…then those People should explain themselves on the off chance someone listens.
๐๐บ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ท๐๐๐ ๐ฎ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ผ๐ป ๐ด๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ. ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐๐๐น๐, ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ฏ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐๐๐๐ฒ๐บ which is tasked with perpetuating its own existence. Each junta feeds off the other so that everyone has a scapegoat. They’re both incestuous and parasitic, and like leeches they bleed the People dry.
The GOP blames the Dems, who in turn blame the GOP that blames the Dems who blame the GOP. It’s a vicious cycle.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Insidiously, each needs the other to dodge responsibility when in power. This is the point of the circus: deflection.
For all its whining, the only thing the American public is any good at is finding fault with the side that looks weakerโthe side that, at any moment, is getting blamed for something.
But as detestable as each group is, and as much as they pretend to be fundamentally different from each other, theyโre remarkably in sync on major items.
Take gun control.
The GOP likes to paint itself as the party that supports The Second, but at least 85% of Republicans would gladly prohibit the โmentally illโ from purchasing firearms of any kind (2021 Pew research). Democrats agree 90% on this point. Everyone is in lockstep on the steps it takes to put a padlock on self-defense.
Because who decides what mentally ill means? The government. The same system where the FBI red-flags a โconservative right-wing individualโ as a domestic terrorist.
Yes-sss, my precious-sss, that government.
Going further, both parties have no problem inviting Uncle Sugar into โprivateโ gun sales by requiring background checks (70% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats), but none of this intrusion is in The Constitution. Sam Adams makes clear that document does not confer the right because it cannot revoke the right:
โThe Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.โ
Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
The quote contains the phrase “peaceable citizens” and it refers to the general character and demeanor of the People. It is not a qualification of the enumerated right, as The Constitution does not qualify unalienable (un-a-LEEN-a-bull) rights. Adams wasn’t guilty of the crimes of our current government by claiming that only persons of a certain mental state (“peaceable citizens”) are allowed to protect themselves.
Democrats or Republicans: equal enemies of The Constitution
Were we to take an absolutist position, each party faction is radically unconstitutional in its approach. But the concept of absolutes or standards is lost on the American voter who has long since been taught to think in terms of comparison politics.
This means itโs either left vs. right. Liberal against conservative. One extreme or the other. Those not wishing to be branded a fanatic on either side must walk a tightrope of their own: moderate or progressive. In essence, this is movement that wonโt offend too many while still pretending to be movement.
Because the narrative is always framed in comparisons, those who wonโt think for themselves are always tossed to and fro when opportunity strikes to consider the world as it actually isโnot as how someone tells you it is.
The seesaw effect affects the faction darlings du-jour, such as the recent Tulsi Gabbard. Being a prior Dem and not liking their mores, she has nowhere to run but into the open arms of the non-Dems, as if, somehow, their kind of unflinching morality can vouchsafe her ethics.
We have just two power parties. Outside competition is squashed equally by them both. Typically, the GOP has always been the alternative to those who couldn’t go (or stay) Democrat, not because Republicans are materially different or a substantial improvement, but because no other options are on the table.
Itโs always been about comparisons, not standards.
Consider Ron Paul. He was a hardcore libertarian and a party outsider. If Adams were alive today heโd back a Paul: They both speak โConstitution.โ Paul couldn’t run as a Demโthat much was clear. That his politics failed to align with the GOP was equally as clear. Options? He must choose the lesser of two undesirables. His goal was to seek a party nomination for POTUS and he had but one flimsy chance to get there.
It was not a choice for the Republicans, it was a choice against the Democrats.
We see how it turned out. Romney, in true Republican fashion was in the end backed by Gingrich and Santorum because the GOP leadership did not find favor in Paulโs libertarian leanings. There were rule changes, disregard for existing rules, cancelling elections, running off with ballots, secret vote counts, throwing out votes, threats, physical violence, and arbitrary replacement of delegates. For the dewey-eyed schoolgirls who havenโt yet caught on, the Republican machinery runs roughshod over any candidate who backs the Bill of Rights over Party whims.
Obviously, the GOP is no more libertarian than my left toenail, and it certainly isn’t constitutional. This is why Ronโs son, Rand, who is also Republican in name only will never sit behind The Resolute Desk. And if you need evidence the younger Paul isnโt a Party cardholder any more than is his Dad, consider how many other โRepublicansโ stood alongside Rand in his solo battle to slowly extract the truth from Fauciโs ass like tree sap. (Yes, I borrowed that from The Judge.)
Outsiders unwelcome
Yet what of the MAGA beast?
Trump made a decision to join a faction he hardly resembled in order to gain a seat at the table he barely understood.
After making himself a member of the Church of GODP, he refused to follow the tenets of the faith. A wayward acolyte, he discovered how deftly the Grand Old Party eviscerates interlopers. Whatever political accolades you care to give him, you can’t accuse the #RealDonaldTrump of being a GOP-man. As the Germans violated their Jewish brethren and fellow citizens on Kristallnacht, the GOP through Pence made it crystal clear that Don the Republican was an outsider who would be disposed of.
Is there a suggested solution in sight?
Well, some folks say it’s time to hoist the black flag, begin slitting throats and start watering the tree of liberty with the natural manure of the blood of patriot and tyrant alike. Or just blow up everyone in government and install better representatives.
To that, I must reply that no matter how the undesirables are removed, unless we have constitutional candidates prepped and waiting in the wings, it will all come to naught.
We may wish otherwise, but real life isnโt a Tom Clancy novel where Jack Ryan pops out of the woodwork to save the day. (Even in a work of fiction, the best candidates can take power only after the current government has been destroyed. Tells you all you need to know right there.)
Further, there are issues of logistics and timing. If we eliminate the 545-member oligarchy all at once, we must replace them with their betters all at once. This is because you canโt fix a faulty transmission one broken gear at a time. Our current approachโpiecemealโdoesnโt work. (It has never worked.) If we don’t immediately install suitable executives, representatives and judges then in the ensuing vacuum far worse will rush in and replace the evil rot we sought to rout.
This means that were the American people to rise up in a bloody coup against their central government, they would need an external force with the strength to not only contain the rebellion and keep it on track, but to also ensure replacements are installed according to plan. Internal opportunists, who would eagerly take advantage of the chaos, must be quelled. This external force would also have to possess the integrity to dissolve itself in an orderly fashion to allow for a peaceful and subsequent hand-off.
You could liken this to a condensed mini-revolution on a seriously truncated timeline. It looks good on paper and sounds even better over a few beers, but can you imagine the average tribe of Americans pulling it off? No doubt we have the sentimentโimprove government via temporary violence in the face of failed non-violent alternativesโbut where’s the self-discipline? The whole shebang is a flight of fancy.
Americans lack the passion and follow-through. They donโt have the grit. For most, just whining about the evils of rigged elections and mandatory vaccines is preferable to forcing themselves into taking matters into their own hands (or joining in support of others who’ve already done so).
If only just talking about the problem could solve it
Need proof? How many of your friends and family who claim theyโre willing to band together would truly commit? Itโs a boast that entails risking oneโs business, livelihood, income, resources, reputation and the future opportunities built on it all. It means possibly alienating oneโs spouse, family and closest friends. It could easily mean the loss of health, life and limb. How many Americans do you personally know with the stomach for that? And if you do know someone, are they ultimately ready to take this stand, flying solo if necessary, when their peers forsake them?
Frankly, weโre too busy squabbling among ourselves to cast off those who oppress us. Soros, Schwab, Gates, the WEF and countless others have an easy time of it infiltrating us and destroying our lifestyle and heritage. We hardly even notice: Weโre consumed with petty infighting.
So letโs talk practical non-violence.
Were the States to agree to a federal election scheme, all would be lost without a single shot fired.
Uncle Sugar is already as corrupt as we can stand him to be, so why would the several States wish to abdicate the last vestiges of their sovereignty and hand election-making over to the central committee?
In lieu of dealing with the corruption of a few like Arizona or Georgia, where other States could potentially ameliorate voter fraud in a national election, precisely one federal authority would have the power to choose the winner of every national election and no amount of States could say otherwise.
On what planet would that ever be a good idea?
No, giving the politburo the means to determine election results is insanity. The States should retain that power.
So weโre back to Paul Simonโs โFifty Ways To Screw Electionsโ.
Possibly, but some shenanigans could be abated if our electronic voting machines included a paper tape that required a signature once all selections were made, printed and verified by the voter before the ballot was handed in. The signature on the tape would have to match the signature on the voter roll. Since we cannot, in our stupefying intelligence, seem to keep these machines off the internet, this would be a built-in, certified audit trail. Even if the machines were compromised and the results electronically flipped, the deception couldnโt survive the aggregate tally of the paper tape.
Speaking of audits, they ought to be mandatory regardless of the outcome (projected or otherwise). Representatives from all party factions (not just those on the ticket), as well as at least one disinterested monitor (randomly chosen), should oversee all recounts.
