Tag: We the People

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.

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.

A quote by rahm emanuel

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.

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.

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.

“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;

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.

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!

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.

LIES, ACADEMIC, POLITICAL, AND JOURNALISTIC LIES, DAMN LIES ALL

 

 

CONTENTS

ACADEMIC LIES
CLIMATIC LIES
POLITICAL LIES
HEALTHCARE LIES
JOURNALISTIC LIES

With their national poll approval ratings at or below 20%, it is not surprising that 80% of the population hears lies and damn lies when politicians and journalists open their mouths to speak or write. A discussion of the concepts of truth and lies may be an appropriate place to start this discussion. In The Ten Commandments we read this, You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor (EX 20:16, NIV), or do not lie. The Merriam Webster On-Line Dictionary definition of lie is to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive. Conversely the same dictionary defines truth as, the body of real things, events, and facts, actuality, the state of being the case, fact. For We the People, the Deplorable Class, these concepts appear to be quite clear.

A magnifying glass over the word rust
Lies of commission and omission advance the progressive cultural narrative to influence our social, political, and economic system.

ACADEMIC LIES

The 1983 Harvard University Press publication, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought essay on truth sheds a very different light on truth. Truth is described as the practical expression of a subject totality achieved in the realized identity of subject and object in history and this-worldly manifestations of class-related needs and interests. In the essay defining historiography, the study of history as a discipline, the definition of truth is refined, in the context of history, as an ideal chosen from an infinite number of similar, potential ideals determined by history and finally realized under communism once a consensus regarding the new truth of history is achieved. Joseph Stalin 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. As a result, obscure and often discredited depictions of history are presented as historical facts to incrementally alter the existing historical paradigm and promote the progressive, Marxist agenda, academic lies. For example, the left ruthlessly uses this process to discredit the notion that our nation and Constitution are based on a Judeo-Christian society, principles, and laws.

With these thoughts regarding truth and history in mind and the current atmosphere on our college campuses and all levels of academia, it may be well for readers to consider the roll of the left’s educational dictatorship in today’s society to accomplish Stalin’s Marxist, progressive plan for America. Consequently, it is relatively simple to view the Constitution as a living, evolving document rather than a constant, unchanging basis for the rule of Law. The change, in jurisprudence from the preeminence of original intent to case law where precedent and the opinion of judges prevails and the Constitution became a living document, began in the middle of the nineteenth century at the Harvard Law School, the start of the left’s educational dictatorship. For the left, social truth is relative and changes with time and the current societal situation; and a lie is a contradiction of the current Marxist, progressive, social paradigm.

CLIMATIC LIES

The environmental movement in general, and the notion that climate change or global warming is primarily associated with industrialization, pollution, and carbon-based energy, is a movement in which academic, political, and journalistic lies and collusion regarding a narrative is obvious. It is interesting that the climate change narrative has turned 180° in the last half-century. In the 1970s the climate change narrative was the coming Ice Age. Today’s narrative is that man caused global warming will destroy the earth and all its inhabitants within 100 to 200 years at the most. There is no interest in the academic, political, or journalistic communities to explore or explain the cause of this narrative change in such a short period of time. That is a question we the deplorables need not ask; and a discussion of the narrative change doesn’t fit the current narrative. The reality is that both narratives placed the cause as industrialization, pollution, and our dependence on carbon-based energy.

This question regarding geological evidence of climate change is rarely considered. How is it possible, in the absence of human activity and industrialization, that the earth has gone through multiple ice ages and subsequent periods of global warming ending each ice age? Some geologist have attributed the cooling cycles to impacts of huge meteorites or asteroids which filled atmosphere with impact debris causing the cooling and the subsequent Ice Ages. Natural atmospheric cleansing resulted in rising temperatures over time ending each Ice Age. This seems to be a logical theory, but here is an interesting question. If such impacts are the cause of the global cooling and ice ages with subsequent atmospheric cleansing resulting in slow steady global warming and the end of the ice ages, does that mean that the earth is too close to the sun? Are such asteroid impacts the only phenomenon that has prevented temperature increases too great to sustain life on earth?  Without these hypothesized asteroid impacts, would earth be too hot for life and more like mars? These unasked questions are interesting to a young geezer. To me the real scientific question that should be asked is, if carbon dioxide pollution from carbon based energy sources is the cause of climate change, why did earth experience extreme cyclic ice ages and subsequent global warming before the industrial age? Of course, such questions do not fit the current narrative explaining climate change; nor do they warrant real scientific inquiry according to the narrative.

