metropolitans and their allies were killed and 60 wounded. Twenty-one White Leaguers were killed including two bystanders, and nineteen were wounded. White League officials then took charge of all state offices in New Orleans and appealed to Pres. Grant for recognition.
Grant refused to recognize the new group, and a few days later federal troops restored the Republican governor to office. League members had no choice but to vacate the government posts they had seized. However, the “Battle of Liberty Place” was an important event that presaged the end of Reconstruction, which white Democrats accomplished in 1876-77 using similarly violent methods.
In 1882, with the city now under white Democratic control, the median strip at the foot of Canal Street was renamed “Liberty Place.” The Orwellian name celebrates the liberty that racist whites had finally seized in 1877 to suppress black voting rights. The City Council passed an ordinance to erect a monument there commemorating the events of September 14, 1874, and for several years on that date white supremacists paraded through the streets to the site. But crowds dwindled as the “battle” receded in memory, and no monument was erected.
In 1891 another “racial crisis” hit New Orleans. Nineteen Italian immigrants accused of the 1890 execution-style slaying of the police chief were acquitted. White League veterans called for a mass meeting and on March 14 a huge crowd gathered again at the Clay monument on Canal Street. “Not since the 14th day of September 1874 have we seen such a determined looking set of men assembled around this statue,” shouted a White League descendant. “Then you assembled to assert your manhood. I want to know whether or not you will assert your manhood on the 14th day of March.” The mob responded by marching on the city jail and shooting nine of the prisoners, etc.

In the South military rule had ended by 1868 in all but 3 states. The only person the North hanged was the commander of Andersonville Prison It was white violence that was the problem. The losers murdered hundreds of office holders white and black. In the summer and fall of 1868 in Louisiana white Democrats killed 1081 persons mostly African Americans and white Republicans.
The Klu Klux Klan had at one time over a million members (North and South) and one would be pressed hard to find that their main objective was “States Rights”. I remember when I was working for a living being invited by 2 of my co-workers to go to Georgia for a Klan cookout but not knowing who was going to be cooked I declined. They later got fined 10000 each for shooting a black farmer’s horse telling the police they were deer hunting. Their Klan connection was not released.
Even today we have idiots (Palin) in Alaska who think that Alaska should secede from the Union.

Cool stuff, Courlander.

/P

courlander et al.,

Bruno
“I am bewildered by your comment letting the Southern States be . First they lost the war so the Union was secure and the South had to abide by the Constitution. They violated the Constitution of the USA which is a hanging offense and even after defeat did everything they could to maintain white supremacy. They lost “States Rights” until the Federal government released then from Federal occupation.”

From Wikipedia:
. On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President. In his inaugural address, he argued that the purpose of the United States Constitution was “to form a more perfect union” than the Articles of Confederation which were explicitly perpetual, thus the Constitution too was perpetual. He asked rhetorically that even were the Constitution a simple contract, would it not require the agreement of all parties to rescind it, and called any ordinances of secession “legally void”.[4] He also stated he had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery in states where it already was legal, but that he would use force to maintain possession of federal property. His speech closed with a plea for restoration of the bonds of union.[5]
Others, however, including Jefferson Davis, who would become the President of the Confederate States of America, analogized the Constitution of the United States to a partnership agreement, which is terminated upon the withdrawal of any partner from the partnership.[citation needed][dubious – discuss]”

The US army was still segregated during WW II.

Visu labu,

Bruno
You missed a major point. It was all rhetoric until the Confederacy fired on Union Soldiers at Fort Sumter which started the actual war. To save face Lincoln had to declare war to preserve the union. It was still all about slavery and whether the South had a right to make a demand upon the free states to return runaway slaves. There was a plot nipped in the bud for Southerners to seize California and make it a slave state and that would give the South more voting power in Congress to push its agenda.

“To save face”? Is that what it is?

/P

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following
Oath or Affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Lincoln did swear to this and as above stated “but that he would use force to maintain possession of federal property. “

I hope you are not saying that he backtrack from his oath and his inaugural address.
Lets remember who fired the first shot in this insurrection.

courlander et al.,

My answer was to your following claim:

““The civil war was all about slavery and nothing but.”

The Emancipation Proclamation took place one and a half year after the war started It did not take place at the start of the war. At the start of the war it was about the right of secession from the Union.

Visu labu,

Bruno
You already posted the answer to your question when you posted Lincolns inaugural address.
“He also stated he had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery in states where it already was legal”
He stated that he would not stop slavery in states that had it to preserve the union. After Fort Sumter all deals were off and he emancipated the slaves.
No where is states rights mentioned at this time. Obviously slavery was the issue. Thanks for the support.