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.