If this sounds like a burden then consider how easy it is to feign the appearance of a win when youโre the one controlling the count, especially when mail-in ballots are added to the mix, and even more especially when one in five mail-in voters admitted to committing ballot fraud in the 2020 election.
What does a โfair electionโ look like? Itโs when a winner emerges by a lead thatโs not so large as to appear fabricated, yet not so small as to be within a margin of error. In other words, it looks legitโit could have happened. Results like these can be manipulated all day long and nobody would think twice. (I’m not so naรฏve as to think they haven’t already been manipulated long before this discussion. After all, elections matter, and the results are far too important to be left to chance.)
A mandatory audit would prevent the smokescreen.
From this day forward, any election absent an audit shouldnโt even count (pun intended), even though the process flies in the face of a generation who has learned to demand instant gratification from the one before it. It would be worth the wait just to know the results were reliable.
The America you have only read about
Will America ever go back to the stuff of history books? Will we return to the grandeur of by-the-people-for-the-people that we read about as children so that we can experience it ourselves?
No, not easily; and quite possibly, not at all.
You see, we donโt fight technology: We fight those who abuse it for their own base ends.
Weโre not battling the notion of legislation so much as weโre battling the fallout of those who twist the rule-making process into a pretzel; where bills that are unvetted and unvoted on can be made into law anyway (CLOUD Act, anyone?)
Yes, weโre a nation of lawsโwell, weโre supposed to be anywayโbut lawmaking is fraught with corruption and partisanship. When the procedures are unethical, how can the results be otherwise?
I donโt dispute the office of President, I dispute the abuse of a chief executive who capriciously strips an American of all rights, including citizenship, merely by declaring the person an enemy combatant (ร la the Nuremberg laws that removed citizenship from Jewish Germans). No speedy trial. No right to counsel. No formal charges. Indefinite detention.
Careful now, this is truly land of the free and home of the brave stuff right here.
Bush Jr. first tested this legal theory against Josรฉ Padilla, a U.S. citizen imprisoned without formal charges and held in solitary confinement for three and a half years from 2002 through 2005. The Presidentโs legal theory passed the test to become enshrined in despotic legend. Congress didnโt object. The Supremes didnโt cry foul. (The complicity is chilling.)
Quite notably, Bush was a Republican.
If the idea that der amerikanischer Fรผhrer can imprison you without formal charges doesnโt make your blood boil, then perhaps the reality that El Presidente can unilaterally order your death will help you see America for the dilapidated banana republic it’s become.
Because on the other side of the aisle, we have Obama.
He invoked death by drone in 2011. He assassinated 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was, again, a U.S. citizen. To date, no rationale has been provided by the government. An American was murdered absent judicial review. No charges or trial. No judge or jury. No Due Process. Hell, not so much as a feeble excuse!
Most notably, Obama was a Democrat, and is in fine company with a Bush.
You see a pattern here, yes?
A scathing and trenchant analysis of the differences between the Republican and Democrat parties yields this incontrovertible fact: One has four syllables.
On an equal basis, they both give short shrift to the Constitution.
There are those who suggest that term limits would help insulate the country against depraved democrats or recalcitrant republicans. Yet, in the worst case term limits would easily thwart quality incumbents from staying in office longer to do even more good; and under the best circumstances, term limits would merely interrupt the reiterative flow of self-serving sycophants who keep getting elected.
Effectively, term limits would remove the good from office and fail to prevent the bad from entering. This is not the solution.
Our enemy is human character, and itโs rotten to the core. โLiberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals,โ said Adams. He appreciated standards, and drew comparisons only to illustrate the lack of them.
I know there are scores of us who see these evils and care deeply about righting them, but we are. The. Minority.
For some, thatโs reason enough to just stay home. Lacking overwhelming numbers and the guarantee of victory, many an armchair patriot will settle for the indolent comfort of the electric recliner, refusing to stand up for anything important. When nature calls, a stroll down the hall to take a piss in the turlet is about all the change in daily routine he will muster.
Of this sort, Adams suggested they be quickly and decisively castigated and forgotten by those of us who are the other sort:
โIf ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedomโgo home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!โ
If youโre not the sort condemned by Adams; if thereโs at least a spark of fiery rage in you toward those who would disrupt America nationally and those who would destroy you personally, socially and economically; if your indignation is not tempered by fear of change or threat of inconvenience, then consider what must be an appropriate response on your part.
We only defend what we hold dear:
โThe truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should.โ
I won’t tell you what to doโwe have far too much of that alreadyโbut I do urge you to do something. Anything. You know your own corner of the world better than anyone else. When you decide to improve it then we’ll trust you with the changes.
All I ask is that you start.