When Government Doesn't Trust The People: Who Blinks First?

 

The Founding Fathers didn't trust government. Nearly everything they did politically before, during and after the revolution was a reflection of that mistrust. Well, it should come as no surprise that modern Americans don't trust the government either.

Opinion polls have shown lows which borders on contempt for Congress, the judicial system, and the Presidency for decades. Even our trust of mainstream media, religion, financial system and our educational system and governmental bureaucracy with its myriad of agencies have reached anemic levels.

Perhaps even worse than our mistrust of institutions, is our lack of trust in our fellow citizens. We are more divided than at any time since the 1760's of the pre Revolution War. Others have argued that we're in fact much closer to the pre-Civil War years of the 1850's. Either way, it doesn't bode well for the country.

So, what should we make of government's apparent mistrust of its citizens? After all,  we've become a de facto surveillance state with camera nearly everywhere. We're monitored and tracked everywhere we go. Facial recognition is practically universal. Government has the technology to implement a police state unlike anything ever seen in the history of civilization.  

The following video from an episode of "On The Homefront" on CBN News entitled "Federal Agencies Arming Themselves" which brings home the point. The government has been on a buying spree of military grade weapons and ammo. It has been challenging our constitutional rights at an alarming rate. Some, as indicated in the video, claim that for all intents our Constitution is no longer a living document.  

There's no question that we've become a corporatocracy led by a super wealthy Oligarchy.   All we have to do is watch the biased "news" to see the two tier justice system at work (or should I say "not at work'?). Our trust of the mainstream media is nearly as low as that of Congress, which is something relatively new (as an aside, conservatives distrust the media at a higher percentage than liberals do).

There have been numerous psychological studies which have shown that when an individual or small group of individuals are treated with distrust, it tends to provoke anti-societal like behavior in that individual or group. Thus, one has to wonder whether we are being maneuvered into some reaction?  

Perhaps the result of this provoked behavior could trigger mass protests, riots, looting, violence such as we're now seeing in places like San Francisco, and so forth. If these manufactured  actions produce a certain "critical mass", it would be all the excuse needed to declare martial law and implement a police state. 

Then too, what about claims on both sides of mass election fraud and "stolen elections"? Are we going to start asking the United Nations to send in election monitors like we would for some failed democracy? 

The ongoing use of the FBI and judicial system to conduct a political vendetta and character assassination to neutralize an opponent is a gross misuse of power worthy of some third world banana republic.  Loss in faith of the electoral process has been central to the eventual fall of nearly every government down through history. Have we reached that point? 

There's no question that since 9/11 and the subsequent "Patriot Act" was implemented, the United States has moved in a decidedly anti-democratic direction. The Department of Homeland Security, the growth of the deep state and its affiliated intelligence agencies, and our state of perpetual war (be it direct or indirect) gives us about as much of a warm and fuzzy feeling as jackboots outside our front door.

Check out the video from CBN and see what you think. It runs just 7:05 minutes.  

 

Video: Federal Agencies Arming Themselves

CBN News

 

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

Religion, Freedom, and Americans

According to a Gallup Poll from December 2021, 75% of Americans identify with some form of religion. Of that, 69% named Christianity as their religion of choice.  When asked for specifics, 35% said Protestantism while 22% said they were Catholic. However, 12% said declined to say.

 Meanwhile, 7% of those surveyed said they weren't Christian. Of those, 2% professed to being Jewish, while 1% each identified as Muslim or Buddhist. 3% declined to answer. But it's worth noting that 22% of those interviewed said they had no religious preference.

The significance of this survey comes into focus when you look at a similar survey conducted in 1971 when 90% of those interviewed identified as Christian, a 15% drop over 50 years, or about two generations. Further highlighting the shift was that in 1971, just 6% said they weren't Christian and a mere 4% had no religious preference.

The 2021 Gallup Poll said that 49% of those who adhere to a religion felt said that it was important to them.  Another 27% said it was "fair" important, while 25% felt it was of little or no particular importance.  But back in 1965, it was quite different. Then 70% of those survey said religion was "very important" to them. That dropped to 52% in 1978 before rising to 60% in 1990 where it remained consistent until 1996 before dropping to its present level of below 50%.

Church membership and attendance are two other key factors affecting religion in America. In 2000, Gallup asked participants if they attended a religious service in person or online, 44% said they did. Compare that to 49% in 1958 who attended services. By 2021, that number had dropped to just 29%.

When it came to membership, the numbers are just as bad. When Gallup first asked respondents if they formally belonged to a church back in 1937, 73% said yes. In 1999, that number was still pretty high with 70% saying they were. However, in 2021, that figure had dropped off to 47%.

The decline was primarily among those under 30 years of age, while it remained fairly stable among seniors.  For those born before 1946, those belonging to a organized religion dropped from 77% to 66%. From Babyboomers (1946 - 1964), that number went from 67% to 59%. Gen X (1965 - 1980), the figure declined by 12%, 62% to 50%. Finally, Millennials (1981 - 1996). Just 36% are belong to some religious denomination. As for Gen Z, 34% were unaffiliated with any religion.

When we break those numbers down further in order to get a clearer picture things get really interesting. First, the largest drop in membership was among Catholics who've dropped from 73% in 1998 to 58% as of 2020. For Protestants, it went from 73% to 64%, with mainstream churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Methodists, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, etc) being hit the hardest. Even Evangelical churches, which had the largest growth just a few years ago, are seeing record number declines.

Women, once the staple of church membership, has dropped by 20% over the last 20 years, down to 53%. 18% for men or 46%. Among whites, 59% attend, a decline of 16%. For blacks it's was slightly worse--- a 19% decline to 59%. For Hispanics, however, the numbers were worse. Since 2011, church membership among Hispanics has dropped off to just 37%.

As an aside, a 2018 Pew study showed that for the first time ever, the majority of Hispanics in America are no longer Catholic (something I'm sure certain Catholic service organizations were expecting when encouraging Latinos to illegally enter America). In 2009, the number of Hispanics who considered themselves Catholic was 57%. By 2019, that number had dropped to 47%.

Hispanics who considered themselves Protestant rose from 23% to 26%. Of those, the majority self-identified as Evangelical. 3% said they were no longer Christian, while an impressive 23% said they were agnostic, atheist, or nothing in particular.

There's a great line from the novel "Dune", written by Frank Herbert that says "When religion and politics ride in the same cart a whirlwind follows". Although there's nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state, America has done a great deal to keep religion and politics as separated as possible. It's not that the Founding Fathers disapproved of religion, far from it.  They were just fearful of a state created religion like what had forced others from Europe.

Under a state religion, others exist at the discretion and magnanimity of those in power; to be granted or withdrawn at a whim. In addition, the state church imposed a tax on the citizens as well as on the non-state churches. In addition, the members of these non-approved churches were required to support their minister and church which represented another tax burden many couldn't afford.

The decline of religious membership and participation among Liberals went from 56% to 35% over the last 20 years, a 21% drop. Among moderates, they experienced a 21% as well, going from 66% to 45%. Perhaps not unexpectedly, Conservatives fared the best, falling 14% from 78% to 64%, which still represents a majority.

When we break it down along partisan lines, Independents, who are the nation's largest political demographic, fell from 59% to 41%; a 18% drop.  Democrats saw the largest drop, going from 71% down to 46%, which represents a falloff of 25%.   Again, as expected, Republicans had the least drop. Over the last 20 years, they've gone from 77% to 65%, which once again still leaves them with a majority of participants.

It's ironic that the Left it portrayed by the media as being morally superior, while accusing Conservatives and Republicans of corrupting Christianity; of advocating a form of "neo-fascism" Christian Theocracy the way the Taliban has corrupted Islam. After all, wasn't it said that if fascism ever came to America it would be wrapped in the flag and carrying a bible?

