Archive

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Right to Vote; Not yet!

vote

America’s democratic foundational underpinnings are explicitly linked to our right to vote and thereby the participation in the voting process of small “d” democracy is as essential as national defense. The exercise of democracy therein lies in the RIGHT of the We The People to VOTE uninhibited by the very government which represents us.With this fact being an unquestionable reflection of America freedom, it is amazing that America has no coherent approach to elections rules on BOTH the local and federal levels.  Currently America has a wide-ranging mosh-posh of election laws that can be changed at any given time by the local ruling parties.

Most Americans believe that they have the right to vote, but are unaware that the right to vote is not enshrined in the Constitution and this is a fact that some/many on the political RIGHT love to exploit via legislative barriers. Examples of this attempt at voter restriction can be witnessed in the election of 2012 as evidenced by the attempts at voter disenfranchisement via voter ID restriction laws.

The rationale that some have for the need of voter ID laws is their belief that there is a wide range of voter impersonation in America’s voting system. This symptom has yet to produce any tangible evidence of such voter fraud. Those who see the need for this additional level of voter protection ignore the fact that we have in place laws for dealing with the extremely rare (to the point of irrelevance) cases of in-person voter impersonation.

According to a study from NYU’s Brennan Center, Voter ID laws adversely affect the elderly, minorities, low-income groups, and the young that tend to vote for the Democratic Party. Obtaining photo ID can affect a person financially and can be very time-consuming endeavor. Even when a state supplies the ID “free of charge” acquiescence of a state ID can require such documents as a birth certificate that can cost up to $25 in some places, Social Security Card, bills, and other which can great inhibit the voter’s ability to vote.

The facts are out there, but why does America find itself in this state of voting stagnation? Given that the right to vote is not in the constitution, America has relegated the conditions, regulations, and procedures of voting to individual state discretion. This nonsensical local approach to voting has led to a great level of disenfranchisement when it comes to voting, whether intentional or not, the fact is people are denied the right to vote for a myriad of reasons that typically lack any credible rationale.

We The People are denied the right to vote because of ballot box design or availability, inconsistent and unequal provisional ballot counting policies, registration front groups losing registrations (intentional or unintentional, voting machine dysfunction, residency errors, convictions, and the list goes on.

Read more…

Advertisements

Perpetuation of Racial Entitlement, Scaaaaallliiiiaaaaaaaa (Scalia)!

The politicization of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has been evident for some time now, but we are now seeing decisions that demonstrate an amazingly racist, intellectually devoid, and judicially baseless rationales for judicial decisions. Judge (loosely used) Scalia is the embodiment of cancerous judicial activism that does not seek to interpret the constitutionality of laws, it appears that he only seeks to mode law into his warped political worldview.

The new approach to judicial decisions by this SCOTUS is extremely disturbing and warrants the public to be very leery of its decisions and logical leaps. The case of Shelby County v. Holder, which is about whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. This is the case that has shined an ugly light on the thinking (or lack thereof) of Scalia!

Scalia has crossed the line from just being a Supreme Court judge that only made very poor judgments into the realm of racial intolerance or just all out racism with his latest remarks. In the current case before the Supreme Court, Scalia referred to act of continuing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as an “perpetuation of racial entitlement“. A beautifully ugly and racist reference to an act that merely ensures the protection of minorities from discriminatory voting practices by certain states; which was predominately displayed in the election of 2012. His gigantically inappropriate reference to the right to vote as an “entitlement” only demonstrates his ignorance as to what an entitlement is and the stated purpose of the act itself.

Scalia’s rationale for opposition of the act is laced with stupidity and just all out preemptive assertions/justifications that have no base in fact and should not be exhibited by a member of the Supreme Court. Scalia rants by saying “initial enactment of this legislation in a — in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was — in the Senate, there — it was double-digits against it”. He then trolls on about how every-time they reenacted the law there was some measure of opposition to its re-adoption.

Scalia’s logic leap continues as he states that in the last re-enactment of the law there was a unanimous vote to extend the act and this is his rationale for calling the act of reenacting this provision of the law “perpetuation of racial entitlement“. His baseless and fatuous assertion is that the mere fact that the law was passed unanimously is evidence that the act should come into question.

Actually Scalia said it worst with this gem of moronic rationalizing “And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Under this warped logic, the fact that Scalia was confirmed to the bench by unanimous vote by Congress should put into question his nomination; which makes as much sense as what he stated. Scalia must have forgotten this fact before he made his statement. Read more…

Uber-Second Amendment Clarification: Argument One/Two/Three!

