The major part of that last item was just another comment to SANE regarding my disappointment that SANE had yet to come up with anything other than not voting as a way out of the problem. Not voting seemed to me, again, to be contributing to the problem rather than resolving it, if our ultimate aim really is a return to basics, or as nearly as possible to our original American Constitutional Republic. A literal reading of the Constitution and the first Ten Amendments shows at once the intended distribution of powers and the pre-ordained Constitutional limitations on the wide-open Democracy toward which we seem to be inexorably moving. Some took exception to that comment, and carried the discussion on as follows:

From: Mike Rodney
Date: Wed, December 20, 2006, 11:34 AM
Subject: NuVo
Comments:

In regard to the communication from Mr. Biorseth NuVo is not "fatally flawed" because men can discriminate etc. The point you state --that NuVo opposes voting because any vote for any one or policy cannot fail to affirm the world State --is what you must refute. Your objections are not responsive to that point, i.e., the point that the order of democratic action, such as voting, is itself preparatory to the World State; is "totalitarianism in the resting phase." NuVo, and the site overall, make this point in every possible way. This, in particularity but if you wish, too, overall, is what you must refute. I've followed this series closely. It is very tight and sound.

Mike Rodney

From: Lyman Victor Biorseth
Date: Wed, December 20, 2006, 12:55 PM
Subject: NuVo 11
Comment:

Mr. Rodney:

Regarding the point that voting represents ”totalitarianism in the resting phase”; please, let’s just put that point aside for the moment.

Look at the SANE Mission Statement; most particularly, the line that says:

So at its core, SANE is dedicated to the rejection of democracy and party rule and a return to a constitutional republic, with a vibrant and real federalism at work, providing for an Executive that can execute its mandate to lead the country, a legislature limited to legislating and to its other enumerated powers, and a court system fully reined in to adjudicate facts before the law and not to legislate by judicial fiat.

If that’s wrong, and SANE actually rejects all citizen rights to vote, always and everywhere, then let’s clearly state it so, out loud and out in the open.

And if that’s not the case, then, what, exactly, is hoped to be gained by nobody in America voting? Certainly not “a return to (our original) constitutional republic, . . . “ as stated in the SANE Mission Statement.

So where, exactly, are we going with NuVo?

Regards,

Vic

From: Mike Rodney
Date: Thu, December 21, 2006, 06:24 AM
Subject: voting
Comment:

I have been asked to justify the SANE mission statement. Favoring a constitutional republic thereby implying voting, SANE's opposition to voting is found ambiguous or perhaps even a contradiction.

Not being a party to SANE or its mission statement, but a strong convert to NuVo, I'd say if this is the best you can come up with it's not much. The Founders were famously troubled about the notion of seeing their Revolution turned into a circus (as it has been). The World State aspect was clear to everyone just around the corner in French Terror --a penchant and affliction it's never lost as being cheek by jowl with the modern basis. Again, the NuVo opposition to voting is it cannot produce other than an affirmation of a World State. The Founders or Framers went as far as they dared --and it was obvious, in effect immediately that they'd gone too far. And the worst offenders were the yeoman limosine liberals of the day, starting with Jefferson, and then on to his quandom pal Burr.

As to what SANE had in mind about the U.S. starting point as an end point, I can't say. The Voting aspect is perceptible as itself a block to the World State, that is, to centralization or what came about with the Civil War. The bottom line is there is no traction in objection to NuVo based in the SANE mission statement!!

Anyhow, my suggestion to this man (who so badly wants or needs to vote, is): vote and be done with it.

The field is now his.

All the best,

Mike

From: Vic Biorseth
Date: Thu, December 21, 2006, 08:32 AM
Subject: NuVo 11
Comment:

Mr. Rodney:

Let me reiterate: the Problem as laid out by SANE is accurately portrayed, and I concede all points regarding the existence, nature and danger of the Problem. I have no quarrel with the Problem. It is only the Solution I am addressing.

So I’m not sure where you’re coming from when you say “If this is the best you can come up with it’s not much.” I’m an action kind of guy. I have no interest in redefining or disqualifying the basic premise, which I agree with. My only interest is in finding a real, practical and viable solution to the problem; a solution at which to aim my website, my readers and myself.

I do not desperately need to vote nearly so much as I desperately need to see a practical and realistic way out of this conundrum.

You indicate that “the Founders and Framers went as far as they dared,” indicating (I think) that they really intended some sort of dictatorship rather than a Republic; where is there any evidence of that? I’ve got quite a collection of the writings of the Founders, and I have never seen any such indication.

A free voting populace was and is an absolutely required component of the Constitutional Republic as created by the Founders, and as aimed at in the mission statement of SANE. NuVo has been saying so far, and you have solidly confirmed, that we should all stop voting. My only question is, to what end?

How, exactly, are our Executives and Legislators to come into office? Who appoints them? You? If not you, then who? I do not reject NuVo out of hand; but practicality says this cannot be all. I need to know where this is leading; surely SANE has more to say about this.

My last question remains unanswered: where, exactly are we going with NuVo?

Regards,

Vic