 They cite the Right's push for mandatory prayer in school while ignoring other faiths and the non-religious, while also encouraging pray at social functions, not to mention limiting or prohibiting diversity and cultural inclusivity (aka "multiculturalism").

The Right, on the other hand, cite the need to recreate a "melting pot" where no one group is better than the other. At the same time, for a society to prosper, they argue that a society must share a set of common values and a common language. "You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything", isn't that the promise of a "anything goes" society? 

They also point out that the religious Right was behind the move by the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade, and thus making abortion illegal. The Left sees abortion as a "pro-choice" issue, whether anyone else agrees with it or not. It's their position that a woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases while the religious oriented Right hold that that option ended the moment she became pregnant. 

Even what constitutes a "unborn child" is disputed! The Right says that at the moment of conception, life has begun and all future decisions must be based on that. Meanwhile, the Left believes the process of life (cell division) may technically begin at conception, but you don't have a "life" until there's a heartbeat and brain activity (the absence of which is near uniformly acknowledged as death by the medical community). 

There are some on the Right who believe that the pregnancy must come to term no matter the circumstances of the pregnancy (ie: rape or accidental) or possible medical disabilities that might bring up to and including those affecting the mother's wellbeing, and will cite cherry picked passages from the scripture of their choice to support their claims. But what if the individual isn't of their faith or culture? What then? 

Other issues which separate the Left and Right along religious lines include the acceptance of homosexuality, the admission of female clergy (or gay clergy), the role of women in church and at home just to name a few. None of these even touch on groups like the Amish, Mennonites, Quakers, Mormons, and other non-traditional religions which have either in part or in totality rejected aspects of modern society.

As an aside, the Mormons are one of the few Christian sects which has actually maintained their numbers. While the Utah based church hasn't grown, it's numbers haven't dropped off like other Protestant denominations have (in 2020, the growth rate was 0.6%. In 2021 it was 0.85%). It's primary areas of growth has been in Africa despite a significant drop in missionaries (thanks mainly to Covid-19).

So, what religious based groups are doing well?  In the U.S., the fastest growing organized religion is Islam, albeit the numbers themselves are extremely small. Islam makes up less than 1% in the U.S. and it's growth rate has been 0.6% to 1.5% over the past few years. Nothing to write Mecca about! However, Islam is expected to surpass Judaism in the very near future with Islam reaching eventually about 2.8% of the population compared to 1.8% for Jews. Non-organized religions such as pantheism, paganism, Wiccan, Native American, and African faith systems are also growing rapidly as is the more secular Humanism.  

It's also worth noting that since the collapse in the 1980's of Communism in Eastern Europe, churches have made a comeback in a big way. Under Communism, atheism was the defacto "state religion". Nevertheless, efforts to suppress or even outlaw religion under Communism was largely unsuccessful. Growth mainly among Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, and Lutheranism has rapid and sustained.

Even in the former center of Communism, Moscow, President Vladimir Putin is a semi-regular attendee at religious services where 71% openly identify as Orthodox, 10% Muslims and 15% who remain "unaffiliated".  87% of Poland are Catholic. 95% of Romania and Moldavia adhere to some religion. 84% for Croatia, and so the story goes.

Religious freedom was denied the people of Eastern Europe for nearly 50 years. Now it's back with a vengeance. Perhaps you have to lose something to realize its value, which for the people under Communism not only included freedom of religion, but by extension, freedom of expression and speech, association, movement, ownership of property, equality of justice, and control over our own persons.

Religion is not mandatory in the West. Those days of autocracy and official religions have thankfully long passed. Today we have the option to accept or reject it. In other parts of the world the people don't have that choice. The state has made the decision for them as to what's acceptable or not, and the penalty for rejecting that decision can be brutal, if not fatal. Migrants to Europe, who claim to be seeking economic and social freedom, are trying to impose their repressive religious and social values on the very citizens whose nations accepted them.

The Founding Fathers intended to create a new society where we had the freedom of religion (which by definition also includes freedom from religion). This freedom meant you could freely practice your religion but you couldn't impose it on others. It also meant the state was prohibited adopting any religion or from imposing any religious beliefs or penalties in its citizens. For its time, this was huge.

Our Founders bequeath to us a freedom of choice, which implied, among other things, the right to believe as we were so inclined too, as well as freedom of speech and expression, association, the right to a fair trial, and the right to defend ourselves from those who would seek to deprive us of these and other rights, which goes to the Founder's belief in the natural and preeminent rights of the individual.

 

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

U.S. Church Membership Falls Below Majority For First Time

How Religious Are Americans?

 

Mainstream Protestants Make Up Shrinking Number of U.S.Adults

"Seven Sisters" of Mainline Protestantism Still Bleed Members

Majority of Hispanics in the U.S. no longer Catholic newstudy finds

The Unlikely Rebound of Mainline Protestantism

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Fourth of July and What It Means Now

The Fourth of July. America's 246th birthday. It marks our break from a despotic and out of touch king and his government. It began over the issue of taxes and not having a say in the laws imposed on us. Our Founding Fathers valued individual freedom, free speech and assembly, freedom of press, a fair trial, self determination, freedom of (and from) religion, and the right to bear arms to preserve those and other rights.  Many valued those freedoms more than life. Some 25,000 patriots would agree. 

About 6,000 patriots died in battle. Some died as prisoners of war (mainly in British prison ships which were rife with diseases and malnutrition). Another 18,000 died from disease, not to mention hundreds of women and children who died, often from starvation and disease as much as from the war itself.

Since the conclusion of the war in 1783, America has been engaged in 104 wars, "conflicts" and interventions (of which nine are considered "losses" and 13 are categorized as "inconclusive/draws"). The majority were part of a series of prolonged engagements against Native Americans, in what amounted to a semi-official policy of genocide over the control of land and resources.

In what is unofficially called the "Indigenous Holocaust", an estimated 1,500 attacks by settlers against Native American tribes have occurred since 1776.  Although no one will ever know for certain how many died from direct conflict, disease, enslavement, starvation, forced marches (such as the Trail of Tears) or ill prepared encampments (or reservations), an estimated 100 million Native Americans have perished since 1492, with most of it coming after the founding of Jamestown in 1607.  

Our bloodiest war was the one fought between each other, the Civil War, which surpassed all our wars before or since. An estimated 750,000 men (or about 3% of the population) died between 1861 and 1865.  By comparison, we lost 116,516 in World War I, 305,399 in World War II, and 58,209 in Vietnam. 25,000 died during the Revolutionary War. 15,000 in the War of 1812.  Hundreds of thousands more died following the war's end in 1865 from diseases, famine, or injuries.

From 1946 through 2000, the United States has been involved in approximately 81 overt and covert interventions in foreign elections, not to mention 64 attempts to overthrown existing governments including seven coups. Since 2001, there has been 28 coup attempts just in Latin America! Apparently "self determination" applies only to governments the Washington ruling elite approves of.

 We value free speech so much that it's listed first in our Bill of Rights. We believe that the free and open exchange of ideas is essential for creating and maintaining a vibrant nation. An informed citizen is a powerful citizen. But that's all changed.

The media spins the stories it selects to correspond with its political perspective. It tries to manipulate our votes with their "endorsements" and editorials. Various internet platforms routinely block us, censor us, delete us, and penalize us for not following their "standards". Is it any wonder we no longer trust the media?

According to a 2021 Pew Report, just 35% of Americans trust the media, which is the second lowest percentage recorded (the lowest was 32% in 2016). 34% said they have no trust at all in the media while 29% said they had little faith in the media.

