Joe Mason for President 2012 – Strong Criticism of Obama’s Record

On By southwerkIn business ethics

This video was not discovered by me but by James Fallows at The Atlantic. Here’s his take on the video –

The main complaint in this video is that Obama’s “conciliatory” and “reasonable” approach, far from being wise and strategically far-seeing, has proven to be simply weak and vacillating. This is related to the “chess master, or pawn?” debate about Obama’s strategy from earlier this summer.

(You should read all of Mr. Fallows comments. It’s a good essay.)

After listening to the video I was impressed. However, I am a little surprised at Joe Mason’s lack of a web footprint. For a would be presidential candidate, he barely exists in the world of the Internet. If my count is correct, I will be the third web site to feature this video. Please watch it now (just click on it).

Joe Mason for President 2012: Democratic Party Re-Nomination of Obama Challenged

(The Joe Mason video is also featured on Vote Third Party. Currently, the Joe Mason Campaign is apparently almost entirely a You Tube site.)

Whatever form, the Joe Mason campaign takes, it has a powerful criticism of the President’s leadership style. Many feel including myself that the President is a poor negotiator with few fixed beliefs of any importance.

Should this generate a primary challenge?

Absolutely.

Currently the Democratic Party essentially offers voters one thing only – they are not Republicans. Apparently, many Democrats think this is enough. They are so confident in this strategy that they toss their allies particularly Progressives and Liberals over the side with regularity and contempt. Further, they are absent any ideas on how to help the great middle class survive the current cycle of economic catastrophe.

The President is a pure example of this. The main and most effective threats as well as a flurry of vicious insults of his Presidency have been delivered to the liberal wing of the Democratic party to force them to get in line. They are apparently the only recipients of this kind of treatment, the Republicans hearing little but kind words.

You see, to politicians like Obama, those who have voted for the Democrats in the past have nowhere to go. Obviously, they have to vote for him, so they can be treated with disdain.

The fear of Rick Perry, Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann will bring the reluctant party faithful crawling back on their hands and knees to the only “adult in the room.”

I don’t believe that.

We don’t have to vote for Barack Obama and a good way to let him know that is a primary challenge.

The only way that Progressives and Liberals are going to have an effective say is when these kinds of politicians are humiliated at the polls and ridiculed by the party faithful.

As long as the Progressive wing of the party votes without question for a candidate there is no influence. He who can destroy a thing has power. There are easily enough Progressive voters whose defection would defeat Democrats at the polls.

That will be painful.

But is it as painful as watching Barack Obama yield time and again to the enemies of the Middle Class? Would it be as painful as having huge, almost without precedent, majorities in the House and Senate frittered away on half measures and simple inaction for two full years? Would it be as painful as watching the nation’s first real chance at health care reform thrown away for a surrender to the drug and insurance companies modeled on an old Heritage Foundation idea? Would it be as bad as watching the President ignore campaign promise after campaign promise, these superficial promises apparently only made to bamboozle the left-wing of the party to vote for him? Would it be as bad as watching a financial élite who plunged this nation into recession be rescued with taxpayer funds from their own folly?

I tell you truly, it is awful to watch the political victories of your enemies. But there is something worse, and that is to see the people you elected, you worked for, you believed in, act against your interest and call it victory.

James Pilant

Related articles

5 thoughts on “Joe Mason for President 2012 – Strong Criticism of Obama’s Record”

  1. Thought provoking. It’s unfortunate that we aren’t seeing and hearing more about this third alternative. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the country right now and ultimately, if something doesn’t change, and change drastically, the outrage we have witnessed in Wisconsin is going to spread across the country–and rightfully so. Mr. Mason has well articulated what many of us feel. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

    Like

    1. HonoH Tron

      《山海經》有記載，在神州和東海蓬萊之間有一座海底仙山，隋唐以來，日本、高麗循海路來中原進貢的使臣和留學生，以及唐、宋、明、清歷代東渡扶桑的中華人士都目睹過蘇岩，並留下文獻記載，歷史古籍更確認蘇岩礁屬於中國無誤。