The majority of academics, journalists, and politicians claim that man caused climate change, currently considered global warming, is settled science. This claim is not without controversy. John Coleman, a founder of the Weather Channel has said that man-made climate change is a hoax and climate change is not happening. He declared there is no consensus in science. Science isn’t a vote, science is about facts. Coleman is skeptical about claims that 97 percent of climate scientists are in agreement on the issue noting,

They don’t have any choice. If you’re going to get the money, you’ve got to support their position. Therefore 97 percent of the scientific reports published support global warming. Why? Because those are the ones the government pays for and that’s where the money is.

Current Weather Channel management does not agree with Coleman. My question is, Who currently pays Weather Channel bills?

A picture of the sun setting over a field.
Not all scientists and environmental economists agree that costs of climate change mitigation will significantly alter climate change.

Another group of skeptics regarding man caused global warming is Patrick Michaels editor of CLIMATE COUP: GLOBAL WARMING’S INVASION OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND OUR LIVES along with seven other contributing climate scientists and economists. In the introduction to this publication, Michael’s demonstrates how academicians and climate scientists select data to support the current global warming paradigm. While discussing California’s K-12 climate change curriculum guide, he writes,

…The 50 “ year trend in California temperatures is 0.43 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, or 4.3 degrees per century¦.

But starting in 1960 is highly misleading¦. Records began in 1895. Using the whole record, the trend is only 0.08 degrees. California’s alarmist guide over estimates the over “ all trend by over 500%. Further, it is rather apparent, even in the 50 year sample, that the warming takes place largely between 1960 and 1980, with no net change in the succeeding 30 years.

This selective use of data to support the climate change narrative or paradigm is an academic lie of commission, just another damn global warming lie.

Similarly, Chapter 3 of this publication, Bias in the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary and Personal Account, reiterates Coleman’s claim regarding climate change publications. The author, Ross McKitrick, opens the chapter with the following statement:

Unfortunately, Climategate e-mails revealed that indeed there has been systematic pressure on journal editors to reject manuscripts not toeing the line about disastrous climate change. Even more unfortunate, my experience and that of others are that the post-Climategate environment has made this situation worse, not better¦.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), by claiming to be the consensus of scientists,’ is actually defining a paradigm in the sense of the late historian of science Thomas Kuhn. To Kuhn, paradigms are overarching logical structures, and the work of normal science,’ is the care and feeding of paradigms with data and research findings that confirmed that indeed the paradigm is a correct representation of scientific reality.

This is the story of those difficulties with the IPCC and with the keepers of the paradigm¦.

Unfortunately, policymakers and the political class cannot see what is happening because the absence of these publications gives the appearance of unanimity in science that is not there.

Throughout this 28 page chapter, McKitrick discusses the issues raised in his introduction. In conclusion he states,

The paper I have discussed makes the case that the IPCC used false evidence to conceal an important problem with the surface temperature data on which most of its conclusions rest¦.

In the aftermath of Climategate, a lot of scientists working on global warming-related topics are upset that their field has apparently lost credibility with the public¦. I would like to suggest that the climate science community consider instead whether the public might actually have a point¦.

The policy community has aggressively intervened in climate science because of all the breaches of normal scientific procedures¦.. It appears to be a profession-wide decision that, due to the conjectured threat of global warming, the ethic of scientific objectivity has had an asterisk added to it: there is now the additional condition that objectivity cannot compromise the imperative of supporting one particular point of view.

This strategy is backfiring badly: rather than creating the appearance of genuine scientific progress, the situation appears more like a chokehold of indoctrination and intent intellectual corruption. I do not know what the solution is, since I have yet to see a case in which an institution or segment of society, having once been contaminated or knocked off balance by the global warning issue, is subsequently able to right itself. But perhaps, as time progresses, climate science will find a way to do so. Now that would be progress.

Although the authors concede that some warming is occurring, CLIMATE COUP goes on to challenge most of the dire claims related to the global warming paradigm, the extent of man’s contribution to climate change, and the relationship between the costs and benefits of most of the proposed solutions to the problem.

Evaluation of the Paris Climate Accord shows that it appears to be more of a wealth redistribution plan exempting major polluters like China and India and extracting huge costs on the developed world especially the United States of America. This is especially true for carbon credit payment plans where individuals, businesses, and nations pay penalties or taxes for excessive carbon energy usage which is transferred to developing nations. When the world’s most significant carbon polluters are excluded, the actual or scientifically perceived, reduction in temperature creases is relatively insignificant in comparison to the exorbitant costs. Touted benefits appear to be nothing more than political, journalistic, and academic lies, damn lies all. Consequently, the fact that President Trump withdrew from the accord will benefit the United States far more than the accord would benefit the earth with its insignificant impact on changes in the rate of purported global warming.