The poll also reflects our growing divide as a nation. 31% of Independents (the nation's largest political bloc) trusts the media while the majority of Democrats---68%---still do. Compare that to a mere 11% of Republicans.  How can a democracy survive when the majority of the population doesn't believe in what it's being told?

Well, it can't. At least not for long. The control of information and even entertainment has been a hallmark of every dictatorship. "Bread and circuses" was the byword of Imperial Rome, which willing sacrificed its freedom for security.  Keep the citizens fed and entertained (and their attention sufficiently diverted) and you will have a compliant population. Some things never change.

In America, just six corporations control 90%+ of all media and entertainment outlets. That includes video games, radio and TV shows, movies, internet content, books, magazines, newspapers, theme parks, and so on.  Control the message and you control what people think. Today, in addition to controlling the message, they attempt to control the language.

Political correctness (or "PC") first came to the forefront in the early 1980's. Originally  intended to make language less "offensive" and more inclusive for certain groups, it evolved to remove specific terms and phrases from common usage.  Most saw it as censorship; an attempt to force specific behavior on the public in order to create a indoctrinated population governed by peer pressure.

Those who resist this new politically correct "wokeness" find themselves subjected to a form of control known a "cancel culture", which is an attempt to impose acceptable language and behavior and punish that which it finds unacceptable. Can you imagine what the Founding Fathers (sorry--- I mean the slave exploiting wealthy white male chauvinist oppressors) would have thought of this?

America was not founded as a democracy per se, but as a Constitutional Republic. Rather than a direct form of government (the definition of a democracy), the voting citizens (which was then restricted to white land owning males) elected individuals to represent the community's interests (a republican style government) based a governing document. In this case, a constitution.

As an aside, it should be noted that the Founders opposed political parties, which they thought would be divisive and divert power away from the people and towards special interest cliques. They also opposed a professional political class, fearing it would be as corrupted as Parliament was in London.

These citizen representatives were expected to volunteer their time and to serve a set amount of time in office before returning home to resume  their private lives.  They would naturally be reimbursed for any expenses incurred in the execution of their duties while in office, but weren't paid a regular salary.

Today we have not just professional politicians, we have a professional political class which is divided along partisan lines and are answerable solely to their corporate masters. Money has replaced voters as the single most important factor in modern politics. Campaigns are so intentionally expensive that ordinary citizens can't participate. Thus, Congress has become the sole domain of millionaires. They spend the bulk of their time raising money for party chieftains and self promoting "leadership committees" while corporate lobbyists write the legislation which becomes law.

Thanks to the four partisan evils--- gerrymandering, Citizens United, unlimited terms, and control of the media, the majority of the professional political class are immune to the wishes of the citizens. They do and vote as told by their corporate bosses with near impunity. There's another aspect to our failed political system most of us have not taken into consideration---representation itself.

The fuse which sparked the American Revolution was taxes. It wasn't over whether we should or shouldn't have taxes. Obviously nothing is free. It was the matter of representation. The colonists believed they weren't properly represented in Parliament, especially over the matter of taxes,  which was being imposed on them without consultation or consent.  Not so different now is it?

Our present form of government is based on a "winner take all" political system. That is, whether you're an Independent, Democrat, Republican, or a third party doesn't matter. If your candidate loses, you aren't represented for the duration of the term. Given the four evils of partisan gerrymandering, Citizens United, unlimited terms, and control of the media, that could be damn near forever!

So what to do?  Well, you can suck it up and accept the fact that you have no say in the bills passed in your name or in the taxes you're forced to pay. You could incur the time and expense of moving somewhere gerrymandered by your party, which is great unless you're like the majority of Americans who are Independent and quite literally aren't represented by anyone (which also applies to third parties too). But since your party is corporate bought and paid for anyway, what good will it do you?

I can't help but wonder what our Founding Fathers, who literally put everything on the line, including their lives, would think. They would have rejected corporate control of the media. If you're not a Democrat or Republican, you're prohibited for participating in most political debates or have access to big dollar donations. This would be their antithesis of freedom of thought and speech.  

The notion of money being the equivalent to "free speech", the basis of Citizens United, would have been abhorrent to them since it implies that the wealthy are more important than the ordinary citizen. Had such a measure been considered in their time, they would have shown up with pitchforks, tar and feather with a serious intent on using them!  We did nothing. Bitched and moaned a little I guess.

They would be appalled by a professional political class comprised of millionaires or the government being openly controlled by "special interests" cliques in the form of corporations; of where laws affecting the People are written by the representatives of and benefit of these corporations; not by those elected to office that express purpose. Corporate welfare would have been a non-starter. No one and no business was "to big to fail".   

They would have fumed at the idea that the People were forced to pay to bail out mismanaged businesses or engaging in overseas wars and conflicts for the financial gain of a few.  They believed  everyone was entitled to an equal opportunity to pursue whatever their definition of success was, not to a guaranteed equal outcome, and certainly not at the People's expense.  

The Founders strongly opposed "foreign entanglements" which didn't have a direct impact on our national security.  How would we justify overthrowing 92 democratically elected governments because we didn't like their domestic policies or meddling in 81 elections in an attempt to elect one favorable to our corporate interests, especially when they were replaced with brutal dictatorships?

They would equally be nauseated at the thought of partisan gerrymandering or unlimited terms, which are done for the sole purpose of depriving individuals from having a say in their own representation and creating a de facto monopolistic partisan gripe on a district.

So, what is the message of this Fourth of July? Sadly, it's no longer to honor the sacrifice made by the patriots who fought and died to give us this nation or to celebrate our liberation from a despotic government. If it was, it should be as a national day of reflection and atonement, not of celebration. The Republic they bequeath to us no longer exists. It has been replaced by a neo-fascist Corporatocracy.

Their America, a democratic based Constitutional Republic celebrated the sovereignty of the individual. They envisioned a government just big enough to protect individual rights. Yes, it had flaws, but any endeavor created by Man is inherently flawed because the nature of Humanity is itself flawed.

Nevertheless, the political system they created was designed with the necessary tools to make adjustments; to rectify those flaws as we have periodically done. Yet what moved it from the realm of philosophical debate to reality was accepting that the state was no more than the sum of its citizens. The individual was its foundation. Not wealth. Not divine right or religion. Not origin, race or gender.

What they envisioned has now been corrupted into a neo-fascist Corporatocracy. A merger of impersonal corporations and government, managed by a handful of unimaginably wealthy individuals for the sole purpose of control, be it assets, resources, government, or us---their economic serfs.

They've replaced concepts like citizenry and with consumerism. Self-reliance for debt. National pride for globalism.  They built a cyber prison of surveillance around us and call it security. They manufacture wars for profit and call it spreading democracy. They censor speech , manipulate thought, restrict where we go, and control our bodies. This, they say, is freedom.  They control the government; write laws for their benefit, and have us pay for it all and tell us it's managed democracy. 

Perhaps it's time to revisit the writings of our Founders and rekindle what it means to be an American. Perhaps then we will again have reason to celebrate the Fourth of July. Then again, perhaps we will create a new day of liberation and independence.

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

List of wars involving the United States

Counting the Dead: Estimating the Loss of Life in theIndigenous Holocaust, 1492 - Present

 

How Many Died in the American Civil War

Fourth of July weekend marred by violent shootings acrossthe U.S.

21th century U.S. coups and attempted coups in Latin America

 

 

"No Go Zones" in America? A Look at the Reality and the Possibility

Following my recent article on "sanctuary cities", I came across an article on "no go zones" here in the United States. Well, that certainly got my attention since these so-called "no go zones" were all Muslim in nature. Some were apparently just a small community centered around a mosque while others were said to be much more sinister in their purpose. Typically these were described as Muslim "terrorist training camps". If true, then that's certainly something I wanted to know more about.

According to the articles (I say "articles" since, in my research, I came across other articles which made similar claims), there are somewhere around nine states which harbor these encampments. These include the West Coast states of California, Oregon, and Washington, along with Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Texas and Oklahoma. In addition, the Mid-West states of Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan were included. Other states, such as New York, Alaska, Massachusetts, Virginia, and North Carolina also appear. A few articles mention Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky.

The articles reminded me of the same type of fear generated by claims of neo-Nazi/White Supremacists having similar types of closed off communities in places like Idaho or Montana back in the 70's and early 80's, as well as Black Supremacists living in de-facto sealed off urban neighborhoods in Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, and elsewhere during the late 60's and early 70's; places where even the cops allegedly feared to tread. Of course, from the late 1960's through the 1990's there were numerous religious or cult communities which were closed to outsiders scattered all the country, though mostly in the Western states.

The idea of wanting to live in a community of like minded individuals isn't new to this country. Almost from the beginning, Quakers, Puritans, and even Catholics segregated off together. Later, as the population grew, we saw Jews, Poles, Germans, Irish, Lithuanians, Italians, and others settle in their own ethnic/religious communities. Some groups, like Blacks and Chinese, followed suit, although this was partly the desire to be together (safety in numbers) and partly due to bigotry.

In fact, it's actually only been relatively recent that these type of communities have begun to break up, although newer groups such as Hispanics, Africans, Bosnians, and, yes, Muslims, have tended to cluster together (Hispanics from poorer and less educated countries like Costa Rica, Honduras, and El Salvador) tend to stay close to Spanish speaking Roman Catholic parishes while Muslims may remain close to a particular mosque which has connections to their hometown, sect, family, etc. That's also why small ethnic businesses are usually established nearby; everyone likes familiarity. We are, after all, a tribal species.

So, is there any truth to these articles, particularly that they are engaged in terrorist training? That's hard to say. Certainly, the FBI, ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) along with Homeland Security would want to know (I would imagine the IRS would also have more than a passing interest too). Naturally, we all remember how well the Feds handled Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco (sarcasm intended).

In the past, terrorist acts in this country have tended to be either comprised of a small group (usually two or three individuals, with the exception of the cowardly 9/11 attack), or more often than not, the lone individual. In fact, the majority of these individuals described themselves as "self radicalized"; usually starting with a psychological "kinship" with the terrorist group's cause, and then become increasingly more radicalized through articles, books, and especially the internet; particularly via websites produced by these groups. These websites are usually very well designed with terrific graphics, and typically done in wide range of languages to give them that "personal" touch.

As a rule, the websites are divided into three segments: propaganda, ideology, and the "how to" section. The first two are pretty self explanatory. They are designed to attract those who may have a curiosity (perhaps under the auspices of trying to find out the "other side" of the story). They also present a skewed worldview as you might expect, complete with images of throngs of cheering well-wishers as their conquering heroes march into a newly "liberated" neighborhood or town complete with smiling men and happy children (a surefire tug at the ole heartstrings). They include "correct" religious instruction, especially for those interested in a do-it-yourself religious conversion, along with the proper religious diet and even physical training programs for that jihadi on the go!

The last part is where the newly recruited ideologue comes in. These individuals are typically encouraged to come and join the fight against--insert cause "here"-- where you'll be rewarded with whatever lights your fuse. However, if you are unable to make the trip, no problem! These websites come complete with videos instructing the dumbest of would-be terrorists with information on how they too can be become a mass murderer in just a few easy-to-learn lessons! They can learn everything from simple harassment techniques, improving their shooting skills, to the ever popular improvised bomb making. Perhaps the best thing about these sites are the ease at which they can be setup and accessed at little to no risk to the actual terrorists.

Nevertheless, while these type of sites do exist, they are pretty closely monitored by the NSA, FBI, Homeland Security, and Interpol (and thankfully so). Naturally, there are certain mosques where Imams (religious leaders similar to a minister) of questionable moral character may secretly operate their own illegal terrorist training cells. These rarely ever contain anymore than just a small handful of utterly devout students. The goal is to create as many disconnected and independent cells as possible. That way, if one is compromised, it doesn't affect the others (as expected, these eventually show up on the radar too). As an aside, this technique was used to great success by the various resistance groups in Nazi occupied Europe; India during British colonial rule; Vietnam and Southeast Asia.

However, it's important to point out here that the majority of terrorist attacks in the U.S. haven't come from Muslim or any other religious groups. They tend to be the loner with their own unique cause, be it being snubbed by students at school or a girl, feeling like an outcast, pissed off at an employer or fellow employees, and so forth. Despite media propaganda, not all mass shooters are "Right Wingers" either. The man who attacked the Congressional Baseball Charity game singled out Republicans. The latest two mass murders were done by individuals who were members of Antifa, the so-called "Anti-Fascist" group which acts more like Hitler's Brownshirts or the Communist "Red Faction" than not. Nevertheless, in terms of voter registration, the majority are Democrats. More importantly, they are also usually young, male, disenchanted with life, and more often than not, mentally ill.

Europe, on the other hand, does have "no go zones" in truest sense where Sharia law is enforced, whether you're a Muslim or not. In fact, there is an active and ongoing attempt to spread its influence beyond the localized Muslim communities. There is little doubt that religious radicalization is alive and well, along with the possibly active terrorist training (we know rape gangs not just exist, but that there is actual training on how to organize rape gangs). Without a question, the attacks which have taken place in Europe have had a strong religious extremist undertone whether the governments there have the courage to admit it or not.

As for the "no go zones" in the U.S., they really don't exist, at least not like they do in Europe. Yes, some are restricted to some religious or some other denominator, but as I've said, that's hardly new nor does it constitute an actual "no go zone" since law enforcement and first responders have access. Historically, the biggest concern has not been keeping out but in preventing people from leaving (the "Moonies" and Jim Jones' "People's Temple" come to mind), which is why it's important for police access. Perhaps the most often overlooked "no go zones" are Native American reservations, which are defacto separate and semi-independent nations within the U.S. though they are freely visited.

Do they stockpile weapons, ammo, or conduct paramilitary training? Perhaps, but so far nothing has surfaced by the Feds, but that doesn't mean that something isn't happening. After all, both the White and Black supremacists groups back in the day conducted paramilitary training. On the other hand, perhaps their training involves is no more than of a matter of providing internal security (reservations have their own police for instance). Unfortunately, until they either act or the Feds find something that's pretty compelling, it's virtually impossible to know for sure. Not very comforting is it?

Personally, I don't really have an issue with a group of like minded individuals deciding to set up their own little community and living a peaceful existence off the grid. During the late 60's and early 70's, there was a proliferation of so-called "Hippie communes" which attempted to do the same thing. Their goal was to self-sufficiency; grow their own food (sell or trade any excess), make their own clothes, and so forth. The vast majority of these failed after a few months or years, but a couple did succeed and lasted for a couple of decades.

Of course, they lacked the defining religious element. If that element is benign, then there should be no problem. If it's not, then it could become a breeding ground for disaster. The treatment of White and Black supremacists communities in the past have tended to be more than a little heavy handed as well. Given how the Federal Government has acted in the past, there is always the possibility that one misstep could trigger another Waco or worse.

The Bill of Rights is perhaps one of Mankind's greatest accomplishments, along with the Constitution. They are also uniquely American. We were born out of a desire to be free from government's interference. That included the right to associate with whom we want, to protect ourselves, and to believe in what we wanted. However, time has tempered those ideals. For instance, felons aren't free to associate with other felons. Perhaps that's a good idea. Perhaps not. We are free, in theory at least, to live with whomever we want, which would include those of like race or faith. But how about practice? Can a neighborhood association specifically say only Chinese or Hispanics are allowed? Nope. What about only Jews or Baptists in a particular neighborhood? Hardly.

