We the People Archives - America's Crossroad

CIVILIZATION JIHAD AND THE SQUAD

A collage of pictures with the president and his military service.

Civilization Jihad is a Muslim Brotherhood plan to peacefully conquer the west, including the United States, from within using our Constitution and laws as the primary weapons. The Squad, congresswomen Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts are critical to the Civilization Jihad strategy to defeat us, create an Islamic state, and impose un-Constitutional Sharia law on our society. Rashida Tlaib and AOC are the first female members of the Democratic Socialists of America. Of the four Squad members only AOC is not Muslim. It is important to note that Islam and socialism are statist ideologies making AOC an effective Civilization Jihadist.

Several years ago, the radical right wing website Godfather Politics Published a now deleted article titled, Muslim Brotherhood’s Five-Step Plan of Domination, Key elements are cited below:

The Muslim Brotherhood, the originator of modern-day terrorism, has a five-step or phase plan, which could take 100 years or more to fully implement and gain dominance over western civilizations like the United States. They call it civilization Jihad. Many religions have step programs. There are the nine steps to convert to Judaism and 13 steps to convert to Catholicism. Eventually, the plan would require all to submit to Sharia law. The plan was crafted by Mohammed Akram, a senior Hamas leader in the United States and board member of the Muslim Brotherhood of North America and approved by its Shura Council in 1987. Their mission statement is as follows:

The process of settlement is a Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim brethren united by common ties] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers [especially Christians and Jews] so that it is eliminated and God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.’

This mission statement for civilization Jihad is remarkably similar to the plan of another Statist. Joseph Stalin purportedly said, America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within. Details of the Muslim Brotherhood civilization Jihad plan follow:

Phase One calls for discretion as members and operatives keep a low profile and go about their business as shop owners, students and professionals. They are to be model citizens, gaining respect within their vocations and communities. Years or even decades may pass between stages.

Phase Two requires sufficient population of Muslims who begin to come out of the shadows. They begin gently pushing for recognition of Sharia law within their own communities and sphere of influence while publicly siding with the West against radical Islam. They insist that Islam is a religion of peace while co-opting progressive western leaders. They assure these leaders that Sharia will never be applied outside their own communities.

Phase Three is the penetration and escalation phase. When there are enough Muslims in a city, political and economic influence is expanded beyond the Muslim communities as in Dearborn and Minneapolis. [Muslim influence has now expanded to the US House of Representatives where five Muslims now serve.] Extensive mosque construction, funded by foreign entities, exceeding requirements based on Muslim populations is part of this phase of civilization Jihad. [Today, there are nearly 2800 mosques in the United States. There are also nearly 30 front groups and organizations that make it a appear that Muslims have more influence than they actually do.]

[The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is one of the most influential Islamic front groups. CAIR has a paid staff of about 70, around 300 volunteers, an annual budget of $3 million, affiliates in 20 states, and 33 chapters in the US. Lorenzo G. Vidino, observed that while CAIR is not a “Muslim Brotherhood organization,” CAIR has significant ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Front groups like CAIR pressure politicians and academia for Islamic studies and prayer areas, claiming victimization and demanding accommodations. They file lawsuits and cry Islamophobia at every turn, thus wearing down their Western hosts.]

Phase Four is where Muslims, now a rather significant minority population in the host country, become more belligerent and insistent that Sharia law be woven into the host’s legal, political, economic and systems. Violence from supposedly independent and disparate radical groups may also be part of Phase Four. [These Islamic revolutionaries often employ communist revolutionary tactics like those used in the Russian and Chinese communist revolutions and Iranian revolution.]

Phase Five is the final step. Muslims become the majority, or at least the ruling minority. Without pretense, the ruling Muslims terminate all non-Islamic influence. Sharia law is imposed nationwide.

In the Hudson Institute article, The Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. Network by Zeyno Baran, the six decade history of the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States is detailed including the civilization Jihad mission statement cited above. This article provides stark details concerning the tactics employed by Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists in the United States including the five phases of civilization Jihad. Key elements of Baran’s article are as follows:

In Akram’s 18-page Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, he states that the general strategic goal of the Group [the Muslim Brotherhood] in America consists of six stages:

Establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood,

Adopting Muslims’ causes domestically and globally,

Expanding the observant Muslim base,

Unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts,

Presenting Islam as a civilizational [sic] alternative,

Supporting the establishment of the global Islamic state wherever it is.

Akram then notes that the priority for this strategy is Settlement.’ This entails becoming rooted in the spirits and minds of [the] people and establishing organizations on which the Islamic structure is built.’ Akram states that Muslims should look upon this mission as a Civilization Jihadist responsibility,’ one that lies on the shoulders of Muslims [but especially on those of] the Muslim Brotherhood in this country.’

In setting up their various institutions over the past four decades Brotherhood members have remained secretive, working through the organizations mentioned above to exert their influence. When questioned, most of these organizations at first deny any links to the Brotherhood. One undated MAS memo explicitly instructs group leaders to respond negatively if asked whether they are part of the Brotherhood. When this deception failed and connections to the Brotherhood were disclosed, MAS members have downplayed these links as merely an association of the past. At the same time, they adopt the role of the victim, accusing their accusers of McCarthyism’ and Islamophobia.’ This intimidation, up to and including antidefamation lawsuits, has silenced many journalists, researchers, and other Muslims¦.

What do I mean by Islamist?’ The term was coined by the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, in an effort to politicize Islam. Broadly, the label Islamist applies to individuals or groups who believe that Islam should be a comprehensive guide to life. Islamists do not accept that the interpretation of Islam could evolve over the centuries along with human beings’ understanding, or that the religion could be influenced or modified by the cultures and traditions of various regions. Nor do they recognize that Islam can be limited to the religious realm, or to simply providing its followers with a code of moral and ethical principles¦.

Islamists are strenuously opposed to secular governance. Instead, they believe that Islamic rules and laws based upon the Quran and the sharia code must shape all aspects of human society, from politics and education to history, science, the arts, and more. Islamic jurisprudence developed and codified over the course of the 8th and 9th centuries and has not changed since then. In wholly sharia-based countries such as Iran, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia, there is little distinction between religion and state, leaving no room for liberal democracy. The institution of elections might be maintained, but this will inevitably be an illiberal system without dissent, individuation, or critical thinking¦.

Non-Islamist Muslims understand the inherent incompatibility between Islamism’s desired imposition of sharia law upon society at large and Western society’s pluralism and equality. To the Brotherhood and groups like it”whether in the Middle East or the United States”the Quran and Islam are not merely one possible source of law; they are the only source of law. As the Muslim Brotherhood declares in its motto, Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Quran is our law, jihad is our way, dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America, Is a ten-part, Center for Security Policy, YouTube expose that also discusses the agenda and tactics of the Brotherhood in the United States including civilization Jihad. These videos range in length from fifteen minutes to two hours. Videos cover Brotherhood tactics and influence operations used against conservatives and Republicans and the organizations Islamists use to promote civilization Jihad and counter opposition primarily from the political right.

Islamists are patient people who appear to be succeeding beyond their wildest dreams in their plan for civilization Jihad in the United States. Muslims control large communities in major cities where they have succeeded in imposing Sharia law with the consent of these city, county, and state governments. In these communities, Muslims have been elected and appointed to city, country, state, and national leadership positions as well as election to the US House of Representatives in the Congress of the United States. Muslims are also becoming more belligerent and insistent that Sharia law be woven into legal, political, economic and systems in the United States. These activities are consistent with Phases Three and Four of civilization Jihad; and members of the Squad integral to the plan.

Islamists, Squad members, and other elected and appointed Muslim government officials use their positions, the Constitution, and our laws to advance the objectives of civilization jihad. Amendment I, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or the press¦; and Amendment XIV, No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, ¦ nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the free protection of the laws are used quite effectively for their purposes. Islamists claim that Sharia law is an integral part of their religion and must be permitted under the free exercise clause of Amendment I. When Muslims violate our family practice or other laws, they often claim their actions are allowed under Sharia law and demand the protection of the equal protection clause of Amendment XIV.

On the other hand, Islamists reject those parts of our Constitution and laws which preclude imposition of Sharia law in any US jurisdiction. While Islamists invoke the free exercise phrase of the religion clause of Amendment I to the Constitution when demanding establishment Sharia law, they neglect the first phrase of the religion clause which states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Since Sharia law is an integral part of the Islamist Muslim religion, laws enabling establishment of Sharia law are an un-Constitutional establishment of Religion. Additionally, Article VI, Paragraph 2 states,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ¦, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws, of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, Paragraph 3 provides further proof of the un-Constitutional nature of Sheria law when it states,

[All elected and appointed government officials and judges] shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Sharia law, a Constitutional Thing, does not recognize the Constitution and Laws of United States as the supreme Law of the land, since Islamists believe that the the Quran and Islam are not merely one possible source of law; they are the only source of law violating the supremacy paragraph of our Constitution. A judge or other adjudicator of Sheria law must be a Muslim or at least agree that the Quran, Islam, and Sharia law supersede the Constitution and laws of the United States. Consequently, a religious Test is required as a Qualification to administer or adjudicate Sharia law. Therefore, Sharia law is un-Constitutional according to Article VI, Paragraphs 2 and 3, of our Constitution.