POLITICAL LIES

In today’s highly partisan environment, with slim legislative majorities and complex legislation often pairing liberal with conservative elements forcing lesser of evils considerations, principled votes can be difficult or impossible. The inevitable result of this type of legislation is political lies since it often hides issues that cannot pass on their merits within other critical legislation such as funding for Planned Parenthood within a an unrelated appropriation bill. The only way to end this political legislative gerrymandering is to require that all legislation relates to a single issue that stands or fails on the merits of the issue. The current legislative process is deceitful and makes political lies inevitable.

A related legislative issue is the Senate rule requiring 60 votes to pass non-budgetary legislation and the resultant filibuster. When the majority party does not have 60 Senatorial votes, the filibuster often forces Senators into defacto lies because they cannot fulfill campaign promises. The situation causes We the People to distrust politicians and the political process rendering election of Senators a somewhat thankless process. Alexander Hamilton observed that the filibuster is not democratic. He discussed what could be described as the tyranny of the minority where the minority overrules the majority. This is inconsistent with the republican form of government and democratic principles where the majority rules. Hamilton also discussed the remote possibility that unscrupulous campaign financiers would only need to come up with money to influence 40 equally unscrupulous Senators rather than 49 such Senators to alter the result of a vote on an issue. Withholding funds would be a more likely and less obvious strategy.  This 60 vote super-majority rule often turns hope in the power of our Republic into a damn political lie. This is unfortunate since the origin of the filibuster rule was a simple misunderstanding not part of the Founder’s plan for the Senate.

We the People often feel that politicians simply say what they think their constituents want to hear during campaigns. Once they get into office, politicians seem to vote as the money tells them to vote, We the People be damned. Unfortunately, when politicians do stand on principles and vote based on campaign promises, they are often ridiculed, derided, and ostracized for the purpose coercing a change in their vote which would turn campaign promises into lies. Some unattributed examples will suffice; we really care about the people of the United States (but if bipartisan legislation will reduce  our political power we will not participate in any such legislation), the IRS will never be used as a weapon against political opponents, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your healthcare insurance plan you can keep your plan, Under the ACA you will save an  average of $2,500 a year, a cut in a government program occurs when the program increase occurs at a lower percentage than the rate of increase in the previous year or a lower than expected increase in a government program is a cut to the program (current Medicaid discussions for example),  if you elect a Republican Legislature and President we will repeal and replace Obamacare, If you elect GOP Representatives, Senators, and President we will end illegal immigration and pass immigration reform, If you elect us we will reform Medicare and Social Security and insure that these programs will be available for all future generations, or elect us and we will lower your income taxes and reform the tax code. Of this list of major “lies,” Republicans did reform the tax codes and lower taxes. We the People could add pages to this short list of damn political lies. Liars must be replaced at every level of our political system.

HEALTHCARE LIES

The current Obamacare, healthcare insurance, repeal and replace debate is a discussion where journalistic and political liars collude. Collusion occurred during the debates for and passage of Obamacare. The first question regarding the current debate is the actual portion of the economy involved in the healthcare industry and the individual healthcare insurance market, Obamacare. The claim is that healthcare occupies one sixth of the US economy. Politicians claim and journalist report that the debate is critical because of this large proportion of our economy. Some questions are appropriate. Is healthcare insurance included in the healthcare share of the economy? If not, is the total healthcare contribution to our economy closer to 20% or more? Additionally, the combination of those currently involved in Obamacare and the uninsured is approximately 20% of the total healthcare insurance market. This is also known as the individual healthcare insurance market. Between 50 and 55% of healthcare insurance is provided by employers. Approximately 25% of the healthcare market is provided by VA healthcare, Medicare, and Medicaid. If the above proportions are generally accurate, then the debate regarding repealing and replacing or keeping Obamacare actually involves only 20% of the healthcare portion of the economy, or 3.3-4% not 16.6-20%, of the overall economy. Does this conflation of information, a gross overstatement or exaggeration, of the contribution of the individual healthcare insurance market to the overall economy constitute political and journalistic lies?

Terminology for the funds used to expand the individual healthcare Insurance market to able bodied low income workers through Medicaid using Obamacare is another area where politicians and journalists collude to at least misinform the people of the United States. In my opinion, Obamacare payments to supplement premiums, deductibles, and co-pays for this group constitute Marxist or socialist wealth redistribution from those tax payers with the ability to pay more to those having a greater need for healthcare insurance. In the words of Marx, From each according to his ability to each according to his need, wealth is redistributed by this plan. Depending on their political philosophy, politicians and journalists, use a variety of terms to describe this wealth redistribution. The terms include subsidies, entitlements, corporate welfare, and cost or premium reductions. The term wealth redistribution is not used nor is the fact that wealthier tax payers are financing the Medicaid expansion program ever discussed openly. These damn lies are lies of omission.

