Bad Hollywood

       

     It's only been a few weeks since the sexual assault allegations against media mogul Harvey Weinstein exploded into public view. Since then there have been new allegations made against other powerful men in various industries seemingly almost every day.


     So it has been asked:  Why do the axes seem to fall swiftest on the heads of the liberals who are only accused, and not even convicted.  On the other hand conservatives seem more resilient and able to withstand allegations...no matter how severe with little to no backlash/repercussion/loss of status. Why is this?

     
      I think I have a possible answer: those accused are guilty.  Some might be feeling some remorse and are silly coming clean after being caught, but there is much more to the story then just that bit.  Remember that in most cases the actions happened years or decades ago, that is seems like a lot of people know, and that there is a ton of evidence.  And not just evidence to try someone in the court of the public, but also a court of law.  And in most cases the higher ups in a company knew all about the actions, and have for years, and have through actions or inactions covered it up.   So when a guy is finally outed as a bad guy, the company that knew all about it all along, is quick to get rid of the guy.  So it's not punishing the innocent that have not been proven guilty in a court of law; it is companies distancing themselves from someone they know is guilty.    Not only does the company not want bad press, but on a more darker note, they might have more dark secrets they don't want a light shinned on because of this one guys actions.

      People in power, or the public spotlight always have and always will face attacks from others that want to tear them down, hurt them or simply want power or money.  A lot of such accusations are false: people just make them up.  And if something is false the target, as well as their company, will fight to prove that the accusation is false.  And sometimes, yes, the accusations are true and the person and their company will fight to the last breath to keep the truth from coming out.

     But there is another twist.  The person is guilty, beyond guilty with tons of witnesses and other evidence, and the company they work for knows all about it.  It is covered up, of course, as such things are done.  Some of it is just part of the social networks of power, but there is another obvious reason to do it: money.  If someone is working for a company and is making that company tons and tons of money, they can both look the other way and cover it up.

     And a lot of people cover such things up for many other reasons.  It's worth remembering here that the model Cara Delevigne, who described alleged harassment and assault by Harvey Weinstein in an Instagram post, said she had kept silent about her experience with him because "she didn't want to hurt his family."

      Charlie Rose and Louis C.K. admitting to doing what they were accused of doing.  And their companies wasted no time in getting rid of them.

  Semantics can't govern our lives, only the law. Otherwise, every cause can just devolve into a witch hunt and gender relations neither benefit nor improve. The only ones who benefit are the  media who play us like emotional puppets.

Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms

      

    
                                       Armed Men are Citizens , unarmed Men are subjects. 

           

     What many citizens and legislators do not understand is that the federal government has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning or possessing any firearm. The entire argument for gun control is built upon a false premise. The Second Amendment is not about self-defense from criminals.

     As unpleasant as it may be for this modern society to say out loud, historically and constitutionally speaking, the right of the people to keep and bear arms has always been a right to protect yourself from those in power who want to enslave you. If America wants to engage in a real factual debate on the right to keep and bear arms, then it must be approached from the proper perspective.
The Constitution and its history is unequivocally clear on this. Here is a little Second Amendment history lesson so we can defend our Rights from becoming government bestowed privileges.

  Why are our politicians and media talking heads bent on disseminating miseducation and lies? Perhaps they repeat the lies because they intend on disarming the people, because they know, as our founders did, that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against absolute tyranny.
 
     A proper debate on one’s right to keep and bear arms is not one that is framed in the terms of whether you can feel safe from wicked and depraved people, full of hate and malice, who want to hurt you. You will never feel safe from those people and those people will not cease to exist just because you are not allowed to legally own a gun. Why? Because those people do not care about laws and they will always find a way to hurt and destroy, with or without gun laws.

      "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334


     The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  For most of the republic’s lifespan, from 1791 to 2008, those commas and clauses were debated by attorneys, senators, judges, governors and lobbyists. For the most part, the supreme court stayed out it.

