Category Archives: Politics

The US Supreme Court Has Gone Rogue

Many on the Right side of the aisle are outraged. Gay marriage – a social issue at its core – has been validated by the US Supreme Court. The outrage is palpable. And while there is legitimacy to this outrage – especially with regard to the Court’s transgression of the 10th Amendment – the decision on gay marriage is a “bright shiny thing” that serves to quickly file us past an earlier decision that directly threatens the constitutional structure of our government: The Court’s ruling on King v. Burwell; the Obamacare subsidies.

No matter how you feel about the issue of gay marriage, the Court’s ruling on this social issue is an attack on the 10th Amendment, the rights of States to have authority over all things not enumerated in the US Constitution. But comparatively, the Court’s decision on Obergefell v. Hodges is a “mosquito bite” to yesterday’s “beheading” of our balance of powers at the federal level. We are being led away from what is tantamount to a “genocidal slaughter” of the Separation of Powers to gawk at a “highway accident.” With yesterday’s decision we are all – Liberal and Conservative, Republican, Democrat and Libertarian – losing our government to a transformative end stage; a commingling of constitutional branches and a centralized governmental authority in the federal government; something uniquely anathema to our basic governmental structure.

The Court’s King v. Burwell decision is so much more than its Obergefell v. Hodges decision because the former strikes at the root of how our government is supposed to work. By moving on from this constitutional crisis (and this is a true constitutional crisis) to outrage over a social issue when there are still remedies to be affected for said social issue, we are acquiescing to the Court’s decision on King v. Burwell – and the mortal damage it would establish to our system of government. No, with the Court’s King v. Burwell decision we should be fundamentally and exclusively outraged to the point of immediate action, arguing our points effectively and making a singular and cohesive stand for the Constitution.

There are those who argue that the Court’s attack on the 10th Amendment in Obergefell v. Hodges is equally as important as the Court’s direct assault on the Separation of Powers. I vehemently disagree and for good reason. The immediate danger to the Constitution and the survival of our nation – as we face forces that are achieving the fundamental transformation of our governmental structure – is the failure of the government structure itself, not the prior or resulting social issue movements. To make this argument is akin to believing that the crew of the Titanic should have started examining how to better construct a ship’s hull as the vessel was sinking instead of doing everything that they could to keep the ship afloat.

A simple solution to Obergefell v. Hodges is to remove government from the authoritative realm of marriage all together. One way to achieve this is through the utilization of contracts for legal affairs between cohabitants, leaving the sanctity of the institution of marriage to the Churches where it belongs. Regarding the issue of taxation, where marriage is concerned, radically transforming our tax system from one based on income to one based on consumption makes the issue of “marriage” and personal taxation moot.

That social issue solution understood, we can see why King v. Burwell is so much more important. We live in a time when judicial precedent trumps constitutionality, and we are, in real time, witnessing an explosion of the very structure of our government. Precedent is being set – right before our eyes – that would allow the Judicial Branch to directly rewrite legislation via the issuing of judicial edicts from this point forward.

While both these decisions are important, one cements the destruction of our governmental model, while the other is a social issue battle that the Progressives will use to keep the citizenry away from being cohesive on the latter. Should we fail to see this true constitutional crisis then we will witness, in the immediate, the end of our constitutional form of government.

One battle is so much more important than the other. If we cannot see that then we are not worthy of the freedom we pretend to enjoy. Truthfully, I am stunned this has to be explained.

The NEW WORLD ORDER SOCIALIST PARTY Controls America

 

Demomcrat Logo

The united states of America is ruled by one political party. It has a donkey wing and an republican logoelephant wing, both pledging allegiance to the NEW WORLD ORDER cabal of globalist billionaires headed by former Nazi George Soros. Soros got his start to billionaire status by selling fellow Jews to the Nazis and taking their possessions for himself.

Soros now seeks to destroy our nation and rule as a minion of Satan himself as he sold his soul many yearsGeorge Soros ago and was undoubtedly promised a kingdom as Jesus was nearly 2,000 years ago. Jesus refused but Soros accepted the offer it appears.  Soros has the money and lack of morals it takes to pay politicians and judges to get his evil way done to the detriment of liberty. His paid minions are trying to destroy Christianity as God’s people are the only roadblock to the control he seeks and they (Soros/Satan) will stop at nothing to accomplish the goal of the total destruction of the Christian way of life in America. The unlimited funding of immoral causes such as the homosexual Gestapo agenda, the murder of unborn children through abortion, and the support, both financially and physically, of the invasion of Godless criminal illegal aliens and moslems shows his disdain for the rule of God and the Constitution.

