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”

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”

The History Of American Federalism

College Of Political Knowledge

This is another in my series looking at our “federalism”.

Even the most ignorant among us (and there are many) have a small grasp of the word “Federalism”….

In case you are scratching your head…then a simple definition should save your scalp from ravishing.

A system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government is responsible for broader governance of larger territorial areas, while the smaller subdivisions, states, and cities govern the issues of local concern.

I have given my thoughts on federalism and the need……https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2021/03/15/does-federalism-remain-a-good-idea/

But unlike the Constitution the idea of federalism has been changing throughout our history….thanx to peped.org….

In the beginning there was the idea of “Dual Federalism”….

When the Constitution was written, it was widely understood that the federal government and the states would exercise different separate powers. The federal government would be responsible for all foreign affair, national defence and all interstate matters (such as trade that crossed state boundaries); the states would be responsible for everything else, including any powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (known as ‘reserved powers’). For most Americans, this meant that the majority of decisions affecting would be made by their state government which, in principle, best understood them and had their interests at heart. This relationship between the states and the federal government is known as ‘dual federalism’.

In practice, the balance between the two tiers of government was never as neat as dual federalism suggests. During the First World War, for example, the government took direct control of industries that were essential to the war effort and states did not always look after the best interests of all their citizens, for example in the South where African-Americans looked to the federal courts to protect their interests from state governments that practised racial segregation.

Then came “Cooperative Federalism”……

When the Great Depression struck, in the 1930s, the balance between the states and the federal government was decisively altered. The states did not have the resources to help citizens who had lost their jobs and, often, their homes. The federal government did have the resources and it used them, in the New Deal, to help those who were suffering and to stimulate the economy. However, this meant federal government involvement in welfare matters that had previously been considered the exclusive responsibility of the states. This changed, overlapping relationship between the states and federal government is known as ‘cooperative federalism’.

Notwithstanding the clear need to help those who were in no position to help themselves, the New Deal was fiercely resisted by the conservatives in the 1930s as undermining the principle of federalism ad weakening the most important constitutional protection of liberty. Even in the 21st century, some conservatives regard the New Deal as the start of a slippery slope leading to ever greater government and, consequently, reduced freedom. Liberals, in contrast, greatly admire the way in which the Constitution allowed the federal government to step in at a time of crisis and make productive use of people who would otherwise have been idle as a result of mass unemployment. Cooperative federalism continued after the Great Depression had ended, as the federal government continued to play a major role through the Second World War and the Cold War.

Next was “Creative Federalism”……

In the 1960s, the relationship between the states and federal government changed again. President Lyndon B Johnson launched his Great Society programme, designed to end poverty in the USA. In his view, the states had never made a serious effort to tackle the concentrated pockets of poverty, often in the cities (such as Los Angeles South Central district), and could not be relied upon to do so. Therefore his programme often bypassed state governments and worked directly with city or local authorities to implement anti-poverty projects. This further advance of the federal government into matters traditionally seen as the responsibility of the states is known as ‘creative federalism’.

The Great Society Programme provoked a backlash, however. Americans of almost all political persuasions agreed that federalism was in danger of becoming meaningless, as policies concerning communities up to 3,000 miles away were being made up in Washington DC.

Then this country stepped into the recent phase of Federalism…..”New Federalism”…..

Since President Johnson left office in 1969, almost every president, both Republican and Democrat, has introduced programmes to re-empower the states and restore a balance closer to the original model of dual federalism. These programmes, although they vary quite significantly, are collectively known as ‘new federalism’. In brief, they have worked as follows;

  • President Nixon (Republican 1969-74)

Nixon’s programme, called General Revenue Sharing, allowed the states to spend a greater proportion of their federal grants as they chose.

  • President Carter (Democrat 1977-81)

Carter continued the General Revenue Sharing programme of his predecessor, but also cut the amount of federal grants available to the states so that they would have to become self-dependent.

  • President Reagan (Republican 1981-89)

Reagan made sharp cuts to funds available to the states, especially for welfare payments, as soon as he took office. He offered the states a new arrangement, reminiscent of dual federalism (called ‘swaps’), in which they would take full responsibility for some welfare programmes while the federal government would take over others in their entirety . The increased cost to the states of such an arrangement led them to reject the proposal.

  • President Clinton (Democrat 1993-2001)

Clinton oversaw an economic boom that led to the states building up surplus funds, in many cases, for the first time since the 1920s. These funds were then used to pioneer new policy ideas that suited the states’ needs and priorities, for example Wisconsin started a programme to extend school choice by issuing families with education vouchers that could be used in any school, whether state-run or private.

  • President George W Bush (Republican 2001-2009)

Although committed to new federalism in principle, President George W Bush responded to the attacks of 11 September 2001 by increasing government control over any policy that related to national security. Then, when the economy deteriorated sharply in 2008, he introduced an economic stimulus plan that included substantial payments to struggling state governments.

  • President Obama (Democrat 2009-)

The first action of President Obama, taking office in the midst of an economic crisis was an economic stimulus plan on an even greater scale than that of his predecessor.

Overall, new federalism has illustrated the difficulty of achieving a relationship between the states and federal government that resembles the balance expected by the Founding Fathers.

Then came Trump and  I am not sure that he even understood the concept of federalism…..

There is one thing that is obvious…..

The reason that federalism has taken so many forms is that none has worked effectively. The only time that the states have enjoyed a resurgence has been during an economic boom. Whenever there has been a national crisis, the federal government has either chosen to assert dominance over the states or has been required to do so, often with the full backing of states that have been powerless to cope with events.

Federalism was the dream that this would make the country more equitable and so far after all these years it has failed.

If it cannot be perfected then maybe it is time to move to something else….but some think the federalism will save this country…..https://www.city-journal.org/how-federalism-can-end-partisan-gridlock

I disagree….it looks to me that all these problems and antics and corruption were created by the federalism system….I do not think that it can be repaired….it is too late for that.

Any additions or thoughts?

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”

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”