Squad members Omar, Tlaib, Pressley, and AOC embrace their civilization Jihad role as part of the

Ikhwan [Muslim brethren united by common ties] [who] understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their [own] hands¦.

They support incorporation of un-Constitutional Sharia law into our local, state, and national legal codes. Their rhetoric is anti-Semitic and supports Islamic terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda which seek to eliminate the nation of Israel. They refused to support funding for the Iron Dome missile defense system which defends Israel from Hamas and Hezbollah rocket attacks. The Squad along with Islamist activists like Linda Sarsour and Abbas Hamideh also supports the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement which views Israel as occupiers of Palestine and seeks to punish Israel for defending itself against Palestinian, Hamas, and Hezbollah terror and rocket attacks. Squad members also embrace language accusing Israel of genocide against Palestinians without evidence.

The Squad supports most ideologies, movements, and rhetoric that pits groups of Americans against each other. They support claims by Black Lives Matter and Critical Race Theorists that the United States was founded as a racist nation because of slavery. The fact that slavery was a worldwide institution not an institution unique to the Thirteen Colonies and the United States prior to the Civil War is irrelevant to those seeking to sow division in the United States. They also neglect the fact that African slaves were sold to slavers by other Africans victorious in tribal warfare. They claim that we are a systemically racist nation where all white people benefit from white privilege and the country is plagued by white Supremacists who are a greater danger to our democracy the Islamic terrorists. Whenever the policies or initiatives supported by the Squad, Democrat Socialists, progressives, and Democrats fail or are opposed by Republicans and conservatives, the left shouts that their opponents are racists or white supremacists. When racist does not fit, the left shouts misogynist, and xenophobic in an effort to divide and silence opposition.

It seems worthwhile to reiterate the marching orders of the Squad and the Marxists of the left. The purpose of civilization Jihad in America for the Ikhwan Squad members, Omar, Tlaib, Pressley, and AOC is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands. Similarly, the Marxist objective for America states that, America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within. The civilization Jihadists and the Marxists seek to destroy the United States from within using a divide and conquer strategy.

The questions for We the People is simple. Will We the People allow these enemies within our nation to divide us and defeat us. Will We the People unite against these internal enemies seeking to destroy our culture and our nation?

SILENCE IS NOT GOLDEN!

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your Patriot Visions, start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

US EDUCATION IS MARXIST PROPAGANDA

Marxist propaganda dominates the education system in the United States from preschool to Ph.D., Marxism PP. Around 1970, Herbert Marcuse stated that an educational dictatorship was required before the people of Western Europe and the United States would accept radical progressive Marxist thought necessary for radicle change. From the 1950’s through 1970, Marcuse taught Marxist critical theory at Columbia, Harvard, Brandeis and the University of California, San Diego. He supported the world-wide Viet Nam anti-war movement in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. During an anti-war symposium discussion period in Berlin, summarized in The Frankfurt School Its History, Theories, and Political Significance. 1994, a student asked him this question, What material and intellectual forces are required for radical change? In his response, Marcuse admitted his helplessness, as follows:

“In order for new demands to develop, the mechanisms that reproduced the old demands would first have to be abolished; while, on the other hand, in order to abolish those mechanisms, the demand for them to be abolished would first have to be created. The only solution he could envisage [to cause radicle change] was an ‘educational dictatorship.‘”

A group of graduates in caps and gowns posing for the camera.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party, conservatives, and Biblical Christians failed to understand the goal of the Marxist plan for an educational dictatorship. The goal of their Marxist propaganda was to abolish those mechanisms hindering radicle change by abolishing teaching of everything positive about the United States. The sad and frightening result of our failure to understand the left’s goal for our education system is that the Marxist propaganda taught to our youth has succeeded in undermining our belief that the United States and our heritage has been an overwhelming force for good in the world. Marxist propaganda taught in our schools has succeeded in creating the demand to eliminate the influence of our Judeo-Christian heritage, support for our capitalist economy, and the positive influence of our national power and influence in geo-politics.

In the United States, progressives were working toward an educational dictatorship with curricula dominated by Marxist propaganda long before Marcuse verbalized the reality of their efforts. Calls for the left’s educational dictatorship were clearly outlined in The Communist Manifesto and subsequent Marxist rhetoric. Around 1990, they controlled higher education and had trained preschool through high school teachers. By the start of the twenty-first century, progressive Marxist ideology was taught from preschool to Ph.D., and the 2008 election probably saw the first group of voters indoctrinated throughout their educational experience by Marxist propaganda.

In his 2017 publication, The End of the Experiment: The Rise of Cultural Elites and the Decline of America’s Civic Culture, Stanley Rothman called Herbert Marcuse “the Father of the New Left.” Marcuse was a member of The Frankfurt School, a group of Marxist philosophers who called themselves Critical Theorists to avoid close association with Russian communist revolutionaries. They were Marxist philosophers and social scientists with the Institute for Social Research, founded in the early twentieth century, at Germany’s Frankfurt University. Before the Nazis gained total control of Germany, most members of The Frankfurt School escaped, with their extensive library, to Columbia University via Switzerland. After WWII, many members of The Frankfurt School returned to Germany, but Marcuse and several other Critical Theorists remained in the United States.

Marcuse, through his writing, teaching, and rhetoric pioneered the mechanisms used to institutionalize the progressive left’s educational dictatorship and its curricula of Marxist propaganda. Since Marxism is “a body of rational norms” that has been largely assimilated into modern social sciences, the applicable principles of Marxist philosophy are now taught in each liberal art and social science discipline. Therefore, Marxist propaganda is incorporated in the curricula of philosophy, sociology, psychology, psychiatry, journalism, geography, the arts, and literature, to name a few. His progressive ideology regarding the role of art and man’s erotic nature in the true liberation of humanity and emancipation from bourgeoisie, capitalistic, society have also been incorporated into curricula at every level resulting in a major impact our society, culture, heritage.

Marcuse also formulated the strategies now being utilized by far-left progressive Marxist radicle revolutionaries seeking to transform the United States into a nation governed by the principles and philosophy of Karl Marx, socialism. He was one of the early radicle elites to use language from the critique of Soviet or Nazi regimes to characterize developments in the advanced industrial world. Today, this language is commonly used by progressive educators at every level, news anchors and commentators, and pundits as they characterize Republicans, conservatives, and capitalists who are not woke enough.

In his 1965 publication: Repressive Tolerance, Marcuse described how to establish his educational dictatorship and influence public discourse as follows:

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. [If movements from the left are blocked], their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements [from the right].

In classrooms and campuses from preschool to Ph.D., as well as society in general, toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements [from the right] has been withdrawn by undemocratic means, the Political Correctness movement and Cancel Culture.

Marcuse also described the groups of revolutionaries that the educational dictatorship could teach to become the radicle intellectuals needed to transform the nation our Founders envisioned into a socialist nation. A 1997 review of social and political theorist writings indicated that Marcuse believed the working class was no longer a potentially subversive force capable of bringing about revolutionary change in the United States. Instead, Marcuse put his faith in an alliance between radical intellectuals, the socially marginalized, the substratum of the outcasts and outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other ethnicities and other colors, the unemployed, and the unemployable. Accordingly, these groups could be molded into the revolutionaries needed to affect radicle change in the United States. Subsequently, numerous curricula have been developed for groups that Marcuse thought could become a subversive force capable of bringing about revolutionary change in the United States. Departments and curricula for marginalized ethnicities and other colors and the socially marginalized were subsequently developed including Black, Native American, Hispanic, Women’s, and Gender Studies. New curricula, programs, and groups were developed by the radicle progressive Marxist faculty and graduates of these disciplines including Critical Race Theory, Black Lives Matter, the Lincoln Project, and the 1619 Project. ANTIFA, the useful puppet minions of the radicle, progressive, Marxist left, appears to be a movement made up of the marginalized outcasts and outsiders of our society.

Since one of the major goals of Marxism is equity of outcomes and distribution of the benefits of society, leaders of the educational dictatorship promote equity programs that reduce opportunities for gifted and exceptional students to advance their education at their own pace. These students are held back as long as possible to minimize their potential advantage over their peers. Critical Race Theory has a similar objective. The Marxist educational dictatorship has incrementally abolished support for teaching the critical role of our Judeo-Christian heritage, Christianity, the Christian Church, and Christian Family with a father, mother, and their children, and Judeo-Christian morality and ethics. This heritage was essential to our national success and history as the United States became the greatest nation in history.

Marxist educators slowly decreased support for the ideals of The Declaration of Independence that all men’s freedom is endowed by their Creator and that our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and all Amendments were ordained as documents set apart for the service of God. The Marxist propaganda disseminated in the educational dictatorship also began a methodical campaign to defame our Founders as racists because many Founders owned slaves who had been sold into slavery by their fellow black Africans. Conservatives of all stripes failed to understand that the Marxist educational dictatorship would also abolish support for our capitalistic economy, the rule of law and law enforcement, and a military strong enough to defend our nation against Marxist and former Marxist regimes and other dictatorships. Marxists throughout the world always support each other. These regimes include China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and other South and Central American Marxist regimes, Islamist dictatorships like Turkey, Iran, and Syria, as well as the Islamic terror groups throughout the world.