Both wings of Satan’s political party Il Duce Obamahave assisted Soros and his puppet, fuehrer barrack Obama, in their quest to turn this nation into just another third world satanic toilet of depravity, slavery, poverty, and misery. The homosexual activists are too deceived to realize that they are being used to implement their own destruction, now and in eternity. They are told they have the “right” to impose their immorality on “intolerant bigots” who follow the Word of God and see homosexuality as sin. God destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for the same attitudes and activity but the homosexuals call that a myth to justify their immorality to themselves. The donkey wing is unabashedly open about their disdain for God, booing Him loudly and proudly at their 2012 convention. The elephant wing blatantly lies to Holy bibleChristians to get their votes and, once elected, goes right back to supporting evil and making excuses by calling themselves “bi-partisan”, inclusive, and diverse” while joining the donkey wing in calling Christians vile names. Very few people in government today have any regard at all for the “law of the land”, Constitution 2the Constitution of the United states of America and that fact both angers and saddens me.

As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord!!!!! I ended my affiliation with the elephant wing of the NWOSP due to their despicable behavior at the 2012 Oklahoma state and national conventions where they violated parliamentary procedure and their own “party rules” to disenfranchise the Ron Paul faction they saw, rightly, as a threat to their treacherous ways.

People say we were not founded as a Christian nationBible n Flag Picture but that is not true. While it is true that this nation was not founded as a theocracy, God and the Judeo-Christian faith were an integral aspect of the plan and lives of our founding fathers.

It is time to abolish this federal government that has become a satanic agent and start over as a “shining city on a hill” as our nation was once and needs to be again. Ronald Reagan once said that “if we ever forget we are one nation under God we will be a nation gone under”. This nation has abandoned God and is well on its way under today. Only a return to God and His morality can save this nation now but it appears no one in government and many citizens of today want that to happen. I daily pray for God to raise up a Gideon to lead the USA back to the road to the promised land established by God and our founding fathers.

I submit this in the name of The Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

June 26, 2015

 

These People Are Mental Cases; End Of Story

I woke-up this morning, looked in the mirror and said “What do you feel like today Chris, do I feel like a woman or a man? Do I feel like a black man or a white man? So I said to myself, I feel Lithuanian today, so that’s what I will be today.”

It seems that in today’s society we can be whatever we feel like, it doesn’t matter what God made us or how we were born, we can just make it up as we go along. If a man thinks he is a woman, there is something mentally wrong with him, same with that white woman who thinks she is black, she is mentally wired wrong, something or someone screwed her up along the way. Instead of helping these people, the Liberal mind says we should just let them live in La-La land. I bet there are more stories about this woman that will prove even further that she is a mental case.

How many ways can a Liberal mind find to screw-up our society? Seems like Trans-Racial is the new term Liberals want us to accept. Well there is no such thing as Trans-Racial, just like there is no such thing as Trans-Gender, you are born what you are and that’s it, if you think you are something else, check yourself into a rubber room. There is no doubt that Rachel Dolezal has a mental problem, but what will our screwed-up society do? Probably give her a Reality Show.

Need more proof of how screwed-up our society is: Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel, a lesbian couple from California, claimed their 11-year-old son Thomas didn’t want to be a boy. Thomas, who prefers to go by “Tammy,” wanted to be a girl. So his mothers gave him hormone treatments to delay puberty so that he could fully “transition” into a female through surgery when he is old enough.

To make matters worse they let him decide who he was sexually at the ripe old age of 3. If you are reading this and you think that there is nothing wrong with it, than you need to be fitted for a rubber room as well. I am sure these mentally ill women are just trying to push there lesbian lifestyle on that poor kid, after all at age 3 who even knows anything about different genders. Where are the child abuse charges against these two women? Oh, I forgot, this happened in California, need I say more.

I don’t know how this happened, but this country is turning into one big funny farm, it seems the inmates are running the place. Some where along the way right became wrong and wrong became right, we are truly living in an upside down world, God help us if it continues.

“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Available here.

BlackfaceThis is one man’s opinion.

Diversity, Education, Excellence, & Black America

What do you think about Pres. Obama’s plan to force diversification in neighborhoods?

Horace Cooper, Project 21, talking schools, excellence, and black America. Are we really doing kids any favors if they can’t read the diploma that you’re handing them? Education should challenge kids and prepare them for REAL life.

