Dennis Kucinich: The Founders Did Not Intend For America to Be Run By Big Banks and Wall Street

Kucinch and Bernie!

Vote early and vote often!

I would have to say that Aaron Burr is one of my favorite American heroes for the well placed Musket Ball he dispatched Hamilton with in A gentlemans duel...

nicely put (hat tip)

What are you talking about? Thomas Paine was the first person on record suggesting something like Social Security. And Benjamin Franklin was in open support of a total estate tax and felt that any wealth several times in excess of what one needed was abhorrent and obscene.

Our country was not founded on the values it holds dear today. We were an agrarian, mercantilist nation during our founding. Capitalism only took hold in the post-civil war era, when the Industrial revolution and the subsequent success of businesses made it a feasible system. And even then, it was not accepted without a fight, i.e., the Populists, the Knights of Labor, riots, etc. etc.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 15:332

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
-John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

I would suggest that capitalism was a natural evolution that had to come to fruition in the colonies after they threw off merchantilism. The Constitution is about limited government and individual freedom, the freedom to choose who to trade with, the freedom to make a profit as the company sees fit. THAT is what I am talking about. What are you talking about?

"Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age."

Agrarian Justice - Thomas Paine

"The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all; 2. By witholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches; 3. By the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort; 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expense of another; 5. By making one party a check on the other so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism."

-- James Madison; from 'Parties' (1792)

"legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."

-- Thomas Jefferson; Letter to James Madison, (Oct. 28, 1785)

And Madison might as well have been talking about the Republicans when he said ;

"One of the divisions consists of those who, from particular interest, from natural temper, or from the habits of life, are more partial to the opulent than to the other classes of society; and having debauched themselves into a persuasion that mankind are incapable of governing themselves, it follows with them, of course, that government can be carried on only by the pageantry of rank, the influence of money and emoluments, and the terror of military force. Men of those sentiments must naturally wish to point the measures of government less to the interest of the many than of a few, and less to the reason of the many than to their weaknesses; hoping perhaps in proportion to the ardor of their zeal, that by giving such a turn to the administration, the government itself may by degrees be narrowed into fewer hands and approximated to a hereditary form... The antirepublican party, as it may be called, being the weaker in point of numbers, will be induced by the most obvious motives to strengthen themselves with the men of influence, particularly of moneyed, which is the most active and insinuating influence. It will be equally their true policy to weaken their opponents by reviving exploded parties and taking advantage of all prejudices, local, political, and occupational, that may prevent or disturb a general coalition of sentiments."

--James Madison; from 'A Candid State of Parties' (Sept 22, 1792)

"The Truth is, that though there are in that Country few People so miserable as the Poor of Europe, there are also very few that in Europe would be called rich; it is rather a general happy Mediocrity that prevails. There are few great Proprietors of the Soil, and few Tenants; most People cultivate their own Lands, or follow some Handicraft or Merchandise; very few rich enough to live idly upon their Rents or Incomes, or to pay the high Prices given in Europe for Paintings, Statues, Architecture, and the other Works of Art, that are more curious than useful."

--Benjamin Franklin, celebrating income equality in "Information to Those Who Would Remove to America"

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

-- President Thomas Jefferson, Letter 1802 to Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power of money should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."

-- President Thomas Jefferson

What I'm talking about is the national myth that the Founders were Libertarian captains of industry or some other such nonsense.

With the exception of the Federalist party, most of the Founders were just as adamant about preventing inequality as they were about individual freedoms. Understanding, of course, as anyone with a brain does, that political freedom is fairly meaningless if you can't exercise it because of economic inequality. They also understood that the basic nature of property is unfair because it isn't always rooted in skill nor does it always reward those who work hard.

This is especially true beyond their time, when instruments of finance, which they were VERY skeptical of, practically own and run out entire society even though they contribute next to nothing.

