There is no Second Amendment right to own a gun and there never was.

In the 224 years since the Constitution of United States was ratified, and the Supreme Court of United States was created, every Supreme Court in every one of those 224 years, when faced with an issue related to gun ownership and whether the second amendment applied to an individual right to own a gun, every Supreme Court in 224 years ruled it did not. Most people would find that a pretty amazing fact given that almost everyone who speaks publicly about gun control  from both the left and right, liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat and the news media, the NRA and people who have never owned a gun,   have all assumed there is something in the second amendment that grants people the right to own guns.  They are completely and utterly wrong.It does not. And it never did.

We know this not only from the plain language of the amendment itself which contains words and meanings that seem to be too much to understand for current politicians and lay people, but also from the fact that the original debate at the constitutional convention in 1789 that created the second amnedment was recorded and written down, at times verbatim and that transcript exists, is in the Library of Congress and can be read by anyone. It is absolutely clear from these debates, along with a basic understanding of the English language, that the clear intent of the Founders who wrote the amendment was to solely to give the states the right to keep and maintain their own regular militias and guaranteed this states the right to have whatever weapons of war they wished. It had nothing to do with guns. Because the word "arms" has nothing to do with guns. In fact the creation of the word itself predates the invention of the gun by more than a thousand years. The word "arms" meant in 1789 what it means today, what it meant during the cold war, and what it meant in 789, It means weapons of war. Implements of warfare. All implements of warfare. And in the case of the congress that created the second amendment, that was not just about guns, but included cannon, cannon balls, powder, bayonets, rockets, even warships and forts. That is the meaning of the word "arms" and giving the states the right to keep and use those arms was the sole purpose and intent of the second amendment, And every Supreme Court in 224 years decided that way.

The lone exception to this 224 year Supreme Court precedent were the current five conservative members of the Supreme Court who were the 5-4 majority in a Court decision that is clearly the most constitutionally, judicially, and intellectually corrupt, dishonest, decision since the Dred Scott decision in 1859.

That the second amendment has nothing to do with an individuals right to own a gun is not a matter of opinion . It is an absolute irrevocable inarguable and easily provable fact as American history and the doctrine of Original Intent , the cornerstone of conservative jurisprudence, easily proves.

This is not some liberal, anti-gun interpretation of the Second Amendment. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger, a conservative appointed to Chief Justice by Richard Nixon, said of  the idea that the second amendment conferrs an individual's right to own a gun, " the second amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest peices of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, ever perpetrated on the American public by an interest group in my lifetime."

The interest group he was referring to obviously, is the NRA.

Burger also said in 1992," the second amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all".

In 1990, Burger wrote another article on the Second Amendment, referring to " the carnage" taking place with guns in America that is even more eerie to read now in light of the recent shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the massacre in Aurora, the shooting at the Oregon mall and that Burger wrote his piece 22 years ago.

What makes the recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision so intellectually and constitutionally dishonest is  that it  flies in the face of and ignores the very constitutional philosophy embraced and touted by conservatives -- original intent --  a philosophy conservatives use to vilify liberal justices who stray from it with cries that they are "legislating from the bench" or finding or inventing rights in the constitution that don't exist. Which is exactly what the Roberts court did with their recent ruling on the second amendment.

 The doctrine of Original Intent is a precept which states that where the intent of the founders who wrote the constitution is clear, where the meaning of their language is clear,  it is that intent and purpose that must be applied.Knowing the true and only intent of the Founders in creating the second amendment,  it is impossible to find that the 2nd amendment applies to an individual right to own a gun.

 During those constitutional debates that created the second amendment which took place over a period of three weeks in 1789,  not once at any time did the issue of an individual's right to own a gun even come up for discussion. It was in no way ever part of the debate.

