“…Equality For All…”

College Of Political Knowledge

Really?

Equality?

Take a good look around you….does anything look like equality to you?

Just what the Hell is meant by the term?

Equality means “the state of being equal.” It’s one of the ideals a democratic society, and so the fight to attain different kinds of equality, like racial equality, gender equality, or equality of opportunity between rich and poor, is often associated with progress toward that ideal of everyone being truly equal.

Now did our wise and noble Founders mean any of this when they used the term ‘equality’?

But what did the Founders mean by ‘equality’?
What the Founding Fathers meant by equality is this: All men share a common human nature. The assertion that all men are created equal means that all persons are the same in some respect; it does not mean that all men are identical, or equally talented, wise, prudent, intelligent, or virtuous; rather, it means that all persons possess the inherent capacity to reason.

In the early decades of the Republic, equality meant equality before God; liberty meant the liberty to shape one’s own life. The obvious conflict between the Declaration of Independence and the institution of slavery occupied the center of the stage. That conflict was finally resolved by the Civil War. The debate then moved to a different level. Equality came more and more to be interpreted as “equality of opportunity” in the sense that no one should be prevented by arbitrary obstacles from using his capacities to pursue his own objectives. That is still its dominant meaning to most citizens of the United States.

Neither equality before God nor equality of opportunity presented any conflict with liberty to shape one’s own life. Quite the opposite. Equality and liberty were two faces of the same basic value—that every individual should be regarded as an end in himself.

Apparently the word ‘equality’ does not meaning today what it was intended in the 18th century…..

Maybe a better term would be ‘fairness’.

Simply put fairness means equal treatment…..the quality of treating people equally or in a way that is right or reasonable

Fairness is concerned with actions, processes, and consequences, that are morally right honorable, and equitable. In essence, the virtue of fairness establishes moral standards for decisions that affect others.
Look at that definition……
Fairness is sadly absent in the American society……
Return a  moment to our Founders and their understanding of the term they pinned…..
What the Founding Fathers meant by equality is this: All men share a common human nature. The assertion that all men are created equal means that all persons are the same in some respect; it does not mean that all men are identical, or equally talented, wise, prudent, intelligent, or virtuous; rather, it means that all persons possess the inherent capacity to reason.
Reason?
The capacity for reason has left the room….and each passing year it gets further from returning to our political discourse.
What about logic?
That left the room in 1980 when Reagan was elected president.
And as you have seen it has pretty much never returned and probably will not as long as social media drives the debate.
It is a sad state for this country…..and the withering away6 of the republic will and is being televised.
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”

Democracy Or A Republic?

College of Political Knowledge

This is the question whether it is noble to allow the people to rule or by opposing the idea end it.

And the debate rages.

To answer the question posed….the US is a republic….it was never intended to be a democracy.

The Founders made damn sure of this fact.

Few of the Founders had anything good to say about ‘democracy’….a few quotes to illustrate their distrust…..

“Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. ”  John Adams

“Were out State a pure democracy, in which all inhabitants should meet together to transact all their business, there would yet be excluded from their deliberations. 1. infants, until arrived at years of discretion. 2. Women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, could not mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men. 3. Slaves, from whom the unfortunate state of things with us takes away the right of will and of property. T hose then who have no will could be permitted to exercise none in the popular assembly; and of course, could delegate none to an agent in a representative assembly. The business, in the first case, would be done by qualified citizens only.”  Thomas Jefferson

“One of the worst forms of government is a pure democracy, that is, one in which the citizens enact and administer the laws directly. Such a government is helpless against the mischiefs of faction.”  James Madison

I would say that their fears of democracy have been founded in their republic.

Those Founding Fathers were enamored with the idea of a ‘republic’…..

“There is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; for the true idea of a republic is “an empire of laws, and not of men.” That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the law, is the best of republics.”  John Adams

“I trust that the proposed Constitution afford a genuine specimen of representative government and republican government; and that it will answer, in an eminent degree, all the beneficial purposes of society.”  Alexander Hamilton

In the end of the Founding Period the republic won out….but sadly these learned men did not foresee the rise of political parties……the bane of good government.

I asked the question:  Are we a democracy or a republic?

This article answers the question better than I…..