An important part of being free is having economic agency, which isn't possible so long as you have titanic corporations that control the entire country, which is something the Founders deliberately tried to prevent.

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

--Thomas Jefferson

And, on the issue of the Constitution,

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

--Thomas Jefferson

Most of this is just common sense too.

You can defer to corporate rule if you want to, I'll never accept it.

Like statistics it's perspective that counts. Seems like you two are speaking the same language for the majority of your words.

Corporate rule and the ability of corporations to act with freedom in a capitalist society are different. We need the latter but not the former. If we were to return to the concepts of the founders and the Constitution we would not have a corporate welfare/ influence problem. The government would not have the power due to its limitations. This concept filters down to each and every person. Ditto the preservation of equality. I maintain that equality of opportunity is what the limited government, preservation of the concept of private property and individual freedom is about. What certain circles are seeking today is equality of results illustrated through confiscatory tax policies which takes the lump of income from one pile and spreads it around the entire loaf of bread in the country. Large difference. This accomplishes nothing except to kill incentive.
One of the problems the Confederacy had with the north, indeed, one of the platforms of Lincoln and the Republican party at that time, formerly the Whig party, was the concept of a National Bank. Another was corporate welfare. The Confederate Constitution specifically banned the idea of corporate welfare. Had the South won the struggle perhaps we would have a different, and better, country today. Many who signed the Constitution were back and forth on the powers of the office of the presidency, a national bank etc. Some wanted Washington to be a king. However, what survived was a document, and a concept of limited government that does not permit welfare, individual or corporate. Even a standing army was not well liked by this group. What I replied was just addressing welfare. You have opened a larger door. That's fine but I still am in favor of a limited government as written not a statist philosophy.

Great quotes!

Love the quote duel!

"I maintain that equality of opportunity is what the limited government, preservation of the concept of private property and individual freedom is about."

The quotes I cited directly disagree with you, but ok.

"What certain circles are seeking today is equality of results illustrated through confiscatory tax policies which takes the lump of income from one pile and spreads it around the entire loaf of bread in the country. Large difference. This accomplishes nothing except to kill incentive."

That's exactly what they advocated and no, it doesn't.

If we tax the rich to build schools and roads and infrastructure, that does not "kill incentive." On the contrary, it's an investment into our success that only the government can make. Far from being just an equalizer in terms of mitigating out the unfairness of private systems, it demonstrably improves quality of life for everyone and increases the productive capacity of the economy.

If you need examples, I can provide them. Both hypothetical and actual.

"One of the problems the Confederacy had with the north, indeed, one of the platforms of Lincoln and the Republican party at that time, formerly the Whig party, was the concept of a National Bank. Another was corporate welfare. The Confederate Constitution specifically banned the idea of corporate welfare. Had the South won the struggle perhaps we would have a different, and better, country today. Many who signed the Constitution were back and forth on the powers of the office of the presidency, a national bank etc. Some wanted Washington to be a king. However, what survived was a document, and a concept of limited government that does not permit welfare, individual or corporate. Even a standing army was not well liked by this group. What I replied was just addressing welfare. You have opened a larger door. That's fine but I still am in favor of a limited government as written not a statist philosophy."

Your perception of the South is utterly delusional.

Firstly, Lincoln did not represent the values of most Republicans, and his "greenback" policy made them very nervous precisely because it would make a modern construct like the Federal Reserve useless. So you have to separate those two ideas, Lincoln was very much not a fan of banking interests.

Second, the South was a stratified class society built entirely around slave-ownership, something that it never intended to change so long as it existed. Property qualifications, poll taxes and literacy tests ensured that the poor couldn't even vote, and the 3/5's compromise ensured Slave-Owners received vastly disproportionate representation on the local, state and federal levels. Most people were either out of work or worked niche jobs slaves couldn't work in, because the slave economy destroyed free enterprise and competition, as well as any chance at a consumer class.

