Bi-Partisanship–A Silly Notion

The US government has become weak and ineffective.

Part of the problem is what we like to called ‘bi-partisanship’.

The only purpose this term serves is an excuse by politicians who claim the ‘other side’ do not negotiate in good faith…..it is nothing but a pathetic excuse by political cowards.

This is a word that the MSM is in love with…..it gives them some vague idea that they can beat us with daily and continuously.

Personally I do not think the word has any meaning….other than a media talking point.

I have made thoughts known on this whimsical ideal…..https://lobotero.com/2009/02/17/bi-partisanship/ as you can see I have seldom thought that this was an idea that has any legs in our form of government…..in an ideal country this may work but not in ours.

The term “Center” is also an offshoot of the myth of bi-partisanship….as the political world of the country is today that center does not exist…..what small amount we find in government is usually not on some large scale program that benefits the entire nation but rather minute BS that serves NO purpose other than wasting time.

To illustrate this divide we need to look No further than the Obama years…..

What America considers a debate is pretty messed up. Apparently, the existence of climate change is a “debate.” Allowing 33,000 Americans to die every year because they can’t afford health care is a “debate.” Continuing to arm ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria is a “debate.”

And yet, there’s one singular issue that seems to read “case closed” in the minds of millions of Americans, both red and blue: bipartisanship. Somehow, we have wound up in a world where saying “we should stop literally arming terrorists” is an opinion, but lauding the glories of bipartisan politics is unbiased and impartial.

View at Medium.com

The whole silly idea of bi-partisanship is a seriously flawed belief……

The flaw in simply blaming hyperpartisanship is pretending we have two parties with similar structures or aims: on one side is a diverse, center-left technocratic coalition that mediates the interests of groups and puts pragmatic, evidence-based governance ahead of ideology; on the other side is a group of politicians, donors, and activists singularly focused on maximizing their ideological victories. This is not merely progressive hogwash, but rather is frequently accepted by a range of political scientists and scholars.

This point is missed by most elite political commentators, who have the frustrating habit of treating politics in the abstract, as a sort of game to occupy the time of the wealthy. Politics is seen as victimless, the product of white papers, bare-knuckle negotiations, and talking points. The right’s views on abortion are treated like a fashion statement—without meaning and impact—rather than a consequential form of gender oppression.

The Myth of Bipartisanship—It’s Time to Get Tough With the Right

I reiterate…..the idea of bi-partisanship in our political circus is fanciful and a purely unattainable ideal in the American political system we have today.

Please stop pretending that it is a good idea….maybe in the past but today it is only a pipe dream of Centrists.

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The Idea Of Self-Determination

College of Political Knowledge

Self-determination denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order.  Self-determination is a core principle of international law, arising from customary international law, but also recognized as a general principle of law, and enshrined in a number of international treaties.  For instance, self-determination is protected in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of “all peoples.” 

The scope and purpose of the principle of self-determination has evolved significantly in the 20th century.  In the early 1900’s, international support grew for the right of all people to self-determination.  This led to successful secessionist movements during and after WWI, WWII and laid the groundwork for decolonization in the 1960s. 

Contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that “self-determination” exists on a spectrum.  Internal self-determination may refer to various political and social rights; by contrast, external self-determination refers to full legal independence/secession for the given ‘people’ from the larger politico-legal state.

Now that the much used term has been defined….let’s look at what the UN has to say on this front…..

Essentially, the right to self-determination is the right of a people to determine its own destiny. In particular, the principle allows a people to choose its own political status and to determine its own form of economic, cultural and social development. Exercise of this right can result in a variety of different outcomes ranging from political independence through to full integration within a state. The importance lies in the right of choice, so that the outcome of a people’s choice should not affect the existence of the right to make a choice. In practice, however, the possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination will often determine the attitude of governments towards the actual claim by a people or nation. Thus, while claims to cultural autonomy may be more readily recognized by states, claims to independence are more likely to be rejected by them. Nevertheless, the right to self-determination is recognized in international law as a right of process (not of outcome) belonging to peoples and not to states or governments.

The preferred outcome of an exercise of the right to self-determination varies greatly among the members of UNPO. For some of our members, the only acceptable outcome is full political independence. This is particularly true of occupied or colonized nations. For others, the goal is a degree of political, cultural and economic autonomy, sometimes in the form of a federal relationship. For others yet, the right to live on and manage a people’s traditional lands free of external interference and incursion is the essential aim of a struggle for self-determination. Other members, such as Taiwan and Somaliland, have already achieved a high-level or full self-determination, but are yet to be recognized as independent states by the international community.

https://unpo.org/article/4957

I thought is that if a people in a majority vote want to determine their own future than they should be given the right….but sadly in this world the power does no longer belong to the people but rather to money and those that control it.