Can we buy machine guns, flamethrowers, or landmines to protect ourselves? Not a chance. In fact, while the Second Amendment is one of the most important amendments, especially from the perspective of our Founding Fathers, it is also perhaps the most heavily restricted amendment with everything from what you can own, how old you have to be, and where you are allowed to carry it.

In terms of religion, we're free to believe as we choose. We're even allowed to follow certain social and dietary laws without paying a "pew tax" like in some countries. However, what if that religion allowed pedophilia? What about covering covering your face for official identification? What if it allowed so-called "honor killings" (religiously sanctioned murder to "protect" a family's "honor")? How would you feel about the right---and duty---to beat your wife or of restricting her rights under the Bill of Rights? Does their religious laws supplant our secular natural laws (laws bequeath to us simply for being human beings)? What about their religious belief that everyone must conform to their religious laws and traditions regardless of your personal beliefs?

This is what potentially makes these communities different. It's an entirely different culture which follows entirely different laws (in fact, they hold that our secular laws have absolutely no value whatsoever). They believe they have the right to exclude others who do not follow their laws and traditions. They believe in the right and obligation to impose their beliefs on others by any means at their disposal.

Yet, those very things---freedom of association, religion, and even the Second Amendment---are fundamental to America. How are we going to handle this as the Muslim population in America grows and the risk of radicalization increases as we admit those from areas where religious extremism is common along with an anti-West or anti-American sentiment?

Hopefully, it will never become an issue. Hopefully a peaceful coexistence will prevail as it has between others of different races, ethnic groups, and religions. Of course, this worked because we operated under the old "melting pot" concept where immigrants were strongly encouraged to integrate. Today, it's "multiculturalism" where assimilation isn't encouraged or even considered necessary! Obviously this hasn't worked well at all in Europe. Can the American temperament prevail where the European has thus far failed? So far these communities have been peaceful. Let's hope it stays that way.



Muslim Terrorist Training Camp Found In Alabama

Muslim of the Americas: Enclaves in the U.S.

Center for Immigration Studies: No Go Zones and Assimilation

No Go Zones: Alt Right fantasy or a new face of Europe?

The Catholic World Report: Raheem Kassem's No Go Zones is unsettling, necessary reading

The Fourth of July and a Few Things to Bear in Mind.

On this Fourth of July, let us remember a certain event involving one of our most beloved Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin. The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside of what would become Independence Hall. When the proceedings ended, in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors,
dozens gathered close by the doorway to question anyone they could. One of the first to emerge was Benjamin Franklin. A Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia asked Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic madam, if you can keep it". A democratically elected representative republic, if, as he said, we could keep it.

We did for many generations; through wars--foreign and domestic, good times economically and bad ones as well. We fought and argued among ourselves, but we kept our democratic republic nevertheless. But then something happened. Something changed about how we were governed, or perhaps it was us who changed. Maybe it was the rise of divisive factions; political cliques, better know as political parties which our Founding Fathers largely opposed that increasingly divided us. Perhaps it was the rise of a super wealthy business class which sought to usurp the power of the government. Regardless, the power bequest to us by the Founders began to slip from our hands. We dropped the levers of power and picked up television remotes or video joysticks to waste hours at a time instead of paying attention to what was being done in our name.

While we were busy watching "reality" television, sports, and playing on our video games, America slipped into an Oligarchy. A wealthy elite took control of our government. Free speech was replaced with money; whoever has the most shouts the loudest. Those elected or appointed to serve the People now serve new masters--corporations. Power today is maintained not by the Will of the People, but by corporate money, partisan gerrymandering, no term limits, and in many cases no direct recourse such as citizen referendums or voter initiatives. Our democratic republic experiment is little more than a shell now; something we try and pretend is real much like the ancient Romans did after the rise of the Caesars until such time as the farce could no longer be maintained. Today we struggle to define what it means to be an American Citizen or whether we have the right to secure or even have borders!

So, let's take a few minutes from the festivities of the day to remember why we fought a revolution against the world's mightiest nation at the time. It was over taxation without us having a say. It was over censorship of the media and our right to say what we believed, including the right to criticize those in government without fear of reprisal. It was over corruption of government officials, be it in the form of bribes, "loans", or voting themselves pay increases. It was over the right to worship in the faith of our choice, or even having the right to have no religious beliefs at all. It was, after all, the sovereignty of the individual with mattered the most.

It was over ending abuse by government troops who acted as the police of their time, including being forced to provide for their welfare. It was over the right to know what crimes we were charged with should we be arrested, and to face those who accused of these crimes. It was also over the right to a speedy trial rather than to spend months or even years in jails. It was over the right to posses firearms; not just to hunt with, but as our last resort against tyranny; the same tyranny which sought to deprive us of our other rights.

Does America Really Share 'Core Values' ?

Before I delve into the edition's topic, I have to say that I'm still a little bit in shock at the outcome of the recent election results. Rarely in my 35 plus years as a political and community activist have I seen such a seismic shift. Most political pundits and pollsters were predicting almost the complete opposite. Perhaps it was a referendum on the Obama Regime's policies. Certainly the scope of the election would indicate so. But then, given that the Governor-elect, Matt Bevin, has long been considered an "outsider"; a "Tea Partier", and an "anti-establishment" candidate, one could equally argue that the election was a refutation of the McConnell controlled Republican Party.

Of course, the top of the Democrat Party's ticket wasn't an especially strong candidate and, as a result, relied heavily on negative campaigning. Nevertheless, other candidates such as Adam Edelen, long thought to be a rising star, is now a bit dimmed. What we ended up with was a near sweep of the Constitutional offices by the Republican Party while the two Democratic wins were razor thin. So, congratulations to all the winners, and a special thanks to everyone who was willing to put themselves out there as a candidate. It's not easy. I know. I've done it a few times.

Moving on to this edition of A/O, did you happen to notice that one of the themes repeated over and over by the Democrat nominee was that Republican Matt Bevin didn't share "our values"? How often have we heard the phrase "our values" being thrown about in political campaigns or debates? It seems to be a catchall phrase used by both political parties for years if not decades, but no one ever seems to try and define just what that means. I wonder why that it is? Could it because no one knows what those "values" are? Maybe they're afraid to mention them because one or two of them might "offend" someone---and that may cost votes or worse! Then again, maybe it's just supposed to be left to our collective imaginations that we have some unspoken national or even regional moral bond.

But if you think about it, that's not quite true. As Americans, we do seem to share some common beliefs. If you take a look at our Founding documents, such as the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, as well as some other key documents and speeches (TR's "Man in the Arena" speech comes to mind), we can glimpse what some of these common core values are, such as a liberty, equality and self-government. As a nation, we have a almost unshakeable belief in a higher power or Creator (74% believe in God or a higher power), who has bequeath to us certain rights (often referred to as "natural or unalienable rights" as defined by individuals such as John Locke). These natural rights aren't due to the good graces of some benevolent government or royal decree. They are ours as a basic irrevocable entitlement based on our common Humanity.

Americans also share a common belief in self-reliance, privacy, equal opportunities to succeed (or fail) based on our own efforts (this is the "pursuit of happiness" portion you've probably read or heard about it). It means that you have the right to try to achieve a measure of self-happiness as you define it, but you have no guarantee that you will be successful. No one owes it to you. This is also part of our collective heritage as Americans of a capitalist or mercantile system. It's not a "anything goes" social or economic system. It implies a level playing field for all participants, which, of course, means equality and equal treatment for all. It also means honesty in our dealings with others, which brings me to an interesting contradiction in our collective mentality. Americans despise cheaters, whether it be in business dealings or sports, and yet there's a part of us which subtly admires the cleverness of the act. Perhaps that's why we can simultaneously like and hate someone like an Al Capone or Barry Bonds or Richard Nixon.

Another thing we as Americans seem to embrace is charity. Americans are among the most giving of any nation (ranked 13th in the world). We spend billions annually---$358 billion in 2014---helping people around the world and here at home (in 2013, the US Government gave $40.11 billion in aid, of which $8.03 billion was earmarked as military aid). We are quite individualistic, especially compared to other nations who think more in terms of the collective good, be it village, ethnic group or nation. It's part of our "up by our own bootstraps" mentality, and yet we tend to think of ourselves are part of various subgroups like Westerners, Northerners, Southerners, or New Yorkers or Californians and so forth.

Some self-identify by race (though frown upon by most), or sexual preference, religion, or even ethic group. Yet, when we travel abroad, we rarely make any other claim than that of being Americans. We are also a very informal. Perhaps that because we see each other as a unique human being; a "one-of-a-kind". It may also be because we, as a nation, rejected any titled sense of superiority of Europe. We tend to measure ourselves by our abilities and our drive to succeed through hard work. We also tend to distrust authority, especially governmental authority. Again, perhaps a holdover from our collective history.

There you have it. It appears we do indeed have a certain set of core values which unites as Americans; a belief in individualism and self-government, personal privacy, a level playing field and equal opportunity to succeed or fail based on our own efforts along with "healthy" competition, specific "inalienable" rights such as freedom of speech, religion, movement and thought innate to us as human beings, not to mention a strong work ethic and "can do" attitude, value of our leisure and informality. Some may add to that our sense of the value of our time and thus punctuality, the acceptance and normality of change, ability to own property, a representative government responsible to the people, and a right to participate in the political process as well as civilian control of the military and law enforcement.

So, the next time you see or hear a political advertisement or speech which either stresses their commitment to our shared "American" or "Family" values or their opponents lack thereof, ask yourself whether what's being promoted adds to or takes away from these values. Is what they're promoting increase the scope and power of government or personal responsibility? Does it contribute to creating a level economic playing field for all or does a certain group unjustly benefits? Does what they're claiming takes away from the rights of individual such as increasing surveillance or limiting our freedom of personal privacy; perhaps it creates a "personhood" out of artificial legal entities and bestows on them more rights than on flesh and blood individuals? Is money merely a form of freedom of speech or an economic tool? Should our use of it be restricted or just restricted for some?

As Americans, there is more which unites us than divides us, although to some we must remain divided as much as possible so that we remain distracted from what's really going on behind the scenes and more often than not, in our name...for our own good of course.


The University of Missouri-St. Louis. International Student and Scholar Services:
Key American Values
(July 17, 2013)
http://www.umsl.edu/~intelstu/Admitted%20Students/Visitor%20Handbook/keyvalues.html


Time Magazine: What Are American Values These Days?
(July 4, 2012)
http://ideas.time.com/2012/07/04/what-are-american-values-these-days-2/


Everyday Sociology Blog: American Values: Are We Really Divided?
(March 21, 2011)
http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2011/03/american-values-are-we-really-divided.html


Gallup Poll: Majority in U.S. Still Say Moral Values Getting Worse
(June 2, 2015)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183467/majority-say-moral-values-getting-worse.aspx


Theodore Roosevelt: Citizenship in the Republic/Man in the Arena
(April 23, 1910)
http://design.caltech.edu/erik/Misc/Citizenship_in_a_Republic.pdf

Free Speech and Citizens United: How to Save America

As just about every school kid knows, the American Revolution was fought over taxes. Specifically, over a lack of representation in the British Parliament (although given the quality of our public school system in this country, I wouldn't bet the farm on it). Great Britain was trying to recoup some of its money for coming to our aid in the French and Indian War a few years earlier. The tax was also a concession to the East India Company for lost profits as well. So, in effect, this was a corporate tax sanctioned by His Majesty, King George III's Government, to be levied on us colonialists. Therefore, one could argue that our revolution was waged against a corporation which was defended by the British Empire and foreign mercenaries (Hessians). Kind of reminds me of the Citizens United misruling a few years back by the no-so-supreme Supreme Court.

As hopefully many of you will remember, this ruling established that money was, in reality, a symbol for free speech, which is protected under the First Amendment, but it went further. Much further. This "supreme blunder" also said that corporations were, in effect, individuals just like you and I and therefore, should be protected just like every ordinary flesh and blood Joe and Jane. Well, with a slight exception. You see, federal and state campaign finance laws restrict how much "free speech" you and I can give to a campaign. After all, no one wants somebody else being able to "out talk" them. That wouldn't be fair would it? However, when it came to these new "Frankenstein" corporate/people, an exception was needed. Whereas you and I remain restricted in our "free speech", these soulless creations and legalistic fictions were free to donate to their artificial heart's content all the money they want. It seems that they were suddenly entitled to have more of a say than us mere mortals as ordained by those nine black robed high priests on the hill.

Not only that, but their financial "free speech" also serves as a defacto endorsement of a campaign. An endorsement made not just in the name of the corporation, but by implication also of its employees and stakeholders---with or without their approval. I guess that isn't too surprising since corporations aren't democracies. They are by their very nature, "kingdoms" of a sort with a quasi feudalist form of governance. What the President/CEO and board decide usually goes regardless of what the employees think or support. So, what's an employee to do? Well, one could complain but that would just tag you as a "troublemaker" or make you standout in a highly unflattering way to management, which could damage or even kill a career. Another option would be simply to quit. However, given the lack of well paying jobs these days makes that option pretty unlikely. The only other realistic alternative would be to simply make your own small donation to the campaign of your choice. You also have the option of volunteering to help out, however, you'll most likely need to separate the two in order to avoid ruffling any feathers.

While the Citizens United ruling can make independent donations from it general treasury without the need to create a separate political action committee, it cannot donate directly to the candidate or the candidate's committee. It was also disclose its name if it sponsored any advertising on behalf of the particular campaign or "PAC". Previously, under the "McCain-Feingold" Act or "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2003 (BCRA for short), neither unions or corporations could make any direct contributions to campaigns, and as a result, had to set up a specific political action committee. The Supreme Court ruling also removed the cap for contributions while still restricting us ordinary voters. Obviously, this gave corporations an unfair advantage.

So, what to do? The American Voter can demand an amendment which redefines the nature of corporations and thus circumvent their protection under the First Amendment, which is unlikely since all campaigns run on money and whoever saw a politician willingly walk away from money? Those types are as rare as unicorns! Nevertheless, if you could somehow corral one of those "unicorns" and persuade him or her to sponsor such an amendment or introduce a bill which would restrict the flow of money into campaigns, they would still likely be unsuccessful since there are few politicians who would support serious campaign finance reform despite any public statements to the contrary. The next best thing would be term limits. While the money would still flow, at least their term in office would be briefer and we'd stand a better chance at getting some fresh ideas back into the mix. However, other than the few challengers looking for a rhetorical "hook" into office, few if any would willingly limit their time at the public trough.

Gerrymandering, as most of us know, has made it all but impossible to remove an incumbent since the districts are drawn to the advantage of the office holder. There was a rather famous observation made about gerrymandering back in the 1980's which stated that there was a higher rate of turnover in the old Soviet Politburo than in the US Congress (I wonder, dear friends, who ended up with the better representation). In fact, did you know that the United States was alone of all democratic nations in allowing self-serving politicians to solely govern the redistricting process? It's just one more factor in why the US ranks in the second tier of the most personally "free" nation (as of 2015, the US ranked 20th in the world). Nevertheless, a few states have sought to create a fairer system by reassigning the redistricting process to non-partisan commission; states like California, Washington, and Arizona while Rhode Island and New Jersey have created ad hoc committees for that purpose. Meanwhile, the remaining states continue allow the state legislatures control of redistricting. How quaint.

So, there you have it friends. We fought one revolution over the issue of taxation without representation (which benefited a corporate entity as much as a national government), and now we have corporate dominance over our political system and a political system which doesn't reflect the best interests of a majority of its citizens thanks to the flow of corporate money, unlimited terms of office and stacking the deck through gerrymandering (and none of this even takes into consideration the influence of corporate lobbyists over politicians. When was the last time voters were represented by a lobbyist? The answer is never). Of course, there are many more issues to consider such as government and corporate surveillance and inroads corroding 2nd Amendment rights, personal freedom of speech, our loss of national sovereignty and control over our borders, the usurping of our national traditions, culture, or even our acceptance of English as our accepted language, or even who "owns" the rights to our own DNA among others. Something has gone wrong with America. I'm not naive enough to believe that America was ever "Mayberry", but we have lost our collective sense of national identity, not that there wasn't some truth to image of the "Ugly American". We, as a nation, have stuck our nose where it wasn't wanted or welcomed all because we disagreed with the outcome (such as overthrowing popularly elected governments because the winner was a socialist and install brutal military juntas who went on to torture and murder millions or provided the muscle for corporations who stripped nations of their natural resources), but we have also done a lot of good too like providing food, medical aid, technology, schools, and so forth.

Schools are for education and teachers are there to teach, not as overpaid babysitters. They should not have to deal with misbehavior and they should never be afraid of being in their students. If a student doesn't want to learn, great. Then let's create public work projects which requires nothing but a strong back and put them to work doing something constructive and away from gangs, drugs, and violence. Of course, there's always the military. They're always in need of "cannon fodder". We need less focus on sports and more on critical learning skills as well as civics. Not every job requires a college education. Let's re-emphasis technical, trade and vocational education which prepared students for the workplace, and there's nothing wrong with blue collar jobs. Blue collar men and women---union and non-union---built this nation from ground up.

It's time that we find our national roots again and reassert our right to self-governance and economic fairness. Political correctness has run amuck. Enough with what divides us. Let's emphasis what unites us for a change. Not everything we do or think is the government's business, and certainly not the business of corporations. We need to re-establish our borders and re-affirm English as our national language. Corporations are not people. They are artificial entities---legal fictions. As such, they should not be treated as flesh and blood people. Politicians should be subject to immediate recall when they fail to follow public mandates (like opposing the bailout of banks and other financial institutions due to their greed and mismanagement, and then using public bailout money for pay raises and bonuses). We should ensure public representation through publicly financed elections and/or prohibiting corporate funding of campaigns, as well as through term limits. No more military ventures for the benefit of corporate greed or political influence. We need to get back to basics; to what made us strong in the first place. That's how we will save this country of ours.


History Channel: Tea Act
http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/tea-act


Thanks to the Roberts Court, Corporations Have More Constitutional Rights Than Actual People
https://www.thenation.com/article/thanks-roberts-court-corporations-have-more-constitutional-rights-actual-people/


End Gerrymandering
http://www.endgerrymandering.com/

When Enough is Enough?

With all the scandals which has rocked the Obama Regime, there's been a lot of talk about impeachment from the Right. But, as I recall, there was talk about impeaching George W Bush too, just as there's considerable chatter about the removal of Holder, Boehner, Pelosi, or whomever. That would be the logical thing to do, that is if we were dealing with an otherwise legitimate government. However, we're not. This is not the government bequest to us by our Founding Fathers. This is not the government guaranteed to us under the Constitution. It is not the form of government we celebrate the creation of on the 4th of July. It is not a government which represents the will of its citizens. It is, however, the type of government that our Founders warned us about. At present, our voices and our votes count for little. What matters apparently is money, for its money which the Supreme Court said represents free speech. It also money which equates to access, and with access comes power; something "We the People" are denied.

What should we do then? How should a people express their dissatisfaction with a government which no longer serves the People, but instead, bows to the will of artificial entities rather than flesh and blood? Our Constitution, while pandered to by those who go through the motions to serve, is still much in force by the People for whom it was written, gives us the answer. It tells us that if the government fails in its duties, then we have both the right and responsibility to modify or change that government.

Since our votes and Will count for little thanks to the misrulings of the Supreme Court vis-a-vis McCutcheon and Citizens United, and district gerrymandering by Congress and state legislatures, how about another tactic for your consideration? We as Citizens have the right (for the present) to protest. However, we are expected to do so within certain restrictions; restrictions designed in part to take the "sting" out of the our collective voices since all too often the representatives are either not there or fail to even notice us unless they happen to catch mention on one of the local news channels. Certainly not very effective, and since money is not only "free speech", but also access, what if we took it further still to make our point?

Specifically, what if we took our signs; our demands; our voices to the very street and indeed, in front of the homes where "our" so-called representative live? I'm sure there may be some sort of hoops to jump through, but would that get their attention? Would that make up for our lack of "free speech"? I just might be worth it. What if we expanded it to include the residences of their staffs? Do you think they'd make their boss aware our displeasure? If not, I have no doubt their neighbors would.

As for lobbyists, who are little more than errand boys and girls on behalf of the one percenters and corporations, perhaps they too should know our displeasure with plans to move jobs overseas, harm the planet, or get taxpayer based welfare. The names of their presidents and boards of directors are publically available. Use it. Make our displeasure felt not just at public parks, on street corners, or at memorials, but where they live...literally. When they get tired of having their dirty laundry paraded in front of their neighbors, they'll get the message.

Remember, we are no longer a democratic republic; the government given to us by our Founding Fathers, or as Abraham Lincoln once proclaimed, "of the people, by the people; and for the people". The government is an oligarchy. Officially. A government responsible to the top 1% wealthiest individuals and to a small clique of banking and corporate elites. In short, Washington no longer represents Mainstreet America. It represents Wallstreet.

In a land where the rule of people has been supplanted by the weight of the dollar, is this how America must act? Our Founding Fathers would have said yes. However, the decision is yours to make America, once you've decided enough is enough. Think about it.

Sacred Cows

I've never been accused of being a conformist. I think going my own way or thinking my own thoughts was just something I was born with, much to the exasperation of my teachers, bosses, and my mother (for which, I'm sure, accounts for more than a few white hairs). Perhaps I am a noncomformist, but it has never been a matter of being "rebelling" simply for its own sake. I've always preferred thinking and doing out of the box, and I'm sure the results always spoke positively for themselves. I've never been afraid of questioning an assumption or challenging a tradition, and questioning presumed authority (or authority figures) for that matter. Times and circumstances are constantly changing, and we must change and adapt with them or be swept away by them.

Ironically, despite this, I'm still a fairly conservative guy, at least concerning most things. For instance, I ardently believe in the foundation established by our Founding Fathers, through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Of course, some in Washington and elsewhere are saying that the Constitution is too "restrictive" or too "inflexible" for today's vastly more complex problems. Perhaps that's because today's problems have become more complex because of over regulation, over legislation, and over taxation. Perhaps what we need is a more simpler approach to government. By that I mean, perhaps the federal government should govern less and allow states more authority to deal with situations closer to home. It seems like the government's solution to everything is to legislate a situation to the point where it needs additional legislation to correct new problems which arose out their efforts to solve the original problem in the first place, while at the same time, leaving rather convenient loopholes for their corporate masters to exploit at our expense. After all, haven't we been told that money is free speech and those with the most money get to speak the loudest, and it's the loudest who get Washington's attention right?