Far from being a better place, the United States would be locked into a Balkan-esque situation were the South to have won (which was practically impossible), erupting into war any time the two "nations" disagreed over anything. And since the primary disagreement was about whether or not new states would be admitted as slave or free states, and the Confederacy openly claimed it desired to be a slave empire stretching across to South America, presumably they'd be in conflict all the time.

Moreover, the Confederate model was illegal (none of its heads were elected, secession has no legal basis) and was so incompetent that near the end of the war, some of their -own- states tried to secede (which they hypocritically stopped by force). There's a reason half the South was in open revolt against the Confederacy, and why partisans, guerrillas and bandits were constantly harassing them.

Now, the subsequent era, 1870-1930, proves that the Northern model wasn't a whole lot better. But that's the kind of society you ADVOCATE for.

And since, presumably, you support torture and any number of asinine Bush-era policies, you're far more "statist" than I ever could be, a term which has no meaning outside of the Libertarian false-dilemma fallacy.

Damn sad truth...

Isn't though, EthicalVegan? The media and other powers that be pick our candidates for us. The people really have no say in who they would really want for president.

Actually, while your comment is factual, Adams did not own slaves and Jefferson thought slavery and the slave trade an abomination, so much so that he wrote it into the first draft of the Declaration of Independence and only removed it because of the reality that it would not have gained the votes of the Southern states had it been included at that time. I tend to believe that these men while brilliant and visionary were just as much tied to the times they lived in as we are today. Slavery still exists in parts of the world today, yet what are WE doing to end it? I actually think they wrote the Constitution as a living breathing document in the hope that as time progressed so would the people of this nation, and I firmly believe they would be pleased that the restrictions on freedom that were present even in the wake of our Declaration of Independence had been made more equal. Again, it doesn't absolve them in context for the part they played, but at least they did seek in their own way to open the door to change. Oh, and Jefferson was still correct about the influence of banks.

In some cases voting was predicated on property ownership under the concept that only those who have a stake in the country should have a a say in how it is run. We have made property ownership an easily attainable "right" with the results we are seeing in the real estate crash. Slaves were considered to be personal property. Wealth is relative.

I was surprised to learn in grad school that free black men who owned property could vote in NC in the 1790s. I think the same thing may have been policy in Pennsylvania.

Hamilton wanted a federal bank. The federal reserve bank is different than the bank envisioned by Hamilton. Hamilton thought the federal govt should run the bank, not a group of wealthy self-interested bankers.

The First Bank of the United States was created for a specific purpose and was only charted for 20 years. I might ad that MANY of the founders opposed even it's limited charter.

The origins of central banking in the United States began with the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton developed a plan for a federal banking system to solve the nation's credit problems after the War of Independence. This was controversial. Hamilton's plan, backed by commercial and financial interests centered in the northeastern states, called for the creation of a federal bank to provide credit to government and businesses, and to establish a national currency. The federal bank would act as the government's fiscal agent and provide a safe place to store government funds.

Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson led the opposition to Hamilton’s plan. Jefferson represented the country's agrarian interests, which looked with suspicion at a central government bank and generally favored state over federal powers. He argued that the Constitution did not expressly authorize the federal government to charter a national bank or issue paper currency.

Hamilton, supported by the Federalist Party, won the debate. The First Bank of the United States was chartered in 1791. A bill to re-charter the bank failed in 1811. Without a centralized banking and credit structure, state banks filled the vacuum, issuing a multitude of paper currencies of questionable value. Congress attempted to solve the country's financial problems by chartering the Second Bank of the United States in 1816. This second bank lasted until President Andrew Jackson declared it unconstitutional and vetoed its re-charter in 1836.

Thank you for that good stuff on the early Republic and govt run banks.