Despite clear historical evidence showing that the United States was established as a republic and not a democracy, there is still confusion regarding the difference between these two very different systems of government. Some confusion stems because the word “democracy” is used to describe both a “type” and a “form” of government. As a “type” of government, it means that generally free elections are held periodically, which America has. But, as a “form” of government, it means rule by the majority, which America does not have; America is a republic. Webster`s 1828 dictionary states that a Republic is: “A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person…” In a democratic form of government, the populace votes on all matters that affect them, and do not elect others to represent their interests. Therefore, a majority-rules direct democracy gives unlimited power to the majority with no protection of the individual`s God-given inalienable rights or the rights of minority groups. In contrast, in a Republic, the power of the majority is limited by a written constitution which safeguards the God-given inalienable rights of minority groups and individuals alike.  It is historically relevant to note that since the birth of our nation in 1776, no American president referred to America as a democracy until Woodrow Wilson misapplied the term during World War I. Sadly, today, it has become common to use the term democracy in describing our form of government, including in recent years by both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

(Read On)

https://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/articles/22

These days this debate is a moot point.

Moot point because it is ll about the semantics

The experiment that the Founders put together is at a stressed point…..does it continue as envisioned or does it morph into something else?

I am old and I am worried but I believe the republic will endure….but at what cost?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Anatomy Of An Insurrection

First I would like to think the mindless horde for the insurrection of 06 January because it gave me the chance to use an under used diploma in Political History…..where I look at the history of this country the founding and the years forward onto the present.

Since the very beginning the fires of insurrection have been with us….first it was a slow simmer while the country came together politically but not physically and the flame of dissension was turned up to a boil that lead to the American Civil War….after the insurrectionists were beaten down the flame returned to a simmer….the reason for the insurrection was never extinguished and the simmer continued while the country slowly returned to some sort of political unity.

 In the 20th century the flames were once again raised and this time by Reagan…..his demonization of the poor with his tagline of ‘welfare queens’ started us down the path to 06 January.  (This is just my take on the situation I am sure that there will be those in opposition)

Then came the election of the black man as president and the birth of the Tea Party and the flames got higher…..and in 2016 and the election of Trump the stew of racism and hatred came to a full boil.

And that boil gave us the insurrection that breached the Capitol and caused the embarrassment of a sane country.

When I talk with people the most common sane question is….’how could this happen’?

This is an account of that day, 06 January, the events and the people that eventually breached the line and entered the Capitol building….

More than six months after the storming of the US Capitol, more than 550 people have been arrested, with an estimated 800 people surging into the building during the hours-long assault. Members of the Oath Keepers, a loosely organized right-wing paramilitary, and Proud Boys street fighters galvanized by then-President Trump’s call to “stand back and stand by” have been indicted on conspiracy to disrupt Congress, which delayed the certification of Joe Biden as president by almost six hours.

“Every single person charged, at the very least, contributed to the inability of Congress to carry out the certification of our presidential election,” prosecutors wrote in memorandum filed with the court on Tuesday.

The slow-moving tedium of prosecutorial legal machinery and the GOP campaign to deflect responsibility can make it easy to lose sight of the big picture of what transpired on Jan. 6. But based on an aggregate review of individuals cases, along with other sources, a Raw Story analysis of the critical events in the Jan. 6 siege reveals a striking degree of coordination, sustained and intentional violence, planning and preparation, and determined effort to disable the United States’ critical governance apparatus by participants, including many with recent military experience. Many of the rioters who played critical roles in breaching the Capitol came away from the experience vowing to wage war against the United States. Few among those who are being prosecuted have expressed any remorse for their actions.

….Read On….

https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-insurrection-timeline/

The difference between this insurrection and the historic ones is easy…..the past was based on an ideal then present insurrection is based on a personality.

The flame has been turned down again but the stew is still at the boiling point and the cook of this fiasco is none other than the ex-president of the United States…..

A cocktail of propaganda, conspiracy theory and disinformation — of the kind intoxicating to the masses in the darkest turns of history — is fueling delusion over the agonies of Jan. 6.

Hate is “love.” Violence is “peace.” The pro-Donald Trump attackers are patriots.

Months after the then-president’s supporters stormed the Capitol that winter day, Trump and his acolytes are taking this revisionism to a new and dangerous place — one of martyrs and warlike heroes, and of revenge. It’s a place where cries of “blue lives matter” have transformed into shouts of “f— the blue.”

The fact inversion about the siege is the latest in Trump’s contorted oeuvre of the “big lie” compendium, the most specious of which is that the election was stolen from him, when it was not.

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-trump-misinformation-aa051fa751d718407638dbe308647a7a

The slow simmer has returned and the stew awaits the next person to step up a turn the gas up for the next insurrection.

This is a nation divided unto itself….this chapter of American political life is far from over….and the division keep growing by the day…..

My final thought…..I believe if this had been black/brown insurrectionists the violence would have been greater….probably on both sides.

Image

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Those Damn Socialist Democrats!

Warning:  This post contains strong words that some may find offensive!

I cannot believe that I need to have this conversation again. Let me say from the onset….if you think that Democrats are Socialists then you are a moron……yes, a MORON! Every time you write or speak that Dems are Socialist you prove just how f*cking ignorant you truly are. The closest one could say about Dems is that it could be construed as a bastardized form of Fabianism…. I can just imagine the looks of a deer in the headlights right about now……do not give yourself a headache….. The Fabian approach to political action by way of calm intellectual reflection and considered rational planning, and advocacy that social democracy be engineered by a meritocratic state elite, have appealed to successive generations of senior parliamentary Labor Party figures and to socialists overseas, such as Nehru. Fabianism has been criticized from the left for its rejection of notions of class struggle and its focus instead on creating social solidarity from above which underplays the problems of the working class. It is charged with being based on inherently elitist assumptions, born of its adherents’ generally relatively comfortable upbringings and university education. Equally, it has been criticized from the right for ignoring the role of markets, in which benevolent administrators have a smaller role than in planned societies. These mental midget will scare the people with other fearful terminology like Communist…and even to go so far as equate Dems with Nazism (that illustrates just how f*cking ignorant these fools truly are….and even more so for the people that embrace such manure) Then there is a military training guide that lumps socialists in with the Nazis…..do I need to help these total morons with the difference?

A new U.S. military training document obtained exclusively by The Intercept places socialists in the same “terrorist ideological category” as neo-nazis, worsening long-standing progressive fears that a federal crackdown on “domestic terrorism” would just as likely be used to target leftists who want a truly democratic society as to thwart far-right extremists who favor racist authoritarianism. Journalist Ken Klippenstein, the recipient of the leaked counterterrorism training material, reported Tuesday that the Navy’s new guide includes the following question: “Anarchists, socialists, and neo-nazis represent which terrorist ideological category?” “The correct answer is ‘political terrorists,'” according to Klippenstein, who was informed on the matter by an unnamed military source familiar with the training.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/06/23/disturbing-us-military-document-puts-socialists-same-category-neo-nazis All the slogans and vitriol from the aging Right…..somethings are not working anymore….

You would think by the news that most Americans are Centrists or socially conservative……that may not be entirely accurate…..

For the first time more Americans identify as “socially liberal” than conservative, revealing a huge double-digit swing over the past two decades. Gallup reveals 34% of Americans now say they are socially liberal, 30% conservative, and 35% identify as moderate.
But as the pollster notes, starting in 2001 “social conservatives had a clear advantage over social liberals — by 12 points, on average.” That started to change in 2013, and now socially liberal has pulled ahead, representing a huge 16 point swing from 2001 to 2021. Americans’ “self-described economic views,” Gallup finds, “have remained predominantly conservative over the past two decades.” In a separate report this month Gallup looked at views on sex and marriage, finding Americans increasingly “tolerant.”

https://www.alternet.org/2021/06/social-liberalism/ But wait! The bad news just keeps getting worse for the in-bred knuckle-draggers……

While a majority of U.S. adults still have more positive than negative perceptions of capitalism, less than half of the country’s 18 to 34-year-olds view the profit-maximizing market system favorably, and the attractiveness of socialism continues to increase among people over 35, according to a new poll released Friday. The online survey, conducted June 11-25 by Momentive on behalf of Axios, found that 57% of U.S. adults view capitalism in a positive light, down from 61% in January 2019, when the news outlet first polled on these questions. Then and now, 36% are critical of the exploitation of the working class and the environment by the owning class.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/06/25/poll-finds-socialism-increasingly-seen-badge-pride-us It’s a tale as old as time. Or at least as old as the Cold War. Whenever Conservatives run out of material, whenever they find themselves going up against an idea only total assholes would oppose, they throw out the word SOCIALIST. That one word would cause whole lot of people who grew up during the Cold War and associated socialism exclusively with the USSR to reliably freak out, and turn to Republicans for comfort and the free market. It did not matter if the person or the idea was actually socialist, it did not matter that there were things conservatives liked (like police officers!) that were, in fact, socialist. And they weren’t the only ones. Republicans have long been able to exert a certain amount of control over the Democratic Party with the word, because it was always a looming threat. You’re not going to see Republicans policing themselves and their own ranks because of what Democrats could call them or say about them (or for any other reason, really), but “But Republicans will call us socialists!” has always been a reliable excuse not to do certain things and to perhaps be more circumspect than they might otherwise be.   (wonkette.com) It has been a slow trip to the light on the Left…but the trip has been steady and those young voters are coming of age. I do not trust polls but this has been a steady journey…I have seen it in the youngsters I talk with….. Like I said….Bad News indeed.

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Politics Of Fear

And so it began!

politics of fear denotes when leaders (or candidates for leadership) use fear as a driving or motivating factor for the people, to get them to vote a particular way, allow excesses in spending, or accept policies they might otherwise abhor. The concept relies on the fact that presenting people with an alleged threat to their well-being will elicit a powerful emotional response that can override reason and prevent a critical assessment of these policies. The Cheney George W. Bush administration used this tactic after the events of September 11, 2001 to illegally invade liberate Iraq, erode civil liberties, and avoid Congressional oversight. This has been continued by the Obama administration, and doesn’t seem likely to end any time soon. It is, however, not really a modern phenomenon — access to modern media simply makes it much easier to fear-monger.

I bring this up as the 2022 election looms large….

Look at the GOP they have nothing but FEAR as a platform for the election…..

Republicans are planning to use crime—translation: racist dog whistles—as a major part of their message for the 2022 midterm elections, NBC News reports. “Democrats want to defund the police” is going to be a Republican rallying cry in far more races than there are Democratic politicians who actually want to defund the police. (And the goal of “defund the police” is of course going to be radically misrepresented.) Black Lives Matter is also going to be targeted as a source of violence, all facts to the contrary, because … well, you know.

“In some districts, we focused on ‘defund the police’ and the broader culture fight,” a Republican operative told NBC News of the 2020 effort to win the House. “The broader culture” fight equals overt racism, in case you were wondering. He continued, “But in many suburban districts, we took ‘defund the police’ and turned it into a public safety issue about whether there should be increased or decreased police in your neighborhood, and what public safety officials do to keep people safe.” In other words, in districts where overt racism would turn voters off, Republicans used more veiled racism.

As Republicans gear up to run on a crime-crime-crime-we-are-the-party-that-can-prevent-crime (psst, crime means Black people) platform, there were more than 400 shootings in the United States over the Fourth of July weekend, with at least 150 people killed. Republicans continue to fiercely oppose even the most minor tweaks to gun laws as part of reducing the crime they claim to think is such an enormous problem. Republicans want you to be afraid of a stereotypical racist dog whistle of a criminal, but they want to keep hands in the guns of men who stalk and abuse women they’re dating. The fear they want you to feel doesn’t extend to action on school shootings. Until recently, Republicans even blocked funding for research into gun violence to promote a better understanding of, and better solutions to, the problem. The Republican plan is all about supporting the same old police tactics and blaming the groups of people Republicans blame for everything, rather than considering what would actually work. They hope to ride that to victory in 2022.

(dailykos.com)

The GOP is so supportive of police that North Carolina passed a new bill…..

North Carolina Republicans, like their brethren across the country, love to frame themselves as protectors of law and order. They especially love to mischaracterize progressive attempts at policing reform as calamitous cuts to police departments.

But in our state, there’s one party that’s been dangerously shorting the criminal justice system over the past decade. Incredibly, that party appears ready to continue doing so despite North Carolina’s $6.5 billion surplus.

According to a Charlotte Observer report, the Republican-led Senate has passed a $26 billion spending plan that would cut one prosecutor from the Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s office, reducing the roster of assistant district attorneys to 84. (The House will likely pass its budget later this month.) Republicans also want to transfer a District Court judge from Durham to Bladen County and move two assistant public defender positions from Wake County to Robeson County.

I am so glad that the GOP has our backs against crime (yes that is sarcasm)
 
Do not believe the lame ass slogans before you vote…..
 
Be Smart!
 
Learn Stuff!
 
I Read, I Write, You Know
 
“lego ergo scribo”

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”

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”