Renewable Revolution

By Amy Goodman
Columnist

JAN 03, 2020   


Agelbert (ranty) COMMENT: Well, yeah. It is no accident that women and Native Americans (African Americans had the right to vote rigged out from under them until 1964 - and things haven't gone well AT ALL for them after 1964) DID NOT GET THE VOTE until the CORK (year 1911) was put in the maximum number of Representatives in the House.

I wrote the following rant in 2014 when I still believed there was some hope for Democracy in the USA. I am sad to say I no longer harbor that hope.

Yep. The issue is FASCISM. Our "Jews" just happen to be African Americans and the poor of all colors. But the Evil in Fascism is ALWAYS a growth industry and those pretending they will not be eaten alive by this predatory profit over people and planet fascism are just plain Wishful Thinking COWARDS.

We are in the throws of Inverted totalitarianism. Chris Hedges explains that in detail. I think you are familiar with that but if you want to refresh your mind, just Google it and Chris Hedges.

And YEP, it IS a police state but it is CLOAKED with the Color of LAW (see definition of Color of Law) with all the trappings (pure theater) of a representative republic.

Around the year 1800, the power of a (white, land owner) American citizen's vote was reasonable (if all the adult citizens had been allowed to vote). At that time a NEW Rep could be added to a state if the Congressional district exceeded 60,000 population. In 1911 the COUNT of reps was UNCONSTITUTIONALLY frozen.

You'll never get a lawyer to fight that, either. The historical record is quite accurate as to the unconstitutionality of that legislation. You probably know all about how the unconstitutional income tax was pushed on us. But the BIG BETRAYAL was the frozen rep count. This assured a fascist takeover because corporations would get MORE influence while the individual voter would get less. At present your vote is worth one SIXTEENTH of what it was in the year 1800! Representative Republic, my ARSE! 

And if some learned counsel would pound the table about the "progressive reform" of electing senators during the same period (early 20th century) so state legislators couldn't be bought by big wig money bags types, then tell them that it was a FICTION.

Why? Because it was ACCOMPANIED by freezing the rep count! What's that got to do with it? Tell said learned counsel to look up the word "senate". The Senate is NOT, and never was, a democratic, representative or otherwise, of the PEOPLE; it is a representative of the wealthy ELITE Powers That BE.

It is BALANCED (at least in theory) by the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Remember it has the SAME power as the House (except it isn't supposed to be able to INITIATE legislation - like it unconstitutionally DID in 2008 with the bailout!) with one third less members when this country got started.

As the number of reps got greater and greater from a population increase, the elite influence increased on a senate with less and less members in relation to the exploding population of the states. I.e. LESS DEMOCRACY in an already undemocraric senate - concentration of POWER in fewer hands!

In order for the proper balance to have been preserved with the, admittedly more democratic process of electing senators instead of having state legislators "elect" them, they HAD TO keep the same ratio of senators to representatives! They did not do that! They pulled a fascist one-two punch (one-two-three if you count the Federal Reserve ripping the power to print money away from the gooberment).

Keeping the, already pro-elite senate at two per state made it EASIER to BUY THEM. Freezing the house count did the same thing.

I wrote an article explaining all that several years ago. Here it is.

I'm talking about the sound bite of all sound bites, "No taxation without representation". We can all agree that representation is essential in a representative form of government, right?

Yes, we are a republic and the founding fuckers abhorred pure democracy. But they did write into the Constitution that for every 30,000 citizens, NO MORE THAN ONE representative would be elected to the House (but AT LEAST ONE per state). You can see this is dated stuff. The constitution needs to be CLARIFIED to reflect modern technology.

The constitutional clarification/amendment would be:

1) AT LEAST ONE representative for every 31,000 citizens.

2) The 'AT LEAST ONE representative per state' can be dropped because it is ridiculous and outdated to even consider a state with less than 30,000 citizens.

The corporatocracy would fight this tooth and nail because this amendment would make our House of Representatives a democratic organization for the first time EVER (in 1787 Native Americans, women and African Americans were excluded - In 1911 when they UNconstitutionally froze the rep count at 436, Native Americans, women and most African Americans could not vote).

Since 1911 we have been in a time warp where corporate power grew as our population grew. The fix was IN.

Now do the math. Assuming 2/3 of the population can vote, that means 200,000,000 votes. If you get one rep for every 31,000 voters, the House gets 6451 representatives.

Consider, for a moment, how your vote has been watered down through the years. The 65 reps back in 1787 represented about 2 million white men. In 1911 the 337 or so that voted to freeze the upper bound of the number at 436 represented 90 million mostly white men - NO WOMEN.

Now DAMNIT, PEOPLE! That was one of the most corrupt congresses we have ever had! That was THE Rockefeller congress! That was the Railroad baron congress! That was the congress that, in 1913, brought the federal reserve crooks into being!

We went from one rep for every 30,000 white men in 1787 to one rep for every 500,000 voters in 2010. Think about that. YOU and 15 other voters have the same power that ONE WHITE MAN had in 1787! And with the Citizens United Supreme treason, you are ACTUALLY getting one rep for every (assuming 10,000 public and private large corporation pacs) 22 rich corporations. THIS IS THE REALITY.

There is no valid argument for limiting the number of reps. NONE.

 We want a representative republic. We don't have one. This is not a 'progressive' issue. This is about DEMOCRACY! 

agelbert November 3rd, 2010 10:12 pm

I wish to add that every single issue of importance to the people in the USA which has been ignored, disdained, ridiculed or trashed by the media and/or the government owes its' continued repression to our lack of representation in congress.

The single argument against it is very old. I cede the floor to Patrick Henry:

"But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers.

I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism!

Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition; and those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly. While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom."

I imagine that Patrick Henry, who is famously quoted as saying he smelled a rat in Philadelphia (the constitutional convention), would have preferred one elected representative for much fewer voters than 30,000. He wanted to keep a sharp eye on the reps way back when. He would probably be outraged and leading a revolution today.

Today we have the technology for an electronic congress. This congress would not be the pampered tools for corporations we have now. Their numbers would make OUR voices stronger than corporate voices. They would be more approachable and more willing to listen to us with the 31,000 voters per district. We would HAVE A VOICE!

Our reps would rule for us.

Patrick Henry's rat was eaten by a Rockefeller T-Rex. We need to kill this dinosaur. The damned thing will kill us all and then start on it's own tail.

"People talk sometimes of a bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel. The tiger only tears and gnaws, that's all he can do. He would never think of nailing people by the ears, even if he were able to do it."
 Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

"I think the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness." 
 Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

"If you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral; everything would be lawful, even cannibalism."
 Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

"We as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values… when machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr. April 4, 1967

The wheels of "fascist progress" were turning fast and furious in those first 20 years of the 20th century. But we had Bernays to put lipstick on that fascist BOOT in our face. The media was instrumental in keeping the lipstick in place throughout the 20th century and this century (see 911 lock step dumb playing). The lipstick is coming off.