Free Banking Era
By 1860, nearly 8,000 state banks were issuing their own currency.
A period known as the Free Banking Era followed the demise of the Second Bank of the United States. Over the next quarter century, U.S. banking was a hodgepodge of state-chartered banks not subject to federal regulation. By 1860, nearly 8,000 state banks operated, each issuing its own paper notes. Some of the more marginal institutions were known as "wildcat banks" supposedly because they maintained offices in remote areas ("where the wildcats are") in order to make it difficult for customers to redeem their notes for precious metals.

The need for reliable financing during the Civil War prompted the passage of the National Banking Act in 1863. The legislation created a uniform national currency and permitted only nationally chartered banks to issue bank notes, but did not create a strong central banking structure.

Financial Panics and Bank Runs
Fearful customers would run to the bank to withdraw money.
As the industrial economy expanded, the weaknesses of the nation’s decentralized banking system became more acute. Bank panics or "runs" occurred frequently. Many banks did not keep enough cash on hand to meet unusually heavy demand. Panics and runs often occurred when customers lost confidence in their banks after hearing news of failures of other banks. Fearful customers would rush to their banks to withdraw money, which often could not meet the sudden demand for cash. That sometimes created a contagion that triggered a succession of bank failures. A particularly severe panic took place in 1907 that abated only when a private individual, the financier J.P. Morgan, personally intervened to arrange emergency loans for financial institutions. This episode fueled a reform movement, which prompted Congress to establish the Federal Reserve System in 1913.

Thank you for this post. I hope everyone will read this and your last post. Very informative as to how we got here.

WE spend more per child than any other country in the world. I dont think more money thrown into a pit is the right solution.

Who told you that? FOX? You are uninformed or lied to or maybe both.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2003-09-16-education-comparison_x.htm

"The United States spent $10,240 per student from elementary school through college in 2000, according to the report. The average was $6,361 among more than 25 nations."

I was looking at this when i said it.

Thanks for the link!! It is a report and not all reports are accurate. Furthermore they do not provide a link to the report which is just bad journalism. I do see that by counting higher education costs, Yes America Spends a lot, but that is not on all children. Here in Oregon, Administration takes a lager potion of the education expenses than is deserved. There are reports about everything and each needs to be vetted because many are written with a foregone conclusion and only present facts that support that conclusion.

DID YOU KNOW… The 33 member countries of
OECD are:
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland,
Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico,
the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United
Kingdom, United States. The European
Commission also participates in the work of the
OECD.

I could not find the report but I think it is probably la-git. I really wanted to read it after doing a bit of research. It counts both public and private money.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/55/45926615.pdf

I did not know that.

Now i know. Thanks for the information.

Granny, it's looking like the most important voters are the stockholders who vote for corporate board members. That's one way the uber- wealthy and uber-corrupt protect themselves from the voting American public...eroding the effective electorate.

I never have.

(OK - Granny is warmed up...will log off and get out of the way when I am through.)

When did we give our votes away? Last time I looked, we the people still have the vote and we get what we ask for. Not voting or not publically supporting a candidate is a good way to know that you will not be happy with government in the future. If you don't think it is important to actively campaign, just look around, see who is in office and what they are doing. WE vote to keep them in or kick them out and keep looking until we find someone who represents the people -us- rather than business. Or not. It is completely up to the American people to look for those who will truly represent us rather than business interests. The people have the vote. Ads and talkingheads cannot take the place of meeting the candidates and looking them in the eye to ask questions like: Will you really represent and work for the people's interests first? Will you pull a bait and switch on us when elected? Why do you want to represent us?
Our representation cannot serve two masters; they are elected to represent us! Only us. We must demand it! We need to ask every candidate what they have done for us, what they plan on doing in our name, and exactly how they plan to do it. No doubletalk or mis-speak allowed. Straight answers.
Why do our elected officials listen to lobbyists, bankers and Wall Street, and party headquarters first? Because we elect the kind of people who do that. Do we really want to give our power over to a few? Business loves our tax dollars and they will step on us to get them out of our pockets thru our government.