But that's not what I'm wanting to discuss at the moment. What concerns me is that many conservatives are so stuck with preserving the past, they've lost sight into what's important. Let's look at the marriage issue briefly. I grew up (and believe) that marriage is between a man and woman. It's the basic foundation not just of America, or Europe, or even Asia, but of society itself. It's the core around which civilization itself has been built. But, as society has become more complex and gender roles have evolved, not to mention technology and self perception, so too has the concept of what constitutes a "family" , and by extension, a marriage. If two individuals---two adults---happen to be attracted to each other and want to make a lifelong commitment, who am I to say "no"? Sure, I could cite some biblical verses, but what does my faith have to do with theirs?

For that matter, let's not forget that the religious texts used by Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, as well as Muslims and their Koran, were written thousands of years ago, in another time and place, and for another people who had different societal needs and values. Providing a stable loving relationship seems to me to be more important than whether I agree or not with their choices. Who am I to decide who someone can love or not? And what if a particular church or other religious institution is willing to sanctify the union? How does that say about other religious institutions who don't? My own pragmatic conservatism (and touch of libertarianism ) also tells me it's none of my business or anyone else's.

Speaking politically, conservatives are getting their collective clocks cleaned where same-sex marriage has become an issue simply because the largest voting bloc, the Millennials, see this a critical issue. Overwhelmingly, the Millennials--those 30 and under---see no problem with gays, lesbians, or transgendered individuals, and certainly they have no issue with gay marriage by a wide margin---70%. Those that do tend to be the 40 and older crowd, which also happens to be a shrinking demographic while Millennials are the largest segment to come along since the Babyboomers (and as group, are more numerous than Boomers). Therefore, the party which accepts this political reality (whether or not they agree with it personally), will thrive while the other party will find itself repeatedly punished at the ballot box, perhaps to the point of political irrelevancy. This also speaks to the increasing candidacies of individuals running independent of party; something Millennials also favor by large numbers.

Let's take another issue--global warming. Those on the political Right insist that at best, global warming is myth; an attempt by the some in the government and certain industries, to tighten the noose around our energy policies. At worse, global warming, if it exists, is a natural cycle. A minor hiccup. Either way, Man doesn't play any significant role. Yet, most of those behind these claims are those business most likely to be negatively impacted, such as coal, oil, gas, and automobile industries. Some of those on the Left want much greater regulation of these industries it is true. They haven't met a regulation or tax they didn't like. They too dance to their own puppet masters.

My thoughts on global warming are this---the overwhelming majority of climatologists and other scientists---97%--- agree that the earth is getting warmer. The polar ice caps, which are not only our largest sources of fresh water, but also reflectors of solar heat, are melting; especially the Arctic (think of it as the earth's thermostat).The oceans are becoming warmer...much warmer...and less salty thanks to melting Arctic. Storms are becoming more frequent and more violent. Fertile lands are becoming more arid. Ocean life is dying. Water shortages are becoming more severe, more frequent and lasting longer. Co2, especially the type which has the chemical signature produced by manufacturing, and is the primary culprit in global warming, has dramatically increased over the last 100 years. Although I believe Man is the main cause of global warming, it really doesn't matter to me if someone else thinks it's all part of a natural cycle. The fact of the matter is that it's real; it's happening now; and we're all at risk.

So, Man-made or cyclical, we need to do whatever we can now to keep it from spiraling out of control. That means cutting CO2 emission anyway we can. For states which depend on coal production, they're going to take a huge economic hit. That's why they need to be preparing now before they become the proverbial buggy makers in the horseless carriage age (yes, I appreciate the irony of that analogy). Those states need to invest heavily in alternative income producing sources sooner rather than later. The auto industry needs to be given an ultimatum---produce exclusively vehicles with low to no CO2 emissions along with a non-moveable "drop dead" date which carries a stiff fine for each day missed. Other countries already have widely available and low emission mass transit (such as Iceland, whose mass transit vehicles run on hydrogen fuel cells. Their only emission is water vapor), so why don't we? The same goes for any industry which pumps CO2 into the air. Stiff financial penalties for any industry which fails to comply. Activists too can participate by bring pressure on corporations not just by protesting and bring attention to non-compliant companies, but by also becoming stockholders and speaking out at stockholder meetings. Meanwhile, the US needs to make alternative energy a national security issue. After all, we've been talking about it since Jimmy Carter and the original oil embargo in the mid '70's.

Smaller countries such as Germany get a substantial amount of their energy--27%-- from alternative energy sources, principally solar and wind. We have almost 1/3 of the country which would be ideal for solar energy production. We have more than ample offshore areas which would be excellent for energy producing windmills, yet we generate only 13% of our energy needs through alternative energy sources. Solar panels could be required for all new resident and commercial projects; planting green gardens on buildings and high rise tops to help adsorb CO2 emission. Planting of more CO2 absorbing trees and developing better means of conservation. Encouraging more home gardens, rain water conservation, and "buy local" projects in order to cut back oil and gas consumption as well as vehicle emissions.

No, the US can't do this alone, but it doesn't have too. There are already dozens of nations engaged in some form of CO2 reduction. A few countries, like China, aren't. Economic and political pressure needs to be applied to those refusing to comply. If we fail to act, and soon, we will be facing not just more deadly storms, rising water, or hotter temperatures, but an increase in brownouts or blackouts, higher prices for gas, oil and electricity. Food and water prices will skyrocket to the point where even basic commodities are unaffordable for the average family, and I wouldn't rule out food shortages or water rationing, which are already happening in some parts of the world. And let's not forget that the increased temperatures melting the polar ice caps are also killing off some species, and thawing areas frozen over for tens of thousands of years, releasing dormant and potentially deadly bacteria from its hibernation, as well as an increase in insect infestations (and who needs more spiders, flies, or mosquitoes?).

Now if these aren't reason enough, remember that global warming is of key concern to Millennials. After all, it will be their generation more so than ours how will be impacted the most. Once again, the party or individual that best embraces this will be the party which will succeed. At present, the Left may have the advantage since they accept global warming as the problem it is. Left on their own devises, they will gladly over regulate and tax. However, on the Right, they are heavily populated by the religious Right. I would assume they would embrace a biblical stewardship of the earth and demand changes in current environmental policies. The same would hold true for most other religions too. As for me, conserving the environment couldn't be any more conservative an ideal since it protects the planet, the air, the water, the animals and humanity while at the same encourages innovation for safer and longer lasting energy sources (besides, how much safer or longer lasting can you get than the sun and wind?).

Topics as diverse as these are sacred cows to those who oppose or resist change. Change isn't easy to embrace, especially when it affects our moralistic or economic self interest. However, all things change and evolve. It's a fact of nature. Those that do not adapt will wither and die. Be it an individual, a nation, or a world. That too is a fact of nature. We must adjust our perceptions of what it means to be a family just as must examine the environmental footprint that we leave, individually and as society.

Why the fight over same-sex marriage is over
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/10/why-the-political-fight-over-same-sex-marriage-is-over-in-1-chart/


5 Reasons Millennials Are Going To Save The World
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/millennials-save-the-world_n_4174079.html


NRDC and Global Warming
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/


Iceland: 100% renewables example in modern era
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/iceland-a-100-renewables-example-in-the-modern-era-56428



Iceland phasing out fossil fuels for clean energy
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/18/driving.iceland/index.html?iref=newssearch


Germany Sets New Record
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/


Climate Hot Map
http://www.climatehotmap.org/


NOAA & Global Warming
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php