2ndA well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Is the Second Amendment hard to understand? Can those who support unregulated gun rights and/or an armed citizenry for the purpose of fighting the United States government be right that the Founding Fathers feared the possibility that this American government (the government in which they created with checks and balances) would become tyrannical and the only way to preserve freedom from our government is to have an armed citizenry?

Can those that want gun regulations be correct in stating that it was a means to establish a militia approach to the need for defense of the US instead of a peacetime army? Let’s take a peak at this to get an understanding or not! Can they both be wrong in their assertions? Can the true history of the arguments that lead to the writing of the Second Amendment be found?

Americans and pundits have been twisting themselves into pretzels in order to pull their pre-determined definition out of the Second Amendment text. There are a myriad of sites that will purport that this well-crafted amendment clearly states that Americans should have unfettered rights to gun ownership; and they would be wrong. The syntax itself clearly establishes a condition to this particular amendment and the rights it grants. With this assertion, what are arguments for or against unfettered gun rights?

The Second Amendment, of the Bill of Rights, is indeed a well-crafted sentence. By that, I mean its syntax permits only one reasonable interpretation of the authors’ meaning “In order to establish a well regulated militia, for the defense and security of a free state, the rights to of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed”. The meaning is clear when a sensible person reads the Second Amendment on its face and even more clarity is obtained via a reading of the arguments behind its adoption. A look at the arguments of those that support the idea that the Second Amendment is about an unfettered personal  right to own and bear arms is in order to point out the fallacy within. Read more…

Discussion with Conservatives: Women in Military Combat!

nean

Patriotism, courage, and even death doesn’t know gender. And with that, 152 female U.S. troops have died along side their fellow male soldiers and counting. Yet their service and sacrifice in that role has not been recognized for what it is; THE ULTIMATE SACRAFICE! Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary of the United States, said it best “men and women have been fighting and dying together and the time has come for our policies to recognize that reality“. This was in reply to the newly adopted and soon to be implemented policy of removing the restriction on women to serve in a combat role in the military.

The new policy of eliminating gender based restrictions on all military assignments could not have come too soon. The US combat exclusionary policy was only in effect in regards to formal recognition; women have been dying along the side of their male counterparts for years. This restriction was a paper tiger of sorts and only served to continue an outdated stereotype of the great and vast divide of male and female capabilities in the art of war.

This policy does not remove any of the stringent physical and mental requirements for combat; it mere allows women a chance to qualify for combat roles. In my estimation, this move not only will allow qualified women to be recognized for their service, but it will also go a long way in leveling the discriminating practices that have put a wedge between men and women in the military.

With the announcement of the change of policy, there has been a rather surprising resistance coming from the right of the political spectrum. This blog is a recount of a conversation with some conservatives on this topic. Based on this conversation, one can only hope that this attitude and stance is the absolute bottom rung of the collective “We” ladder.

This cannot be representative of conservatives as a “whole”, brace yourself for the following (nothing has been edited).

Marc Schenker  (opened this with a post on the subject)

  • Good grief, I hate this RINO more and more. Can he not read what experts like Elaine Donnelly have to say about women on the front lines?!?! What a diversity pimp. McCain Backs Women in Combat — As Long as Standards Stay High » Sen. John McCain supports allowing women in combat, while saying it remains critical for the military to uphold the same high standards particularly the physical ones that have made it the strong..

Paris Brierley1:04 PM

  • Wonder if girls will have to register for selective service now? … lets wait for that train wreck!

John Pavao1:15 PM

  • Senator McCain, we thank you for your service and your sacrifice.  Please retire.

Marc Schenker1:18 PM

  • +Paris Brierley, When girls (18 to 25) are drafted in the worst case scenario, all the feminist groups that hailed letting women into combat are going to be bitching about “The War on Women!” Hahahaha.

Anthony Gaston1:28 PM

  • I am not a fan of Senator McCain (it even hurts to type it), but I think he is taking the correct stance on this issue (I am a issues person, party be damned). I assert that women are fully capable of making a conscious decision to put themselves in harms way. I also assert that women are fully capable of learning logistics of combat, fire a weapon accurately, and performing the duties that your average male can perform.
  • What exactly do you think is wrong with women being allowed to do full combat in the war arena? Men who are (18 to 25) are killing and dying in combat; is it just the idea that it is a woman?
  • You do realize that women have been dying in the combat zone for a long time now and many of them were armed and fired back at the enemy. This change merely recognized this fact. Kudos to McCain for supporting equality on this issue; now he needs to get over the whole “gay” thing. Read more…

Rand Vs Clinton, Weak Sauce!