He also talks about interactions with police and how to respond to authority. It’s a dangerous situation when cops hesitate and our young people don’t trust them.

Donald Trump and Media’s Treatment of Presidential Candidates

When Donald Trump announced his candidacy for president earlier this week, America let loose a collective snort of derision. For years, as Trump has flirted with running for the nation’s highest office, it has seemed as though the media mogul has been stumping with the sole purpose of generating publicity for his brand. While some charge, with some merit, this is a degradation of the democratic process, it is certainly a brilliant P.R. move.

Trump’s serious as a candidate in the eyes of the electorate contrasted with the negative media coverage coming from the right in the past days is interesting. Trump’s face painted with clown makeup was plastered on the cover of the New York Post. In an article title “Witless Ape Rides Escalator,” published in National Review Online, Trump was described as having the “worst taste since Caligula.”

Some, talk radio king Rush Limbaugh among them, have pointed out that left wing media never savage their nonserious candidates.

But surely, the willingness of right-leaning pundits to call out the shortcomings of politicians, regardless of their party identification, is a good thing. It speaks to the consistency with which conservatives approach their ideals. They stick to one standard, regardless of whether the person with whom they disagree might otherwise hold the same beliefs.

Besides, becoming a candidate for national office contains an expectation of scrutiny. Presidential nominees open themselves to a bevy of questions in order that their shortcomings and hypocrisies be exposed; an individual flawed in character or policy preferences is a detriment to the nation’s welfare.

And Trump certainly has plenty of shortcomings. He did, after all, propose wiping out the national debt in the 1990s by assessing a one-time 14.25% tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth over $10 million.

That being said, there is of course the old adage of their being no such thing as bad press. Trump, who, according to research compiled by FiveThirtyEight has a net favorability rating of -32%, benefits every time his name is discussed in the press. Even negative coverage is a lightning rod for his campaign. The mere repetition of his overbearing arrogance and ridiculous, often xenophobic statements is enough to make him seem more mainstream and liked than he actually is.

So, what responsibility does the media have in this situation? The question of candidate coverage is an ever-present one. Each cycle, candidates who seem to be underdogs complain that they remain this way chiefly because they get little recognition in the news and are excluded from party-sponsored debates. Rick Santorum’s unlikely rise in the 2012 primary lends some credence to this argument.

However, the media making strategic calculations about candidate access to press has already been tried with the Equal Time Rule of the FCC’s disastrous Fairness Doctrine. The problem is, though seemingly done in the name of fairness, these kind of decisions mask the real political consciousness media adopts. Double standards may be applied, but, since the media controls the coverage, its hard for the public to know whether “fairness” is actually the standard since other stories that might be important are not covered, meaning they tend to fade into oblivion.

But an activist role, where the media picks and chooses what stories to cover based on their assessment of a candidate’s seriousness is equally troublesome. Again, the media is infused with a consciousness that has the power to shape and influence political outcomes.

What’s the solution? As with many things in a democratic system, the discretionary power of the individual. With most media models driven by ad revenue, page clicks or viewership is the literal lifeblood of a news organization. Especially where politics are concerned, pundits have a right to make coverage decisions as they see fit. But that doesn’t mean people have to accept spin they find unfair.

The coverage surrounding Trump is a tremendous example of this. It is likely much of the negative press aimed at Trump is driven by personal dislike. Frankly, there’s a lot to dislike. If this sentiment resonates with public opinion, there’s nothing wrong with it. But, if it doesn’t, individuals need to take their consumer power somewhere else so media elites don’t become the equivalent of campaign strategists.

Obama, Community Equality Breeds Laziness!

Mr. Obama is at it again trying to regulate another part of our lives that makes us uniquely American.

Americans understand freedom, the ability to work harder, do better, move up… and out! We work harder at work to get a better position, make more money, have more security, and more opportunities.

Americans move to communities that reflect their values, have better schools, less density, more density, more pubs, less pubs, more shopping and restaurants, or less shopping and restaurants. We move to certain areas to better our lives or our children’s lives.

Enter his Social Highness Mr. Obama, who has decided that we (Americans) don’t really understand equality. He thinks we don’t understand how to help our neighbors (or others) so he is going to mandate it. As usual, he thinks by forcing his view of “equality” on us it will make everything perfect (how did that work out for you Mr. Obama in the Middle East?)

The president is having HUD (the Department of Housing and Urban Development,) those same wonderful people who gave you “the projects,” “ghettos,” and “Section 8 housing” look at the inequities in various neighborhoods… neighborhoods that are mostly white, mostly black, mostly rich, mostly poor, and basically not diverse enough. Why? To implement forced equality.

President Obama wants to use billions of dollars in HUD grants as a carrot to cities to mix up the neighborhoods a bit more. You know, make adjustments in building codes and such to bring in more “diversity.” If you don’t, well then, your grant money just might disappear. I say we start in Beverly Hills, Brentwood, and Upper Manhattan. He and HUD are going to dictate how a neighborhood should look or else!

Here’s the deal… Mr. Obama will take away any and all incentives to better ones self. Why bother? Just let the government do it.

You don’t want to work harder to make more money? No problem! The government will force a living wage on employers. Don’t move up, the government will help.

Don’t look for a job that offers benefits. The government will help by forcing benefits on you and the American populous to pay for them. Take it easy… they got you covered!

Didn’t take advantage of government-issued birth control? No problem! The government’s got you covered with a government paid for abortion at a clinic near you. And if you just happen to be underage, no big deal. Your parents need not know.

Food stamps and welfare are just a form away! Fill it in and even you can get an EBT card. What’s that?! You have no ID? No problem! Just tell them how hard it was for you to get over the border at night and you’ll be quickly added to the welfare rolls.

If you’re one of those who just can’t seem to figure out how to move up and get yourself out of your neighborhood (let’s say, like Detroit) just sit tight. Obama and HUD are hatching up a plan to get you out.

The president feels that it’s unfair for people who might be sacrificing by working multiple jobs (rather than indulging in activities that blow their hard-earned cash) so they can move out of bad areas and into good areas should not be allowed to be the only ones who benefit. He thinks that if an area has been built up and has many “well-off” white folks that it’s just not right or fair. Blacks and other minorities should have the ability to move to those communities also.

Last I checked Mr. Prez they do! (Who’s stopping them?) Get another job, work hard, do better, and you can move to a better neighborhood. It’s how America works.

When I grew up in the North End of Boston it was

Read more at: LAZY

Rick Santorum: The Barry Goldwater of the 21st Century

Barry Goldwater has the unique distinction of being the most important loser in modern politics. After his failed 1964 bid for the White House, his conservative platform worked its way into a position of dominance in the Republican party, eventually leading to the landslide victory of Ronald Reagan.

The American political landscape is frequently defined in terms of pendulum-like swings between dominance of left and right ideologies and attitudes towards government.

And, after milquetoast nominee after milquetoast nominee running the primary gambit on the right, it’s time to ask, has the next Goldwater moment come?

The 2012 election cycle saw the unlikely rise of former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum from dark horse socially conservative candidate to winner of the all-important Iowa caucus. Santorum, a social conservative, thought subject to a media interrogation that would have made Torquemada proud, would go on to win 11 primary states before dropping out to attend to the health of his youngest daughter.

Could Santorum have ultimately gone on to win the election? It is, of course, impossible to say. However, this may be an ancillary detail to a larger political truth.

Where Santorum stood alone as a true conservative in the 2012 race, he is joined this cycle by a bevy of right-wing candidates, representing exponential growth in conservative messaging compared to the last cycle.

Where the trend in 2012 was towards moderation and centricity, ostensibly to earn the all-important independent vote, candidates this cycle are actually scrambling to produce conservative credentials, or spin their actions into something that looks to be anti-establishment.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz labels the Constitution as his standard on his campaign website. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul claims to be running to “restore liberty to ourselves and future generations.” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio highlights the family as the most important part of society. Jeb Bush, though not an official candidate, positions his Right to Rise PAC as an opportunity “to move up the income ladder based on merit, hard work and earned success.”

All these are examples of traditional conservative messaging. And, where, even as recently as the 2014 midterm elections, messages such as these were labelled as being too divisive and a danger to Republican victory, they are now becoming the early standard of the 2016 race.

Santorum, then, really ought to be looked at as a Goldwater for the 21st century. Where his 2012 rival candidates sought to distance themselves from conservative “extremism,” Santorum braved a faux media storm and rode an unlikely wave to early success.

True, Santorum differs from Goldwater in two significant ways. He did not lose, he withdrew, and he did so at a much earlier stage of the electoral cycle.

However, the fact that some part of his messaging resonated with enough of the GOP’s voting populace is significant. It was a channel for the frustrations for conservatives in the populace at a time when the GOP and the media told them they were “whacko birds.”