An interested look at Self-determination from a post-graduate student…..https://www.e-ir.info/2014/04/17/what-is-self-determination-using-history-to-understand-international-relations/

Now that we have looked at ‘the right of self-determination’ I would appreciate your thoughts on this….

amicus populi

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“Lego ergo scribo”

OMG! It’s Anarchy!

College of Political Knowledge

The events of 06 January has brought about a liberal use of the term ‘anarchy’…..a misuse of the term.

Take a closer look at “Anarchy”……

This is another of those words that is used liberally by the media and no one knows what the Hell they are talking about….a word like socialism which as you know is used as some sort of insult for anyone that has Left leanings ideas.

The insult shows a large portion of ignorance…..they use the word wrongly….just like socialism.

But what is the theory behind ‘anarchism’…..

Anarchism has been defined many ways by many different sources. The word “anarchism” is taken from the word “anarchy” which is drawn from dual sources in the Greek language. It is made up of the Greek words αν (meaning: absence of [and pronounced “an”] and αρχη (meaning: authority or government [and pronounced “arkhe”]). Today, dictionary definitions still define anarchism as the absence of government. These modern dictionary definitions of anarchism are based on the writings and actions of anarchists of history and present. Anarchists understand, as do historians of anarchism and good dictionaries and encyclopedias, that the word anarchism represents a positive theory. Exterior sources, however, such as the media, will frequently misuse the word anarchism and, thus, breed misunderstanding.

Anarchism is a political theory, which is skeptical of the justification of authority and power, especially political power. Anarchism is usually grounded in moral claims about the importance of individual liberty. Anarchists also offer a positive theory of human flourishing, based upon an ideal of non-coercive consensus building. Anarchism has inspired practical efforts at establishing utopian communities, radical and revolutionary political agendas, and various forms of direct action. This entry primarily describes “philosophical anarchism”: it focuses on anarchism as a theoretical idea and not as a form of political activism. While philosophical anarchism describes a skeptical theory of political legitimation, anarchism is also a concept that has been employed in philosophical and literary theory to describe a sort of anti-foundationalism. Philosophical anarchism can mean either a theory of political life that is skeptical of attempts to justify state authority or a philosophical theory that is skeptical of the attempt to assert firm foundations for knowledge.

Nothing about the theory leads to the conclusion that it is all about violence and chaos.

The negative connotations are a construct of the media and the powers in control that are afraid of losing their stranglehold on power.

Anarchism is basically the ‘power of the people’.

Anytime that I hear the term anarchy or anarchist used to describe chaos and violence I know then that the person using the term is an ignorant dullard.

The use of the term negatively is nothing more than an insult and the buffoon’s attempt to lessen anything that challenges their authority.  It is used to incite fear and loathing.

I believe in the ‘power of the people’ concept but that cannot be achieved with the boot of power on their throats.

I was a member of the IWW and according to popular BS that makes me an anarchist….

So Be It!

I remain convinced that the power of the people is the only salvation this planet has.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

It’s Those Individual Rights

This is a debate in this country even from the very beginning and the silliness rages to this day.

These days the individual rights thing centers around the pandemic and the use of masks and even the vaccinations.

Let’s us take a look at what “individual rights” is all about….

Rights are essential for a society to function properly. They are normally set by laws and enforced by the government. There are many different rights and democracy is the political system that protects basic these rights the most. When basic individual rights, such as the right to vote, to work, to live and to have a family among other fundamental rights, are prohibited or limited by a government the country might not be living under democratic principles.

Imagine a world where you could not own property or even a weapon to protect yourself and your family. You couldn’t vote for the candidate of your choice in elections, couldn’t speak freely without being arrested, and couldn’t practice the religion you wanted. Imagine you could have your house searched by law enforcement at any time without a search warrant or be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment for committing a crime.

In such a world, you would have no individual rights. The United States was established based on democratic principles, and individual rights coincide with democracy. Democracy can be defined as everyone in society having formal equality of rights and privileges. The founding fathers put these ideals of democracy in the Constitution in the 1700s, and they continue to exist to this day.

Your individual rights guarantee individuals rights to certain freedoms without interference from the government or other individuals. These rights are derived from the Bill of Rights in our United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments of the Constitution. Within the first ten amendments, your individual rights are specified. They apply to everyone within United States borders.