Obviously, the Republican Party, Conservatives, and Biblical Christians fail We the People when we did not understand the goals of objectives of the left’s educational dictatorship. Additionally, we failed to understand that the attitude of our people toward their Judeo-Christian heritage, our constitution, the rule of law and law enforcement, capitalistic economy, and way of life could be changed through an incremental Marxist propaganda campaign in our schools. Consequently, over half of our youngest generation now favor socialism over capitalism according to one national poll; and the leaders of many of our largest corporations and Big Tech support the progressive socialist agenda and policies. Marxist progressives dominate our mainstream news outlets, commentators, and pundits. Recent news articles indicate that many corporate executives support and promote many progressive, Marxist initiatives currently dominating our public discourse. In addition, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google now actively practice intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left, political correctness and cancel culture, using undemocratic means as Marcuse suggested. Although these corporations are not government agencies, they have failed in their patriotic duty to uphold the spirit of Amendment I of the Constitution by abridging the freedom of speech [and] of the press. In my opinion, since these public forums are licensed, sanctioned, and protected by congress, they should not be exempted from the requirements of the Constitution regarding freedom of speech [and] the press!

Three critical issues face the Republican Party, Conservatives, and Biblical Christians. Solving these issues will be a daunting task because we will have to reverse over fifty years of Marxist propaganda spread throughout our population by the left’s educational dictatorship. First, we must challenge the Marxist educational dictatorship that has been established in the United States of America before it is too late. Secondly, Conservatives must counter the Marxist left’s stranglehold on our education system by promoting conservative faculty and administrative participation in our universities. Thirdly, we must develop curricula that promotes all the positive facts of our national heritage. These facts include our Judeo-Christian heritage, our Founders and Founding Documents, the rule of law, our military as a force for freedom throughout the history of our world, and the progress we have made to fulfill the hope of The Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the rest of the Amendments. For the sake of the United States of America, failure is not an option. Our freedom is at stake!

SAVING OUR ECONOMY FROM COVID-19

A word cloud of many words related to unemployment.

Saving our economy will require innovative thinking. The question is, Will the innovation come from progressives and the Democrat Party or capitalists, entrepreneurs, and the Republican Party? In my opinion, the best solution will come from capitalists and entrepreneurs with the assistance of the Republican Party at the state and national level. However, ethics, morality, empathy, and benevolence will be required of capitalists and entrepreneurs or our economy could easily fail. In other words, saving our economy will require Godly capitalists and entrepreneurs not Godless immoral capitalists.

Covid-19 has devastated our economy, especially small businesses and their employees, over 50% of the economy. Today, less than 2% of the Covid-19 cases result in deaths, tragic as each death is. This death rate is less than 9/100 of 1% of our 320M population, a 20% decline since last summer when 2.8% of the cases resulted in deaths. By the end of this year, our nation will lose around 350.000 citizens to Covid-19. To put this tragic loss in perspective, the annual death rate for cardiovascular disease and cancer are both greater than our annual Covid-19 losses this year. In 2017, according to Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2020 Update – Professional Heart Daily | American Heart Association cardiovascular disease caused nearly 859,000 deaths. Similarly, in 2018, according to An Update on Cancer Deaths in the United States | CDC there were 599,274 cancer deaths. This sad perspective will be a necessary consideration for saving our economy.

Saving our economy will require reductions in Covid-19 cases, hospitalizations, deaths, economic shutdowns, and school closures causing small business failures, unemployment, evictions, foreclosures, loan defaults, and bankruptcies. To gain some perspective, a comparison of two economic responses to the pandemic is appropriate. For this comparison consider the response of Florida, California, and New York. The October 2020 unemployment rate for each state was 6.5% in Florida, 9.3% in California, and 9.6% in New York according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Florida unemployment was more than 40% lower than that of California and New York. This is important since Florida has not closed its economy while the California and New York economies have been closed much of the year.

Consequently, the mid-December Covid-19 statistics for these states must be compared to evaluate the effects of economic closures. In Florida, 20,050 Covid-19 patients died out of 1,116,973 cases, a 1.8% case fatality rate, which is 9/100s of 1% of the 22 million Floridians. In California, 20,854 Covid-19 patients died out of 1,528,177 cases, a 1.4% case fatality rate, which is 5/100s of 1%, of the 40 million Californians. In New York, 34,983 Covid-19 patients died out of 764,966 cases, a 4.6% case fatality rate, which is 17/100s of 1% of the 20 million New Yorkers. Although New York was among the first states struck by the pandemic and the nation has subsequently learned a great deal about the disease, the New York case fatality rate is extreme in comparison to Florida and California. New York senior citizens with the virus were placed in elder care and living facilities with healthy residents resulting in rapid spread and high death rates. This action was inexcusable and must never be repeated especially when available beds in a hospital ship and convention center were not used for these senior citizens.

The final class of data to consider in a discussion of the means of saving our economy is how Covid-19 spreads in our communities. In many respects, the data is contradictory among states. In Louisiana, NPR reports that bars account for 14% of the cases and restaurants 13% of the cases. In contrast, contact tracing in New York shows that restaurants and bars account for a combined total of only 1.4% of the cases while household and social gatherings accounted 74% of the cases which is the same as the 74% close contact and community spread reported by North Dakota. Arkansas contact tracing data shows that restaurants and bars account for only 3% of the cases. In Illinois, restaurants account for 4% of the cases, bars account for 3%, and religious activities account for 5%. Interestingly, community events, (protests?) account for 7% of the cases, more than religious activities, bars, and restaurants. The Illinois contact data is the most complete evaluated; and it shows that activities that appeared to be that of essential workers contributed to most of the cases in the state, about 35%.

When governors and big city mayors close their economies or small businesses, they are usually not following the science. They are using their power to show their constituents that they are doing something, even if that something is not supported by science. The above data shows that small businesses including restaurants and bars as well as religious activities are not significant sources of Covid-19 spread. Dr. Fauci observed that community spread made it almost impossible to predict how many cases there will be. The facts demonstrate that community spread between people with no known contact with other infected individuals, travel to an area where the disease occurs, or spread among essential workers and household and social gatherings is more important than spread occurring at schools, religious gatherings, small businesses, bars, and restaurants. The fact that Covid-19 can be transmitted by people who are asymptomatic and unknowingly transmit the disease is also an important consideration when evaluating how to deal with the economic impact of the spread of Covid-19. With asymptomatic community spread and a significant part of our population involved in essential work, does it really make sense to close our economy, small businesses, and religious activities? Will doing so, contribute to saving our economy?

Returning to the comparison between Florida and California, comparisons of the unemployment and death rate data will provide difficult answers to these two questions. First, by applying the California Covid-19 death rate, with extensive economic closures, to the Florida population with few economic closures, Florida would have suffered almost 8,600 fewer deaths. By applying the Florida death rate to the California population, California would have suffered 15,600 more deaths. Second, by applying the unemployment rate of California to the Florida population, Florida would have 616,000 more unemployed. Applying the Florida unemployment rate to California that state would have 1,120,000 fewer unemployed. Putting it brutally, California’s comparatively closed economy may have saved 15,600 lives at the expense of 1,120,000 jobs. Conversely, Florida’s comparatively open economy may have cost 8,600 lives while saving 616,000 jobs. Obviously, governors and big city mayors have almost impossible choices to make regarding saving lives and saving our economy.

Using Covid-19 death rates and unemployment levels from one state to predict unemployment and Covid-19 mortality in another state is mere speculation used to provoke argument and discussion. After all, no two states have the same climate which affects outdoor activities and indoor gatherings. State populations have different age structures, racial and ethnic ratios, and ideological and political affiliations. No two state economies are the same. Each state has a unique business structures affecting the size of their industrial, financial, technology and service sectors, large and small retail establishments, and residential rental and home ownership ratios. These differences make prediction of Covid-19 death rates and unemployment in one state based on data from another state useful discussion tools, but such predictions are simply food for thought as We the People, governors, and big city mayors evaluate the potential impacts of our leader’s economic decisions.

It is useful to recall the early scientific Covid-19 models predicting 2-3 million US deaths in the first year of the pandemic. These predictions shocked us into submitting to successive two-week, national quarantines or lock downs. Except for essential workers, we stayed home and did not work. Many of us were fortunate enough to work from home potentially altering the way some types of work will be done in the future. We closed our schools. We agreed to wash our hands and sanitize surfaces at work and home. We observed social distancing and stopped personal contact with others including our relatives in senior centers and our dying loved ones in hospitals, and eventually most of us started wearing face masks to protect ourselves and others once the science convinced us of face mask efficacy. We flattened the curve and reduced Covid-19 deaths to 350,000 rather than millions. Obviously, governors and big city mayors have almost impossible choices to make regarding saving lives and saving our economy.

The last consideration regarding these devastating numbers is the other impacts of economic closures on people. School closures and unemployment impacts suicide rates, depression, drug addiction, alcoholism, family abuse, evictions, foreclosures, late payments on mortgages, rent, and loans, loan defaults, and bankruptcies. Most websites discussing suicide rates are unhelpful or totally unreliable. For example, the World Population Review site has two graphic depictions and a table titled, Suicide Rates by State 2020 all with identical data. Unfortunately, the first line on the table states, * Rates are per 100,000 people. Data for calendar year 2018. Covid-19 death statistics are immediately available, but suicide data takes two years to compile and report.