The 2014 election was a wave for the right. Yet, despite a clarion voicing of desire to see government adopt more limited stances, the Republican leadership has continued to blunder their way through legislation, continuing to disparage their conservative members and ultimately frittering away every advantage they’ve had.

At this early stage of the game, especially now that the advent of the Internet and the Citizens United decision have made it easier for average people to participate and influence elections, conservatism seems poised to dominate the presidential debate, making another 1980s style right-wing victory seem likely.

Rick Santorum, rather than being laughed off as an unserious candidate without policy distinction, should be given some credit in helping to make this possible.

Clinton-New York Times Scandal Highlights Inanity of Political Endorsements

It seems every day brings news of yet more sordid exploits in which the Clintons are prominently featured.

The latest revelation from the Washington Free Beacon lays out a possible endorsement-for-hire scandal in which a charity owned by the New York Times received $100 thousand from the Clinton Family Foundation in 2008, the same year the paper endorsed Hillary as the Democratic nominee for president.

While the paper, which was reportedly considering endorsing Barack Obama, unquestionably engaged in some shady ethics, the question is, should they really be condemned, or is the centrality of endorsements in the American election cycle really the problem?

Why is the editor of a major newspaper qualified to endorse a public servant of any kind, be they federal representative or notary public? Surely not because their position as “government watchdog” gives them some special insight into what kind of policy is best for the nation and which candidates are most likely to support that legislation. That would suggest the papers, who wear their accountability role  as a badge of honor, have an agenda and perspective.

Of course, there is no such thing as true editorial objectivity. The problem with the Times’ endorsement of Clinton lies not in the timing of the donation, but in that they were not honest about it at the time.

The Times, by possibly allowing money to their decision, essentially sold their editorial integrity to the Clintons. Their voice became, not their own, but a puppet, malleable in the hands of the highest bidder. This is problematic because, in the democratic process, a vote is an act of expression.

When the individual relies on endorsements of a candidate as a judgment of worth, he or she engages in intellectual collectivism. Their voice is no longer a representation of their needs, wants or interests, but an echo of the endorser’s. And, since endorsements, particularly when voiced by prominent public figures and officials are ultimately done in the name of the needs of some disenfranchised group, they are ultimately hollow, self-perpetuating rhetoric.

When a candidate truly has ideas that correspond to the ideology of a particular person, their own appeals and legislative actions will resonate. Endorsements suggest that the average voter is not smart enough to make such an assessment on their own; they suggest that voters need to be enlightened by the smarter elites of society. In reality, the voter should give credence to no voice other than their own, since, even if someone else does have similar interests, can empathize with the harsh reality of daily need, they cannot mirror perspective.

As a tool of contrast, endorsements may be useful. When a rational case is laid out along lines of thought that are alien to one person’s worldview, the contrast in thinking may be intellectually expansive. But this cannot replace the analysis of a candidate’s past actions and present promises necessary to make a truly informed vote.

Only individual volition can chose to do this. And it can only truly do so by considering wants and thoughts that are unique, determined by past experiences, present needs and future goals.

Why Voting In 2016 Matters

THE NEW ANT and the Grasshopper, Two Versions:

The ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

This  one is a little different…. Two  Different Versions …
Two  Different Morals

 

OLD  VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long,

building his house and  laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool

and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm

and  well fed.

The  grasshopper has

no  food or shelter, so he
dies  out in the cold.

MORAL  OF THE OLD STORY:

Be  responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION 

The ant works hard

in  the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house
and  laying up supplies for the winter.

The  grasshopper thinks the ant 

is  a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

 

Come  winter, the shivering grasshopper 

calls  a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be
allowed  to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving..

CBS,  NBC, PBS, CNN, 

and  ABC show up to
provide  pictures of the shivering grasshopper
next  to a video of theant
in  his comfortable home with a table filled with food.  
America   is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How  can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper   

is  allowed to suffer so?

Kermit  the Frog appears   on  Oprah with  the grasshopper
and  everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green

Occupy  the Anthill stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house  where the news stations film the SEIU group singing, We  shall overcome.

 

Then  Rev Al Sharpton’s assistant 

has  the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper
while  he damns the ants. The Reverend Al can not attend as he has contractual commitments to appear on his MSNBC show for which he is paid over two million dollars a year to complain that rich people do not care.

President  Obama condemns  the ant and  blames

President  Bush 43, President Bush 41, President Reagan,  Christopher Columbus, and the Pope  
for  the grasshopper’s  
plight..