Politicians claim and journalists report that the individual market will be a competitive free market controlled by patients providing close patient doctor relationships and treatment choices. How can a market that involves at most 20% of healthcare be a competitive free market when 65-75% of the healthcare market is controlled by Medicare and employer provided healthcare insurance with contracts covering prices and availability? With these thoughts in mind, no one should be surprised that the promises of Obamacare turned into political and journalistic lies. Will the promises of any replacement for Obamacare, or improvements, in the individual healthcare insurance market also turn into political lies? Under the current paradigm, a real patient controlled, free market individual healthcare insurance market providing meaningful doctor-patient relationships, lower costs, and real choice is highly unlikely. Perhaps, it is time to consider an alternative.

JOURNALISTIC LIES

Journalistic lies are as complex as political lies. They are lies of commission and lies of omission. For this discussion, journalistic lies of commission are simply falsehoods intentionally reported as facts or unsubstantiated information and speculation based on anonymous, unverified sources. Lies of omission are simply the failure to report on legitimate factual stories that do not support the current news or social narrative. Both types of lies are developed to support the news narrative that the elites of journalism and the culture determine necessary to mold the opinion of the populace. Both types of lies undermine public trust in journalism.

It is a well-established fact that the vast majority of American journalists refer to themselves as liberal or progressive. These two labels along with communist, socialist, and Democrat are synonyms for Marxist. The difference between these terms is merely the speed and manner in which Marxist philosophy is implemented as the basis for governance.  Many conservatives think that the primary purpose of news narratives is to provide information that supports, promotes, and insures that the central concept or ideal of progressive narratives are internalized by the majority of the population over time, social propaganda and indoctrination. Narratives being promoted by the progressive elites of our education system, pop culture, journalism, and progressive politicians, Democrats, are the previously described mission statement of Stalin for America, America will collapse from within¦ if we can undermine¦ its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. When Stalin referred to morality and spiritual life, he was referring to our Judeo-Christian heritage. Adding individualism and capitalism to the list of characteristics essential for American exceptionalism provides a fairly complete list of personal qualities and institutions that Marxism must undermine to ensure the internal collapse of America and usher in governance based on Marxist philosophy, socialism. It is these five areas of American culture, patriotism, morality, spirituality or Christianity, capitalism, and economic entrepreneurial individualism, that the progressive journalism narrative seeks to undermine.

Advancing the progressive social agenda starts in academia primarily in the social sciences. Regardless of the specifics, the narrative and agenda is almost always aimed at undermining our Judeo-Christian heritage, American morality and spiritual life. As soon as academia establishes a strong narrative, journalists join the fray. If politicians are unable to enact laws supporting the agenda, progressives take issues to the federal courts. Consequently, academia, journalist, and politicians collude to accomplish the progressive social agenda. This assault on American morality and spiritual life began with school prayer. The next phase was abortion rights which were followed by gay-rights and the battle for same-sex marriage. Next, progressives began their battle for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights. The final battle in this area could be totally open bisexual polygamy. Each progressive agenda cause would be worthy of extensive discussion. Suffice it to say that this has been a concerted effort to undermine the America of our Founders and the Judeo-Christian principles that made America the greatest nation in history.

Academicians, scientists, politicians, and journalist are all embroiled in a contest for the future of the United States of America based on the difference between lies, damn lies, and truth. Often the difference between lies and truth is in the eyes of the beholder and related to the narrative and motivation of the protagonists. In my opinion, the progressive narrative is that American patriotism, morality, and spiritual life must be undermined to insure that their vision for America will be realized. On the other hand, We the People in the Deplorable Class are diametrically opposed to the progressive narrative and agenda. We believe in the Founder’s vision for the United States of America. We believe in American exceptionalism, the critical impact of our Judeo-Christian heritage, the values espoused in Scripture, and the system of Constitutional capitalism that has evolved in America from colonial times to the present.

We the People in the Deplorable Class know that these values will help Make America Great Again.

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.

 

 

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!

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.

 

END FILIBUSTERS NOW

 

A black and white photo of two men with glasses
End filibusters now. Filibusters violate the basic democratic principle of majority rule. The filibuster is not democratic.

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.

A woman in white dress standing next to a store.
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!

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.