When reading the amendment, or any part of the constitution, the first thing to understand is that it was written by and ratified by people who had a command of the English language and a precison in using it that is far beyond anything we see in congress or the media for that matter today. People have referred to Jefferson's words in the Declaration and the preamble to the constitution as  American scripture because the words still stir people and have resonance even today. These people were a lot smarter than anyone currently in government.

 Understanding this, and how careful and precise they were with words,understanding that they meant every word they wrote,  it's useful to know that the 2nd amendment, which is one long run on sentence, was re-written seven times and all seven versions are also in the Library of Congress. What's striking about all seven versions is that they are all virtually the same except for a word change here and there, showing that the people who wrote and constructed it wanted to be absolutely sure that their intentions were clear and specific and that every word meant what they intended.

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".

It's clear that the subject both of the sentence and the amendment is "a well regulated militia". Not an individual's right to own a gun.

That's because the clearly stated purpose of the amendment, clearly stated in the debates by the congress that created it,  was to give the states the unlimited right to create and maintain their own well-regulated, well-drilled militias as a counter measure against the threat posed by a standing federal army. The amendment was created to give the states their own armies.  "Well regulated" meant a militia made up of well-drilled and well trained soldiers and a militia that had a clear command structure.  We know all this  not only from an understanding of the english language but also from the transcripts of the debates which began the creation of the second amendment when a representative from North Carolina stood up and offered this as a  proposition to congress: " The federal government maintaining a standing army is a threat to liberty".

It was a proposition all in congress agreed to. What came next was what to do about it.

 The first solution offered, according to the transcripts of the debates, was to ban the federal government from having a standing army at all. That was voted down as unwise. The next solution offered was to allow the federal government to organize an army but only after being authorized by a two-thirds vote of congress. That was defeated as well as being impractical since by the time congress voted to allow the creation of a  federal army to defend against an invasion or threat  it would probably be too late.

 The solution that finally passed was giving each state the absolute and unalterable and unlimited right to have their own organized, well drilled, "well regulated"  and well armed militias that were capable of waging war on the same level as a federal army and that could not be restricted or impeded in any way.

Understanding this last point is crucial because there are words in the 2nd amendment whose meaning most people think they know, but don't. And the most crucial of these are the words, " the right to keep and bear arms".

Most people regardless of political persuasion seem to believe with certainty that those words have something to do with an individual keeping a gun in his house. Those words means none of that. There are people who wrongly think that because the revolution was first started with militia men who brought their own guns to the fight, that the second amendment is conferring a right to the indivdual to keep his own gun to bring to the fight. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" means none of that. If that's what it meant the people who wrote and ratified " We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal", could have written, "the right of the individual to keep and own a firearm for his own defense and that of the state" could have said just that. They didnt. As pointed out before, the word "arms" does not mean guns. The "arms race' that took place during the cold war between the U.S. and Soviet Union was not about which country had more people with guns in their closets. It had to do with which country and more nuclear war heads and the missiles to deliver them.  There is a world of difference between an "arms dealer" and a "gun dealer". An arms dealer sells Katusha rockets, RPG's surface to air missiles and shoulder fired missile launchers along with Ak-47's. They do not sell Glocks or hunting rifles. The word "arms" in 1789 when the constitution was written meant the same thing then as it meant in the 8th century and  the same thing it meant in the 20th century and the same thing it means now--  "arms" means weapons of warfare. Not the gun you have in your drawer. Not the gun in your closet. Not the gun under your bed or the gun you take hunting or for target practice. "Arms" meant in 1789 as it means now and has always meant, weapons of war.  Any and all weapons of war.
.
The term  "to bear arms" in 1789  as used and understood by the founders also had a very specific meaning and doesn't in any way mean an individual using a gun for their own lawful purposes. "To bear arms"  doesn't mean to go hunting or target shooting. It doesn't mean to shoot a burglar in self defense or to keep a gun in your glove compartment or to show off your gun to your neighbor.   "To bear arms"   meant  only one thing to the founders because there was only one true meaning of the term --  "to bear arms" meant to go to war.And to engage in battle. To bring to bear the force of arms.

When Paul Revere rode through the Massachusetts countryside shouting " To arms!  The British are coming", he meant it was time to go to war and engage in battle. He wasnt telling the colonists only to grab their muskets,  but to assemble the cannon and the powder and bring it to bear.That is the meaning of  "to bear arms" and that is the meaning of the second amendment's " right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment also gave the states the absolute and unlimited right to keep any weapons of war they wished without interference or limitiation by any future federal government and the right to use those weapons in the hands of their "well regulated" militias if necessary.  It doesnt mean to simply own and use a gun.

 " The right of the people",  is also often distorted or miscontrued. "The people"  does not mean an individual. It is how the constitution refers to  states rights and uses the collective term " the people" to indicate a states right, not an individual right. Which is why the preamble to the Constitution begins " We the People of the United States".  When the constitution refers to an individual right, it uses the word "person".  As in "a person's right" to be secure in their homes and their effects in the 4th amendment ban on illegal search and seizure. And the 5th amendment right against self incrimination which states: "No person shall be compelled to be witness against himself".

 The Second Amendment clearly had nothing to do with an individual's right to own a gun. A right to own a gun was never even discussed during the debates. And why would it be?  In 1789 America, almost everyone owned guns. There was nothing controversial about it.  Owning a gun was as common as owning an ax or a horse or a hammer.  People used guns to hunt for food. They  used guns to  protect livestock from predators. And they were used for self defense especially against Indian attacks. Owning a gun in 1789 America was as controversial as owning a barbeque grill in Scarsdale. Does anyone really think  the greatest minds in the history of self-government sat around for three weeks debating, re-writing seven times and adding to the  Bill of Rights an amendment  giving people the right to own a barbeque grill?

The recent Supreme Court decision by the five conservative justices not only betrayed publicly stated conservative philosophy in order to bring about a poltically desireable decision, but Sam Alito, in his written opinion for the majority incomprehensibly, didnt even use the constitution as the basis for his opinion. Alito cited"Blackstone's Rights of Englishmen" in his opinion, a document not only non American in origin, but written more than 100 years before the creation of the country. Had liberal justices ruled on a constitutional issue by using a document other than the constitution,  and one not even American in origin and written before the country even existed,  conservative members of congress like Orin Hatch, Jeff Sessions or Lindsay Graham would be screaming for their impeachment.

The five conservative judges who ruled for the first time in American history that the 2nd amendment applied to individuals, may also have opened a Pandora's box they may regret. That box is the infringement clause which states that the right granted in the 2nd amendment  "shall not be infringed" meaning it cannot be reduced, modified, altered, obstructed or limited in any way.  It is specifically an unlimited right which was created as a protection against the power of a federal army in the hands of a tyrant. Its whole purpose was to give the states the unlimited right to have their own armies and weapons of war capable of standing up against a federal army. To allow a future congress to limit or reduce that right in any way would defeat the whole purpose of the amendment.

Consequently if the 2nd amendment is to apply to individuals, then, based on what the amendment literally says,  every gun law in the United States would be unconstitutional since it "infringes"  or limits in some way the right enumerated in the 2nd amendment. You can't have it both ways. That Justice Scalia tried to modify and backtrack on the court's ruling by saying, " Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited"  shows just how corrupt and dishonest the 5-4 ruling really was.  Because the amendment makes clear in plain English, that it is in fact unlimited,  and that no limits may be placed on it even in the future as the words "shall not" make clear. It would make no sense to give the states the right to protect itself against an unlawful use of force by a federal army sent by a tyrant and at the same time stifle it or insure its defeat with limitations that would put it at a disadvantage.

It seems that so far even the NRA doesnt want to push their luck by going so far as to say that based on the recent court ruling all gun laws are unconstitutional,  but they would be well within the ruling of the Roberts court to do so. "Shall not be infringed" means what it says.  Not what Scalia says. But what the constitition says.  But congress or any other legislative body  can  close the Pandora's box  by doing the obvious --  ignore the Supreme Court ruling and pass whatever gun laws they wish. Then, if someone wants to challenge it and take it back to the Supreme Court, they can do so.The Court would likely welcome a chance to clairify and modify and undo the potential damage caused by their ruling.

The fact that there is now a debate about stricter gun laws is proof enough that on some level people understand the second amendment has nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun. If it did there would be no debate about gun laws because there wouldn't be any.

With the country reeling from the horrors of the school shooting in Newtown, there is a well publicized resurgence in a desire to pass new and stricter gun laws, perhaps banning certain kinds of  automatic weapons, strengthening the criteria for purchasing weapons ( there is a lot that can be done in this area to reduce obtaining weapons illegally) or banning certain kinds of magazine clips. Up to now those opposed to stricter gun laws have used the 2nd amendment as their shield. That should come to an end.  Gun laws in this country, for 225 years have been a local issue decided by elected officials in individual states, cities, towns and villages. And if another gun related constitutional issue comes before the Supreme Court its not likely the Roberts Court will make the same mistake twice.

Other conservative judges have taken note of just how dishonest and hypocritical the decision of Scalia, Thomas, Alito  et al has been and the preposterous opinion of Alito. A prominent conservative judge, Harvie Wilkinson III of the 4th Circuit US Court of Appeals said of the decision that the majority "read an ambiguous constitutional provision as creating a substantive right that the Court had never acknowledged in the more than two hundred years since the amendment’s enactment. The majority then used that same right to strike down a law passed by elected officials acting, rightly or wrongly, to preserve the safety of the citizenry.”

 He added, as pointed out here,  that the decision completely undermined conservative jurisprudence which is based on Original Intent.  It not only undermined it, it made a mockery of it.  Scalia's attempts at rewriting the amendment by talking about "limitations" when the amendment itself clearly states that there can be no limitation on the right enumerated, further erodes any confidence people should have that the decision was not politically motivated. But by injecting the idea of limits,  Scalia is almost begging for a court challenge so they can get a do over and get it right.

The amendment is about militias and weapons of war, not guns and hunting, target shooting and personal self defense, despite the self delusion of people like Larry Pratt, head of another gun owners organization who thinks the amendment is about arming people against the government ( it isnt -- it was about creating and arming state militias to go to war against a tyrant taking over the government. ). And the amendment does not give people the right to have their own militias. Those who have tried ended up infiltrated by the  FBI and carted off to prison.

Even the NRA leadership knows they blatantly lie about the Second Amendment. Which is why they lop off the first sentence of the amendment in their logo. But there is more than that. Even David Keene, president of the NRA knows what the second amendment really means even though he will never say so publicly.

He revealed it in a roundabout way talking about another subject. The NRA opposes an international treaty to restrict the international trade in "arms". Keene stated his opposition when he said, "biggest problem with the treaty is that it regulates civilian arms, not just military weapons". So he clearly understands there is a clear distinction between civilian guns and military weapons. The Second Amendment is clear about that also. Which is why it uses the word "arms" and not "guns".  The amendment is distinctly about military weapons not civilian firearms. Which is another reason why former Chief Justice Warren Burger called the NRA the perpetrators of a "fraud" on the Second Amendment.

For now,  there is one thing people, the congress, legislators, journalists and ordinary people  need to know: the second amendment as it was created, as it was constructed and as it was intended has absolutely nothing to do with an individual's right to own a gun and never did. It does not confer that right. And in the debate about guns and laws everyone should proceed and act accordingly. Legislatures should feel free to enact any gun laws they wish, let someone challenge them if they choose and let the court try again. And the NRA is free to use whatever resources it has to try and elect legislators friendly to their position. But there is nothing in the constitution that supports it or guarantees it. Which is what makes politicians statements about the second amendment so laughable.And for people who swore on a bible to preserve and protect it,an  embarrassment.