Nancy  Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim  in an interview on The View that  the ant has gotten  rich off the back of the
grasshopper 
and  both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair  share.

Finally,  the EEOC drafts the  Economic  Equity &
Anti-Grasshopper  Act
retroactive  to the beginning of
the  summer.

The  ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of  green  bugs and, having  nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the  Government  Green Czar and  given to the grasshopper .

The  story ends as we see the grasshopper 

and  his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just  happens to be the ant’s  old house,
crumbles  around them because the grasshopper  doesn’t maintain it.

The  ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The  grasshopper  is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now  abandoned, is taken over  by a gang ofspiders  who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous   and  peaceful, neighborhood.

The  entire Nation collapses bringing  the rest of  the free world with it.

MORAL  OF THE STORY:

Be  careful how you vote in 2016. 

“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids’ Available here.

Ant

This is one man’s opinion.

Public Opinion Divorced from Scope of Government Power in King v. Burwell

The Supreme Court’s ruling in King v. Burwell, which will decide whether healthcare plans purchased in states that use the federal exchange are eligible for subsidies, is being characterized as a simple matter of statutory interpretation.

At issue is wording in the Affordable Care Act that clearly states tax credits apply to individuals enrolled in an exchange “established by the State.” However, a ruling against the Obama administration would mean a loss of an average $4,700 in subsidies per person in the thirty-four states that rely on the federal marketplace.

The government argues it is not the actual words of the statute that matter, but their intent, meaning the definition, and thus the tax breaks, should apply to federally purchased plans.

Opponents take a more literal approach, arguing the interpretation of the statute must be limited to the specific meaning of the words written in the legislation as passed.

The problem with the Supreme Court looking beyond textualism and to intent is twofold. One, it gives the Court legislative powers. While statutory interpretation is well within the purview of the justices, the Constitution must be the root of that interpretation.

Secondly, judicial decisions that give deference to the motives and intent of various governmental organs make the law a living creature. It becomes malleable. Substantively equitable rule of law relies on strict interpretation of statutes. The American ideal of justice is very much tied into this idea. The introduction of empathy into judicial rationale makes law a living entity with a survival instinct. History shows that these types of states end in despotism.

Besides, this kind of legal construct require taking the government at face value. Yet, the ACA was crafted to punish states that did not set up exchanges, the assumption being that once residents realized how much more their plans would cost without the subsidies, governors would bow under the furor of public outcry.

Nevermind how utterly insulting this is to the complexity of the democratic political process and the voting rationale of the average citizen, it clearly suggests a legislative emphasis on state exchanges..

But, one has to ask oneself, does any of this even matter? Sadly for those who believe in strict Constitutional interpretation and the rule of law, public opinion suggests not.

A recent Washington Post-ABC poll revealed that, while 54% of those surveyed oppose the ACA, 55% do not want the Court to rule against the government.

ACA poll

The wording of the question is in itself problematic, as the phrasing about low income families being “helped” by subsidies introduces bias. However, it is striking that the question does not take into account the issue of what courses of action the branches of the federal government are granted by the Constitution.

The emotionalism of budgeting is a powerful argument, much more so than the dry rationale of pundits concerned with maintaining the proper balance of lawful government power. It is often the focus of polling, which in turn is often a justification behind public policy pushes, which creates and perpetuates an ultimately hollow legislative process.

Obama administration officials are already threatening that if the Court does not rule in its favor, the American healthcare system will descend into “utter chaos.” While many state governments ignored the threats of such sophistry, whether the Court will do so remains to be seen.

 

Crowded Early Presidential Field is Healthy for Democracy

Though the 2016 election is approximately 16 months away, the list of declared presidential candidates is already lengthy.

On the right, George Pataki, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry have announced their candidacy. The left’s field is smaller, limited so far to Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Linc Chafee and Bernie Sanders, but may soon grow, as prominent national figures on both sides of the political aisle have announced they will soon announce their candidacy.

With the 2012 Republican primary carousel still prominent in the mind of many voters, the herd of declared and exploratory candidates is already wearying. To many, it promises intense intra-party bickering, the inundation of the airwaves with attack ads and wasted money on campaigning.

All of these things are frequently characterized as yet another example of a broken system.

But, this view is narrow and shallow; it does not take into account the complexity of national politics.

Impassioned pundits will often wax poetic about federalism and the devolution of power. But, the emphasis on localism that is such an important part of the American political lexicon is never translated into the language of the electoral system.