Now the question is…..do individual rights trump (no pun intended) the public good?

These days your individual rights is not a given….only when it conforms to the present day paradigm.

The GOP embraces the thought of individual rights like the decision to NOT wear a mask….and yet the same people do not support a woman’s right to her body…so apparently those individual rights are only supported when it complies with the orthodoxy of the party…..has NOTHING to do with rights and everything to do with party philosophy.

Depends on who you talk with ….the definition changes with point of view.

For me either you support individual rights on all topics or you do not…..there is NO grey area.

Any thoughts?

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Those States Rights

College of Political Knowledge

Civics Series

I would like to take a closer look at the whole states rights thing and what it means to the country today.

  • States’ rights refer to the political rights and powers granted to the states of the United States by the U.S. Constitution.
  • Under the doctrine of states’ rights, the federal government is not allowed to interfere with the powers of the states reserved or implied to them by the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  • In issues such as enslavement, civil rights, gun control, and marijuana legalization, conflicts between states’ rights and the powers of the federal government have been a part of civic debate for over two centuries.

The debate over states’ rights started with the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. During the Constitutional Convention, the Federalists, led by John Adams, argued for a powerful federal government, while the Anti-federalists, led by Patrick Henry, opposed the Constitution unless it contained a set of amendments specifically listing and ensuring certain rights of the people and the states. Fearing that the states would fail to ratify the Constitution without it, the Federalists agreed to include the Bill of Rights.

In establishing American government’s power-sharing system of federalism, the Bill of Rights’ 10th Amendment holds that all rights and powers not specifically reserved to Congress by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution or to be shared concurrently by the federal and state governments are reserved by either the states or by the people.

In order to prevent the states from claiming too much power, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) holds that all laws enacted by the state governments must comply with the Constitution, and that whenever a law enacted by a state conflicts with a federal law, the federal law must be applied.

Here is a sticking point for me.

Federalism…..in the beginning of this country it was a brilliant idea that helped bring the country together as a single unit…..it was the only way to get all 13 colonies to sign on to a national government…..however today the concept is driving the political divisions that are running rampant….each state has become its own tiny ‘duchy’ within the bigger empire.

I gave my thoughts on federalism recently on my op-ed blog, Gulf South Free Press……https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2021/03/15/does-federalism-remain-a-good-idea/

The biggest obstacle to any substantial progress in our country is the bicameralism that we live under….I feel we would be better served today with a unicameral system of government…..again my thoughts on this topic……https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2021/03/08/thoughts-on-unicameralism/

Sorry about that but I got a bit off topic….my bad!

The biggest drag on our country is the whole concept of states rights which was outlined in the 10th amendment……for those ignorant on the US Constitution…..In American government, states’ rights are the rights and powers reserved by the state governments rather than the national government according to the U.S. Constitution.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That is a very simplistic look and leaves open a whole array of opportunities for abuse…..like voter suppression, cultural BS, and labor oppression.

The authors of the Constitution were experts in the use of language, and in the construction of legal documents. Under any form of statutory construction, the use of the comma followed by the word “or” presents an alternative to the previous phrase. And the Constitution also clearly differentiates between the states and the people. The use of the word “people” in that last phase presents an alternative to the powers of the states – the power of the people, not of individual states.

The use of the word “people” in the Constitution, from the “We the People” of the Preamble on, means all the citizens of the United States separate from whatever identity they may have with individual states. There was a draft of the Preamble that used the words, “We the States,” but it was changed to emphasize the nature of he Constitution and its effects. The Constitution was intended by the founders to be a compact among the people of the United States, not between the federal government and the state governments, or among the state governments. The people are citizens of the United States, not of individual states.

(Dan Riker)

The Constitution provides for the states to maintain some rights and responsibilities, but none that can trump those of the federal government. The Constitution clearly states that it, and federal laws adopted under it, are the supreme law of the nation. The Constitution provides for no means of changing it except by amendment; no means of dissolution of the union; no right for any state to withdraw from the union; no right for any state to wage war against any other state; no right for any state to engage in foreign affairs; no right to determine, or grant, citizenship; no separate citizenship of states; no right to restrict the rights of citizens to vote.

10th Amendment means that the reserved power is shared between the states and the people. It does not create a body of absolute “states’ rights.” It means that states have the power to act where the federal government has not, and when such acts will not conflict with federal laws or responsibilities.

Destruction from within.

Then there is everybody’s hero Bubba Clinton as president he screwed things up royally with his lame ass vision of redefining Federalism….his program only added to the climate of division…..Clinton did nothing positive for the Party or the country…the only people that benefited from his presidency were his corporate masters….and his legacy is still screwing the country.

His new ideas on Federalism went something like this….

1–establish national goals and allowing states flexibility in choosing means to achieve..

2–waiving national guidelines to enable states to design approaches to problem solving rather than following national guidelines.

3–helping states learn from other’s successes

I would say the GOP has learned Clinton’s ideas all too well.

Right now there is only one way to change this slide into the past…..and that is through a change in the amendment and that would take a Constitutional convention and that will never happen in today’s political climate.

For now we will remain a plot of land with several duchy that have NO interests in a strong nation….only on petty issues that does not strengthen this nation in any way.

It will remain a country of individual good as opposed to the common good….on which this country was originally founded.

We are today betraying the original intent by the Founders and that betrayal is destroying this country from within.

I do not see this division ending in my lifetime…..a sad demise of the original intent.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Treatise On Voting

One of the big stories for 2021 is that of voting and the attempts to suppress the turn-out.

Our president has signed into place an Executive Order on voting rights……a quick look at the EO…..

Direct federal agencies to expand access to voter registration and election information. The executive order will direct the head of each federal agency to submit to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy a strategic plan outlining ways their agency can promote voter registration and participation within 200 days. These strategic plans could include actions such as:

  • Leveraging agencies’ existing websites and social media to provide information about how to register to vote
  • Distributing voter registration and vote-by-mail ballot applications in the course of regular services
  • Considering whether any identity documents issued by the agency can be issued in a form that satisfies state voter identification laws

A good start but so much more is needed….and soon.

The dialog about voting I have heard a couple of statements that I do not agree with at all…..

“God given right” and “Voting is a sacred power”…..

There is  nothing god given about voting it is a right within a social contract……a contract that people sign onto as a member of a society and in turn are guaranteed certain rights….voting being one of them…..

All that said I am recalling some the Emma Goldman once said….”If voting changed anything it would be made illegal”.

After watching our Congress and political circus for all my years I feel she hit the nail on the head.

A little background….I have not voted for a winner since 1976 and Jimmy Carter….since that election I have voted for third parties…..in 2020 I supported candidate Tulsi Gabbard…..and in the election I wrote in my name for I had more principles than the offered candidates.

Enough about me…..

On to the institution we call “voting”……

Voting is a method for a group, such as a meeting or an electorate, in order to make a collective decision or express an opinion usually following discussions, debates or election campaigns. Democracies elect holders of high office by voting. Residents of a place represented by an elected official are called “constituents”, and those constituents who cast a ballot for their chosen candidate are called “voters”. There are different systems for collecting votes, but while many of the systems used in decision-making can also be used as electoral systems, any which cater for proportional representation can only be used in elections. (wikipedia)

Probably I need to say at this point that I think that all Americans need to have a voice in the government…..a voice that carries some weight….as it is now that is not the case.they get their information on candidates from the news and today from social media….however these sources are nothing short of political spin….very little accuracy just slogans and jingoism.

Here is another’s s thought on voting…..

I listened to a Freakonomics podcast today called “We the Sheeple”. I like to think they stay fairly unbiased, which is why I like their podcasts so much.

In the podcast, Steve Levitt was quoted as saying that he identifies someone as smart if they don’t vote (in Presidential elections). In other words, he finds people who vote with the intention of getting someone into office to be ignorant.

I’ve always been taught (or I socially absorbed) that you can’t complain about policy if you didn’t vote. People complain about low voter turnout, but hearing this idea made me wonder why the voting rate is even at ~50%.

Levitt asks, if we all know voting is useless, then why do we vote at all?

“I think the reason most people vote, and the reason I occasionally vote is that it’s fun. It’s fun to vote, it’s expressive, and it’s a way to say the kind of person you are, and it’s a way to be able to say when something goes wrong when the opponent wins, “well I voted against that fool.” Or when something goes right when you voted for a guy to tell your grandchildren, “well I voted for that president.” So there’s nothing wrong with voting. [But] I think you can tell whether someone’s smart of not smart by their reasons for voting.”

Some people would argue that the popular vote gives us a national awareness of how we feel about the President, but isn’t that what polling is for?

Is Levitt right? Are voters stupid? Does not voting obligate us to shut up and stay out of the discussion?

I say this because corporate America owns most of the outlets and these sources will “report” on the campaigns and candidates in the fashion that influences the voter to their way of thinking.

The voter has no actual voice beyond the precincts where they go to vote……petitions are as worthless as the paper it takes to put them together…..mail/email is met with generic ‘thank you’ replies…..townhalls would be a good place but unfortunately these are stacked with supporters and answer are generic and told to the voter only what they want to hear.

So can a voter make an informed choice for their vote?

In my opinion they do not.

For one reason the information the voter gets is skewed and second the voter seldom looks beyond the person they worship.

This makes the vote a worthless endeavor.

Why?

Look at the national Congress or the state legislature……nothing about the bills passed are the ‘will of the people’….all the vote accomplishes is to legitimize the rule of the elites….all this exercise accomplish is to give the illusion that the voter is in control….but actions in the after election days illustrates that they are in control not the voter.

Voting does not determine policies whether state or federal….all it determines is which wealthy elite will rule.

For instance…the recent political battle over the American Rescue Plan to battle the Covid-19 virus….75% of the American people liked the plan and yet not a single Republican voted for its passage in Congress.

Are you sure the elected people are working for the people’s best interests?

Voting has become nothing more than a way to legitimize those in power.

If it were truly a representative action then there would be a solid recall process instead we get lame soft soap BS.

Americans have a choice….either vote or not….if they do vote their single vote means nothing…..

Voting is widely thought to be one of the most important things a person can do. But the reasons people give for why they vote (and why everyone else should too) are flawed, unconvincing, and sometimes even dangerous. The case for voting relies on factual errors, misunderstandings about the duties of citizenship, and overinflated perceptions of self-worth. There are some good reasons for some people to vote some of the time. But there are a lot more bad reasons to vote, and the bad ones are more popular.

Your Vote Doesn’t Count

Americans need to move past the single issue vote…..until they become more informed this country will continue to slide into a political abyss that it may not extricate itself from any time soon.

I do not refuse to vote….the last time I voted for a winner was 1976 with Carter……I vote my principles and right now there is NOTHING offered that would embrace my principles.

The myth of voting has become nothing more than jingoism….nothing changes and the country remains stuck in a manure pile.

I leave you with a few quotes on voting….

“In this country people don’t vote for, they vote against.”
Will Rogers

“Politics: the art of using euphemisms, lies, emotionalism and fear-mongering to dupe average people into accepting–or even demanding–their own enslavement.”
Larken Rose

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’
Isaac Asimov

“The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is also a reflection on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy.”
Thomas Sowell

“Representative government is artifice, a political myth, designed to conceal from the masses the dominance of a self-selected, self-perpetuating, and self-serving traditional ruling class.”
Giuseppe Prezzolini

Again I do not refuse to vote…..I do refuse to vote for the candidates that do not hold with my principles…I do refuse to ply party politics which I feel is destroying this country from within.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

A Revisit Of The 2nd

WE have a had crappy month of April mass shootings seem to be the rule and cops killing civilians seem to be everywhere and everyday.

Something needs doing about this out of control problem.

I guess I had better restate my position on the 2nd.

I am not for unlimited gun control….I am a gun owner…I am against the unlimited access of civilians to assault weapons….I mean if they want to play with advanced weaponry then grow a set of balls and join the military…the key to that is “a set of balls”…..

I have written much on the 2nd amendment…..first my thought on the history of the amendment….https://lobotero.com/2013/01/30/why-the-2nd/

Then my post on the “true meaning of the 2nd”……https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2020/05/01/the-true-meaning-of-the-2nd/

This is a conversation with the author of a book on the 2nd amendment…….

As America grapples with a relentless tide of gun violence, pro-gun activists have come to rely on the Second Amendment as their trusty shield when faced with mass-shooting-induced criticism. In their interpretation, the amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms—a reading that was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2008 ruling in District of Columbia. v. Heller. Yet most judges and scholars who debated the clause’s awkwardly worded and oddly punctuated 27 words in the decades before Heller almost always arrived at the opposite conclusion, finding that the amendment protects gun ownership for purposes of military duty and collective security. It was drafted, after all, in the first years of post-colonial America, an era of scrappy citizen militias where the idea of a standing army—like that of the just-expelled British—evoked deep mistrust.

The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, digs into this discrepancy. What does the Second Amendment mean today, and what has it meant over time? He traces the history of the contentious clause and the legal reasoning behind it, from the Constitutional Convention to modern courtrooms.

This historical approach is noteworthy. The Heller decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, is rooted in originalism, the concept that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of the founders. While Waldman emphasizes that we must understand what the framers thought, he argues that giving them the last word is impossible—and impractical. “We’re not going to be able to go back in a time machine and tap James Madison on the shoulder and ask him what to do,” he says. “How the country has evolved is important. What the country needs now is important. That’s certainly the case with something as important and complicated as guns in America.”

The Second Amendment Doesn’t Say What You Think It Does

Interesting thoughts.

Anything to add?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Thoughts On The Media

Disclaimer: This is my opinion on the presentation of what we call “the news”….and is not intended as a slight on any disaster or tragedy.

 

It is no secret that I am not a fan of the MSM….I believe that they are doing more damage than informing.

The mainstream media (MSM) no longer presents the news instead it is a source for propaganda.

Let me explain.

Americans think they have an unlimited variety of entertainment and media options right at their fingertips. But it is all a lie. This illusion of choice was fabricated by the media elites. In the early 90s before the mainstream adoption of the Internet, the media landscape used to be simple and straightforward. Today, 6 media giants control a whopping 90% of what we read, watch, or listen to.

Objectivity in journalism is an illusion created by the elite class to give the appearance of balanced news. However, there is no such thing as unbiased news. Journalists who work for these six corporations answer to their owners and ultimately serve their agendas. For example, no logical thinking person will expect Washington Post to write a fair and objective story about its owner, especially a story that Jeff Bezos reportedly cheated on his wife. The point of all these is that the media outlets don’t necessarily serve the interest of the people they control, instead, they serve the interests of their owners.

Now you have the ammo to find the truth in the MSM  (that is a trick there is very little truth in the MSM).

All of this was made possible by Bill Clinton and his Telecommunications Act of 1996.

For those that doubt my assertion…then read the Act for yourself…..(that will not happen but it is there for those that care)….

Click to access tcom1996.pdf

Yes I know it is a long read…..and most will not attempt this but if you want to know what is what then step away from the game and learn something!

In my years to studying political philosophy I have looked at what is termed as “media hegemony”…..

Media hegemony is a perceived process by which certain values and ways of thought promulgated through the mass media become dominant in society. It is seen in particular as reinforcing the capitalist system. Media hegemony has been presented as influencing the way in which reporters in the media – themselves subject to prevailing values and norms – select news stories and put them across. (wikipedia)

Now that it is defined…..think about today…..the Covid coverage.

Do not get me wrong I know that this virus has devastated the nation and the world….we need to know the facts as they become available but on the same hand we do not need every horror story there is which is what the media is doing.

Yes people dying from the problems created by the illness and by the lack of response for a year is not acceptable….but again I do not need to know what happened in Rhode Island or NYC or Kansas….I do need the facts as they come out.

Then there are these endless worthless wars of intervention…..that just keep being fueled by the M-IC to protect their massive profits….and then there is the lack of actual information being reported by the MSM.

The truth is the national security apparatus does not want the people to know the facts about these wars.

An especially dangerous threat to liberty occurs when members of the press collude with government agencies instead of monitoring and exposing the abuses of those agencies. Unfortunately, collusion is an all-too-common pattern in press coverage of the national security state’s activities. The American people then receive official propaganda disguised as honest reporting and analysis.

The degree of collaboration frequently has reached stunning levels. During the early decades of the Cold War, some journalists even became outright CIA assets. Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein’s January 1977, 25,000-word article in Rolling Stone was an extraordinarily detailed account of cooperation between the CIA and members of the press, and it provided key insights into that relationship. In some cases, the “journalists” were actually full-time CIA employees masquerading as members of the Fourth Estate, but Bernstein also confirmed that some 400 bona fide American journalists had secretly carried out assignments for the ClA during the previous 25 years. He noted that “journalists provided a full range of clandestine services – from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go-betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs.”

How the National Security State Manipulates the News Media

More on the lousy track record of the MSM in our endless wars…..

The US War Machine Doesn’t Want Us to Take War Personally

The powers that be learned their lesson from Vietnam……where journalists had access to the conflict and were allowed to report what they observed….that all changed and now we only get information that the Pentagon wants us to have and it is NEVER what is actually happening.

The news is no longer the news….it is hour after hour of editorializing….take the Chauvin trial as an example…..the “media” every minute of the thing….granted it is important but every minute holds no news and just a report as it was before Clinton would help better inform the public.

The corporate owned media serves NO purpose other than selling the policies that the owners find necessary.

The problems this country is dealing with today can be laid at the feet of corporations and their propaganda arm….the Mainstream Media……

The answer is to look at all ‘news’ with skepticism and do the work to find the “rest of the story”.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Armed Camps

These days with all the ease to obtain guns even assault weapons the US is becoming an armed camp….it is becoming ‘us against them’ once again.