      In 2008, the supreme court decided the District of Columbia v Heller, 5-4 , overturning a handgun ban in the city. The conservative justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion in narrow but unprecedented terms: for the first time in the country’s history, the supreme court explicitly affirmed an individual’s right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense.  The court would rule on the issue again two years later as part of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which challenged the city's ban on private handgun ownership. In a similar 5-to-4 ruling, the court affirmed its decision in the Heller case, saying the Second Amendment "applies equally to the federal government and the states."  In 2016, the Supreme Court again ruled on a right-to-bear-arms case, Caetano v. Massachusetts. The case involved a woman who was in possession of a stun gun for self-defense against an abusive ex-boyfriend. Because stun guns were illegal under Massachusetts law, the woman was arrested and convicted for possessing the weapon. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that stun guns and, indeed "all instruments that constitute bearable arms," are protected under the Second Amendment.

      Every person on the planet has the right to defend themselves from those who would oppress them, exploit them, harm them, or kill them.
     Far fewer women would be raped, far fewer children would be killed, far fewer towns would be destroyed, and far fewer dictators would survive if people everywhere on the planet had this God-given right to bear arms recognized. Mass killings and rapes like those that took place in Darfur might have been prevented if the people had the right and the means to defend themselves. When citizens have the power to defend themselves against a violent and tyrannical regime, governments think twice about trampling the lives and liberty of the people.
     The United Nations has an extensive Declaration of Human Rights, including the right to join a labor union and the right to social services and security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood or old age.  Nowhere does it provide for the right to keep and bear arms that in many places around the world is so critical to self-defense.


     It is critical not just for those living under oppressive regimes, but for the many people who live in conditions in which the government cannot secure their safety. From dangerous neighborhoods even here in the United States to lawless regions of the world run by gangs and warlords, firearms are often the only means of personal security.  When criminals have weapons, taking away the right to bear arms is nothing less than eliminating the right to self-defense. Only the elites, who’ve never had to live in a dangerous place or fear for their own lives, could be so confident that denying ordinary citizens the right to bear arms would make everyone safer.

     If society is honest and historically accurate, the only question that has any relevance to the gun control debate is:
     “Do you trust those in government, now and forever in the future, to not take your life, liberty, or property through the force of government?”
     If the answer to that question is “no,” the gun control debate is over.

Trump vs. the Judiciary

The current battle between President Donald Trump and the courts is far from unprecedented; in fact, it’s just what this country needs.
Over the past week, Trump has taken a great deal of flak from all sides for reprimanding (in his own, coarse way) federal judges who have blocked his immigration order, despite the fact that presidents have taken similar actions in the past, with no constitutional injunctions whatsoever.
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/why-we-should-welcome-trumps-continued-scuffle-with-the-judiciary#sthash.HfyxnbJu.dpuf

The current battle between President Donald Trump and the courts is far from unprecedented; in fact, it’s just what this country needs.
Over the past week, Trump has taken a great deal of flak from all sides for reprimanding (in his own, coarse way) federal judges who have blocked his immigration order, despite the fact that presidents have taken similar actions in the past, with no constitutional injunctions whatsoever.
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/why-we-should-welcome-trumps-continued-scuffle-with-the-judiciary#sthash.HfyxnbJu.dpuf

The current battle between President Donald Trump and the courts is far from unprecedented; in fact, it’s just what this country needs.  Over the past week, Trump has taken a great deal of flak from all sides for reprimanding (in his own, coarse way) federal judges who have blocked his immigration order, despite the fact that presidents have taken similar actions in the past, with no constitutional injunctions whatsoever.  Here’s a secret: Trump’s far from the first president to go toe-to-toe with the federal courts. In fact, President Obama’s rebuke of the Supreme Court in the 2010 State of the Union address regarding the Citizens United case was significantly more bold and telling.



This is incontrovertible proof that these judges, and far too many other judges, simply do not believe that the American people have the right to govern themselves. Of course, these power-hungry judges have long been aided and abetted by Democratic politicians who grew weary after years of losing policy fights in the political arena.  So they took their fights to the judicial branch and invented the notion that the Constitution is a “living document,” meaning it doesn’t actually mean what it says. Rather, it means whatever you can get some flunky judge from Haight-Ashbury to say what it means. This is how the courts discovered a constitutional right to abortion in a constitution that says never mentions a single medical procedure.  Liberalism has been dead for 30 years, since the far left loonies destroyed the values of free speech and unrestricted inquiry when they took over the universities and then destroyed the Democratic Party with their warped devotion to abortion and illegal immigration, just to name two.

Here’s a secret: Trump’s far from the first president to go toe-to-toe with the federal courts. In fact, President Obama’s rebuke of the Supreme Court in the 2010 State of the Union address regarding the Citizens United case was significantly more bold and telling. - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/why-we-should-welcome-trumps-continued-scuffle-with-the-judiciary#sthash.HfyxnbJu.dpuf

For the fascist left, open borders and unchecked immigration are the most essential part of their Cultural Revolution:
Open Borders provides the following ingredients for the Left
1. Large numbers of non-white ethnicities that can be indoctrinated by the Left into voting blocks by promoting Naziesque pseudo-science like White Privilege to teach white-hate and by designating these new immigrants victim class status deserving preferential treatment.
2. An abundant supply of cheap heroin that together, with hopeless economic conditions and the Left’s continued cultural vilification of whites as deplorable purpetuates the epidemic suicide and overdose rates of working class white America
3. Low wages, while this hurts all working class American citizens white, black and brown alike it is used by the Left to increase racial and ethnic resentment as all groups struggle for survival. As the Globalists luxuriate in their Soho Lofts and Beverly Hills Mansions they are far removed from the realities of anger, pain and fear seething around them. They are also removed from the danger.
These policies are also necessary for the continued ascendancy of the globalists who take advantage of cheap labor and trade agreements to strip mine middle America and bejewel their kingdoms on the coast. The SJW gestapo threaten any dissident with Racist, sexist, xenophobe. And universities indoctrinate White-hate, hate of Western Culture to a new generation of young people. Stronger together meant everyone together against the common white enemy, the deplorables.



As for Trump’s disparagement of the judges, only someone ignorant of history can view that as frightening.
Thomas Jefferson not only refused to enforce the Alien & Sedition Acts of President John Adams, his party impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase who had presided over one of the trials.
Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s prohibition against moving the Cherokees out of Georgia to west of the Mississippi, where, according to the Harvard resume of Sen. Warren, one of them bundled fruitfully with one of her ancestors, making her part Cherokee. When Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus violated the Constitution, Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest the chief justice.  FDR proposed adding six justices to emasculate a Supreme Court of the “nine old men” he reviled for having declared some New Deal schemes unconstitutional.  President Eisenhower called his Supreme Court choices Earl Warren and William Brennan two of the “worst mistakes” he made as president. History bears Ike out. And here we come to the heart of the matter.

   Here is what Thomas Jefferson wrote on this topic:

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
-- Thomas Jefferson letter to William C. Jarvis, 1820.
"...the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
-- Thomas Jefferson





 Time to break the unaccountable supremacy of the judiciary. The Founders might have meant to create three, co-equal, balanced branches of government; but the courts have appointed so much power to themselves, and face so few checks on their power, that it has effectively become a tyranny where one branch feels free to overrule the other two.  There is, I believe, a solution. The left enamored with FDR and his legacy. That is good. FDR in a 1938 Supreme Court case faced intransigence that threatened his agenda. His approach was that he would appoint additional justices to help the existing nine make their decisions. The case was referred to as the "Switch in Time that Saved The Nine". The court reconsidered in the light of having an expanded group of justices to help them. I suggest that our president carry through on the FDR plan. We need five or six additional Supreme Court justices to help get things done.


 

Abolishing the Department of Education?