Diversity in small communities demands power be kept at a level where people’s stake in the outcome makes it more likely they act and debate prudently. This is exactly how the primary system works.

A political party is a community which people join of their own volition and act in to an extent they deem appropriate for their interests.

However, this does not guarantee unity of interests. Though there are overarching principles that bind party members in office and the electorate together, that does not mean they think alike in regards to particulars. So long as these differences are real and legitimate, there is a need for debate, not only so that the merit of ideas becomes evident through contrast, but in order to find which approach is most prominent since action has to be consensus drive to some degree.

The American political system is unique in that parties are bifurcated primarily not on values or ideas, but their belief in the strength of government. Yes, values are a hugely important part of a given party’s constitution, but they are more informed by what societal entity should take responsibility for a given need.

When this is the chief dichotomy and there are only two major parties, a host of beliefs that are similar at a macro level and different at a micro level must necessarily arise. And this is a wonderful thing because it forces debate over real and substantive matters. Ultimately, this cannot but help to strengthen personal ideologies and the political class, in turn making government more sound and more efficient.

In practice, this is obviously a flawed system. Sophistic rhetoric and venial platitudes often come to the forefront in debate, but this does not change the basic fact that substantive discussion is necessary. It is the responsibility of voters to weed out the serious, meritorious politicians from the bloviating, self-seeking hacks.

Long exposure to the public is the dominant tool through which this is accomplished. The primary system with its debates and campaign speeches exists to serve this function. And rather than looking upon this as some necessary evil where the failings of democracy are flouted, voters should see this as a system that empowers their voices.

Mercantilism in Campaigns: Good or Bad for the State of Politics?

Branding is an important part of presidential politics. A candidate needs a unique platform and must be able to communicate it clearly and quickly.

Thanks to the wonders of modern production, this need increasingly manifests itself in branded campaign merchandise.

In many ways, there is a lot of good in political merchandise. For non-moneyed supporters, the purchase of campaign goods is an equitable exchange of value. Their purchase of a t-shirt or bumper sticker not only helps in publicizing a campaign, but gives the supporter the intangible pleasure of asserting their ideology and annoying those who do not agree.

But, while there are myriad meritorious free-market principles on display here, can such a transaction go too far, say, when complex political issues are encapsulated in pithy t-shirt slogans or highlight a candidate’s perfunctory personal attributes?

Rand Paul, whose campaign has capitalized on his opposition to the Patriot Act, is currently selling t-shirts that take a somewhat facetious jab at bulk data collection:

On the other side, Hillary Clinton supporters can purchase a t-shirt made to look like one of her trademark pantsuit jackets:

Those who bemoan the state of money in politics can surely find cause for alarm here. And they may be right, not because votes are being bought, but because American politics requires substance beyond that which can be screen-printed and worn on someone’s chest.

Modern campaigning, with its emphasis on partisan politics and “gotcha moments” divorced from context, is already insulting to the intelligence of the average voter. The veniality of merchandized politics runs the risk of making it more so, especially if this is the sum total of engagement the average voter has with candidates and issues.

On the other hand, when people are made free to decide for themselves what political choices are most advantageous for their interests, they are also made free to act superficially, to disregard serious political discourse. Individualism, then, would dictate, that the risk of degradation to the health of the body politic presented by certain actors is something that must be combated by attention and volition.

After all, capitalism and democracy share the same strengths and weaknesses. Chiefly, their virtue lies in their organic nature. Only a plurality of individuals with united vision have the power to direct greater definitions of right and wrong. And this does not infringe on the rights of dissenters.

So, when it comes to mercantilism and political messaging, the ultimate affect upon broader political health is something for the American people to decide by individual discretion. And that’s a wonderful thing.

 

Harry Reid Retire Already

There is no doubt in my mind that Harry Reid is mentally off the rails, once again he sticks his nose where it does not belong. Reid renewed his crusade against the Washington Redskins, using time on the Senate floor to decry the team’s name as “racist.” Enough already!

First of all it is a private company, they can call themselves what ever they want, second 90% of people surveyed have no problem with the name Redskins, and third 85% of American Indians have no problem with the name as well. Shouldn’t he be more concentrated on things like our lousy economy, or ISIS invading our shores?

To quote this mental midget, “I find it stunning that the National Football League is more concerned about how much air is in a football than with a racist franchise name that denigrates Native Americans across the country,” he said. “I wish the commissioner would act as swiftly and decisively in changing the name of the D.C. team as he did about not enough air in a football.”