      清末民初，中國的地質學、地理學進步後，專家更證實蘇岩礁位於東海大陸架上，是中國大陸海床的一部分。

      清末民初，中國的地質學、地理學進步後，專家更證實蘇岩位於東海大陸架上，是中國大陸海床的一部分。它位於中國領海和二百海里專屬經濟區內，是中國領土，外國無權在蘇岩礁上建築前進基地，更無權在其周邊海域開採石油，霸佔該島礁就是侵犯中國領土主權的完整。

      宏觀來看，朝鮮半島狹小，三面環海，朝鮮人自古就有「北拓精神」，向與中國接壤的北部拓邊移民是擴大疆域的唯一選擇，近代在日據朝鮮時期，朝鮮邊民越界到偽滿洲國吉林一帶開墾，就是一例證；

      那以後，韓國開始向東拓展領域，在日本海與日本爭奪獨島，採取先佔原則，日本居下風，韓國成功開闢了東疆。如今，韓國又開始擴張南疆的領土，強硬而迅速先佔為主。

      從微觀看，韓國想將蘇岩礁築成人工島，而後根據國際海洋法，在中國東海、黃海圈出一塊相當於法國大小的一片海域，屬於韓國，目的是劫掠東海漁業礦產，覬覦海底石油資源。

      中國失去蘇岩礁後海域縮小，大面積海洋國土淪喪，東海和黃海與韓國對半分都分不到，空域也被連帶壓縮，防空識別區拱手讓給韓國。

      漁民丟失漁場，漁業發展受到制約，海軍只能在沿岸近海游弋，成了海岸巡邏隊，最重要的是海底石油財富全給韓國人搶去了。

      Like

  3. vokoyo

    International Recognition Of China’s Sovereignty over the Nansha Islands

    1. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Northern Island

    (a) China Sea Pilot compiled and printed by the Hydrography Department of the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom in 1912 has accounts of the activities of the Chinese people on the Nansha Islands in a number of places.

    (b) The Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong) carried an article on Dec. 31 of 1973 which quotes the British High Commissioner to Singapore as having said in 1970: “Spratly Island (Nanwei Island in Chinese) was a Chinese dependency, part of Kwangtung Province… and was returned to China after the war. We can not find any indication of its having been acquired by any other country and so can only conclude it is still held by communist China.”

    2. France

    (a) Le Monde Colonial Illustre mentioned the Nansha Islands in its September 1933 issue. According to that issue, when a French gunboat named Malicieuse surveyed the Nanwei Island of the Nansha Islands in 1930, they saw three Chinese on the island and when France invaded nine of the Nansha Islands by force in April 1933, they found all the people on the islands were Chinese, with 7 Chinese on the Nanzi Reef, 5 on the Zhongye Island, 4 on the Nanwei Island, thatched houses, water wells and holy statues left by Chinese on the Nanyue Island and a signboard with Chinese characters marking a grain storage on the Taiping Island.

    (b) Atlas International Larousse published in 1965 in France marks the Xisha, Nansha and Dongsha Islands by their Chinese names and gives clear indication of their ownership as China in brackets.

    3. Japan

    (a) Yearbook of New China published in Japan in 1966 describes the coastline of China as 11 thousand kilometers long from Liaodong Peninsula in the north to the Nansha Islands in the south, or 20 thousand kilometers if including the coastlines of all the islands along its coast;

    (b) Yearbook of the World published in Japan in 1972 says that Chinese territory includes not only the mainland, but also Hainan Island, Taiwan, Penghu Islands as well as the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands on the South China Sea.

    4. The United States

    (a) Columbia Lippincott World Toponymic Dictionary published in the United States in 1961 states that the Nansha Islands on the South China Sea are part of Guangdong Province and belong to China.

    (b) The Worldmark Encyclopaedia of the Nations published in the United States in 1963 says that the islands of the People’s Republic extend southward to include those isles and coral reefs on the South China Sea at the north latitude 4°.

    (c) World Administrative Divisions Encyclopaedia published in 1971 says that the People’s Republic has a number of archipelagoes, including Hainan Island near the South China Sea, which is the largest, and a few others on the South China Sea extending to as far as the north latitude 4°, such as the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands.