       The Department of Education (DOE) is one of the most destructive federal agencies because it attempts to control the flow of ideas and information by controlling public schools, including higher education. If a school does not comply, then it gets no federal money. Educators who rebel outright, such as home-schooling parents, are reined in by an ever-tightening net of regulations.  The Department of Education has, since its inception in 1979, served as the source of national education policies governing our nation’s schools.  I think abolishing  this office would make for a better nation, given that for the most part it has done teachers and students far more harm than good.






    In an 1816 letter to his friend Joseph Cabell, Thomas Jefferson declared that schools were best run by parents in local communities who were close to the situation:

    “[I]f it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by the governor and council, the commissioners of the literary fund, or any other general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience.”



     Over time, the Department of Education has become increasingly bureaucratic and invasive, and has formulated its policies on questionable information that appears to emanate from hunches, anecdotes, whims, and fads, buttressed by corroborating evidence from ideologically friendly think tanks and media blowhards. Along the way, in what seems to be an increasing national trend of anti-intellectualism and cognophobic reactions to the specter of educated and knowledgeable people having opinions, it has eschewed the opportunity to consult with people who teach in or study schools.  The DOE has instead relied on think tanks, film-makers whose “documentary” productions tell whatever story is convenient to the producer’s vision, commissioned studies designed to find what its authors and sponsors are looking for, billionaires whose money entitles them to policy roles, and other dubious sources. Less known to the public, and in my view the most malignant of these influences, textbook companies have used political connections and contributions to position themselves to dictate curricula and assessment that they conveniently provide, for a substantial fee, at every stage of a child’s educational journey.

    In the 1979-1980 school year, according to the department itself, public primary and secondary schools spent an average of $6,876 per pupil (in constant 2013-2014 dollars) on their "current expenses." By the 2011-2012, they were spending an average of $11,732 per pupil (in constant 2013-2014 dollars).   Real per pupil spending increased by $4,856, or almost 71 percent.  Did public-school students get a better education as a result? No.

     In 1980, according to the National Center for Education Statistics' "Trends in Academic Progress 2012" report, 17-year-old public school students scored an average of 284 out of a possible 500 on the National Assessment of Educational Progress reading test. That rose to a peak of 289 in 1988 and 1990, then dropped back to 285 by 2012.




   I think that the students who entered school in 2000 and are graduating in 2012 will be the worst-educated cohort in the history of the United States, through no fault of their own, because they will have experienced all of their schooling under these ruinous programs that have reduced all learning to what can be measured on multiple choice tests. Imagine these young people now entering situations where they don’t get three or four reductive choices for each problem they encounter.  Their education has studiously avoided complexity, thoughtfulness, reflection, engagement, stimulation, personal commitment, and everything else that makes an education worth having. The source of the poverty of their education will not be their teachers, who must teach this regime or face punishment; and it will not be themselves, because I am pretty confident that kids actually want to learn things and grow into competent and appreciated people, even if what happens in school often does not provide that opportunity, and especially does not do so when everything is dictated by test preparation and test taking. Rather, the problem emerges from the policies created by those who mistaken test scores for learning and have turned tests into a vengeful machine for punishing teachers whose instruction lacks a commitment to multiple-choice tests as the epitome of a learning experience.

     Instead of having a highly centralized administration powered by money contributed by textbook publishers and other entrepreneurs cashing in on the lucrative enterprise of educational materials production, I would have a highly distributed approach in which most decision-making is local and includes — and indeed, relies on — the perspective of teachers.  81 percent — 81 percent — of the department's spending goes back to the states. So, let me just get this right, only the federal government would do this: I take my local money and send it to Washington and then they send it back.






     The Department of Education deserves to be on the chopping block. Our children’s education is too important to be left up to a federal centralized bureaucracy. Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education as a political payoff to the teachers’ unions for their 1976 endorsement. We should judge all governmental agencies by their results rather than their intentions. Like virtually every federal department, the Department of Education has only made things worse. Student educational outcomes have worsened since the creation of the Department of Education. The Department of Education is blatantly unconstitutional, like so much that the federal government does. The truth is that the federal government only has about thirty enumerated powers delegated to it in the Constitution. Education is not specifically listed in the document, which means that the authority over education should be left up to the states and the people. We cannot afford to waste anymore taxpayer dollars on failed national schemes.

     Federal agencies always cost more than initially predicted. The Department of Education’s 2011 budget is nearly six times greater than its original budget. It has increased from $13.1 billion (in 2007 dollars) in 1980 to $77.8 billion in 2011. The federal government throwing more money at education has done virtually nothing to improve educational outcomes. Student test scores in math, reading and science have remained flat or declined over the past four decades. The chart below from the Cato Institute shows how increased federal spending has not had a positive effect on educational achievement:

     Washington has a role to play in education. The federal government alone is positioned to prevent “local control” from becoming a pretext for discrimination. It also must maintain funding to schools and colleges. But a separate executive branch department isn’t necessary to those functions. The essential tasks can be shifted to Health and Human Services and the Justice Department.
The federal government meddling in education has been a failure to say the least. A group of federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. cannot possibly design a curriculum that meets the unique needs of millions of school children across the nation. We need to restore control over education to the local level where teachers and parents are put back in charge. Make no mistake; eliminating the Department of Education is a pro-education position.

Liberals and science

     Any half-baked theory having the word “science” attached to it can gather an enthusiastic, if somewhat-gullible left-wing following.  The left twists any and every discreet issue and politicizing them into usual culture war agenda items.  If science is properly understood, it would not be political at all, neither right nor left. The law of gravity or the point of combustion care not a whit about right, left, conservative, liberal , Republican or Democrat. 

     For example, biology, a genuine science, recognizes two sexes – two human genders – male and female. If there is such a thing as “settled science,” there it is. The biological sexes are determined by scientific reality -- DNA. Biological females have XX chromosomes; biological males have XY chromosomes. More easily-recognized gender differences include that biological women have concave genitalia and produce eggs; biological men are convex and produce sperm to fertilize female ova. Preservation of our species depends upon simple biology and physiology.  According to the “scientific” left, though, biology is outdated. Gender is now a social construct, an idea. Anyone can be a man, a woman or a trans-either. Pick one of those, one of  54 other ''gender options''' recognized by Facebook or imagine your own. But they don’t change biology.

     Amusingly, many liberals who tell us that denying biological science is a moral imperative, simultaneously insist that questioning global warming as “settled science” should be a criminal offense , even though, a few decades ago, many of them worried about a new Ice Age.

In and around Earth Day 1970 some so called "scientists" said the things below. Notice they all lean politically left. But we should really really listen to them this time, cause they swearsy's...

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial



“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich



“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

“In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich

 



“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

“[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt



Is America a better place or a worse place since the Government began listening to these people and later inserting them into the bureaucracy?  Liberals insist that left-wing social and political orthodoxies are moral imperatives, but, ironically, their entrenched beliefs never seem important enough to invest any time or effort into understanding points of disagreement or persuading the other side. The left’s natural tendency is to insult everyone who doesn’t agree and, then, implicitly, congratulate themselves for their own imagined superiority.
But practical people aren’t self-absorbed or arrogant enough to assume they can alter biological science or “fix” climate. They’d rather dispense with the left’s moral preening and deal with facts, including the inconvenient facts progressives ignore.

The Presidential Protest

    The American women that marched on Saturday are terrified of loosing their rights, but are a bit vague on what rights. American Women afraid of losing their rights have ‘Trump Traumatic Stress Disorder’.  Many women have been crying or nauseous or having trouble sleeping. The stress and anxiety can manifest itself physically.  And the loss of rights gets lost under the even more vague message of unity.   So what vague rights are they talking about?

    Abortion seems to be the main one and same sex marriage -"Though women believe abortion rights are theirs to keep, Trump has promised to appoint a Supreme Court justice who would overturn that constitutional guarantee. Women in same-sex relationships who wed their partner, or want to, have a different reason to fear Trump's appointment: he's pledged to nominate someone opposed to marriage equality. "They say.  Though the Constitutions does not include a ''right to abortion''.  Marriage and marriage equality are also not rights in the Constitution.  And it is true that President Trump will appoint people that share his views, but that is how politics work. 




    
     



 




 




     President Trump has never said anything close to critical of same-sex “marriage”.  Peter Thiel, one of his wealthiest and most prominent supporters, gave a convention speech in support of Trump at the request of Trump.  He identifies as gay.  The LGBTQ community fears losing the offensive posture of their anti-religious actions and rhetoric. They have found nothing but support in their efforts to silence Christians over the last 8 years and they are afriad of losing this bully pulpit.




 



Planed Parenthood is, oddly, viewed as a right, somehow-" Expect Planned Parenthood, for example, which provides millions of women with essential reproductive health care, to become a prime target of a Republican-led Congress backed by Trump. '' They say.  There's a BIG difference between not wanting taxpayers' dollars to fund Planned Parenthood and ending abortion. Why don't the celebrities and protesters do fund raising for Planned Parenthood instead. Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards' salary was $400,000 in 2014, increased to $590,000 in 2015 and drastically increased to $960,000 in 2016. What will it be in 2017... $1.5 million? Her salary is evidence that they don't need our taxpayers' dollars.









      If women and people of color really wanted equality, then everyone would legally need to sign up for selective service and take away affirmative action. Having the government provide insurance isn't a right, especially at the expense of the working class.  If these women attack the masculinity of men, they will just will send women back decades due to a complete lack of respect of women as useful to have a relationship. They think that they are attacking only old white males....Nope. They aren't. Men can live single and block out the need for love with anger. Usually, that makes young men dangerous.






       The liberals, progressives and democrats, are some of the most fascist, racist, intolerable, vile,and hateful individuals around. They claim to be for women's rights, yet they declared that anyone who was pro life was not invited to march with them. That tells others that it is not about rights, but an agenda, such as pro abortion. I heard someone the other day say that they were going to march because they felt women deserved equal pay. My question was this, if you still do not think women are receiving equal pay, then why have you not been marching for the last eight years. The answer is the liberals think that democrats can do no wrong, because they support the same political agendas.

  














Why not a single reference by the Muslim women who were in the rally about their men specially in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia?   Isis controlled Syria and Iraq and radical countries where who rape women, sell, stone them.  They force them to marry even 8 years old, make them slaves, and kill.if they don't obey.  Not allowing the education of women ,  not allowing to dress how ever they wish, not even allowed to drive or go out of their house.   Honor killings under the Shariya law. Muslims hate Gays.  Recently many were killed in many gay clubs across the USA and the western world but the Gay community loves Muslims and don't user a word against them .Many noticed that there were no such signs message of sins committed against women.  American women took the bait and fell for it without addressing the real affected women issues.  These women don't represent most Americans beliefs . They are not unifying to women or our country.

Is the USA a republic or democracy?

      

      
     It is both. They are not mutually exclusive. A republic is a form of government, and a democracy is “an element of who elects the empowered,” they are different domains. It is perfectly possible to have an undemocratic republic, and it also possible, strange as it sounds, to have a democratic monarchy. 
Republic describes the structure = as opposed to anarchy, monarchy, oligarchy.  Democracy describes how those leaders are chosen.  USA is a democracy in that the legislature & executive of the republic are determined by democratic popular vote. Indeed, in a last resort in USA democracy does trump constitution.
That is why there is a process for constitutional amendments.  As such, it is a democracy where majority rules - one could have an electoral process that rewrote the Constitution. They would be a very high bar (rightly) and slow, but it could be done.

     
 

     When the U.S. was formed, the key differentiation from a governmental perspective was that it was a democracy in comparison to England which was at the time a monarchy.  As always with word choice it depends on what you want to emphasize. If you want to emphasize that a government is controlled by its people, democracy is probably your best word choice as its that's what the word implies. If you want to emphasize that a government is limited in power by a constitution, then a constitutional republic may be a better choice.  In referring to the U.S., and in comparing it to other forms of government, highlighting that the people have such a large role in determining the government seems desirable, more so than other things you might highlight like the constitutional limits on power. That's the likely reason why democracy is more often used to describe the style of government the U.S. employs.




 

     
      It is a distinction without a difference in a country where half the people don't vote and the other half go through the motions believing that the whole thing is a screwed-up mess run by backgound sociopaths pulling strings with money anyway.  There are only two political systems in the world: ones where the people feel represented enough and prosperous enough to not stage violent coups every generation, and ones where they don't.  All the countries in the first category, in all their glorious variety as far as political systems go, suffer basically the same pathologies. Hence: distinction without a difference.


      

 
     A great mixture of ideological currents (English 17th century  constitutionalism, 18th century Whiggish thought, Lockean political theory, Scottish common sense realism, Renaissance republican theory, Enlightenment political liberalism, French rationalist separation of powers theory, and the examples of ancient Athenian and Roman republican governance)  came together and produced and animated in contention with each other both the American Revolution and subsequently the US Constitution.  Most people haven't read John Adams' Thoughts on Government or the Federalist essays of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, or Madison's notes on the constitutional convention.   Most people are unaware of the ideological nature of the colonial opposition to Britain in the 1760s, or the nature of how American colonial governance had evolved over the 18th century into a practical ad hoc dress rehearsal for separated powers representative republicanism, or aren't familiar with the idea that Athenian style democracy was feared as mob rule or anarchy during that era.  


 

     The USA is  this way because that's the way the Founders wanted it. They did not find the idea of a (pure) democracy attractive and wanted to put a contemplative body -- Congress -- between the masses and power. But they did not trust that body to be free of emotional influence, either, and established a system of checks and balances among three seats of power: the President, the Congress, and the Court.  Thomas Jefferson said it best in the Declaration of Independence:

...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it... [Emphasis added]

John Adams referred to the ancient concept of "tyranny of the majority" back in the eighteenth century, when our republic was still finding its legs. There was a fear (and it was an old fear) that a pure democracy could in fact lead to tyranny, as a democratic majority could easily overwhelm, even harm, a minority. Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government we had when the country was forged and he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”  

     In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.
To the extent that the United States of America has moved away from its republican roots and become more "democratic," it has strayed from the intentions of the Constitution's authors. Whether or not the trend toward more direct democracy would be smiled upon by the Framers depends on the answer to another question. Are the American people today sufficiently better informed and otherwise equipped to be wise and prudent democratic citizens than were American citizens in the late 1700s? By all accounts, the answer to this second question is an emphatic "no."


Our constitution, especially with the individual liberty and states' rights guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was meant to stop such a thing from happening.



It may not be perfect, but I'd rather have a republic, even with our easily corruptible legislators, than a full-on direct democracy any day.

Blacks kidnap and torture Trump supporter in Chicago

   As the news broke yesterday that four black young adults in Chicago had kidnapped and tortured for hours a mentally challenged young white man, broadcasting part the incident on Facebook, NBC and ABC News reused to cover the incident at all, while CBS sanitized its report of any reference to hatred of Trump and white people – which were the self-designated motives of the attackers.  The words “f--- Trump” and “f--- white people” were used extensively in the video on Facebook.  White people are now on notice that racist attacks on them are no big deal, as far as the broadcast networks are concerned.
 
     One of the reasons people voted for Obama in 2008 was that he help improve race relations. Well, eight years later, nothing improved. Instead, it looks like we are in a steady state of free fall, with whites and police ever increasingly the target of hate, including obvious hate crimes like the above. This incident symbolizes the Obama legacy in this area.  In truth, Obama has set race relations back over 50 years. It is now worse tgan in the 1960s.  It all started with his speech about Trayvon Martin, "He could have been my son" even before the investigation was finished. And the media jumped on with their "White-Hispanic" description of George Zimmerman. Then Obama continued his racist rhetoric and actions with Michael Brown, again before the investigation had been completed, while sending three high level government officials to his funeral and demanding the Dept. of (in)Justice investigate the Ferguson PD. The media was happy to ablige by furthering the "fake news" reports of "Hands up. Don't shoot" narrative.

     But let's not forget Hillary's bringing all the Thug Mothers out on the DNC stage the first night of their Convention where she couldn't even display the American flag. Or all the attacks on Trump supporters by Democrat and BLM Thugs at Trump's rallies. Or the blocking of highways and ambulances getting to hospitals. Or all the Police Officers who have been shot by these BLM Thugs.

But Obama claims race relations are improving? In what fantasy world is he living?

It will take years for the damage he's done to be repaired and trust to be reestablidhed.

     Meanwhile, the people of Chicago have what they have because they vote the way they vote. Nothing is going to change until that changes. The city has been under Democratic Party rule for decades. One might think Chicago voters would ask themselves how that’s working out for them, but one would apparently be mistaken. Chicago residents flee to the suburbs to escape, but continue voting Democratic, go figure.
Community “leaders” like Jesse Jackson Sr, Louis Farrakhan, Michael Pfleger, etc. could identify and primary weak aldermen and state representatives to put reformers in place if they were interested in effecting change instead of running their mouths. Highly unlikely that’s going to happen though, too much work and risk.

 

The sad truth is that parts of our society are just permanently broken and need to be isolated from the rest of society before they ruin them also. We need strong community outreach to identify and relocate the good people from the bad ones so they will have a chance to grow up and lead a productive and fulfilling life without being killed or abused.  I would rather spend money on creating "safe" communities that are highly restricted and guarded by high tech that can quickly identify anyone who shouldn't be there and remove them immediately.  This community would allow kids to grow up without all the danger and destruction of bad people who only want to drag everyone else down.

     The incredibly frustrating thing about this incident is how it plays into the theory of “white flight”. Any sane, reasonable white person that watches this video will want to move out of a neighborhood that has a large young, black population, and fast. I know I would. It has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with self-preservation and the urge to protect one’s family. You cannot fault someone for wanting to escape an area where they are likely to be tortured and left for dead because of their skin color. As incidents like this drive away white people fearing for their lives, you can bet your lunch that (mostly wealthy, white) academics and pundits will call out this “white flight” and cite it as evidence of on-going “white supremacy”.
I think this is obviously true, but not at all obvious to liberals, especially in the media, who cannot seem to understand this dynamic except in terms of racial prejudice. The city where I live is highly segregated in terms of neighborhoods. Crime is high in the black neighborhoods, but only there. There is also, obviously, a lot of poverty in those neighborhoods, and widespread, multigenerational family breakdown. How bad is the family breakdown? According to official statistics, East Baton Rouge Parish, which takes in nearly the entire city of Baton Rouge, is 54 percent black. About 70 percent of the births to unwed mothers in the city are to black mothers. Forty-six percent of unwed mothers are below the poverty level, with 32 percent at the poverty level or no more than twice the poverty level. The connection among unwed motherhood, poverty, and crime has been very well established in academic literature over the years.

 If you want to live in a safer neighborhood in Baton Rouge, you don’t want to live in a neighborhood that’s majority black. Almost all the violent crime in Baton Rouge is committed by young black men, against other black people. The top five most violent zip codes in the city, accounting for 40 percent of all the violent crime, are predominantly black.

Is historical racism implicated in all this? Oh, come on, do you really have to ask? Of course it is! But if you are a homeowner and a parent in Baton Rouge, whether you are black, white, Asian, or Hispanic, your first concern isn’t going to be historical analysis. It’s going to be, “Where can I live safely? Where are the safe schools for my kids?” The answer in this city is sadly clear.