We need our own Egyptian Spring here in the USA! The only thing wrong with our system is government IS the calibur of people we are electing. Government represents the people and cannot be "owned" unless we allow it. Government is our tool and we have allowed business to participate in it where it is not business' place to be involved. We have bailed business out of a deep hole which it dug for itself and then we get kicked down by business over and over again as thanks? Some thanks. Some reach and effort to return the favor! Why should we lay down and not fight to keep business out of our government? We have the right. We have the Law. We will pay for no more business bailouts. Where is our will? Who else is there to do it but us on election day? V-O-T-E!!!

(Hint: only vote for those who will vote for campaign reform -the basis of our strength- and can clearly state their reasons why. We know when things ring true only when we listen.)

Granny, I haven't missed an election local or national in 45 years. I agree with you, but I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, and that's all that's left on the ballots after the uber-rich owned media get through publicly eviscerating any candidate honest enough to stand up to our "captains" of industry. "Citizens United" by the scotus made it painfully clear that our "free" elections are everything but free.

Someone actually voted DOWN your intelligent comment. There's a really, really ignorant person ("white people") out there.

Actually, they've been here for thousands if not tens of thousands of years. Our species has only been around for about 200,000 years max, originating in Africa and spreading very slowly from there. Try reading a book or at least googling a few facts before you make self-righteous half-educated posts.

Thank you for coming to my defense EV.
I'm actually surprised that I don't get voted down more often.
I am a white person (Scots-Irish-German with a little Cherokee in the mutt mix).
I am proud to be a mutt.
The small part of American Indian in me is dominant thanks to my Irish blood.
The Medicine Wheel makes more sense to me than anything -- white to the north, yellow to the east, red to the south and black to the west. The lesson of the Medicine Wheel is integration.
But the northern whites think we're somehow chosen by god to dominate.
What is troubling is that yellow, black and red are following our white bad example.
Yet I have faith in the Great Spirit and see a day when the contribution of all races will be acknowledged.
Meanwhile I feel sorry for white people who think we are so special and superior.
We have created this rude awakening with our lazy lifestyles.
The time has come when we must understand the simpler lifestyle of indiginous cultures of go extinct.
We white people don't like to contemplate this fact but it is nonetheless true.

Are you sure you are not Debra? I sensed a lot of racial self loathing in this post. You keep using the words "White People" as if we are a monolith in thought and action.

No need to be rude. I think if you did more research yourself you would find we don't know the facts of our own history. Printed history can not be taken at face value.

The people that were in control at the start of this nation are still in control today. All the talk about freedom and unalienable rights is right on beautiful prose, but was intended only to make the populous feel considered so they would get on board with revolution. The powerful families of Europe were right there behind the curtain setting up the real control mechanisms...their names are still on the institutions they started for this cause, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Lehman Bros....etc. The only time they lost control was with FDR, also the only time we almost had a coup in this country. The history is there to find, but not in American text books.

We all come from the same seeds, so that makes us all mutts. Unfortunately the arrogance of some who feel superior to the rest of humanity make it difficult for the human race to live as one.
This will make it that much harder for the human race to survive......It's the ME,ME,ME,ME attitude that somehow dominates a lot humanity today.

Unfortunately that arrogance and ignorance has spread across the globe to all races and creeds. However, I know what you mean. We came to these shores with every intention of conquering it all and didn't have a clue as to the challenges we would face. If not for the help of those indigenous people here already, many more would have died. However, those on the whole who came here did not appreciate that help nor the true riches here either, and sought to take it all... and they're still doing it.

Clearly I have joined a community that lacks critical thinking skills.

This was exactly my point, wolfenhawk. "Native Americans" have definitely been in the Americas for thousands of years, and possibly for tens of thousands. I don't know what documentary you watched, but there is evidence that the Clovis people might have been here as early as 40 to 50 thousand years ago. No evidence, however, suggests that they have been here for "hundreds of thousands of years" as coolplanet suggests. That's just plain old wrong.