January 24, 2013 1 comment

Rand Paul lives up to his reputation as an ill-informed and unworthy Senator with his ridiculous statement that the Benghazi event was the “worst tragedy since 911″. I mean really? There have been a myriad of events since 911 that are more tragic, in every way than the Benghazi tragedy, but these are a few; CT shooting, record number of military suicides, Anthrax attacks by mail, Hurricane Katrina and Sally, his election, the BP spill, the list could go on and on. Hyperbolic much Mr. Paul?It is tragically laughable that his political points trumps his moral fiber. The point is, one does not have to overstate an event to give it worth. The Benghazi attack and killing were terrible and a tragedy that I wish could have been prevented, but to over inflate it in order to have your political Kabuki theatrer is sad and very unbecoming of  an elected senator.

benghaziRand Paul opened himself up to a bit of political thrashing with the following “Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi…. I would have relieved you of your post.” Clinton’s  reply was statesman-like and profession, as one would expect of her. The great thing is that Americans are being more informed, insightful  and progressive and this is the reason that Rand Paul will live the political life of Mitt Romney, as in he will never be President. I think that he is missing the fact that the Republican party cut funding for protection of the embassies abroad; another inconvenient truth. Read more…

Know Yo Civics!

civicsThe RNCC (Republicon National Congressional Committee) and the Republicons in general, due to their relationship, have a need for some serious high school civics classes. The rationale for this assertion is their general lack of understanding of how our government allocates and spends money. This is a big deal because the Constitution of the United States has defined the course in which moneys are collected and spent by the government.

Every elected politician should have a firm understanding of which the branches may start the process of taxing, allocating payments, and paying debt. It has become increasing obvious that a great number of politicians either don’t know how government works or are completely comfortable with lying to and dumbing down the American people with their words. This is not ROCKET SCIENCE; this is simple elementary/high school, depending on the school that you went to, civics.

Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution states the following in terms of who has the right to raise and spend money; “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”. Only one branch of government that has been given the right to obtain money and pay bills and that is the Legislative Branch and the House of Representatives is where all bills have to originate; see Article 1 Section 7 Clause. These facts seem to escape the RNCC as can be demonstrated by their recent ad on spending, SEE!

rncc

@NRCC You know the coin doesn’t need to be made of $1 trillion worth of platinum, right?

Read more…

Political Dinosaur (GOP)!

gop-dinosaur-smWhig Party 2013 is what comes to mind when reflecting on today’s Republicon party. The course of the Republicon party is clear! Their supporters are regressive! Their policies are void of democratic substance and are on the wrong side of progressive history, which has been a mainstay of America’s development since its inception. Their goose seems all but cooked as they continue to mire themselves into adopting policies that are anti-science, anti-freedom, anti-woman, anti-immigrant, anti-populist, anti-minority, and dare I say anti-American. The direction of the GOP is that of the Whigs or Political Dinosaurs!

The Whig Party of the early 1830s to the mid-1850s was the political party in opposition to the Democratic Party of the Jacksonian era. The reference to the current Republican party becoming the modern version of the Whigs has its merit in terms of a party leading itself out of political viability, but not in mutually reflective policies. The Whig party was, for its time, somewhat progressive in terms of economics and modernization; see HERE for a more detailed history of the Whigs. The Whig analogy is all about self destruction of a party which the Republicons have demonstrated a mastery at, as of late. The beautifully amazing divide between the Republicon party and the nation today is a political reality that the party itself refused to learn from or adapt to; as demonstrated in the 2012 elections.

A perfect example of the complete social blindness of the Republicon party is not only reflected in their members, but also in their party platform. The Republican National Committee published their 60 plus page platform named  “We Believe in America”  which is a great title but lacks the reflective policies of a 2012 America. In the 2012 platform, Republicons utilize the same coded policy verbiage that makes for great ear candy but the reality of what they represent are politically and socially ugly.

The party continues to feed their homophobic members in both policy and language. In their platform they oppose the use of  “social experimentation in the military” which is a sad-veiled reference to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. No gays in the military is their stance. The use of “fixed value for the dollar” is the right-wing moronic idea that America should return to the gold standard; an idea that has also been adopted by the Libertarian party (you know Republicans  that want to smoke dope and get laid). America’s dynamic economy of today cannot be supported by a material that only has the value subscribed to it by the market. The gold standard is unrealistic in today’s economy, but still warrants lip service by the so-called Conservatives  The platform also romanticizes the policy of privatizing Social Security, but uses the phrase “control over their investments” as a way to disguise their true policy. The policies of the Republicon party uses words that sound good, but the actual result of the policies are detrimental to American and 95% of its citizenry. Read more…

%d bloggers like this: