Repeal the First Amendment, Immediately!

In the face of growing violence in American (355 mass shootings in less than one year!), I think there is no question what we must do as an American society. It's time to throw out the notion that the Bill of Rights is sacrosanct - after all, the Constitution didn't protect slaves at its inception - and repeal one of the most upsetting of the protection Amendments to the Constitution. The first one. Repeal the First Amendment, in the name of public safety. If you don't, you are complicit in the murder of thousands!

Think about it...how many people have been murdered because of difference of belief, ideology, or as a representation of such differences? In Columbine, the shooters were emboldened by sharing their experiences and planning a mass murder together. If Eric Harris and Dylan Kelbold had not been allowed to speak negatively about their school, could we not have saved the 13 people murdered there? And what if the benevolent government had banned any copies of the Anarchist's Cookbook both in print and online? Wouldn't that have stopped them from building bombs or modifying legal weapons to be illegal?

And if we banned Islam, think of all the lives we could save! Allow no one into the country but those who denounce faith and religion and there is no 9/11. There is no Boston Bombing or San Bernardino shooting. That's 4000 lives saved right there. If you can save even one life, isn't it worth it? Let's not stop there. A banning of Christianity would dull the resentment built up by Westboro Baptist church and a banning of Judaism would certainly quell the rise of herpes within a tiny community of Jews in Brooklyn.

And speech, how often is speech the flashpoint of violence. If pro-life people were not allowed to spread their subversive ideas, the Planned Parenthood shooting could have been avoided. If anti-semetic speech were banned, the Holocaust Museum Shooting would never have happened. And what do you need free speech for anyway? Why do you need to be allowed to say you are a neo-Nazi or that you hate black people? Why do you need to be allowed to say that women deserve equal rights or that gay people should be allowed to marry? Is this a necessity? Really? Would you die if you couldn't say what you wanted to? Isn't it better to stick to innocuous language and causes if it can help stop the violence of dissent?

Don't get me started on protests. If people can stand outside of Planned Parenthood and protest reproductive rights, then they can dehumanize abortion providers and patients, thereby making them targets of violence. You should definitely NOT be allowed to protest if those protest stir up passionate discord. We have public safety to think of. Your petty passions mean nothing in the face of that mandate.

And the press, well, the press should be limited too. What if the press reports an event that leads people to riot and murder? That's far too dangerous. We have to protect the people and the press is only interested in selling a story. If the government could control the stream of information, we would all be a lot safer. And that is, after all, the point of society. To be safe.

We don't really need the First Amendment. We only really need food, water, shelter. These are the things the Government should be interested in protecting. Not philosophical and theoretical concepts of liberty. Especially not when that liberty has led to violent murder in astounding numbers. The First Amendment has no place in a progressive society. It is time to repeal!*

*If any part of this made you say, 'Yeah! She's right!' ... please reevaluate what the fuck you think the job of the government is.

The Logical Conclusion to Religion...

In the aftermath of the horrific Paris Attacks friday night, Twitter was quick to jump down the throat of anyone daring articulate that Islamic extremists were at it again. 'Terrorism has no religion' quickly became a trending topic, and as warm and fuzzy as that might make us feel, it is actually a load of crap. Religion has used terrorism for just about as long as religion has existed. Pretending otherwise is historically blind. Pretending religion doesn't play a role in modern jihad against the West is intellectually bankrupt.

Some are even committing dizzying mental gymnastics to separate ISIS (that is the ISLAMIC STATE) from Islam at all. ThinkProgress, which is usually not worth the paper it's printed on (see what I did there?) proves its stupidity once again with a piece entitled 'Why ISIS Is Not, In Fact, Islamic' where it pretends that having political motive wipes out the parts of the movement that are deeply intrenched in fundamentalist understanding of Islam, the Quran, and Mohammed's teachings. Let us not forget that ThinkProgress, and the five people who actually read ThinkProgress, have been blaming the entire American culture, and white people in general, for the fact that some drunk frat guys were allegedly racists once at Mizzou. So, essentially, the crimes of an isolated Frat reflect on all of society, but the actions of millions of radical Muslims say nothing about Islam at all. That is, of course the definition of intellectual hypocrisy.

But why such and urge to separate Islam from ISIS (or the countless other terrorist groups associated with radical Islam)? Well, there are two main reasons. 1) There are far too many right-wingers who are eager to blame regular Muslims for the crimes of the most radical of their religion. This is not fair and leads to the over reaction by identity politics leftists to defend 'all Muslims'. 2) It is difficult for many leftists to admit that a group they personally see as a victimized minority could be the perpetrators of such violence. They like to see victim and aggressor in black and white, and for them, the 'privileged' need to fill the role of the black hat wearing villain. Fundamentalist Muslims really poke a hole in that narrative...especially when they start killing people.

But forgetting why, it doesn't really matter. It's nearly impossible to reason with the twitter crowd. So lost in their Tumblr morality, they are irredeemable. What I think is fascinating about this 'Terrorism has no religion' nonsense is that, in fact, if taken to the logical conclusion, most religions are the very definition of terror. It is only by picking and choosing which parts to observe and which to ignore that religion has made it to the 21st century much less harmful than it was a century ago. Think about it...

Do Jews or Christians really believe that women who are raped within the city limits are complicit in their own rape and therefore should be stoned to death? Or that God would not only condone but deliberately burn down a city because of homosexuality within? Or that God would murder the first born of an entire race of people? Or call for the murder of 'witches'? ...I literally could go on and on and on and on. And these bible verses were used to perpetrate serious crimes against humanity. All of them. As society progressed Jews and Christians have had to ignore these and countless other heinous calls for murder, violence, torture, slavery, etc to integrate in a progressive, tolerant, and diverse society. In fact, Israel, the Jewish State, soundly opposes Capital Punishment for moral and ethical reasons, even though its foundational text is filled with 'eye for an eye' justice.

Do Christians really believe that children who curse their parents should be killed? Or that Jesus will punish people who do not believe in him with hell fires? Or basically any one of the epistles that make life sound like a real hell hole for anyone who happened to have never heard of Jesus before? Really? Because that is a pretty terrorizing ideology on its own. That's why most Christians have accepted that they might not know God's ultimate plan. That they should simply love each other and try to do the best they can. But, fundamentally, if you follow the 'word of God', you would look a lot more like the Westboro Baptist Church than the Unitarian Universalists. That's for certain.

Do Muslims really believe that it's okay to marry a 9-year-old child? Or to beat your wife if you avoid her face? Or that infidels must die? Or that there is a constant war with non-believers? Or that that forced conversions are sanctified by Allah? And on and on and on. In no fewer than 109 verses, the Quran calls upon believers to fight the infidels and kill them. So, explain to me how this is a religion of peace? Because you can find peaceful verses? Well, that's all well and good, and I'm certainly glad it's been the basis of belief for those Muslims who have decidedly chosen not to embrace every aspect of their religion. But for those who are fundamentalists of Islam, it logically follows that killing non-believers - or anyone - who stands in the way of Islam or the Caliphate is a religious mandate.

This extends to other religions as well. I generally talk about the 'big three' because for the people who read my blog, it covers most of us. However, there are plenty of parts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, etc that could become violent and deadly if treated literally. And that's the problem isn't it? What is the point of religion at all if not interpreted literally? For the Torah or Bible or Quran to matter at all, doesn't it have to be the word of God/Allah? And if it's the word of God/Allah, then isn't every word true and valuable? At what point do we decide certain parts don't matter but the religion as a whole does? For Religious Extremists, they don't have to answer that question. They are simply following their religion to it's logical and fundamental conclusion.

The Bill of Rights: A Dying Concept Pt. 3

The final installment of my Bill of Rights series...

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall be committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process of obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. 