Harry, while you go on a rant about things that a majority of people don’t give a crap about, how about this:

RedskinsWhat about that Harry, anything to say about it. Harry Reid, the most evil man in Washington.

1830523363_2254746936_Harry_the_crook_Reid_84216882653_xlarge_xlarge“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Available here.

 

This is one man’s opinion.

 

The Order of Battle for Americans: How to prioritize political efforts

With so many attacks on the “America we love” it is easy to get confused by the barrages on so many of the citizenry’s rights. Here’s how to prioritize spending and efforts to protect what matters:

  1. Free Speech: If any effort portends to silence one group in favor for another – stand up, regardless if you agree with their message or not
  2. Freedom to bear arms: Regardless of which weapon or piece of ammo someone decides to ban – you must protest -harshly – or there may be no one and no manner left by which the freedom of speech is protected
  3. Legal search and seizure: Without free speech, it is impossible to expose incidents where government authorities illegally search a premises, person or vehicle. That means, without freedom of speech, and the freedom to bear arms – there is no protection against unlawful search and seizure.

While these elements do not show the whole of the U.S. Constitution, they do represent the core. If these rights are protected, all others will remain.

It it is understandable why many on the right attack budget issues, abortion, and foreign policy. But, sometimes greater focus on the basics is what is needed.

Americans must focus first on the three basic issues of speech, self-defense and protection from illegal search and seizure until those rights are clearly defended.

First, a few facts:

  • ISIS is far away and irrelevant for almost all Americans today. Let’s let them fight over there while America solves its internal issues – albeit sad that they overran ground our heroes once took
  • Abortion will not be fixed in the next election, it may take a generation with the right messaging – but it won’t be tomorrow – it’s not ready for politics until then
  • The budget is as much a Republican problem as it is a Democrat problem

Now that we have that clear, here’s what must be a first focus:

  • Protect the speech of those you disagree with (you will be a better person than George Stephanopolous)
  • Protect everyone’s right to bear arms.. or you may soon find yourself unable to speak freely and without anyone to defend you.
  • Speak out when other’s rights to search and seizure are stolen. Now, hope your rights to free speech are heartily protected.

A simple case for simple freedoms. Would you rather live in a place where someone tells you what to say, gives you no manner in which to defend yourself and then searches you when and how they like?

To correct the ills of America, black or white, we simply need to return to a focus on the bill of rights. Rights that were written down, unalienable, for all men – equal.

Until those rights are again accepted, protected and ingrained in the American psyche.. is not everything else trite?

Word of the day – “MICROAGGRESSION”.

The word “microaggression” has cropped up with increased frequency over the last year, to the point that now I see it almost daily! What does it mean?

Webster’s says it has “no meaning.” It’s not a word. It doesn’t exist! Various blogs, papers, and online source provide a definition, but they’re not “official” dictionaries.

And then, I found www.microaggressions.com. This site was obviously built by people who can’t stand anyone who might, kinda, sorta, could have some kind of privilege going for them. According to this site “microaggression” is defined as:

“Racial micro aggressions are brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.”

I have said it before… words no longer have meaning and this is another perfect example of why. This definition specifically says it’s aimed at people of color.

Based on the many “microaggression” stories I’ve covered, the definition should read as follows:

micro aggressions are brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults towards; __________. (INSERT – anyone identifying as LGBTQ, a woman, a minority, or some other subset of people, no matter how ridiculous).

Recently at Brandeis University, the Asian American Students Association was accused of microaggression for putting up a display to explain microaggression using only Asians… REALLY?

A group at Oberlin University had to issue a warning of microaggression or triggering alerting readers they were about to see “Discussion of rape culture, online harassment, victim blaming, and rape apologism and denialism. REALLY? They needed a warning?

Recently Johns Hopkins University refused to allow Chick-Fil-A to open on campus because the campus LGBTQ club considered it an act of microaggression. So now anyone or anything that offends is microaggression? Well, kinda sorta. It really only seems to apply to certain groups.

If you ask me to remove my Bible from view, you would consider that your right not to be “assaulted” by my belief. But by the definitions above, wouldn’t that be considered a microaggression toward me and my religion?

The latest in microaggressions was reported at Arizona State University. Students petitioned staff to change the name of pedestrian walkways. Why, you ask? Because not everyone can walk and that COULD be viewed as a microaggression to someone in a wheelchair or on crutches. Even the people who were supposed to be offended (those in wheelchairs or on crutches) thought this was ridiculous.

Read the rest at: microaggressions

« Older Entries