While the debate over gun rights rages….the population is quietly arming themselves…..not sure why other than some delusional bullsh*t.

For years now the militias like the Oath Keepers and so many more have been gaining members and arming themselves for the coming fight with the government.

If you are not sure just what these militia groups want or stand for then maybe this will help a bit….https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_militia_movement

I remember back in the 60s when the Black Panthers were photographic with guns the press and country lost their minds.

Mapping the Black Panther Party - Mapping American Social Movements

There was a concern that there would soon be a ‘race war’ in the US and of course the whites started arming themselves in case there needed to be a response to the coming race war….a war that NEVER materialized…it was all hype fed by the media and the NRA…..it help sell a bunch of guns.

And now whenever there is some sort of domestic chaos…..whether warranted or not……the sell of guns goes sky high because of some unfounded fear….helped by the media and politicians with their hands in the pockets of the NRA and the gun industry.

These militias formed as a block for any attempt of a ‘takeover’ of the government from ‘them’……that depends on the minority that is in disfavor with the idiots.

Cheering on Armed Militia Groups, Trump Dangerously Turns to Dictators'  Playbook

These overweight in-bred morons are filmed constantly with the body armor and the AR-15s (a substitute for their penis) attempting to intimidate people in doing what they desire….

These groups became more and more visible with the rise of those pee brains in the Tea Party.

That explains one armed camp.

On the other side of this issue is the NFAC……a coalition of black/brown militia group…..

The Birth of the NFAC; America's Black Militia | Chicago Defender

I have introduced the readers of In Saner Thought to the NFAC in more detail…….https://lobotero.com/2020/11/03/nfac/

These people joined up with the ever rising tide of excessive deadly force being used against black and brown Americans this group has stepped in as some sort of equalizer….

That is the second armed camp….

This camp will possibly grow bigger and bigger because of the interests that blacks are showing and the interest in owning guns….like their white counter parts…..

Black people are buying guns at a high record rate, partially due to fear and anxiety, according to The Guardian.

Black people owning guns have gone up 58.2 percent, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) — and gun groups like the “Not F**king Around Coalition (NFAC)” consist of armed social justice advocates who demand justice for George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, visibly strapped with handguns. 

The Guardian also noted that gun-ownership amongst Black people spiked both when President Trump lost his reelection campaign and when Ahmaud Arbery, a Black jogger who died after he was inspecting an empty house, was gunned down.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/546454-gun-ownership-among-black-americans-is-soaring

A third and little known group is that of the SRA……a group founded to be a counter to the power and influence of the NRA……I have introduced my readers of IST to this group as well……https://lobotero.com/2020/05/10/who-will-confront-the-protesters/ …..they are not as visible as the first two…..but that could change at anytime.

I have expressed my concern about the runaway guns in this country…..and now we are dividing ourselves even further into armed camps.

Let us not forget the non-joiners or the ‘independent’ gun owners…..most are reasonable and would like to see changes in the gun availability and most have not chosen sides in this divide…..but that could change any day.

After the breach of 06 January Americans are realizing that these are dangerous times…..and sadly there is no end in sight.

Dark days are a head of us.

Can we survive as a nation?

It is true that Americans are resilient…..but can we stop this spiral?

Thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Which Are You?

We have another Constitutional crisis…..233 year in the making.

These days there is lots of debate on the Constitution…..and in the beginning there were two sides…the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists…….

But what does that mean?

Federalism was born in 1787, when Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote 85 essays collectively known as the Federalist papers. These eloquent political documents encouraged Americans to adopt the newly-written Constitution and its stronger central government.

Largely influenced by the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, the Federalists succeeded in convincing the Washington administration to assume national and state debts, pass tax laws, and create a central bank. These moves undoubtedly saved the fledgling democracy from poverty and even destruction. In foreign policy, Federalists generally favored England over France.

And their opponents in the Constitution fight…..the Anti-Federalists……but who were these men?

Not all Americans liked the new U.S. Constitution offered to them in 1787. Some, particularly the Anti-Federalists, downright hated it.

The Anti-Federalists were a group of Americans who objected to the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and opposed final ratification of the U.S. Constitution as approved by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Anti-Federalists generally preferred a government as formed in 1781 by the Articles of Confederation, which had granted the predominance of power to the state governments.

Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia – an influential colonial advocate for American independence from England – the Anti-Federalists feared, among other things, that the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution could enable the President of the United States to function as a king, turning the government into a monarchy. This fear can to some degree be explained by the fact that in 1789, most of the world’s governments were still monarchies and the function of a “president” was largely an unknown quantity.

https://www.thoughtco.com/anti-federalists-4129289

A closer look at these men’s political beliefs in the early days of the Republic….

  • The Anti-Federalists were opposed to the Constitution. They feared the power of a national government, the loss of control of local issues, and insufficient separation of powers.
  • They believed that the national and centralized government might threaten the sovereignty of the states and of individuals, hence they believed this might lead to the formation of a despotic monarchy.
  • Furthermore, the Anti-Federalists believed in the insufficiency, or weakness, of the Articles of Confederation.
  • The Anti-Federalists used pseudonyms and published local speeches and news articles opposing the government.
  • One of the Anti-Federalists was Patrick Henry from the state of Virginia. Henry and the coalition argued that the government might be a threat to individuals and that the president might declare himself a king.
  • The group produced a series of writings declaring their opposition to the government. Historians compiled them together and they are now known as Anti-Federalist Papers.
  • Several states opposed the Constitution. On July 4, 1788, a civil war almost broke out in Rhode Island, where Judge William West and over a thousand protesters marched into Providence.
  • Five states ratified the constitution. However, in Massachusetts a compromise was agreed upon after a series of debates were held in order for the Constitution to be ratified.
  • Several states shared the same prerequisites in ratifying the constitution during the Massachusetts Compromise. Thus, when the Constitution was approved in 1789, twelve amendments were included, and from these the Bill of Rights was produced.
  • Even though the Anti-Federalists were not successful, they were an important group amongst the founding fathers of the United States, as they influenced those who sought to ratify the Constitution.
  • Some Anti-Federalists joined the Anti-Administration Party of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, opposed to following the policies of Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Secretary. The party eventually became the Democratic-Republican Party.

Now that the two sides of the Constitutional debate have been set and explained…..

I would like to know which side you, my reader, would have been on during the debate……the question has been asked before…..

One of the great debates in American history was over the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-1788. Those who supported the Constitution and a stronger national republic were known as Federalists. Those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution in favor of small localized government were known as Anti-Federalists. Both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were concerned with the preservation of liberty, however, they disagreed over whether or not a strong national government would preserve or eventually destroy the liberty of the American people. Today, it is easy to accept that the prevailing side was right and claim that, had you been alive, you would have certainly supported ratifying the Constitution. However, in order to develop a deeper understanding of the ideological foundations upon which our government is built, it is important to analyze both the Federalist and Ant-Federalist arguments.

The Anti-Federalists were not as organized as the Federalists. They did not share one unified position on the proper form of government. However, they did unite in their objection to the Constitution as it was proposed for ratification in 1787. The Anti-Federalists argued against the expansion of national power. They favored small localized governments with limited national authority as was exercised under the Articles of Confederation. They generally believed a republican government was only possible on the state level and would not work on the national level. Therefore, only a confederacy of the individual states could protect the nation’s liberty and freedom. Another, and perhaps their most well-known concern, was over the lack of a bill of rights. Most Anti-Federalists feared that without a bill of rights, the Constitution would not be able to sufficiently protect the rights of individuals and the states. Perhaps the strongest voice for this concern was that of George Mason. He believed that state bills of right would be trumped by the new constitution, and not stand as adequate protections for citizens’ rights. It was this concern that ultimately led to the passing of the bill of rights as a condition for ratification in New York, Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.

The Federalists, primarily led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, believed that establishing a large national government was not only possible, but necessary to “create a more perfect union” by improving the relationship among the states. Until this point, the common belief was that a republic could only function efficiently it was small and localized. The Federalists challenged this belief and claimed that a strong national republic would better preserve the individual liberties of the people. By extending the sphere of the republic, individual and minority rights would be better protected from infringement by a majority. The federalists also wanted to preserve the sovereignty and structure of the states. To do so, they advocated for a federal government with specific, delegated powers. Anything not delegated to the federal government would be reserved to the people and the states. Ultimately, their goal was to preserve the principle of government by consent. By building a government upon a foundation of popular sovereignty, without sacrificing the sovereignty of the states, legitimacy of the new government could be secured.

Are you a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist?

A good time to put all your civics knowledge to work…….

After 233 years we are having the same basic fight about the governing for this country.

I believe it is time to end the silliness of multiple legislative bodies….all seem to be working against the best interests of the country and instead are playing party politics and not governing in a responsible way for ALL the people of this country.

Time for a redo!

I look forward to your comments.

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”