None of this has anything to do with who is a "better" civilization, so the rest of your comment is entirely off topic. Thanks for making yourself feel all cool and smart, though.

Learn how to spell indigenous, especially if you're going to go around spouting this type of generic BS.

Do you actually know anything about your tribe, its specific history, mythology, traditions, etc? Or do you just like to pat yourself on the back because one of your distant ancestors wasn't European?

Wow. How incredibly original. Seriously, up until this point I believed every word I read in history books without even thinking about it. Thanks for shedding such a clear light on the situation.

Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand, but really, thank you so much for your 14-year-old wisdom!

"The people that were in control at the start of this nation are still in control today."

Zombies! AAAAAAHHHHH!

You need not hold onto such condescension if you hope people will listen to your words. I said you were being rude and you still are. You must be for humanity if you are responding with such emotion...I think you'd find we can all agree for something better than our known past or present.

Excellent comment. I'm a pollock who married a german, and I'm also a witch (who isn't afraid to use poppets :-)!!

Get a clue! His last sentence; We white people don't like to contemplate this fact but it is nonetheless true.
See that? WE WHITE PEOPLE ...

I know, for some reason we take ownership of any piece of land we come accross that does not have a name or a piece of paper attached to it. In essence Mother Eearth belongs to Mother Earth and we humans should respect that fact and take care of her not abuse her for she can fight back with a mighty powerful strike.

Sure, we can agree that something better is needed. The way to achieve that something better, however, is not to post ignorant self-righteous platitudes that have been repeated in one form or another for millennia. Actually examining the real facts of our current situation and of our history in order to develop practical and achievable changes/solutions would be nice, but this is clearly a place devoted to patting each other on the back for having the same ideas that everyone has in their adolescence and refusing to move beyond them. Have fun with your circle jerk.

you said jerk first man...good luck

Louis Leakey Sr. -- Father of Paleoanthropology -- believed in the last decade of his life that fully modern homo sapien sapiens evolved in North America some 500,000 years ago based upon his excavations and finds at Calico Hills, California, funded by the National Geographic Society.
There is a great book about this entitled American Genesis by Jeffrey Goodman, PhD (1980).

THANK YOU!!!

And he should know. The Trail of Tears he condoned is a stain on the history of this country.

Hear, hear!!!!!!!!

Ron Paul was preaching this BEFORE Congressman Kucinich was out of Junior High. Nice to see others coming around however.

Oh my, neener neener.

Your timing is incredulous, Incredulous!

Not kidding.... Only seconds earlier, I saw some of your other posts, and was going to write to you to tell you how very much I ALWAYS appreciate your wonderful contributions and comments.

So I came back to this topic, just for a second, and you'd already written here, as well!

So.... PUBLICLY.... I ALWAYS appreciate your wonderful contributions and comments.

thanks ev, and I appreciate your comments as well....and I especially appreciate the stories you post. I find myself with less time to do that, but dearly appreciate those on current who keep us well informed.

Me too! At this point it will be Kucinich or Bernie Sanders as a write-in for me in 2012. And all of the donations that would have gone to the Democratic andidates will go to the ACLU....unless Sanders or Kucinich actually throw their hat into the ring, then it's "feet, don't fail me now!" I'm off to volunteer in a heartbeat.

I also like Bernie & Kucinich, however we have to be smart with our votes, we have to keep Obama on for another 4 years and in the process try to take back the house and increase the senate majority. Then in 2016 Kucinich and Bernie can run as a team.

We need more progressives in the Senate. The current crop is small. The House is a complete dysfunctional mess under this speaker; big money rule. Obama, from what i have been hearing is rather cut off from the progressive views of Bernie and Dennis. Somehow WE must get a message through to him to quit playing to the right and start supporting justice for people instead of kickbacks for corporations and bankers and weapon dealers.