A July 2020 Townhall report titled, CDC Director Compares Rate of Suicides to COVID-19 Deaths summarizes concerns regarding school closings and other issues associated with closing our society and economy.

Center for Disease Control Director Robert Redfield said in a Buck Institute webinar that suicides and drug overdoses have surpassed the death rate for COVID-19 among high school students. Redfield argued that lockdowns and lack of public schooling constituted a disproportionally negative impact on young peoples’ mental health.

“But there has been another cost that we’ve seen, particularly in high schools,” Redfield said. “We’re seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than we are deaths from COVID. We’re seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose that are above excess that we had as background than we are seeing the deaths from COVID. So this is why I keep coming back for the overall social [well] being of individuals, is let’s all work together and find out how we can find common ground to get these schools open in a way that people are comfortable and their safe.”

A doctor at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek, CA claimed the facility has seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.

“What I have seen recently, I have never seen before,” Hansen said. “I have never seen so much intentional injury, said a nurse from the same hospital.

And while health authorities will not have verified data regarding suicides and drug overdoses in 2020 for two more years, local reporting indicates that suicide fatalities have increased year-on-year.

According to the American Medical Association, More than 35 states have reported increases in opioid-related mortality, [and] concerns for those with a mental illness or substance use disorder.

School closures cause other problems for families, especially single parent families. Essential workers cannot stay at home to monitor their children’s on-line education without risking their jobs. The stress leads to the mental issues described above. For families fortunate enough to have one parent who can work from home, the strain of balancing work and school can be debilitating, especially when young children are involved. In the best of situations, educators indicate that our children are losing ground. If parents lose their jobs because they must care for children due to school closures, they usually face economic disaster and the associated mental health issues. Since K-12 students are among the lowest risk group for contracting or transmitting Covid-19 or suffering serious effects of the disease in the absence of underlying conditions, opening our schools would have a major impact in saving our economy.

In my opinion, saving our economy will require national and state governments to act on behalf of We the People without regard to the accumulation of political power. With meaningful government assistance, capitalists and entrepreneurs acting with empathy, benevolence, and uncommon moral and ethical standards offer the best hope for saving our economy. Another round of national government Covid-19 aid like the payroll protection plan for small businesses and their employees, small business loans, extension of unemployment benefits, and eviction and foreclosure moratoriums would reduce the impact on We the People caused by the ongoing pandemic until vaccines end the Covid-19 crisis. Capitalists and entrepreneurs could provide a bridge between government measures and people’s ability to regain their financial stability. For example, banks, mortgagers, loan companies, and other financiers could offer reduced no penalty payment plans with commensurate repayment period extensions. Residential, commercial, and industrial property owners could offer similar reductions in rent and lease payments. It is not unreasonable to offer the suggested payment reduction plans and extensions to businesses, mortgagees, and tenants with sound pre-Covid-19 payment histories.

Our economy should start to recover as more people get vaccinated, but most of our population will not be immunized for six to eight months. At that time, it is reasonable to expect the economy to move into a period of rapid recovery. Consequently, the suggested credit, rent, and lease payment reduction and extensions should last at least one year. This would allow people to recover financially and resume pre-Covid-19 payment levels. This plan would allow property owners and lenders to keep good people and businesses as tenants or owners with a lower risk profile. Without such a plan, properties could remain vacant, producing no revenue, and incur extra costs related to foreclosures, evictions, and potential litigation. With the entire economy weakened, new tenants and owners could be scarce and pose a higher risk of failure as small businesses, new tenants, and mortgagees.

This plan would reduce unemployment, mental illness including suicides, drug abuse, and family abuse, and help families cope with school closures. Of course, the plan would also reduce financier’s short-term income for about one year; but it would promote long-term stability economic expansion thereby saving our economy.

DEMOCRAT POWER OR GOP PEOPLE POWER

A split picture of mitch mcconnell and nancy pelosi — Democrat Power is their party’s objective while Republicans seek to return power to the people.

Democrat power is the goal of virtually every plan and action undertaken by the Democrat Party. In politics, actions and policy platforms not words define motivations. By their actions and party platforms, the Democrat Party clearly demonstrates that they value power not people, that is We the People. Admittedly, the Republican Party also seeks political power. The essential difference is the means each party uses to gain power; and how each party uses their power. These critical differences were the essence of the 2020 election at every level in our society.

For the past five or six decades, the Supreme Court with a five or six progressive Justice majority has been critical to Democrat power in the United States. Additionally, progressive judges in the inferior US courts were also an important component of Democrat Party power. Progressives in the Democrat Party used the progressive US judiciary to promote their agenda when they could not pass the agenda through the Constitutional legislative process. The progressive US courts used two parts of the Constitution to accomplish the changes they desired. First, they used the authority of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall, to make judgements on the Constitutionality of laws. Second, they used the Article VI Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution which states, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby. Thus, decisions of the US Supreme Court or inferior courts, when case appeals were rejected by the Supreme Court, became the law of the land.

Undoubtedly, Roe v. Wade, is one of the most politically and emotionally charged US Supreme Court cases in our history. The U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7“2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s Constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law). In my opinion this decision, and the scholarly legal discussion on the right to Privacy, is inconsistent with judicial good behavior.

The Federalist Papers were a series of 85 essays anonymously written in support of ratification of the Constitution by three authors under the pseudonym, Publius. In The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton, one Publius, discussed good behavior for judges in the US Judiciary.

Judges hold their offices during ‘good behavior,’ which is the best expedient to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws.

The duty (of courts of justice) must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution,’ void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

Consequently, good Behavior is court decisions that reflect the manifest tenor of the constitution. Manifest tenor is original intent based on the Constitutional text, construction, grammar, and the words as defined when the Constitution, Amendments, or laws were ratified by We the People. Manifest tenor also refers to the principle train of thought or idea that runs through each article and section of the Constitution and law under consideration.

In The Federalist No. 81, Hamilton wrote,

There is not one syllable in the plan under consideration (Constitution), which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution.

The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade violates both of Hamilton’s prerequisites for judicial good behavior. First, the decision did not concur with the manifest tenor of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Privacy is not found in any part of any definition of liberty. Since it is not even a synonym for liberty, Privacy is also inconsistent with the principle train of thought or idea that runs through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, the idea that Privacy is an implicit concept with respect to liberty is nothing less than divining the spirit of the Constitution. In my opinion, Roe v. Wade is one of the main reasons that We the People have a flawed Constitution lacking any meaningful Constitutional check on the Judicial Branch of our government. Is the best solution to this problem a Constitutional Amendment? Is the idea worth considering? This idea might end the rancor associated with the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

Additionally, disrespectful judicial rulings that usurp the will of We the People occur when jurists proport an ability to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution or craft opinions that are not based on the textural original intent, the manifest tenor of the Constitution and its Amendments. After all, We the People ratified the manifest tenor of each part of the Constitution and its Amendments. Each of the 535 members of the US Congress and the President were elected by We the People. It is the US Congress which passes legislation that becomes law when signed by the President. Consequently, State and Federal laws, and Inferior US Court opinions consistent with the manifest tenor of the Constitution, must be upheld by our courts because they reflect the collective will of We the People. The same is true of Presidential Executive Orders that are consistent with the manifest tenor of the Constitution.

Conversely, The duty (of courts of justice) must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution,’ void. When judicial rulings are not based on the manifest tenor of the Constitution, the offending jurist places their opinion above the collective wisdom of all We the People. This is true whether the opinion is that of an individual judge, a panel of judges, or a nine Justice US Supreme Court ruling, Judicial rulings that give the standing of law to progressive social policies remove the political initiative from We the People giving it to the government agencies or private entities, like Planned Parenthood, adding to Democrat power. When the elected representatives of We the People make laws about social issues, as Conservatives and the Republican Party prefer, power originates with We the People.

in accordance with Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, President Trump has nominated Supreme Court Justices and US Inferior Court Judges that will make decisions based on originalist concepts that include manifest tenor and reject attempts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution. The Republican Senate has fulfilled its Article II Advice and Consent obligations and confirmed President Trump’s Judicial nominations. Consequently, progressive changes to our society should be decided through the legislative process where We the People, through our elected legislators, will determine what is best for We the People. An unelected Judiciary will no longer rule against the will of We the People. The Democrat Party will lose power; and, through his Judiciary nominations, President Trump and the Republican Senate returned power to We the People.

The legislative Powers mandated by Article I of the Constitution were crafted by the Founders and Framers to create tension between the House of Representatives (House) and the Senate. The House was crafted as a federalist body where the states have greater power because the number of Representatives is population based. Representatives also face election every two years. Consequently, they are more responsible to We the People of their state. The Senate was crafted to be a more nationalistic body giving more attention to the issues of the national government. They only face election by We the People of their state every six years. The tension created was amplified by the differences in the powers and responsibilities delegated to the House and Senate by Article I and Senatorial approval of International Treaties, Ambassadors, Ministers, Consuls, Supreme Court Justices, Inferior Court Judges, and all other Officers of the United States in accordance with Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution.