The two most oft cited violations of the Sixth Amendment in the United States are 'right to a speedy trial' and 'right to counsel'. Courts are meticulous in their trial protocols that basically uphold the Sixth in regard to juries, and trial rights. However, there is some disagreement about whether people can inadvertently waive their right to counsel in both interrogation and at trial by means of intimidation.

Let's start with speedy trials. For one, that's a subjective notion. What is speedy? It generally means, without undue delay. We all know of one glaring example where this is blatantly ignored. Guantanamo Bay. In cases that are considered 'sensitive to national security' the government will often hold prisoners for an extended period without trial as they try to amass evidence against the accused. In the case of GitMo Detainees, they aren't strictly entitled to Constitutional Rights (a matter of debate) but for an example of a born and bred American having such a right dismissed, look no further than Chelsea Manning, the trans soldier who was convicted of espionage in 2013 in the Wikileaks Scandal. She was in pretrial confinement for over 800 days. Her confinement was deemed 'reasonable' by a judge, but was it? If she had not exposed embarrassing truths about the government, perhaps the ruling would have been different.

Right to Counsel is one of the major points of the Miranda Rights, read to people as they are arrested, but in some cases the right to an attorney is waived. The question is, are these occasions really voluntary or coerced. Of course there are cases of police trying to get people to 'talk' without an attorney present, and there is really nothing that can be done about that. If you have been read your rights, what you say is really on you. However, waiving counsel as a child is tricky.
Children, by law, cannot sign contracts. So, when they go to court, if they wish to waive counsel, their parents have to sign off. Well, parents, in the interest of helping their children, might waive counsel if they are manipulated into believing this would be better for their kids. And then, kids without counsel are at the mercy of the court with absolutely know legal know-how. This might seem unlikely but in the infamous 'Kids for Cash' scandal in Luzerne County, PA, one of the tip offs that something was not right was that a large chunk of children were being put into juvenile detention after waving their right to an attorney. When asked, parents admitted to child legal advocates they they were told things would be easier if they waived their rights. While the judges involved in the scandal went on to prison no one was ever held accountable for the gross injustice these kids faced at the loss of their Constitutional Right to counsel by way of intimidation.

Amendment VII: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law. 

Essentially, this amendment solidifies the right to civil jury trials, and makes jury findings sacrosanct, unable to be overturned by the judge or another court.

Well, we know the right to file a lawsuit is intact. People file lawsuits over frivolous things all the time. The second clause, however, is where concern comes in. In civil cases, the case of punitive damages has caused more than one judge to stop in and overrule a jury, unconstitutionally.

Remember that case of the grandma who spilled hot coffee on herself and won millions from McDonalds? Well, the judge overruled that punitive damage claim and she ended up getting upward of $400k instead. Still a tidy sum, but the change is a direct violation of the 7th Amendment.

Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be require, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments imposed. 

The government has taken advantage of the subjectivity of this amendment to do almost anything it pleases. Who could say $1million bail is not excessive? a Rockefeller, perhaps. And yet, such a bail is common in capital crimes. Excessive fines? Well, tell that to the drivers of Virginia, who could pay up to $3000 for a speeding violation. But terms like 'excessive' are relative. If you can argue that the crime is bad enough, any fine could be seen as reasonable by a court willing to be liberal with definitions.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment is also subjective. To some, waterboarding is not cruel or unusual. To some, prison confinement at all is cruel and unusual. It's difficult to navigate this Amendment in any sort of black and white way because it is almost entirely based on perspective. That said, a reasonable case can be made that Capital Punishment is cruel and unusual given that it gives the state the right to decide how long you live and by what means you die.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

Ahh, now we are getting into the fun stuff. So, this Amendment tells us everything we need to know about the intention of the Founding Fathers in regard to personal rights and liberty. That is, they believed that the Bill of Rights was highlighting some of the most important explicit rights of the people, NOT that these are the only protected rights we retain. So, in interpreting the Constitution, SCOTUS should always err on the side of individual liberty. Always.

It is safe to say they do not. I mean, with every wave of SCOTUS rulings there is at least one ruling that denies the rights of individuals in favor of the logic that there is nothing 'explicit' in the Constitution to protect such a right. That is, of course, nonsense. The Ninth Amendment protects all implied rights of citizens. All. And forcing people to buy insurance, or sell the government their property, or pay income tax, or be drafted, or attend any function, organization, or school against their will is a violation of the Ninth Amendment.

We are born with the right to live freely. Every time the government decides we must do something against our personal will, with the exception of something that would violate the rights of others, they are in violation of the Ninth Amendment.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to teh United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Another big one. This one, like the Ninth Amendment has all but been completely ignored by all three branches of the Federal Government for over a century. It would take pages and pages to point out all the examples of how things like the Commerce Clause, Congress' right to tax, and twisting have taken the Federal Government to the position it has today, doing things never imagined by the Founding Fathers.

Suffice it to say, the Federal Government has few actual jobs. National Security, Borders, Interstate Commerce (which is all but unnecessary at this point), protection of citizens' Constitutional Rights, Minting money, Federal roadways and post, and taxation to cover JUST these jobs. The end. The. End. Currently we have 15 executive departments, including Agriculture and Education (do you remember them being mentioned in the list of jobs the Federal government has?). There are also 88 Senate committees. Do you want to know how many of them have nothing to do with their Constitutional Role of Federal Government?

Recently, the Federal Government has taken to suing states for exercising their Tenth Amendment. The Obama Administration is quite fond of doing this, in fact. Though, he's not the first. And this trend to extend Federal jobs has been going on for a very long time. When states cannot handle their own problems, they seek the help of the Federal Government. But while California might not be able to handle their economic mismanagement, Indiana might be doing economically well. Why is Indiana punished for California's bad planning?

The Tenth Amendment is a huge issue and would take it's own post (perhaps it will get one), but suffice it to say if more people realized what the actual role of Federal Government was, they might be shocked. As of now, we look to them as our main government. They never were intended to be. State and Local political holds politician accountable while giving people more control over their own rights and lives.


And that brings us to the end of the Bill of Rights segment. I encourage all of you to take an active interest in learning more about these Amendments and how they are being mutilated for the 'greater good' or for political interests. Never has there been a more important time to have this discussion, what with college students declaring the right to 'free speech' to be hateful and oppressive. We are fast headed to a place where these sacred natural rights could be ripped completely from our grasp for the sake of politically correct coddling and 'security'. Every one of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights is ESSENTIAL to a free society and non-negotiable.

The Bill of Rights: A Dying Concept Pt. 2

Continuing to look at violations of our natural rights from Part 1.

Amendment II: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of free people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 

As one of the most contested, publicly, sections of the Bill of Rights, most of you know how this was has been violated, and continues to be violated. From the 'gun-restrictionist' perspective, this Amendment speaks only to a militia's right to arms. That means, in their mind, that the State's National Guard chapters have the right to arms. This is, of course, ridiculous. That would be saying that the Founders were hoping to secure the rights of government institutions to bear arms. The government doesn't need such protection and it certainly would not be advocated for by the Founding Fathers.

But for those reading the amendment correctly, the next logical conclusion to restriction of rights is in the name of protecting people. That is why 'gun control' movements crop up every time there is a widely publicized shooting. We can get into the ins and outs of how accurate a depiction that is, or even if gun control can or does work. I've written about it previously, and most who read this blog will already know these arguments. But whether it works or whether it is reasonable, the fact of the matter is that every branch of the Federal Government has made it clear that 'shall not be infringed' is merely a guideline that holds no weight.

There are the obvious and popular restrictions: felons cannot possess guns, the mentally ill are restricted from gun ownership, you cannot possess weapons of mass destruction. Regardless of reasonability, these restrictions violate the Amendment. The most egregious being that felons cannot possess weapons. Depending on the felony, such a crime has no bearing on whether or not a person could responsibly own a gun. That, too, applies to the mentally ill to a different degree. Merely having a mental illness doesn't make you dangerous. WMDs is a harder argument to make. What could be the possible purpose of WMDs but offensive? Still, does that amendment say you only have the right to defensive arms? I think the case can be made for the 'defensive arms' stance, but it's not a slam dunk argument.

I recognize I'm not going to convince anyone by making the case that felons and mentally ill people have the Constitutional right to WMDs. And I also recognize that opening the amendment to such criticism makes it vulnerable. But words matter. 'Shall not be infringed...' means something. At the very least, it means you can't ban a kind of gun because it looks scary (which both Congress and the SCOTUS have done). You can't tell American Citizens whether they 'need' guns or not. And given the spirit of the Amendment, which is obviously about citizen protection from the government, the concept of allowing the government to own strong arms but disarming the population is an egregious violation of the Second Amendment.

From there, discussion shifts to repealing the Amendment. I think it is safe to say there is not much chance of that happening. At least, not in the near future. But here is the problem with even thinking it. The right to defend yourself by any means necessary is a basic human right. It's a nature right. Such a right can only be violated if the Government uses force to take that right away. And that is exactly what such a repeal would do. It would use the force of guns to confiscate the means by which some choose to defend themselves. This would kill the very spirit of liberty completely. The repeal of the Second Amendment would render all other rights irrelevant.

Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 

Okay, this one we've managed to keep pretty well. There aren't many cases of Third Amendment violations, and usually those claims are ridiculous. Although, this one, about police forcing a guy to offer use of his home for tactical advantage in a case might have merit.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. 

Stick with me, this one is a doozy. Basically because in time of war (even The Cold War and The War on Terror) the Government basically treats the Fourth Amendment like it is written in invisible ink, there are a lot of violations.

This amendment applies to all people, but of course, the SCOTUS ruled in New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)  that probable cause was not needed in schools. Instead, if you are attending school, the school only needs to have 'reasonable suspicion' which is a lower standard. This goes to a general theme with restricting Constitutional rights. Also, mandatory drug testing was ruled Constitutional within the confines of school later in a 1995 SOCTUS ruling. If you can prove children or large groups of people might be in danger, you can pretty much do whatever you please. Which leads us to the current Fourth Amendment infringements we are facing today under the Patriot Act. More on that later.

The very idea that you have to show an ID to an officer pulling you over is a hotly debated issue under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Strictly speaking, unless there is probable cause, you should be able to refuse. We, of course, know that will get you nothing but a busted lip and a night in jail. But the SCOTUS does not always side with police and government. They did rule in Rodrigues v. United States (2015) that you can't use drug sniffing dogs for routine traffic stops, nor can you needlessly prolong such stops. It seems like that shouldn't have ever even been in question. The current Court seems to realize that, at least in some ways, the SCOTUS has chipped away at the Fourth Amendment to serve law enforcement and it was time to scale some of that back. This was again proven in a 2015 decision Los Angeles v Patel, where the Court ruled that forcing hotels to retain records of customers for 90 days was Unconstitutional.

But the Fourth Amendment strictures on law enforcement and prosecutors are by design. It should be hard for a prosecution to build a case against someone. If it is hard, the likelihood that they get it right goes up. It is better for guilty people to go free than innocent people be wrongfully convicted. But, again, when faced with the question of public safety, many people seem perfectly willing to suspend the Fourth Amendment. Doing so is a violation no matter how you spin it. Either you have probable cause, or you do not. If you do not, there is no excuse for breaching someone's Constitutional rights.

Most recently, but this is certainly not unprecedented, the Patriot Act has completely obliterated the Fourth Amendment in the name of National Security. Many of the Fourth Amendment violations have been taken to the courts and struck down, but the government constantly appeals these rulings until they find courts willing to put 'public safety' before constitutionality. The most horrifying of these offenses, the 'fast tracked' judge's permission for tap and trace warrants that not only don't require probable cause, but the judge isn't even allowed to deny the approval.

If that sounds like something out of a dystopian novel, you now can see where we get to the heart of the death of freedom, liberty, and the concepts behind the Bill of Rights. In the name of 'safety' you can achieve almost anything. The quickest way to get a government to bypass constitutional protections is to make the case that large groups of people might be in danger otherwise. If these large groups are children...well, it's a slam dunk. Somehow, we have a legal system with enough judges who are armed to protect the Constitution, who have a mentality that the basic protection from law enforcement intrusion is no longer relevant in the 'modern world' because we are facing a new kind of enemy. This mindset allowed us to lock up millions of Japanese Americans in camps because any one of them 'could' be a spy. We didn't need probable cause. National Security was at risk.

Without the Fourth Amendment, we are merely at the mercy of the whims of law enforcement and DA's offices. Anything we do can be turned against us and used in a criminal case against us. There are no rules for those who seek to get convictions.

Amendment V: No personal shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger, nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 

You might not realize is, but the Fifth Amendment is violated fairly regularly. Starting with the least violated: Double Jeopardy, I can only recall one case that violates this clause and it is still currently in appeals. Tim Hennis, an Army Master Sargent, was convicted of murdering an Air Force Captain's wife and children. His sentence overturned and he was retried and found not guilty. This was the 1980s, when DNA evidence was often unreliable. In the 2000s, the case was reopened and DNA tested which put Hennis at the scene of the crime, as well as implicating him in the rape of the victim. Under double jeopardy, this would be something that simply is unfortunate, but happens. It doesn't make you feel good, but he was tried and found not guilty by a jury. You can't retry him. Only, the military stepped in and tried him for exactly the same crime but in military court. He was found guilty. This case is unprecedented, but were his Constitutional rights violated?

Well, people have different opinions. As a military person, is he subject to certain violations based on the nature of military justice? You decide.

Cases of being denied liberty without due process are more common, however, they are almost always met with criticism from the courts. Rarely can law enforcement get away with illegally detaining people, at least not for long - unless those people are considered 'war criminals' like in the case of the Guantanamo Bay detainees. However, it is a matter of debate whether non-residents have the same Constitutional rights as residents.

Cases like Miranda v Arizona (1966), which required police to inform the arrested of their rights are SCOTUS rulings that put a fine point on what is and is no acceptable for law enforcement, Constitutionally. Brown v Mississippi (1936) represents one of many cases that ruled confessions by torture inadmissible. There are countless cases where the SCOTUS has stepped in to protect the Fifth Amendment rights of citizens. Most recently, the ongoing debate about whether one must turn over encrypted internet passwords to the police. Courts, generally, have stood by the right of the citizen here. But sometimes, they get it wrong.

In 2004, the SCOTUS upheld 'stop and identify' programs by police in Hiibel v 6th Judicial Court of Nevada. That means that, for no reason at all but the whims of police, you can be stopped and asked for identification. There is also lively debate about whether the Fifth Amendment applies to business owners.

But, really, the most egregious violation of the Fifth Amendment has been the confiscation of personal property without just compensation. The motive here should be obvious. The government always wants your money and they always know what to do with it better than you do.

Since the SCOTUS held up 'eminent domain' (the power to take over private property for public use), the Fifth Amendment has been violated to the core. The qualifier here is 'just compensation', of course. Well, who decides what is just compensation? The government does, obviously. This means that they can force you to sell them your property at a price they decide. In the case of criminals, they often don't even have to bother with any of that in the first place. If the government can make a case that the property was gotten through illegal means, they can confiscate it.



But let's say you are just an average citizen. If the government needs your land to build a road, they have the legal right to make you sell it to them. That's one thing. But in Kelo v. New London, the SCOTUS, in one of the most appalling rulings to date, decided that eminent domain extended to private confiscation if the private entity could prove they had better use for the land. That means, the Federal Government has ruled that your property is up to the whims of the 'greater good'. If you aren't using it wisely enough, it can be taken from you. There is no possible way to interpret the Fifth Amendment that allows for that injustice.

If our property is not protected, the very foundation of natural rights is under attack.

Stay tuned for Part 3...

The Bill of Rights: A Dying Concept Pt. 1

I spent years loving my county. Having lived abroad and through a fair amount of travel, I cultivated all the pro-American arguments one could. We are exceptional! We believe in liberty and freedom over economic and physical security. We have the fortitude to fight for things other countries do not! We stand for principles that are pure and enlightened, even if we don't always act pure and enlightened!

I believed all these things. Even when faced with irrefutable evidence, cognitive dissonance allowed me to continue to believe it. And that was not without reason. I still maintain that the American Constitution is the single greatest political document in history. America's Founding Principles were exceptional and if adhered to, would have made many of my praises valid. One glaring problem, of course, was slavery. It took a fair bit of cognitive dissonance on the part of the Founders themselves to allow human beings to own other human beings - as well as the exclusion of women in political discourse - while promoting the very ideals that created our once libertarian country.

But the America outlined in the Constitution and the one we live in today is not even recognizable. And no, this wasn't started with Bush or Obama. Attacks on the liberty of private citizens in America started before the ink on the Constitution was even dry. It is a natural byproduct of living in a society. Some will seek to limit the liberty of all in order for a chance at economic or physical stability or safety. We, as humans, almost cannot help ourselves. Which is precisely why a document like the Constitution is so important, and it is so important we don't start believing these liberties 'outdated'. The Bill of Rights make up natural laws. They are rights that are granted to us simply by existing, that only evaporate when a government chooses to infringe on such rights.

But these rights are under constant attack. Governments, as they become further centralized, and therefore further removed from scrutiny of the people, have chipped away at these basic rights over and over and over again. The SCOTUS sometimes steps in to stop them, but as polarized as the Nation's most high court now is, legislating from the bench and twisting constitutionality to fit purposes still happens with far too much regularity.

Of course, it is not just the Bill of Rights that is attacked. Other amendments as well as even the powers of government have been misconstrued wildly. Who would have concluded that the 'commerce clause' of the Constitution would be used to allow the Federal Government to hold more power than the States on nearly every issue? Not the Founders. But in this piece, which will be divided into three parts, I want to primarily focus on the Bill of Rights, natural rights, and how they have been infringed by our own government with out own permission.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

That is a loaded one. It is easy to see why it was the first established, and often considered most important of the Bill of Rights. Speech. Press, Religion. Assembly. These are the basics of a free society. Unfortunately, none of these has remained unscathed in any of the three branches of government.

SPEECH: Modern interpretation of this 'freedom' is that free speech does not extend to libel or slander or incitement of violence. Well, libel and slander make sense, if it can be irrefutably proven. Committing libel or slander is a violation of someone else's rights and therefore not your right. But libel and slander do (and should) have a very specific and very difficult burden of proof. Very few libel or slander cases ever win. When they do, it is generally always a case of obvious violation.

Incitement of violence is tricky territory. What IS incitement of violence? If I say, 'I wish someone would kill Trump.' Am I inciting violence? What if I tell my friend, 'You should go kill Trump.' Is that? What if I say, 'Hey, kill Trump right now.' Without the threat of force (which is a crime by itself) am I inciting violence? And what is my responsibility to the crime if I do any one of these things?

But this is the tip of the iceberg on issues the SCOTUS has ruled on in regard to Free Speech. What about a citizen's right to speak out against government in time of war? What about a citizen's right to donate to a foreign government? or organization? What about the speech rights of public servants?

The SCOTUS, in general terms, has mostly been pretty pro-speech. This is one place where America really does outshine its contemporaries in the case of individual liberty. Even Canada's Supreme Court has denied speech rights for what it determines to be 'hate speech'. Ironically, if you can ban any unseemly speech you don't really need 'free speech' to begin with. No one is going to deny you the right to say things people want to hear.

However, there are some SCOTUS rulings that blurred the lines of free speech, giving the government more power than the Constitution outlines in repressing speech. In Schneck v United States (1919), the SCOTUS determined that anti-war activists in WWI did not have the right of free speech to avoid being drafted. This also lead to the 'Clear and Present Danger' test for speech. That is, that the United State Congress has the right to protect the nation from clear and present danger even if that means violating first amendment rights of citizens. Later Dennis v United States (1951) ruled that the government may step in and stop speech even before danger is present in order to protect citizens. This, of course, is a dangerous precedent. We still use 'Clear and Present Danger' as a measure for how far the government can restrict our free speech.

Today, the most egregious examples of state silencing of speech comes in publicly funded universities. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) represents student's who have been penalized for their free expression in the classroom and on campus. In private schools, there is not much that can be done about such violations but publicizing them, but in the case of public schools, such violations can easily be attributed to a violation of First Amendment Rights.

PRESS: When I say that the government infringes on this right the least, I'm not saying that's a ringing endorsement. But our press is largely private and though certain politicians receive preferential treatment, that is a function of Journalistic bias, not government control or suppression.


That said, the government does dip it's fingers into the Press and it does limit certain access and publications. Most obviously, there is the case of government intimidation to reveal sources or bury stories. The Obama Administration has faced criticism for this very thing, although his is not the first nor will it be the last to do this.

In general terms, the freedom of the Press (according to the SCOTUS) does not extend to revealing any information that could put citizens in danger. That means, top secret info, is mostly protected and therefore the press is not actually 'free'. The Freedom of the Press Foundation highlights many of these crimes against press that go unreported for obvious reasons.

We are only relatively 'more free' in the field of Press because most of the world press is horribly censored.

RELIGION: This is an interesting case where both sides of the discussion feel personally victimized by the infringement of this part of the First Amendment. Religious people believe that their rights to free association and religious practice have been violated by a government that forces them to do business with people they might not be comfortable with, religiously. On the other hand, secularists look at things like government sponsored religious imagery in school (The Pledge), government buildings (10 Commandments, etc), currency, and motivation for laws as a violation of the First Amendment's promise not to establish a religion.

There is no limit to politicians who wish to make laws based on their own religious understanding of reality. I'm not sure that can ever be changed. I'm also not sure it's a violation of the First Amendment. Your motivation for writing a law only matters if that law is unconstitutional, right? I might decide I want to pass a law to feed all the hungry children by Federal Decree based on my faith as a liberal Christian. My cause isn't automatically dismissed because my personal perspective is colored by my religious beliefs. But, if I want to use that religious belief to confiscate wealth and allocate it entirely to charity, like my religion might state, then I've written an unconstitutional law. See what I mean? So, religious politicians are not in violation, necessarily of the First Amendment. But some laws are. Like, anti-sodomy laws, or federal amendments to ban gay marriage. Both of those are Unconstitutional and based on the idea that Christian interpretation of morality is objectively true.

Religious imagery is, inarguably, an establishment of religion. Just because you use the generic 'God' doesn't mean you are not establishing religion. That is to say, an establishment of some monotheistic religion as the philosophical head of the Nation. If you say we are 'One Nation, Under God' you have established a national religion. Then, making school children recite that is so egregious a violation of religious right, only a true religious nut could reasonably disagree. The SCOTUS got out of ruling on the matter in 2002 on a technicality, but several lower courts have ruled many different ways, finally settling on the fact that 'Under God' does not establish religion (ridiculous) and that there is no problem having kids recite it if they are given the option to opt out. This is, of course, ridiculous. There is no other way to interpret 'under god' than a monotheistic religion.

In the case of religious liberty, things get tricky. Because we are a society that does not condone discrimination, the concept of being legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of religious belief seems like a violation of someone else's right - which would negate your right to discriminate. But, in reality, this is only true of public institutions. Public institutions do not have the right to discriminate, but based on property law, why would a private business owner or person not have the right to discriminate if he or she so desired? And why are other private citizens entitled to shop at a store? There is no such right. This is all to say, why couldn't a Jewish bakery owner refuse to serve neo-Nazis? Why could a gay bakery owner not refuse to bake a cake for a gay conversion celebration? And does that logic not also apply to Christians refusing service to gay people? Do the neo-Nazis have a inherent right to Jewish baked goods? Do conversionists have a right to cakes from gay bakeries? Of course not.

Having the right to a religious belief means that, unless you are violating the rights of someone else, you have the right to practice your religion as you see fit. However, the SCOTUS even ruled that Native Americans, whose religion predates the United States, have no legal right to use of Peyote in religious ceremonies because it has arbitrarily been deemed an 'illegal substance'. The precedent this sets is obvious. If the government makes something illegal, it can easily restrict your free expression of religion.  Which brings us to...

PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY: The right to assemble peaceably is one of the most difficult rights to violate, from an optics standpoint. When you send in guns to break up armless protestors, you never look good. You can even cause people to side more with protestors than before. That doesn't mean the government doesn't try. In the height of tension the government even kills people who are peacefully assembled (see: Kent State). And so, it is strange that this right, the most universally valued, is the one that is violated with, maybe, the most frequency and certainly most real life casualties.


Why were civil rights, anti-war, pro-communist peaceful protestors arrested if they have the right to peacefully assemble? Well, there are a few reasons. 1) There are always violent outliers. Peaceful movements, when they grow large enough, will attract people who wish to exploit that for their own agenda. Even one violent person gives the government all the legal margin they need to take an assembly down. 2) They are being arrested for various other offenses, like drug use, public intoxication, trespassing. In some cases, this is justified. If you are assembling on private property without permission, that's illegal, and should be. But let us not forget that Richard Nixon extended the war on pot almost entirely to lock up anti-war hippies since he couldn't get them on anything else. And let's also not forget that public intoxication is a 'made up' crime.

Currently one of the biggest violations to peaceable assembly is the concept of 'permits'. Permits are essentially a fee to practice your Constitutional right to assemble. You don't owe the government money in order to protest, but this has been made into law. You can do it, but you have to pay first and be subject to government red tape and bullshit that can deny your request for almost any reason.

Freedom of Association which goes along with this is also referenced in the above freedom of religion commentary. As free private citizens, we should have the natural right to refuse service or association with anyone for any reason. We do not have such a right if we own businesses.

PETITION FOR GRIEVANCES: This means that we, as private citizens, have the right to make complaints to and seek assistance from the government without having to fear retaliation. With the exception of isolated incidents, this right remains mostly intact. However, I would go on to speak about the special treatment the Government gets in such cases.

When the Government makes an error, sometimes an egregious error that affects lives, they should be held accountable. They should not be protected by special laws or considerations. When a DA's office clearly withholds exculpatory evidence that leads to a conviction for an innocent person, that Government should be held accountable the way any private citizen would be. Currently, they are not. Government gets legal special treatment all the time. While we might have the right to petition, we do not have the right to fair treatment in assessment after such a complaint is made. The burden of proof for the violated party is far higher than for the Government. Such a system is inherently unfair and violates the spirit of this part of the First Amendment.

As a practical matter, notice the language of the First Amendment. It reads, rephrased for ease, 'Congress shall make NO LAW ABRIDGING the right to...' That means, no law abridging. Basically, that means even speech that incites violence is constitutionally protected. That means even top secret info is fair game for the Press. That means smoking peyote or any religious practice that doesn't violate the rights of others is constitutionally protected. And it means that you don't need a permit to peaceably assemble in a public place. The end.

Stay tuned for parts 2 and 3...

Mo' Entitlements, Mo' Problems: The First Democratic Debate

I was asked by a Democrat friend how I could possibly watch the GOP debates but struggle to find the motivation to watch the Democratic debate. On the surface, the critique seems reasonable. After all, there was no danger of any of last night's candidates insulting an entire race or gender, or calling Anderson Cooper a 'loser'. There are certainly no 'Trumps' on the Left (so far) and it is serving their narrative well.

 However, it only took about two minutes for me to remember why it is that, though both parties are awful and their plans are mostly bad for America, Democrat core ideology is blatantly wrong and yet incredibly popular. This is, essentially, why I struggle to talk politics with Democrat voters more than I do with GOP voters even if I agree with neither.

What core beliefs do I mean? Mainly entitlements. Every candidate set out personal pet projects, 'rights', and laws that they see as 'essential' to either take care of people, or protect them from their own choices, or to punish people they deem 'too successful'. At one point, Hillary Clinton (who was the only one even slighty willing to defend Capitalism), declared that we need the government to 'save Capitalism from itself'. Marinate on that. A woman representing the establishment of a party that has contributed trillions to Corporate Welfare and Crony Capitalism and has happily created government sponsored monopolies wants to 'save Capitalism from itself'. It seems to me, Capitalism really only needs to be saved from the Government.

All the typical Democratic rhetoric was at the ball last night: War on the Middle Class/Women/Minorities/Poor etc..., Guaranteeing freebies, Job Creation, Campaign Finance Reform, Gun Control. But, no one offered any legitimate solutions to these 'problems' except more government with more power to stop 'evil' free citizens from exerting their natural impulse to brutalize others. Of course, these politicans are immune to such natural impulses.

Getting specific, these candidates would do well to think about some things if they do want to make America better rather than just buy votes for more power.

The Middle Class: Both parties are very interested in the middle class. That's been the case for almost ever, especially in American culture. Most people consider themselves Middle Class, so the undefined 'middle class' is a good way to speak to the 'mob' without saying so. But it is true that the middle class is being desperately squeezed by government. The problem is, both parties look at this as a tax situation when it is really not. The scourge of the middle class is a spending problem. You see, you could tax the rich at 100% and still not pay for our current spending, let alone the new spending projects many of these candidates are proposing. And who do you think pays when the rich cannot? The Middle Class. But forgetting that, every new spending project is undertaken on the backs of the social safety net programs that the middle class has already paid into (like Social Security). If we want to get real about what is best for the Middle Class, taxes are about the last on the list of problems.

Job Creation and Freebies: As has been pointed out numerous times to deaf ears, there is no such thing as a free lunch. We, as a society, have got to stop believing we can have things we didn't earn because the government will force others to give them to us. It's not only  unreasonable, it is not morally sound either. Falling in this line of thought, Jobs are not entitlements. The government doesn't have jobs sitting in a drawer somewhere that they are just being stingy with and Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders is going to start giving them out to people without jobs. Job creation is based on a pro-growth environment within the private market. Can you guess which party ardently opposes most pro-growth measures? Here is a hint: It's the same party that thinks they should save Capitalism from itself.

Profit Sharing: This sounds like a great idea. Of course the workers contribute to the profit, so they should get some of it. Well, they do. It's called a salary. If they buy shares into the company they get even more of a share of the profits. But let's say we have a government dictating terms of how much you have to pay workers 'back' for the profits you earned (even though you, the business owner, took ALL the risk associated with the business). What do you think that does to investment in more jobs? Or innovation? Or expansion? I'll tell you. It kills it. So, yes, your current workers might have a little more take home pay, but many other people will be without work because the job market will collapse. Does that sound reasonable? But that's a practical matter, idiologically, the idea that someone is entitled to anyone else's property is the essence of theft. It is also the essence of the Democratic Party. 

Paid Family Leave: This is an issue about which the GOP should be more invested. This is an actual serious problem in this country. 50% of the workforce is female. Unless we want to give up on civilization and stop procreating, it logically follows that we need to have a reasonable work environment for new mothers and parents in general. The problem with the Democratic approach here is that their typical 'write legislation' solution will not work. Not well, at least. This is another problem with a private solution. This takes a change in mindset of the workforce. Private Unions for working parents would do far more to fix this problem than a bloated act of Congress. Because, in reality, what will happen if Congress gets its hands on this problem, is businesses will just find reasons to hire fewer women of childbearing years. In the current job market, they could easily do so. Let's say the government could force employers to hire such women. Extended paid leave is a serious moral and economic dilemma. While parents should be given freedom to stay with their children when needed, and their jobs should be protected, being paid by the tax payer for a full year of not working would be one of the biggest entitlement programs in history. It is simply not feasible in a country of 300+ million people. It would cripple government resources and be a more fantastic failure than Social Security.

Gun Control: Okay, guys. It is high time you recognize that no matter how much you make fun of 'gun culture' or how many SNL sketches actors do, guns are here to stay. They are not only a part of our culture, but they are protected by the Constitution no matter how hard you try to torture the 2nd Amendment into say they are not. I don't think background checks are a bad idea. I'd support them. But this is a red herring issue. Background checks will have very little effect on gun crime in America. Either these candidates know this and don't care, or they are willfully ignorant. Either way, why is this a main issue of a debate when we have so many bigger fish to fry?

Campaign Finance Reform: This is always a crowd-pleaser. Of course none of us want the government bought off by rich sponsors. Well, none of us but Trump. But thinking you can legistlate this problem away is a pipe dream. First of all, it violates the First Amendment. Secondly, the rich will ALWAYS seek to buy off the powerful. Always. It doesn't matter what you do, if the government has the power to regulate the market, the big players within the market will find ways to manipulate the government. This is precisely why a FREE market is preferable. In a free market, the powerful players have much less power to manipulate a regulating body to create monopolies. Any person with the will and a little seed money can compete with a company by providing better/cheaper goods and/or services. Instead to trying to regulate that which cannot be regulated (like buying off politicians), doesn't it make more sense to stop giving the easily corrupted any power to make or break companies?

As to individual performance, Clinton actually did very well. She did what she had to do, which is come of impassioned without being condescending. She was warm and likable. Just what she needed. Sanders did well too, and if you agree with his brand of economics, you will think he won the debate. In my opinion, neither won.

Jim Webb was the only candidate who looked remotely willing to compromise, non-divisive, and principled rather than ideological. If he switched parties tomorrow, he could probably out-poll both Trump and Carson. In fact, without the Libertarian option, I'd vote for Jim Webb over half of the GOP field.  He highlights a problem with the primary process. He is probably the most reasonable candidate, which is why he doesn't have a hope in hell. Like his Republican counterpart, Rand Paul, those willing to step outside the base ideology to come up with legitimate solutions are punished by the primary process. I have no idea how to fix this problem, but it certainly insures that every election cycle we end up with polarizing candidates rather than those who want to work on real solutions.

O'Malley and Chafee were utterly forgettable, and I don't imagine they will stay in the race much longer, but I'll at least say Chafee seems like a nice guy with a a few issues that are really important to him. O'Malley is difficult to stomach. He does not seem genuine in the least and his record is shoddy at best.

All of this comes down to one thing - the basics of the Democratic ideology - that is, Democrats believe that most things are entitlements. If they are not already, they will start a campaign (usually backed by a celebrity spokesperson) to market a particular interest as a 'human right' so that it can become entitlements. They also believe that they are the educated elites needed to properly allocate such entitlements and 'rights'. They win elections by pitting minorities against the majority, except when it comes to wealth where they use 'the mob' to violate the property rights of the minority. They are identity politicians to the core with a strategy to keep people as dependent as possible on them. And this is why, I cannot stomach Democratic debates. But I'll keep watching because I'm a glutton for punishment.

Ben Carson: The Brain Surgeon that is no brain surgeon...

I almost feel bad for writing this one. Ben Carson seems like a really nice guy. I think he's genuine and actually believes the things he says, but enough is enough. This brilliant surgeon is simply stupid about too many issue to be taken seriously.

For one, Carson is capitalizing on Populism with a vengeance. Of course, all the candidates are, but Carson does it so completely his only rivals in populism are Trump or Sanders. Things like gay marriage, abortion, hysterical predictions about the future, and religion plague most of his talking points and make one wonder: How did a man brilliant enough to separate conjoined twins' brains get this woefully out of touch and out of reason on basic issues?

Don't believe Carson is 'that bad'? Here are some examples:

He openly admitted that he thinks prison turns straight people gay.  He tried to walk the statement back by saying it didn't 'reflect his true heart' on the issue of gay rights, but the damage was done and it is clear he believes that being gay is a choice. This is a position that can only be held by people who do not closely associate with gay persons.

His apology is even less heartfelt when he openly admits that he believes any justice that voted for Marriage Equality should be removed from the Court. Keeping in mind that the logic used to stop states from violating the rights of equal protection under the law (14th Amendment) are the very principles that ended segregation and directly led to the moment where Ben Carson could even run for President, an Executive (the office for which he is running) cannot decide who should and should not serve in the SCOTUS based on how much they like their rulings, nor can the Legislative Branch. The SCOTUS makes terrible mistakes sometimes (see: Kelo v New London), but those mistakes cannot be solved by letting biased and partisan players throw them out of office. Better understanding of the Constitution on the part of the population would be the real antidote to this issues.

Carson also seems to be a doomsday believer. As bad as things are, we are not on the brink of apocalypse, but to hear Carson speak, we are days away from martial law. Even though he talks about how the government is taking over more and more rights (he's right there) he also thinks we are on the bring of anarchy. The two ideas are antithetical, but he doesn't stop there. He believes that once we reach this anarchy (before 2016 btw), Barack Obama will institute Martial Law and place himself as leader for the foreseeable future. Now, I have no doubts that Obama would love such a proposal, but anyone who believes this is even a remotely likely scenario needs to take off his tin-foil hat and have a time out.

Most recently he's defended his controversial statement that people should rush active shooters 'heroically' stopping them. Forgetting that this is insulting to the people who lost their lives while following their natural 'flight' instinct, this is also stupid. First of all, Carson has never been in the situation where he had to make this choice, so it's silly for him to say what he would do let alone what everyone else would do. Secondly, while I commend those who do have the fight instinct and have been heroes, saving people's lives, it is negligent to tell untrained people what they ought to do in an active shooter situation. This is especially true when terrified people act differently under pressure. There is no need to pretend that how you act when a gun is aimed at your head is the way one indicates if you are a hero or not.

These are not the only stupid things Ben Carson has said. There are but a few examples of how a brilliant person can be ignorant on a host of issues. Ben Carson would be a populist President, guided by his emotions, personal biases, and religious belief. That is a terrible way to run a free, secular, Republic.

I stand with...defunding ALL companies, Federally

It's a radical notion, I know, but in reality one must ask - is funding special interest groups a role of the Federal Government? The answer is very obviously 'no'. We seem to understand this when it's 'evil' corporations. Of course we don't condone it when the Government pumps millions (and sometimes billions) into what we see as 'for profit' corporations. Or, at least, most of us do not. But when it's a special interest group or a 'non-profit', people seem to take sides based on whether they personally agree with whatever cause the company is peddling. That's an incredibly stupid way to decide how to spend a communal fund of money.

So, why not just stop it all together. We know that healthcare subsidies are a function of STATE governments...not Federal. Why then not let states decide which healthcare companies to run subsidies out of? Why did the Federal Government ever even become part of the narrative where Planned Parenthood funding is concerned? It's certainly not an expressed or even implied role of the Federal Government. In fact, it's far outside any reasonable interpretation of Constitutional functions.