    5. Viet Nam

    (a) Vice Foreign Minister Dung Van Khiem of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam received Mr. Li Zhimin, charge d’affaires ad interim of the Chinese Embassy in Viet Nam and told him that “according to Vietnamese data, the Xisha and Nansha Islands are historically part of Chinese territory.” Mr. Le Doc, Acting Director of the Asian Department of the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry, who was present then, added that “judging from history, these islands were already part of China at the time of the Song Dynasty.”

    (b) Nhan Dan of Viet Nam reported in great detail on September 6, 1958 the Chinese Government’s Declaration of September 4, 1958 that the breadth of the territorial sea of the People’s Republic of China should be 12 nautical miles and that this provision should apply to all territories of the People’s Republic of China, including all islands on the South China Sea. On September 14 the same year, Premier Pham Van Dong of the Vietnamese Government solemnly stated in his note to Premier Zhou Enlai that Viet Nam “recognizes and supports the Declaration of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on China’s territorial sea.”

    (c) It is stated in the lesson The People’s Republic of China of a standard Vietnamese school textbook on geography published in 1974 that the islands from the Nansha and Xisha Islands to Hainan Island and Taiwan constitute a great wall for the defense of the mainland of China.

    Like

  4. molisa

    日方按經緯線劃分法將釣魚台劃入版圖，在國際法上無法律效力。如將中日兩方論據綜合起來分析，日方的「無主地先佔法」已不能成立，日本官方近年以來的聲明亦不再強調。被他們反覆強調的是「經緯線劃分法」，即堅稱釣魚台是日本領土不可分割的一部分，而事實上釣魚台是在一九五三年美國琉球民政府劃定的經緯線內，並且在其有效控制之下。

    對此，中方必須從歷史文獻、地理和地質構造以及國際法理的整體分析，方能有效推翻日方的「經緯線劃分法」，贏得國際輿論的支援。

    就目前的國際法標準來看，中國對釣魚台島嶼擁有兩項權利是無可剝奪的：

    （一）因發現、命名、使用而取得的「原始權利」 （Inchoate Title）。

    （二）根據「大陸架公約」第二條規定： 「海岸國有行使發掘大陸架與利用其天然資源之主權權利 （Sovereign Rights）」 而取得的「主權權利」。

    以上兩項權利已構成對日方所持「經緯線劃分法」的本質性否定。據此，向中國政府提出解決釣魚台問題的建議。

    第一步，收回原始權利 （Inchoate Title）。 釣魚台最早是由中國人發現、命名和使用的。據史籍記載，自從一四0三年至一九六九年這五百年間，中國人自由來往釣魚台，視為家常便飯，並且留下大量文字紀錄。近三十多年來，日本政府突然宣佈釣魚台為其治下領土，不許中國人自由往來釣魚台，剝奪了中國人五百年來自由來往釣魚台的權利，這不但違反國際法理，而且違背人類公理。

    因此，我們要求兩岸政府一致對日本，循外交途徑收回釣魚台的原始權利，恢復中國人五百年間往來釣魚台的自由，禁止日本海上自衛隊在釣魚台列嶼周圍十二海里範圍內的活動。這完全是合乎人類公理的正當要求。

    第二步，積極行使主權權利 （Sovereign Rights）。美國總統杜魯門於一九四五年九月二十八日發表的有關大陸架的一項聲明指出：「美國政府認為大陸架之底土及海床所有天然資源，由土地連接國家行使管轄權，是合理及公正的。」根據該項聲明精神，聯合國於一九五八年簽訂了《大陸架公約》（Continental Shelf），其中第二條規定：「海岸國有行使發掘大陸架、與利用其天然資源之主權權利。」

    釣魚台位於中國東海淺大陸架上，中國作為海岸國，毫無疑問擁有釣魚台天然資源的主權權利。中國政府應積極行使這項主權權利，發掘和利用釣魚台的天然資源，同時應根據《大陸架公約》的原則恢復對釣魚台行使管轄權，這完全合乎國際法理的。

    Like

Comments are closed.