The Framers had great confidence in the virtue of We the People and did not anticipate the rancor that soon developed with the rise of political parties. Unfortunately, the Constitution provides no remedies for the problems political parties created. The tension created by the two parts of the Legislative Branch is compounded by the struggle for power, control, and leadership of the House and Senate by political parties. The Senate filibuster further complicates legislative power struggles. With Senate filibuster rules, 40 Senators control the legislative process at the expense of the other 495 members of the Senate and House adding more tension to the political struggle for legislative power. Thus, the combination of the two parts of the legislature and a minimum of two political parties created at least a four-way power struggle for control of the Legislative Branch of our government. Before any piece of legislation can go to the President for approval, legislators must overcome the four-way power struggle that the Constitution forces on them. This complicated struggle, all too often, prevents passage of legislation. When this occurs, legislators often cause difficulties and harm to We the People.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Democrat Party in the House of Representatives, led by Speaker Pelosi, has placed the command of Rahm Emanuel, former President Obama’s Chief of Staff, above the welfare of We the People. The Democrat Party continually adds funding for progressive, some might say socialist, projects, programs, and social initiatives unrelated to Covid-19 to needed economic, medical, and Covid-19 relief bills. Furthermore, Speaker Pelosi has refused to negotiate or compromise on relief packages since the first compromise, Covid-19 relief legislation was approved by the legislature and signed by President Trump. The unrelated additions included projects and funding that they could not do before the crisis such as Kennedy Center funding and unrestricted funds to progressive cities and states to bail out unfunded pension plans and debt incurred prior to the pandemic. Speaker Pelosi uses this tactic in the hope that she will increase Democrat power in the Legislature with little regard for We the People.

A similar tactic to increase Democrat power, perfected by Speaker Pelosi, is to add unrelated project funding to needed projects or essential government services legislation. For example, the requirement to add an additional percentage of a federally funded construction projects for art. Physical conservatives say that the art does not contribute to the function of the project. However, the art projects are something that artists could not do before the project requiring the art. Another common Democrat legislative tactic is adding smaller unrelated project or program funding to essential budget appropriation bills. For example, low priority Housing and Urban Development, Interior Department, and Department of Education funding could be added a Defense appropriations bill. Physical conservatives who would object to the non-defense spending in separate bills are often forced to approve the entire bill as a compromise to secure essential Defense funding. Sadly, the House, under leadership of both parties, often fails in its duty to pass appropriation bills for each of the 12 Cabinet Departments before the government is forced to close due to the lack of funding. The House fails in this duty more times than it succeeds. When this occurs, emergency omnibus bills are passed to keep the government operating. Speaker Pelosi has mastered this art of appropriation bill failure. This tactic is a Democrat power play allowing Democrats to interject progressive projects and programs into the legislation which must be passed; or the government will have to shut down, thereby not letting a serious crisis go to waste.

Although the Democrat Party and progressives claim to be for We the People, their policies and social initiatives promote increasing Democrat power for their party, the Federal government, and various forms of collectives like unions. Collective type organizations emphasize centralized power versus individual, We the People power favored by conservatives and the Republican Party. As one example, programs like Obamacare, single payer health insurance, or Medicare-for-all promote collective management or socialistic control of healthcare which means that bureaucrats not individuals and their doctors make most healthcare decisions in our country. In contrast, conservatives and Republicans prefer at least free market healthcare insurance where individuals and families have total control of their healthcare insurance giving power to We the People. A FORGOTTEN AMERICAN’S ALTERNATIVE HEALTHCARE PLAN offers a proposal for complete transformation of healthcare in the United States.

One of the more devious ways Democrat power is garnered by party leaders, is the never let a serious crisis go to waste legislative maneuver perfected by Leader Pelosi. Covid-19 relief legislation is the best recent example of the tactic. She crafted legislation filled with funds for programs and projects unrelated to Covid-19 that were at least 2-3 times more expensive than Republican alternatives. She has refused to negotiate for months. The result has been no Payroll Protection Plan financial relief for small businesses and their employees, business closures and failures, increasing unemployment, expanding food insecurity, rental evictions, and foreclosures. The insidious result is more people become dependent on government benefits like unemployment, food stamps, and Medicaid. At the same time, Democrat Governors and big city Mayors mandate, business shutdowns, capacity limits, and school closures forcing many parents to stay at home without pay increasing the financial burdens on We the People. Apparently, Speaker Pelosi believes that delaying Covid-19 economic relief until after the inauguration of President-Elect Biden will proffer credit for the relief to Biden and the Democrat Party. On December 7,2020, Speaker Pelosi said that she was now willing to negotiate “because we have a new President” verifying that Democrat power was more important to Democrats than “We the People.” Obviously, party leaders believe their tactics will increase long term Democrat power.

On the other hand, the Republican Party under the leadership of President Trump, Senate Majority leader McConnell, and House Minority leader McCarthy emphasized targeted legislation. Their plans would provide Payroll Protection Plan funds to small business owners and their employees, unemployment benefits that did not provide incentives to stay on unemployment, payments to individuals, and funds to assist states with personal protective equipment and distribution of Covid-19 vaccinations and treatments. Republican proposals provide power to We the People, small business owners and employees, and individuals,

Join the fray. All of the America s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your Patriot Visions, start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

ENDING ELECTION FRAUD

A red, white and blue star with the words " fight for free & fair elections." — Election fraud became a real concern for almost half of the voters in the 2020 election. If their concerns are not addressed, they will not have confidence in future elections.

Election fraud was potentially expanded in the 2020 election. The drastic expansion of absentee ballet requests, use of unsolicited mail-in ballots sent to all registered voters in some jurisdictions, other efforts to make voting safe in a pandemic, political bickering, and legal challenges before and after the 2020 election resulted in a near total lack of confidence among nearly half of the voters in the United States. Before these losing voters regain confidence in our elections, these issues must be thoroughly, honestly, and openly investigated. All actual problems must be solved. In my opinion, our current election laws, at every level, are inadequate for the internet age and the twenty first century. In addition, the quest for political power and the level of animosity existing between the left and right, progressives and conservatives, and Democrats and Republicans makes elections ripe for fraud of all types imaginable in the internet age. Before We the People can all be confident in our elections, our election laws must be changed to meet the demands of both the twenty first century and our deeply divided nation.

First, this discussion must start with the Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 4, states, The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at anytime by law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators. Similarly, Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2, states, Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. Constitutionally, only the state legislatures can make laws affecting both state and Presidential elections. No elected or appointed state official and no state or federal court can make laws or rules affecting elections. That obligation rests solely with the legislatures of each state. Courts must invalidate any decision by non-legislative entities regarding elections in any state. The failure to invalidate such non-legislative interference in elections would not be GOOD JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR. Non-legislative modifications of election rules occurred in the 2020 election. In my opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States must rule on these Constitutional violations of our election laws thereby establishing an unchallengeable president regarding non-legislative election interference. Otherwise, the potential for election fraud and future unconstitutional non-legislative interference will continue to plague our elections.

Second, although state legislatures are currently responsible for election laws, Article I, Section 4, provides a means for the national Congress to provide critical guidelines for future elections when the Constitution states, but the Congress may at anytime by law make or alter such Regulations. Consequently, it seems reasonable and Constitutional for the national government to set standards which must be met by state legislatures enacting twenty first century election laws and reduce the possibility of election fraud. Several suggestions for nationally required election Regulations seem appropriate.

The process of collecting and tabulating votes must be safe, secure, and monitored in a completely open and non-partisan manner in every jurisdiction in our nation to eliminate election fraud. It is reasonable to expect that every state must tabulate their vote count no more than twenty-four hours after the close of polling places which must also be the deadline for receipt of all types of mail-in ballots. All ballots received after the voting deadline must not be accepted as valid regardless of post mark dates. This must also include overseas and military absentee and mail-in ballots. The accommodation for these voters must be the ability to request absentee or mail-in ballots two weeks earlier than other voters. After all, each individual is responsible for securely casting their ballot and returning it to authorized ballot boxes or polling places by the election deadline eliminating the possibility that their vote becomes part of any election fraud. Florida and Oregon were able to accomplish this goal in the 2020 election.

All equipment and software used in the vote counting process must be manufactured, developed, licensed in the United States, and approved by a national election commission charged with certifying and approving these systems. After all, elections are the way We the People of the United States select our leaders. We must be confident that neither other nations nor our citizens have any opportunity to manipulate our vote counts. Both the hardware and software must not be WiFi, cloud, or internet compatible to prevent hacking or off-site data or software storage or alteration. Access to all election systems must be secure. Access to hardware systems must require a locking system for each machine; and repairs and software up-dates must occur only in the presence of an equal number of monitors from each political party. Vote counts must only be transmitted in-person, by encrypted cell phone text messages, encrypted Emails, or secure land lines with at least one person from each political party approving both the sent and received messages. The provable number of voters casting ballots and the actual number of ballots counted must be equal or a full audit must occur. This audit could be triggered if the excess in ballots counted is 50% or more than the difference between the votes for the top two candidates for an office or ballot issue and the number of proven voters in the contested counting location. This system would prevent groups from adding illegal ballots to a location for counting. Ballot signatures must match the voter registration signatures and the ballot signature document must be able to be matched with the ballot at all stages of the counting process. Use of bar codes unique to each registered voter would accomplish this goal. This process would speed the process of approving or disqualifying provisional ballots where a mail-in ballot had already been cast in a person™s name or at another polling place. If scanning software is used to validate signatures, the precision setting on each scanner and its software must be unalterable to ensure that signature matching is consistent in all jurisdictions. Otherwise, a person must validate the signatures. Signature invalidation must be accepted by an election official from each political party. The equipment and software must be made and developed in the USA. This would be another step toward elimination of election fraud.

Tabulation of votes must be monitored by members of each political party with unrestricted access. These election monitors must have the ability to observe every ballot during every step of the process, from ballot collection, signature validation, tabulation, and transmission of final vote counts. Since this type of unrestricted access was denied to election monitors in jurisdictions in virtually every section of our nation, US Marshalls must have the authority to stop the counting process and sequester all ballots in a counting facility until full access is granted to all election monitors. If monitors are not allowed in a facility and ballots are not counted by the twenty-four-hour count deadline, the ballots would be disqualified. The election officials for that location would be responsible for disenfranchisement of the voters in their jurisdiction. This level of law enforcement would eliminate this type election fraud.

Accusations that lost ballots appeared long after most of the votes were counted altering election outcomes have plagued our elections for decades. Such accusations occurred in several jurisdictions during the 2020 election. To counteract this area of contention, all ballots must be delivered to count facilities no later than two hours after the end of the election season when US Marshalls start patrolling the facility to prevent delivery of additional ballots. To be allowed for counting, these late ballots must be accompanied by at least one election monitor or official from each political party and a letter from the originating location describing the reason for the delay in delivery signed by one official from each political party. Before counting starts, monitors or election officials must certify in writing that no blank ballots are in the counting area. After counting starts with the requisite monitors or officials from each party to observe the count, all doors leading into the count area must be locked to ensure that no unauthorized ballots enter the area. Access to the count area must only be granted after one monitor from each political party after they ensures that no new ballots enter the count area. Shift changes must also be stringently monitored to ensure that no new ballot enter the count area. Failure to adhere to these requirements must result in disqualification of all ballots in the offending count facility. Again, this level of law enforcement would eliminate this type election fraud.

Harvesting, collecting absentee or mail-in ballots from people in neighborhoods or residential facilities by any individual, must be illegal in every state. If election officials determine that voters require assistance to get their ballots to counting locations, as in a pandemic, the harvesters must consist of one election official from each party. Each voter must place their ballot in a secure ballot box. Mail-in ballot boxes must be secure and locked with a key kept at the proper jurisdiction location and opened only in the presence of at least one election official from each political party.

Coaching voters by an individual coach must be illegal in every jurisdiction in our country to prevent election fraud. If a voter or a group of voters requires assistance with in-person, absentee, or mail-in ballots, the help must be rendered in the presence of an election official from each political party. Two settings where voters could need assistance are senior centers and disability group homes where residents have the capacity to understand the votes they are casting. A person in management of the facility must request the assistance. In these settings, the assistance must be limited to reading the ballot, allowing the residents to mark their ballot, or marking the ballot for the resident in the presence of an election official from each political party.

Another option, for voters who are physically unable to mark a ballot or are slow readers, is development of oral ballots where the office and the candidates or ballot issues are recorded and read to the voter by the device. The voter would record their choice after each item on the ballot. For this to be free of potential fraud, the verbal voter™s choice must follow the recording of each ballot item. For example, the oral ballot would say, the choices for President are Dick and Jane, followed by the oral ballot recording of the voter saying, Jane. If a voter does not like any candidate or does not have sufficient information to make a responsible decision, the voter should be informed that they should say Abstain. This idea could increase participation in our elections.

With the advent of early in-person voting, absentee voting, and unsolicited mail-in voting, the United States no longer has an election day. We have an election season. Consequently, we need a nationally mandated start and end to the election season. In my opinion, a one-month election season is all we need. If we had a mandated 2020 election season, it would have started October 6, and ended November 3. The earliest absentee ballots could be requested, and unsolicited mail-in ballots could be sent to voters, would be October 6. In Presidential election years, four Presidential Debates and one Vice-Presidential Debate are necessary. Two Presidential debates and the Vice-Presidential debate must occur before the start of the election season. This is the best way to ensure that every voter can evaluate each candidate™s capacity to fulfill their duties as President and Vice-President in a stressful contested situation. Each debate should have two moderators, one from each side of the political spectrum. This format would provide a greater opportunity to conduct fair and impartial debates and a more informed electorate.

Finally, as voting laws exist in every state in our nation today, no state election official can guarantee that their state can certify that voter fraud cannot occur in their state. There is one simple reason that this statement is true. In our nation today, voter fraud is undetectable. The linked article provides a detailed discussion of the nature of undetectable voter fraud and potential solutions to the issues involved. In my opinion and that of our Founders, voter fraud matters.

It would be wonderful to have an election where that vast majority of the voters had confidence that the results were fair and free of fraud.

NATIONAL ISSUES REQUIRE SOLUTIONS

A crowd of people holding signs and standing in the street. — The political power that the DACA issue gives the Democrat Party is more important to Democrats than solving the overall immigration issue.

The actions or inaction of politicians always speak louder than their words. Currently, many significant national issues require solutions. These issues include eneegy policies, inflation, effective healthcare, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), chain immigration, immigration lotteries, illegal immigration policy loopholes, anchor baby citizenship, immigration sanctuary cities, counties, , states, and border security, and ending mass murder events and high urban violence including murders, to name a few. Apparently, our national politicians prefer endless, meaningless, partisan debate. They forget that’ significant issues require solutions; or they will be considered failures by We the People. Although both of our political parties engage in issue-based rancor, progressive Democrat politicians appear to need these issues to maintain their special interest group loyalty and the potential future votes they could bring to the Democrat Party.

For the Democrat Party, identity and issue politics stirs up their political base, brings out votes, and provides political power. Meaningful, compassionate solutions that could be credited to the Republican led legislature and the current President appear to be unacceptable for progressive Democrat legislators and politicians because these solutions would reduce their political power. To the Democrat Party, the fact that these issues require solutions for the good of our nation is irrelevant, Democrats need the political power the issues bring. Again, actions speak louder than words; or the proof is in the pudding or swamp as some call it.

Solutions to the DACA’ immigration issue should occur before the courts decide on the President’s end to the DACA program. The DACA issue was caused by the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional Executive Order allowing these now adult children of illegal alien immigrants to remain in the United States. The Trump Administration gave congress six months to legalize the status of the illegal alien DACA population which the congress has not accomplished to date. Since the minority Democrat Party controls most of the legislative branch because of the undemocratic Senate filibuster rule which can stop all but select types of legislation, the Democrat Party must agree to a legislative solution that the President will sign into law. The President offered a reasonable compromise regarding the number of DACA people eligible for a path to citizenship in exchange for strong border security, and reasonable control over chain immigration and immigration lottery policies. If the Democrat Party does not offer acceptable compromise legislation to reach an agreement, they will prove by their actions that they do not want a solution to the DACA and immigration problem. The Democrat Party will prove that the DACA issue is more important to them than a DACA solution. The Democrat Party will prove that the power they garner from the DACA issue is more important than a DACA solution. The Democrat Party will prove that the fact that issues require solutions is not as important to them as the political power and votes that the issues bring.

The gun violence issue is an issue for both the Democrat and Republican Parties that currently defies meaningful proposals from both sides for solutions. All gun and other violence issues require solutions. We the People are demanding reasonable solutions regarding all violence towards children. Our children must be protected in our schools. They must be protected from criminals with any type of weapons. A monster or monsters with a club, knife, machete, pistol, hunting rifle, or AR-15 should never again have easy access to our children in our schools. The solution is to stop the rancor over the type of weapon. The solution is to protect our children in our schools. We the People are no longer interested in debate about issues surrounding classes of weapons and the power such issues bring to politicians. We the People want solutions that protect our children in our schools.

We the People who vote understand that all issues require solutions. To steal a common phrase, congress should,

‘JUST DO IT!’

Join the fray. All of the America ‘s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the’ BLOG CONTENTS tab.’ If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

The actions or inaction of politicians always speak louder than their words. Currently, many significant national issues require solutions. These issues include eneegy policies, inflation, effective healthcare, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), chain immigration, immigration lotteries, illegal immigration policy loopholes, anchor baby citizenship, immigration sanctuary cities, counties, , states, and border security, and ending mass murder events and high urban violence including murders, to name a few. Apparently, our national politicians prefer endless, meaningless, partisan debate. They forget that significant issues require solutions; or they will be considered failures by We the People. Although both of our political parties engage in issue-based rancor, progressive Democrat politicians appear to need these issues to maintain their special interest group loyalty and the potential future votes they could bring to the Democrat Party.

Solutions to the DACA immigration issue should occur before the courts decide on the President’s end to the DACA program. The DACA issue was caused by the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional Executive Order allowing these now adult children of illegal alien immigrants to remain in the United States. The Trump Administration gave congress six months to legalize the status of the illegal alien DACA population which the congress has not accomplished to date. Since the minority Democrat Party controls most of the legislative branch because of the undemocratic Senate filibuster rule which can stop all but select types of legislation, the Democrat Party must agree to a legislative solution that the President will sign into law. The President offered a reasonable compromise regarding the number of DACA people eligible for a path to citizenship in exchange for strong border security, and reasonable control over chain immigration and immigration lottery policies. If the Democrat Party does not offer acceptable compromise legislation to reach an agreement, they will prove by their actions that they do not want a solution to the DACA and immigration problem. The Democrat Party will prove that the DACA issue is more important to them than a DACA solution. The Democrat Party will prove that the power they garner from the DACA issue is more important than a DACA solution. The Democrat Party will prove that the fact that issues require solutions is not as important to them as the political power and votes that the issues bring.

We the People who vote understand that all issues require solutions. To steal a common phrase, congress should,

JUST DO IT!

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

“TRUMP SPEAK” AND “DEPLORABLE SPEAK” VERSUS “ESTABLISHMENT SPEAK”

Establishment speak is the same as establishment politician especially RINO and Democrat speak, mainstream progressive news media speak, and progressive academic elite speak. Establishment speak is the language of the DC swamp. Establishment speak obsesses over the meaning of is or I vs I’d ignoring the syntax of the relationship between I vs I’d used with the word probably. Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent.

A black and white photo of two men with glasses — In “establishment speak,” “cut” never means a reduction in total cost; “cut” means a “cut” in the rate of increase.

Although the Democrat Party and progressives claim otherwise, the thing We the People, the forgotten deplorables, like about President Trump is that Trump speak and Deplorable speak does not include deceptive, divisive language intended to hide or misrepresent intent. The President has a list of campaign promises which he is working hard to fulfill one by one. Many of his campaign promises have already been fulfilled. He also uses provocative language to evoke a response or change the news or political narrative. Unfortunately, that language can be crass and profane and often diverts attention from the positive impacts of his administration on the US economy and foreign affairs.

Some examples will suffice. As an example of Trump speak during the Presidential campaign, President Trump stated that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for it. The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary definitions of wall, big, beautiful and pay are needed to discuss this example of Trump speak. Since the most significant component of President Trump’s promise is the wall, several relevant meanings are contained in the definition of wall. The meanings include,

a structure that serves to hold back pressure (as in deterring illegal immigration and drugs), something resembling a wall (in appearance, function, or effect) especially something that acts as a barrier or defense, to provide, cover with, or surround with or as if with a wall, to separate by or as if by a wall, to close (an opening) with or as if with a wall that surrounds an area or separates one area from another, something that separates one thing from another, a wall of mountains.

Both President Trump’s first description of the “wall” and his latest description of the wall are clearly described in the above detailed definition of a wall.

The meaning of the other three words contained in the President’s wall promise is also important to understanding the promise. One meaning of big is defined as chief, preeminent, outstandingly worthy or able, and of great importance or significance. In one of its meanings, beautiful is defined as generally pleasing or excellent. Several meanings and synonyms for pay are also relevant to this discussion. These meanings include, to make compensation for (and) to requite according to what is deserved. As an intransitive verb, pay is defined as, to discharge a debt or obligation (and) to suffer the consequences of an act. Relevant synonyms for this discussion of pay include ‘reimburse’ (which) implies a return of money that has been spent for another’s benefit (and) ‘recompense’ (which) suggests due return in amends. This comprehensive definition of pay provides ample justification of the President’s contention that Mexico should pay for the wall. After all, Mexico continues to fail in stemming the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central, and South America into the United States on the Mexico side of the border and control the Mexican drug cartels and human traffickers within the borders of Mexico. Consequently, Mexico deserves to pay for the wall as a direct consequence of and in recompense for their failure to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs passing through and emanating within Mexico’s borders which subsequently cross the southern border of the United States.

Progressives, who engage in establishment speak, pride themselves in the nuanced nature of their writing and speech. These arrogant, pompous, condescending establishment speakers do not believe that President Trump is capable of using simple words in an expansive manner that encompasses the entire scope of the definition of the words he used when he promised that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. They claim that President Trump suffers from the early stages of dementia or early onset Alzheimer’s disease and/or is otherwise mentally unstable. The means of payment for the wall has not been specified but numerous options exist. Mexico could pay in the form of a transaction fee on all money transfers from the United States to Mexico, a border crossing fee paid by every individual crossing the southern border who are not legal residents of the United States, and/or renegotiation of NAFTA in a manner that would reduce the trade deficit with Mexico sufficiently to pay for the wall to mention three ways for Mexico to pay. More than one of these and other means of payment could also be negotiated and enacted. A check is not required to exact pay from Mexico for the wall. Contrary to the establishment speak opinion, the forgotten Trump Deplorables, understand that a check from Mexico is not necessary to exact payment from Mexico for the wall even though their establishment speak constituents must be easily fooled by their establishment speak. The sneering swamp Demorat establishment speak condescension of that insinuation during the Homeland Security Secretary hearing on January 16, 2018 was infuriating to me. Of course, when the completed wall is not over 2000 miles of 30 foot high, 10 feet thick concrete wall with a beautiful red clay brick veneer and 15X25 foot oak doors with polished brass or black rod iron fixtures at every border crossing, establishment speak from the swamp “Demorats” will call President Trump a liar.

In a recent interview, the establishment speak of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) quoted President Trump saying, I probably have a good relationship with Kim Jong-un of North Korea. This quote was disputed by President Trump because it prompted questions about secret talks with North Korea and how many times the President had talked to Kim Jong-un which he did not answer. President Trump indicated that he said, I’d probably have. The syntax of the quote supports the President’s position. I’d probably have or I would probably have indicates that if he met or talked with Kim Jong-un he’d probably have a good relationship with him and the questions about meeting or talking with Kim Jong-un would have been avoided. In addition, if the President had a good relationship with Kim Jong-un, he would have said, I have a good relationship not I probably have and good relationship. By its refusal to look at the syntax of the quote, the establishment speak of the WSJ lead to unnecessary controversy and speculation about secret talks with North Korea, or “fake news.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein proved that she is a sneaky establishment speak practitioner during the televised January 9, bipartisan DACA meeting at the White House. President Trump started the meeting detailing the four parts of a DACA bill that he would support. Obviously, the President expected that the discussion would center on a DACA bill that fulfilled all of his requirements for the bill. Senator Feinstein quickly used an establishment speak trick word when she asked the President if he would support a CLEAN DACA bill knowing full well that in establishment speak clean means a standalone DACA bill. The President, thinking that he was in an honest discussion of a DACA bill meeting his requirements indicated that he could support a clean DACA bill thinking that Senator Feinstein was also speaking of a bill meeting his four requirements. After it was obvious that Senator Feinstein had tricked the President with her establishment speak, Congressman Kevin McCarthy moved the discussion back to a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. After the cameras left, the group agreed that they would negotiate a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. Later, the fact that Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent became obvious. The Democrat attendees at the meeting and the media later televised and focused on the brief portion of the meeting where the President appeared to support the idea of a clean DACA bill and not what the President had outlined and attendees agreed to negotiate. This was fake news by both omission and commission.

Additional examples of establishment speak that infuriate President Trump and practitioners of deplorable speak are relevant to this discussion. To deplorabes, if the budget for a government program is cut, the total expenditure for the program should decrease. However, the establishment speak definition of cut is a reduction in the rate of increase in the expenditure for a government program. Similarly, in establishment speak reduction or reduce also means a slower rate of increase not less of anything. In establishment speak, the Democrat definition of compromise means that Republicans must abandon their position on almost everything and Democrats will not filibuster and stop passage of a bill in the Senate.

In establishment speak, Republicans control government since they control the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. However, deplorables understand that the Senate is, in reality, a minority ruled legislative body. Since a bill must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate with 60 votes not 51, the minority party’s 48 votes, currently the Democrat Party, controls the legislative branch of government. Consequently, deplorables understand that under current Senate rules, the minority always controls our government unless the majority has 60 Senators to stop a minority filibuster. That is the reason that the House of Representatives has passed 12 appropriation bills that would finance the government. These appropriation bills have not been passed by the Senate. Consequently, budget continuing resolutions must be passed under threat of government shut down almost monthly. Since the filibuster allows for minority rule, the filibuster is not democratic. It is time to end the filibuster.

Finally, in establishment speak, words and phrases like support, favor, compromise, cooperate, and bipartisan legislation are mere platitudes used to appear conciliatory and concerned for the well being of We the People. In establishment speak, the Democrat Party and its leadership will say that they support a strong military and secure borders, but their actions, failing to fund a strong military and complete border security, demonstrate that their establishment speak is hollow, deceptive, and designed to hide or misrepresent their intent.

We the Deplorable People must demand an end to establishment speak. The language used by our leaders must be clear and concise without deception. We the People want our leaders to tell us what they mean by is. Leaders need to mean what they say and say what they mean. Leaders must follow their words by actions that demonstrate that they are not just blowing smoke to get elected.

If “establishment speak” continues “Deplorable Speak” will be done at the voting booths where We the “Deplorable” People will “speak” the establishment out of office.

Join the fray. All of the America ‘s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.p;

a structure that serves to hold back pressure (as in deterring illegal immigration and drugs), something resembling a wall (in appearance, function, or effect) especially something that acts as a barrier or defense, to provide, cover with, or surround with or as if with a wall, to separate by or as if by a wall, to close (an opening) with or as if with a wall that surrounds an area or separates one area from another, something that separates one thing from another, a wall of mountains.

Both President Trump’s first description of the “wall” and his latest description of the wall are clearly described in the above detailed definition of a wall.

If “establishment speak” continues “Deplorable Speak” will be done at the voting booths where We the “Deplorable” People will “speak” the establishment out of office.

OUR BANANA REPUBLIC

A man standing in front of a crowd with a microphone. — In our “Banana Republic,” top level progressive political appointees embedded in federal agencies lie under oath with impunity. The “Deplorable Class” is mad.

We the People, at least those of us who are proud members of the “Deplorable Class,” are not proud that we live in the twenty first century “Banana Republic” that is the United States of America. In our “Banana Republic,” wealthy political elites in the donor class, top level progressive political appointees embedded by previous administrations in the Justice Department, State Department, and intelligence agencies, other federal agencies and former progressive Cabinet Secretaries, lie under oath without real consequences. Conversely, conservative generals, and others, who oppose the progressive political agenda, are charged for the same “crimes” that favored elites commit with impunity. This is the reality of our “Banana Republic.” We the People in the “Deplorable Class” are getting mad.

The Clintons and the Clinton Foundation should be investigated and possibly prosecuted for Benghazi, Hillary’s Emails, Uranium One, and the manner that money passed through the Clinton Foundation? Those who say these issues should not be further investigated because that would turn us into a Banana Republic that prosecutes political opponents forget another important characteristic of Banana Republics. A third world Banana Republic rarely prosecutes its political elites for their crimes. In many third world countries the political elites, wealthy donor class, and in many cases cartel kingpins, are above the law. Another worthy question should be asked regarding criminal progressive elites, political insiders, and the donor class. If we fail to investigate and prosecute their activities, are we acting like a third world Banana Republic? We the People in the “Deplorable Class” are getting mad.

The United States of America is a country of laws. We claim that we provide equal justice under the law. We claim that the law is blind regarding the status of all persons. What are our leaders telling We the People about our nation if the actions of our leaders convey a different message regarding the law? The current sexual harassment and sexual assault revelations where entertainment, news media, business, and political leaders are actually being held accountable for their actions is encouraging. However, in many instances the media is proclaiming a new precedent in this area, guilty when accused because women never lie about such things, or do they. We must not forget about Duke Lacrosse or the University of Virginia fraternity Rolling Stone case. This trend also smacks of the characteristics of a Banana Republic.

In my opinion, no matter what happens regarding the Clintons, one side or the other, the left or the right will say we would be acting like a third world, Banana Republic. That claim and the opinion of pundits and talking heads would be irrelevant. The critical questions are these. Are we a nation of laws that are blind to last names, wealth, power, political affiliation, or the previous office held by a spouse? Is there one set of laws for the Clintons, the political class, and the wealthy and another standard for the rest of us? Does a failed attempt at election to the Presidency or any other political office exempt anyone from criminal investigation or prosecution? If that is the case, every criminal would run for political office!

If that is the case, we truly live in a Banana Republic!

ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE PRESIDENCY CONSTITUTE TREASON?

A person casting their vote into the ballot box. — Treason is being committed by those attempting to undermine the Presidency.

The current efforts to render the President of the United States of America ineffective and unable to fulfill his duties as President in both domestic and foreign affairs constitute treason, in my opinion. The coalition of conspirators opposing the President, though uncoordinated, includes progressives in most of the television, on-line, and print news media, including liberal commentators on Fox News Channel, Never-Trump conservative commentators and Republicans, the entire Democrat Party, Executive Branch leakers, administrators, faculty members, and students at most universities and public schools, and street demonstrators including the violent black clad Antifa rioters. The assault on President Trump is, in reality, an assault on the Executive Branch of the United States government, the Institution of the Presidency, and the Constitution of the United States of America. This uncoordinated assault on the Presidency is treason.

Treason was such an egregious crime against the Constitution that it is the only crime defined in the Constitution of the United States of America. Article III Section 3 of the Constitution states,

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

The Merriam-Webster on-line definition of the four critical terms related to treason is necessary to follow the argument being presented. Treason is defined as The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family. The definition of adhering is, to give support or maintain loyalty. Aid is defined as, to provide with what is useful or necessary in achieving an end or give assistance. Comfort is defined as, to give strength and hope. Therefore, my expanded Constitutional definition of treason follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against the United States, or in giving support or loyalty to enemies of the United States, giving enemies of the United States what is useful or necessary in achieving an end, assistance, or giving enemies of the United States strength and hope.

One phrase in the above definition of treason is key to this discussion, to personally injure the sovereign, the President. Again, the following Webster on-line definition of injure is relevant: to harm, impair, or tarnish standing or inflict material damage or loss. Although the President has made mistakes, in all my 70 years, the vicious, untruthful, malicious, and slanderous attacks on the Presidency are unprecedented. The listed conspirators seek to injure, harm, impair, and tarnish the standing of the current holder of the office of the President and inflict material damage to the Presidency and Constitution of the United States.

The conspirators seek only political gain, control, and power.
We the People be damned.

We the People will not forget that your acts are treason.
We the People will vote in 2018 and 2020!

END FILIBUSTERS NOW

End filibusters now. Since the filibuster violates the fundamental democratic principle of majority rule, the filibuster is absolutely not democratic. In my opinion, filibusters result in the tyranny of the minority by allowing the minority to dictate and control the legislative process countering the will of the majority. Filibusters are a significant reason that the Legislative Branch of the United States government is held in such low esteem. Filibusters prevent effective and timely governance. End filibusters now by changing Senate filibuster rules. It baffles me to think that the filibuster survives in the Senate in light of the council of the Founders and its divisive and tragic history.

In The Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton explicitly explained the importance of the simple majority as follows:

‘œ(This) ‘contradicts that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail’.

But this is not all; what at first sight may seem a remedy, is in reality a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision) is in its tendency to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number’. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must in some way or other go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority respecting the best mode of conducting it; the majority in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will over-rule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence tedious delays ‘“ continual negotiation and intrigue ‘“ contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: For upon some occasions, things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended or fatally defeated’.

It is not difficult to discover that a principle of this kind gives greater scope to foreign corruption as well as to domestic faction, than that which permits the sense of the majority to decide; though the contrary of this has been presumed’.’

In situations where foreign countries, international conglomerates, critical domestic industries like the automotive industry or the financial industries, or those seeking to implement or legislate changes in mores of society, Hamilton continued with some interesting and relevant observations regarding requirements for more than a simple majority to make legislative decisions in The Federalist No. 22:

‘œIn such a state of things, (any entity seeking to influence the legislative process) would evidently find it much easier by his bribes and intrigues to tie up the hands of government from making’ (decisions), where two thirds (or 60) of all votes were requisite to that object, than where a simple majority would suffice. In the first case he would have to corrupt a smaller number; in the last a greater number. Upon the same principle it would be much easier for a foreign power with which we were at war, to perplex our councils and embarrass our exertions. And in a commercial view we may be subjected to similar inconveniences. A nation, with which we might have a treaty of commerce, could with much greater facility prevent our forming a connection with her competitor in trade; though-such a connection should be ever so beneficial to ourselves.

Evils of this description ought not be so regarded as imaginary. One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford to easy an inlet to foreign (or nefarious) corruption.’

Hamilton demonstrated several good reasons to end filibusters now. Our Constitution was formulated on the bases of simple majority rule. The only exceptions specified in the Constitution are the Presidential veto override by the Congress, treaty ratification in the Senate, and the amendment process outlined in Article V. The filibuster violates this concept. Consequently, we should end filibusters now.

“‘When we dig into the history of Congress, it seems that the filibuster was a mistake. In 1805′ Aaron Burr’ offered this advice’. A truly great Senate would have a cleaner rule book. You have lots of rules that do the same thing. And he singles out the previous question motion (now Cloture where 60 Senators end filibuster)’. When Aaron Burr said, get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didn”t think twice. When they met in 1806, they dropped the motion from the Senate rule book;’ and the filibuster became enshrined in Senate rules.”

The filibuster was responsible for prolonging some of the most egregious wrongs of the Jim Crow’ era.

End filibusters now. The filibuster is not democratic. Filibusters extended Jim Crow segregation. The filibuster is an affront to We the People.

‘œIn 1917, the Senate approved Rule 22, which allowed it to end debate on a bill if two-thirds of senators vote for ‘cloture.’ Cloture was powerless against filibusters supported by more than a third of senators allowing Southern Democrats to use filibusters to kill every meaningful civil rights bill for the next 47 years’. (During this time)’, the House passed bills to outlaw discrimination and protect the right of black citizens to vote, only to watch the bills killed by filibusters in the Senate.In an era when white mobs frequently lynched black people with impunity, Southern senators used filibusters to defeat anti-lynching bills in 1922, 1935, 1938, 1948 and 1949′. Whatever their party affiliation, critics of the filibuster are undeniably correct: The tactic is intrinsically undemocratic’. In 1975, the Senate changed the number of votes needed for cloture from 67 to 60.’

Hamilton”s discussion of the problems arising from decisions requiring more than a simple majority were prophetic. Southern Democrats used the filibuster to stop civil rights laws and prevent lynching of blacks in the south. Currently, problems preventing congress from completing significant legislation, policy decisions, and approval of Judges and Executive Branch appointments requiring Senate approval can be directly traced to issues related to actions requiring 60 votes for cloture in the Senate rather than a simple, ‘œup or down,’ majority vote. Failure to act shows ‘œWe the people’ that the Senate has no respect for the will of citizens of the United States.

The filibuster is not democratic and thwarts the will of We the People.

End filibusters now!

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: