Posted on 06/13/2009 6:07:43 PM PDT by nuconvert
Saturday, June 13th, 2009
Today the world is witnessing the demonstrated anger of millions of Iranians against a regime that denies their most basic rights, including the right to choose leaders who could improve their abysmal condition.
There is no exit from this condition, so long as one man appropriates onto himself the “power of god” and controls the judiciary, the media, the security forces and, through direct and indirect appointees dictates the only candidates claiming to represent an impoverished and disenfranchised people.
Today I stand united with my fellow Iranians and call for the end of the Islamic Republic, or any other prefix in front of the name of my beloved Iran that indicates theocracy or any other form of disregard for democratic and human rights.
I caution the world that offering any incentives or “carrots” to the theocracy under these circumstances is an affront to the people of Iran. This is not a time for short-sighted, self-defeating tactical games. This is the time for the free world to stand true to its principals and support the people of Iran’s quest for democracy and human rights.
ping
snip:
There is no exit from this condition, so long as one man appropriates onto himself the “power of god” and controls the judiciary, the media, the security forces and, through direct and indirect appointees dictates the only candidates claiming to represent an impoverished and disenfranchised people.
Gee, that sounds familiar...
Remember the other day, Obama said that Iran was having a vigorous debate as they conducted their elecions. And he hoped that we would engage with them better afterwards, no matter who won the election.
Off topic a bit, but does anyone else think Bush was right about the Axis of Evil? We took care of Iraq, but Iran and North Korea have both been lots of trouble recently. Does anyone have confidence in Obama’s ability to deal with these trouble spots in the world? Did Saul Alinsky’s playbook give instructions on how you deal with such problems? Or does Obama only know how to deal with domestic political enemies?
Sadly this is how it all starts.
“Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”— Josef Stalin
pong
Pahlavi ping
We seem to be observing the same here.
Ping
nice job Jimmy Carter. We are still paying for this.
“Gee, that sounds familiar...”
Yes it does.
Thanks for the ping Ali Veritas.
Carter’s support of Islamic radicalism via undercutting the Shah led directly to any number of events, including the Beirut Marine barracks bombing, WTC 1, the Cole, and 9/11.
Imho, what was done to the Shah was intentional by the US and part of a far reaching and long range policy.
How’s that working out for us?/s
Jimmy Carter, the Jew hater, is almost single-handedly responsible for the rise of radical Islam. He turned his back on the Shah and encouraged the return of the fanatical Khomeini from France. Until the election of Obama, Carter has been the worst president in US history.
The State Department went renegade and still is. There’s a force there, somewhere, no doubt. As always, follow the $$.
If you recall, in the story last week where a State Dept official and his wife were arrested for spying for Cuba for 30 years .. he had mocked President Bush and got the ole wink and nod from his State Dept colleagues.
And no coverage in the US media. Our biggest enemy is flailing and we sleep.
If Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi was a freeper, he'd probably be flamed by the "we're not a democracy" crowd on FR who claim that having a "Republic" is always a good thing, and having a "democracy" is always a bad thing and leads to "mob rule" (though they seem to have plenty of mobs in their current Republic)
The Ayatollah transformed Iran from a Kingdom into a Republic. So he's a great guy, right?
We should hope the Iranian constitution gives Imanutjob power to unilaterally appoint all his fellow nutjobs to the Iranian legislature. Then they'd have an even better Republic!
Can't allow dreaded democracy in these dictatorships!
Iran Azadi, Reza
Yep.
May God protect them . . . and us.
The Shah had re-instated the same Parliament that his predecessor, Mossadeq had dissolved, while Mossadeq was well on his way to becoming a communist-leaning dictator.
The form of Parliamentary Monarchy re-established by the return of the Shah, is much like the British model was, in times past.
I say was, since now, the British Monarchy seems as much a figurehead, as anything else...
No one had a snow balls chance in hell to win against Amajinnynut.
Change_for_Iranfrom the looks of it they are waiting to arrest all the students! it’s also explains the vans
half a minute ago from web
goparchitectRT @ProgGrrl “Andrew Sullivan: “The Revolution Will Be Twittered” http://bit.ly/yj0dx “ #IranElection #tcot
less than a minute ago from web
WOTNRT @naseemfaqihi: Zahra Rahnavard, wife of Mousavi: “The results of the elections are completely contrary to reality” #iranelections
Today, the world is quiet a different place. There's nothing at special about being a "Republic" anymore, since the vast majority of nations have set up their states as Republics. There are 135 Republics in the world today. Whether a Republic is "good" or not depends on what type of government they have. In Iran's case, they established an oppressive theocratic Islamic Republic, so the case can be made they were better off under a figurehead monarchy that was friendly to western nations and respected human rights. I would also say France was a far friendly ally to Americans when they were a Kingdom than any time during their status as a "Republic"
Likewise, having a "King" does not bring forth the dreaded fear it did 300-400 years ago, since most of the remaining monarchies in the world have replaced their form of government so the "reigning monarch" is only a figurehead. As you noted, most nations like Iran just followed the British model. In today's world, the number of remaining monarchies where the King has strong control of the nation's affairs can be counted on one hand. I believe the current number of absolute monarchies in the world consists of three nations.
The United States is not an oppressive dictatorship precisely because we have a much stronger democracy than Iran does. Therefore, the freepers who claim democracy is bad and leads to "mob rule" have it backwards. These "conservatives" sound like communist overlords of China the way they scorn about how terrible it is to let the public decide things. The United States is a representative democratic republic, and that's why we enjoy freedoms that the theocratic Islamic republic of Iran doesn't. Their amount of democracy is extremely limited and subject to the Ayatollahs whims.
The freepers who claim that a "Republic" and a "Democracy" are separate, competing forms of government are also talking the B.S. The United States clearly has both. Saying you can't have democracy and keep your Republic is like saying you can't have capitalism and keep your Republic. "Democracy" is a type of government. "Republic" is a type of nation-state. It's perfectly possible for both to co-exist within an organization country.
It's true that DIRECT democracy leads to "tribal rule", but since no modern civilized nation on earth has established "direct democracy" as their form of government, the idea that the U.S. in "danger" of becoming one is ridiculous.
The difference between a democracy and a republic is that a democracy is governance by the people, and a republic is governance by law.
Neither is good nor bad in and of itself, it is how they are implemented.
The French Revolution was a democracy all right and fit the definition, just as one could make the argument that Iran is a republic. A democracy ruled by a mob is no better than a republic ruled by tyrannical laws.
The point I am making is that if you want to apply the labels literally, what you seem to be implying is simply wrong. One can make the argument that the USA is a republic just as Iran is a republic, but there is not question that how they are implemented in each case is completely different, and that is significant.
The United States is both. We are a democratic Republic. We are governed by a constitution and laws, which are enacted by representatives elected by the people.
>> Neither is good nor bad in and of itself, it is how they are implemented. <<
On that point you are correct.
>> A democracy ruled by a mob is no better than a republic ruled by tyrannical laws. <<
True, except the freepers claiming America is in "danger" of becoming a direct democracy run by mob rule have yet to point to any modern civilized country that has adapted pure democracy as their form of government.
>> The point I am making is that if you want to apply the labels literally, what you seem to be implying is simply wrong. <<
I am making the point that freepers who argue that the U.S. is much better off as a "republic" with no democracy are simply wrong, and Iran is proof of that. A Republic by itself is not inherently a good thing.
>> how they are implemented in each case is completely different, and that is significant. <<
I can clearly make the case of Republics who have implemented harmful, oppressive dictatorship governments, where the "democracy is bad" crowd has yet to point to any example around the world of democracy ruining a nation. I agree direct democracy won't work, but disagree that the U.S. is headed in that direction (it will be a cold day in hell before Congress decides they can't pass a stimulus without all 300 million Americans voting on it first, for example). I find it highly unlikely any major nation is about to adapt tribal rule and give "the people" absolute power. I would argue our current republic needs more democracy, NOT less.
(Okay not so quick... but I'd like to see him one day as formal head of state, like the real constitution requires. More important however is the total removal of the Ahmadinejad government and the mullah regime.)
Clue phone for Mr. Palavi.
The “Free” world is not free anymore.
They support the despotic regime in Iran, because the “free” world now consists of despotic leftist regimes.
Totalitarian-Statism is the new “Liberal” paradigm of the 21st Century.
You have him figured out too. Now if only the rest of America can to.
Foreign policy to Obama is JUST A DISTRACTION
bump to the top
I haven't seen anyone make that argument, and if I do, then I will most certainly jump on them. We are a representative democracy.
I don't think we disagree. Right now, we are living in a theocracy...a LIBERAL theocracy. We DO need more democratic involvement. We are cut off from our representatives, which is something the founding fathers were justifiably concerned with.
All the lefties are bringing back the arguments from 2004 putting a Farsi spin on them, but I doubt the little guy lost. Its too bad the Iranians have such a poor spokesman and that the mullahs are stuck in the mud, but George Soros still sucks.
Specifically, they strenuously object to the constitutional amendment allowing individual citizens to elect Senators rather than government bureaucrats. They claim this has lead to the "downfall" of America and all the problems in the U.S. Senate can be blamed on voters choosing the Senators. They claim this is an example of "direct democracy" and mob rule (you can see examples on this very thread), when in fact the U.S. Senate is a representative body --- each Senator represents hundreds of thousands of people -- that is far removed from "directly" allowing citizens to pass any laws. They insist crooked government bureaucrats would appoint far superior Senators and that we can't trust ordinary citizens to make that decision.
They also strenuously object to other reforms allowing more democracy, like direct initiative and recall, claiming this is all part of an evil plot to "destroy the Republic", part of an evil scheme from 1913.
Personally I think those "conservatives" might want to spent a few months living in the "worker's paradise" of the Republic of Cuba, since they detest the idea of representative "democracy" so much.
Your summary of the issues and changes wrought by the 17th is inaccurate.
Most free republic concerns in that area are due to having the Senators no longer sensitive to the issues of the individual state that sent them, but instead thinking of a higher publlic “general will” and being less regional.
Representative government with very very diverse forms of democratic processes giving the various members to the government is defended in the Federalist Papers, I don’t need to do it here. The limitations of Parlimentary Democracy, or worse, pure democracy, can be debated if you want us to switch to it. Find a supporting article and post it and please ping me.
It was no small chance that the Federal income tax and the 17th came at about the same time.
Those Freepers who argue we are not a democracy are correct as far as that goes. We are a representative democracy in the framework of a Constitutional Republic.
However, those detractors of the 17th amendment have valid points, but I would say that is because of the weakening of state’s rights, not because it makes a more direct nod towards pure democracy. That is the context I have seen discussions in.
The original purpose was that senators would be the direct representatives of the state governments at the Federal level and ensure the state’s interests were represented. That was diluted (in their opinion, and I agree) by the passage of the 17th Amendment.
That is their issue and why many of them think the 17th Amendment should be repealed. To them, it is a state rights issue, and they are pretty passionate about it.
I think they should be. We all should be.
What we see here as a culmination of the last 75 years is a Federal Government out of control, and the states have no say in affairs now.
I disagree with that. Senators invoke "the will" of their state interests all the time in justifying their votes, from Robert Byrd, to the two Marxists from California, to John Thune (who held up the Bolton nomination nationally solely to blackmail the government into giving his state an airforce base), and so on. Furthermore, you mention the two houses were designed to represent separate constituencies. Congressman specifically are there to represent "regional" interests, regardless of what the Senate does.
>> It was no small chance that the Federal income tax and the 17th came at about the same time. <<
Huh? The federal income tax was the 16th amendment, not the 18th. By that very numbering, it was therefore passed into law by a a state-legislature appointed Senate that represented "state interests", NOT an popularly elected Senate. Your argument makes as much sense as saying "it was no accident that Judaism was big in the Roman empire when Jesus started preaching"
>> However, those detractors of the 17th amendment have valid points, but I would say that is because of the weakening of state’s rights, not because it makes a more direct nod towards pure democracy. That is the context I have seen discussions in. <<
I have seen the "states rights" argument, I have also seen freepers argue a popularly elected Senate is "direct democracy" and will result in "mob rule", which I think is total B.S. and which you will probably agree with (after all, the House of Representatives has been elected by that method since 1789)
>> To them, it is a state rights issue, and they are pretty passionate about it. <<
If the 17th amendment replaced a state legislature appointed senate with a Presidential-appointed U.S. Senate, I could see their alarm that the "federal government" is taking away power at the expense of the states. Instead, they express alarm at individual citizens taking power away from the states. Since when it is conservative to prefer power in the hands of government officials than individual citizens? Don't we want to REDUCE government middle men? I don't trust big government at the local, state, OR federal level. Government exists to do what people cannot do for themselves. That's a basic tenant of conservativism 101. I certainly believe "we the people" can choose our representatives rather than have big government do it for us.
>> the states have no say in affairs now. <<
Completely disagree. I live in a state (Illinois) with a huge, mammoth, overreaching STATE government, that routinely pokes their nose into every conceivable situation they can think of, and has enormous power of the lives of its citizens, regardless of who is running the federal government or what laws the feds pass.
For example, our last governor issued an executive order forcing Illinois pharmaceuticals to dispense abortion pills or their pharmacies would be shut down by state officials. That's a tyrannical law in effect solely at the state level, regardless of what going on in the other 49 states, or at the federal government with pharmacies.
Furthermore, our state and local government not only pass all kinds of powerful laws with legislation that the feds give them authority over, but even pass overreaching laws that VIOLATE federal laws, with absolutely no "interference" from the supposedly all-powerful oppressive federal government (again, regardless of what party is in power at the federal level). For example, federal law CLEARLY states that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, and this has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be interpreted as a individual right. This federal law is violated in Illinois on a daily basis, as the local Chicago government has passed its own laws to ban all handguns within city limits. The federal government has done nothing to force Chicago to comply with the 2nd amendment. How about federal law on immigration? State and local government routinely ignore national immigration laws and declare themselves "sanctuary cities". And our last governor even took a taxpayer funded trip to Cuba and hammered out his own "Illinois-Cuba trade agreement" to sell farming goods to Castro, as if he had the powers of a U.S. ambassador to make treaties with foreign nations. The U.S. constitution CLEARLY states that NO state can engage in "trade compacts with a foreign power" unless they get the consent of Congress first. I seem to have missed when he went to the federal government, spoke before Congress, and was granted permission to conduct trade relations with our avowed enemy nation Cuba.
And should I even get into state and local city councils arrogance in passing "resolutions" demanding the feds follow their beliefs on national matters that don't pertain to states and cities? Do you know how many city and local governments passed "anti-war" resolutions during the Iraq war to undermine the federal government's position on the matter? You don't see the federal retaliate by passing meaningless "resolutions" advising those cities how to conduct their local affairs like garbage clean-up, do you?
I strongly disagree that states have no power in their own affairs now and we need to increase the power of state governments. I believe most state governments, like the federal government, are far too overreaching already and need to be drastically reduced. States like California, New York, Illinois, etc., etc., are anything but weak and powerless.
If we go by the logic that the 17th amendment is bad because it transferred power away from states and into individual citizens, then we better abolish the 2nd amendment too. Right now, individual citizens have the right to decide for themselves whether they can keep and bear arms, regardless of how their state legislatures feel about it. If we abolish the 2nd amendment, then we'd enpower "states rights" to regulate guns as they see fit. In fact, you could make a case that most amendments took away "states rights" to do whatever they want. How about abolishing the 13th too? Prior to it passing, we had "states rights" to decide whether or not human beings can enslave other human beings. And by abolishing the 1st amendment, individuals would no longer be able to decide for themselves if they can speak out and print newspapers. We would enpower "states rights" to determine at the state level whether their citizens have those rights.
I fail to see how giving state government total control over these matters and taking it way from "the people" is in any way a positive step for America. I don't want states to have "right" to determine whether I can own guns, go to church, make speeches, and decide who will represent me in Washington.
So, you are a total Federalist then? Why don’t you just say so and be done with it?
It’s kinda ironic to see Iranians riled up about this Presidential election since it really doesn’t matter too much. The clerics are in charge no matter who wins the elections.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.