Well, for one, the Planned Parenthood debate provides a platform on which both sides can soapbox come Federal Election time. You see, unfortunately, too many people only care about elections every four years. They might not even know that their own home state funds state run subsidies out of Planned Parenthood and Federal Funding is secondary to that. And while it is one-thousand times easier to make your concerns known to State and Local officials than it is to the nebulous web of insider nonsense that happens in Washington, most rarely utilize that power and, instead, stake all their hopes and dreams on one single man (or woman) who runs for President of the United States - an individual so far removed he or she cannot possibly represent the majority of American people or interests.

In the interest of fairness to the taxpayer, legitimate oversight, and keeping the Federal Government from picking favorites, doesn't it just make good sense to stop wasting Federal Tax Dollars on subsidies of any kind? And can we stop pretending that if you oppose Federal Subsidies you hate women, or farmers, or bankers, or whatever else such advocates imply? If the Federal Tax Rate were as low as it should be, to only handle the issues the Federal Government is required to, then imagine how much more money would be available to State revenues that have a more reasonable opportunity to make efficient and cost effective decisions in regard to safety nets and healthcare for the poor.

The great thing about this Planned Parenthood debate is that it allows us to talk about ALL the lobby groups that buy politicians off to see to their interests (as PP does). But, unfortunately, we aren't having that conversation. The real issue here isn't about abortion at all. It's about the function and role of the federal government. For both sides of the aisle, it's further proof that neither mind lobbying or special interest spending so long as it is their special interest getting paid.

Free Candy Sounds Good!

The burden of being a political junkie and a Millennial is that you will, undoubtedly, have at least one friend who believes Bernie Sanders is everything right for America. But you will find that these same people cannot stand Donald Trump (who can blame them?). This is interesting because, in many ways, Trump and Sanders are trying the exact same tactic to get voters, they just present it in a different package. Admittedly, the Sanders package is a hell of a lot more enticing.

As with nearly every election cycle since the beginning of Democracy, Candidates are essentially running on the idea of who can give out the most free candy. Republicans, who often pride themselves on being small government and anti-entitlement are just as guilty of this as the Democrats who have no shame about buying votes with free shit. But, this election cycle the big 'stories' seem to be Trump and Sanders appeal. Most Trump Supporters, I find, to think he's going to stop 'business as usual' and overhaul the 'crony capitalist' system because he knows how it works. That is, of course, ridiculous, but it parrots exactly the same mentality that leads people to Bernie Sanders. Granted, Sanders motives are very likely more pure than Trump's, neither of them has a cogent or reasonable plan to actually stop the Government from getting into bed with Corporations. In fact, both of them would probably make the problem exceedingly worse with more Big Government regulation.

In a proposed election cycle where we were faced with the very real possibility of another 'Bush v Clinton', same old tired politics, I expected a rebellious vote. I had hoped, though, that people would focus their attention on candidates that want to maximize freedom and minimize Government's intrusive hand into our lives. They have chosen the opposite. More of the same, just on steroids. It really does make one wonder what the actual fuck is wrong with the American voter. When polled, most Americans hate the direction of the country. They hate the tax rates, the size and scope of the government, the wars, the over extension of funds to other countries, the fact that more and more people are underemployed, and that there seems to be no way to get out from under the broad shadow of government influence. And their reaction is to support candidates that want MORE government intervention, regulation, taxation, influence and international hostility.

The same people who cannot stand the inefficiency of the DMV, Post Office, VA, Medicaid, etc are running to candidates who support SOCIALIZED Healthcare.

The same people who hate Crony Capitalism are supporting candidates who want to extend regulations what will be overseen by the very people who created Crony Capitalism.

The same people who hate paying taxes are voting for candidates who's spending plans include increasing taxes, but those tax increases cannot possibly be limited to the rich because: math.

The same people who don't want war are supporting candidates who would likely escalate tensions over the next four years.

The same people who are sick of government overreach, still want candidates who tell them they will fix all of their personal problems as if it is the role of the government to help you though your life, and by extension, the role of the tax payer.

And then you have even more audacious plans. Bernie Sanders supports all manner of FEDERALLY SUPPORTED freebies and entitlement expansions (apparently he doesn't understand how money or the constitution works) and people are lapping it up.

Why? The key is in the word Free. Regardless of any meager studies of economics, the voters of the United States of America still don't  to understand that there is no such thing as a 'free lunch'. They are myopic. They look at socialized medicine by their own personal experience rather than the bigger picture. They see: I can go to the hospital and not have to pay. But you do pay. You pay in taxes. You pay in less innovation, older technology, longer wait time, sitting on lists, and being at the mercy of a bureaucrat rather than simply your doctor. And with something as important as your health, is that really where you want to pay? The reason single payer healthcare keeps popping up is because the best way to fix the system is complicated, complex, and takes many moving parts. It allows us to keep our SUPERIOR private system AND allow for access to those who struggle to get insurance. And that takes time. It takes thought. It takes reading through pages of boring legalese. Doesn't it feel so much better to just say, "I want free healthcare!"

Because Free Candy sounds good. It's why basically every Candidate from Trump to Bush to Cruz to Clinton to Sanders are all campaigning on Free Candy. Either it's: 'We will build a border to keep those dirty Mexicans out!' thereby 'protecting' people's 'entitled' jobs, or 'We will pay down the debt by taxes on production never by taxing the middle class', or 'we can have paid maternity leave without any disruption to women's employment or increase in tax (except the evil rich)', or 'Americans are entitled to be taken care of from birth to death'...it's all free candy to the voter. And if the voter really believes the 'free' candy is sustainable by taxing only the top 1%, what should they care how horribly it infringes on property rights, liberty, or basic common sense?

But what happens when that 1%, taxed to its limit stops producing? What happens when they stop hiring? The entitlements become even more overreaching and who do you think pays? Do you think it's the wealthy who can afford to flee for more hospitable economic situations? Or do you think maybe, just maybe, it could be YOU paying for those entitlements as YOU struggle to make ends meet yourself? Free candy isn't free. And it is temporary. It's a populist calling card for campaigns, no different than the Student Council candidate telling the school he will provide cheese pizza every day in the Cafeteria when all he really wants is something to pad his College Application.

Someone let me be a debate moderator

I don't think i'm alone in thinking the CNN moderators were not very good. They were easily walked over, didn't push hard enough, and led the longest, most useless debate I recall ever watching. Maybe i'm being harsh but after more than three hours and barely a mention of the Economy, I really don't think CNN can handle debates.

Okay, some good things happened. In a set up designed to get the candidates to battle each other (purely for ratings not substance), we did see Trump put in his place a few times, especially by Carly Fiorina. Rand Paul had a stellar soundbite on the War on Drugs, and we all got confirmation that Jeb Bush toked back in the day. But here is the main problem: because the media is feeding on emotional voting rather than guiding voters to more intelligent discourse, every conversation was designed to pit candidates against each other. You need not do this. Most of the candidates biggest problems is in their own stand-alone positions. So, I gave myself an assignment. What is the one question I would ask each candidate if I were moderator?

There are rules. I would first instruct the candidates that their answers are to reflect their own positions NOT be used to attack another candidate...even Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. The must answer the question, not talk around it. They are allowed up to 5 minutes to answer the question but may not used that time to grandstand or recite talking points. If any of these rules are broken they would be buzzed until they answer the question properly. So, here are my questions for each individual candidate starting from the bottom (at debate time).

Rand Paul: 

You claim to care about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Generally speaking, you have exhibited this position in you career as Senator with the exception of one issue: Gay Marriage. I understand that your proposed solution for the issue of marriage equality is simply to have the government get out of marriage altogether. That is consistent with the small government principle, however currently the government does facilitate legal marriage and there seems to be no reasonable expectation that it is close to changing. So, if the government has a monopoly on legal marriage, wouldn't denying gay couples the right to marry in that system be a violation of the 14th Amendment?

Chris Christie:

You have said you will utilize the might of the Federal Government to go after pot smokers and sellers even within states where marijuana is legal. How is that in any way small government? If you believe in State's Rights, and use of marijuana does not violate anyone else's rights, how can you justify using the strong arm of the Federal Government to meddle in state issues? Furthermore, why do you believe that the Federal Government should have the authority to criminally prosecute people for crimes that have no national security implications? At what point do you draw the line on what State Rights the Federal Government is allowed to disregard?

Mike Huckabee:

You have ardently supported Kim Davis in her crusade to deny gay couples in her county marriage licenses even though the SCOTUS has ruled that refusing to allow gay people to marry is a violation of their 14th Amendment Right to 'equal protection under the law'. You have further asserted such a ruling is a direct attack on religious freedom. Would you be as ardently supportive of violating the rights of others, as a government employee, in the name of religion, if the religion of the person doing the discriminating was not Christianity? For instance, would you support the right of a Muslim run DMV to deny women drivers' license on the basis of religious belief? What about a Hindu head of the Department of Agriculture banning all forms of cattle slaughter?

John Kasich:

Having happily taken Federal funds for both Common Core and Obamacare, how can anyone be certain you are committed to deep cuts in Federal Spending? What, exactly, would you cut? Would you be willing to commit to reforming the tax code?  If so, how?

Marco Rubio:

I'd like clarification on your immigration policy. For some audiences, you've supported a path to citizenship and for others you have said you do not support such a path. Which is it? If you do support a path to citizenship, what would be the obstacles to that citizenship? If not, would you create a special status for undocumented residents? Do you still support building a wall across the border? If so, how would you pay for it?

Carly Fiorina:

You have used very strong language in regard to possible American enemies, especially with regard to Russia and Iran. It is very easy to say you will make them respect America as a power, but how do you propose, exactly, to make either country do what you wish without pushing us toward an offensive stance and the brink of war? Other than rebuilding military arsenals, how, exactly, would you propose we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? How much more money do you plan to put into American Defense, and at what point would you say that the world's problems cannot be solved by us?

Ted Cruz:

You are willing to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding. When you know this reflects poorly upon the GOP politically, why? Would you reallocate that $500million to other programs for poor women to receive healthcare? If so, which ones? If not, how would you suggest these women get necessary preventative care? Is 'principle' always more important than compromise? Or are you going to be as stubborn about every issue as President as well? Can you work with people with whom you disagree? Would your Presidency be as polarizing and partisan as Obama's has been?

Scott Walker:

You have said you'd build a wall on the Northern Border, too. That is, of course, unrealistic. Is this indicative over a predisposition to overspend and take on projects the Federal Government cannot afford? Fiscal responsibility is more than busting public unions, it means deep cuts to a bloated government. What programs, specifically, would you cut, and how would you pay for any new projects?


Jeb Bush:

School Systems have, traditionally, been run locally. This has allowed the schools to keep a close eye on progress since learning is such an individual endeavor. You support Common Core. Why? Doesn't Common Core take the decision making out of the hands of those who see results and put it into a formula which cannot possibly work for every individual child? Would you, as President, implement any other incentive-based federal programs that get states to comply with national standards in any other department?

Ben Carson:

I'm concerned about a comment you made about homosexuality some months back. You used the rate of homosexual activity in the prison system as a sort of evidence for homosexuality being a choice. Now, of course, I recognize this is your personal belief and I'm not likely to change it, but it does call into question your reasoning skills. Do you really believe prison turns people gay? If so, how do you explain homosexual people raised by the same parents as straight siblings? What causes someone to 'choose' a sexuality that makes life harder? As a doctor, how can you disagree with the overwhelming medical and psychological consensus on this issue?

Donald Trump:

I feel confident, you will not follow the rules, but here goes anyway. Why are you so mean spirited? Is it for political gain or because you are actually just an asshole. :)*

*Sorry. I cannot even take this guy seriously. I'm not going to waste my time on a question for a guy who only loves himself.

The American Populist Nightmare

I think it is safe to say that the 2016 Presidential Election has been nothing if not interesting. With Donald Trump and his insane rants bringing in double digit numbers and self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders surging against the supposed shoe-in, Hillary Clinton, we can be sure of one thing: The people are fed up with both major political parties. And in that upset they are, unfortunately, turning to populism.

Populism: 1. the political philosophy of the People's Party. 2. any of various, often anti-establishment and/or anti-intellectual, political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than traditional party or partisan ideologies. 3. grassroots democracy; working class activism; egalitarianism. 4. representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.

All of that might sound okay, right? I mean, what's wrong with democracy or the will of the people? Well, for one, democracy has condoned some of the greatest atrocities in human existence. Let us not pretend that because the people vote for it, it is inherently good. The people loved the Nazis. The people supported Slavery. The people backed segregation, anti-sufferage, xenophobia, protectionism, the Bolsheviks...I really could go on and on. And we are always talking about the 'will of the people' in America, as if this is some unanimously pure idea. It's not. It suffers from the same problem as democracy for the same reason. People can be wrong. People can seek to violate the rights of others by use of the government. And, if we can trample liberty in the name of 'the will of the people' we have no right to even pretend we have freedom and might as well light the Constitution on fire. The people are consistently showing their contempt for Foundational Principles every single election cycle.

Populism has been on the rise for a while. I mean that it's been infusing itself into American politics almost since the beginning of our Republic. In recent years, though, the heightened partisan bipolarity in political discourse has shot populism to the top of political issues. Trump's assertion that Mexicans are criminals and taking away good jobs? Populism. Jeb Bush's 'we have to fix education whether or not our fixes actually work'? Populism. Half the GOP candidate's support for Personhood Bills? Populism. Hillary Clinton's assertion that opposing Planned Parenthood is akin to ISIS? Populism (and disgusting). Bernie Sander's class warfare based on the idea that the rich just need to be punished and everything is their fault? Populism.

And here is the problem...none of those positions are factually accurate, helpful, or reasonable. And yet, they drive political discourse. Are average Americans talking about the debt? Not really. Are they talking about encouraging economic growth? Nope. Are they talking about criminal justice reform? Nah. Are they talking about the steam rolling of personal liberty both in the name of national security and protecting 'feelings'? A little, but not much. No, what they are talking about is Trump, Mexicans, abortion, and the 1%. This is what we've devolved to. Who can twist the emotions of the electorate to the point that they will vote for you. Who can get the most tweets and followers.

There is a movie that I'm sure most of you are familiar with called Idiocracy about a man who is in hibernation for like 500 years and wakes up to find that the whole country is stupid and the political system is such that justice is based on a 'battle to the death' scenario. People get their opinions from the Corporations that own everything. The President and his cabinet are idiotic but beloved. It has become a cliche to invoke this movie in comparison to the trajectory of discourse today...but this is a cliche based on reality. My god! We are now a political system where debate questions come from Twitter and Facebook! The media is so entrenched with the political elite they bury stories and promote emotional voting. They stoke the fires of populism on purpose to gain ratings. And Government-sponsored Crony Capitalism (which NO candidate has realistic plans to fix but for Gary Johnson who hasn't even decided to run yet) IS our reality and it continues to get worse. The populist call to 'punish corporations' has the interesting effect of helping them because they pay the politicians to write the legislation.

I completely understand the disgust with the political structure as is. The Republicans and Democrats are woefully out of touch. They have spent so long buying votes, you cannot tell where one begins and the other ends. Republicans are clinging to socially backward ideas. Democrats are clinging to class warfare and identity politics. Neither party seems trustworthy. But there is a better option than populism. Have a sound ideology based on your values. Do the research and be informed about all issues, not just the ones that make you feel feels. Do not compromise those values and do not submit to the government when it does.

Populism is a sickness. It is the sickness that will march us happily right into the Idiocracy. So long as the electorate refuses to take a serious look at the problems in our country and face hard truths and make unpopular decisions, we will continue to overspend, overtax, violate personal rights and property, and just kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with.