In coming up with gun control recommendations made by his task force, Vice President Biden issued a statement prior to the release of those recommendations which stated that "your second amendment rights are alive and well".  Which begs the question, what second amendment rights are those? The rights that every Supreme Court in 225 years said had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun? The only right an individual has regarding the second amendment is the right to join the army. Or their own state National Guard.

Wyatt Earp banned guns completely from Tombstone for years and required people to leave their firearms at the Marshall's office and pick them up when they left. And in more than 100 years, no one  ever accused Wyatt Earp of being unconstitutional or violating anyone's rights.And neither would a ban on any gun a legislature decided had no business being sold at your local gun store and had no business being in the possession of an individual citizen.And there is nothing in the constitution that would prevent it.

Egypt's president Morsi made the mistake of believing CNN.

 

 

 

 

While Egypt's president Morsi was instrumental in negotiating a cease fire in Gaza that saved Hamas from what would have been devastating losses and destruction by the Israeli military in response to the Hamas rocket attacks, there was no cessation of worthless opinions coming from CNN that painted Hamas and Morsi as the big winners in the conflict, reducing, as the press likes to do, matters of war and peace and life and death to the level of a tennis match.

Nic Roberts at CNN made the point that the cease fire was a big win for Hamas because "members of the international community" rallied to Hamas, and sent emissaries to Egypt to meet with Morsi and Hamas leaders to show their support. This show of support from the "international community" was comprised of Turkey and Qatar.

Nevertheless, this " show of support from the international community" for Hamas and Morsi became the endlessly disconnected from reality narrative coming from CNN as reported by Robertson, Wolf Blitzer, Piers Morgan, Anderson Cooper, Ben Wederman, all reiterating the opinion that Morsi and Hamas were the big winners and that both came out more powerful and influential and more credible  on the international stage than before.

Morsi, the CNN line went, because of negotiating the cease fire which was really nothing more than convincing Hamas to come to their senses rather than endure a ground invasion that would result in massive destruction and the killing of Hamas leaders and soldiers ( and the civilians Hamas uses as shields)  had emerged as a hero, a now powerful and influential world leader on the world stage - a major player in world affairs, to use the shopworn cliche of the news media.

The lone exception to this silly disconnected and overblown point of view relentlessly aired by CNN was Fouad Ajami, a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution,and  an authority and writer on Middle East issues who is a frequent voice on CNN. Ajami, who knows the region, its people, their thinking, and in general the geo-political causes and effects better than everyone at CNN combined rejected the CNN line about Hamas and Morsi coming out the "big winners' of the cease fire.

Ajami  pointed out how the momentary celebrations and instant gratification was over only a Pyrrhic victory and that visits by Turkey and Qatar meant little or nothing in the long run and did not mean a place in the sun for Hamas or Morsi. Ajami's voice, the lone dissent, was soon missing from the droning at CNN about Hamas and Morsi's new found stature and "clout" in what CNN insisted on calling  " the international community".

The problem for Morsi is there is a good chance he believed  everything he was hearing on CNN and  decided it was a good time to use his new found prestige and " international support" and make the most of it in a power grab, granting himself new sweeping authority that trumped the Egyptian judiciary and constitution.

Unfortunately for Morsi , while it looks like he believed everything CNN was saying about him, the Egyptian people didn't . Morsi made his powe grab and the Egyptian people  rioted, revolted against Morsi and recently set fire to his headquarters.  Now he has a full fledged crisis on his hands and tanks in the streets of Cairo.

But it's possible Morsi did learn a valuable lesson, one that most people in the U.S. already know --don't believe what you see and hear on American cable TV news.It can get can you in hot water. Which recalls the famous line from Will Rogers, " it's not what people know that gets them in trouble, it's what they think they know that ain't so."

NOTE: As of 6pm est today Morsi has announced he is recinding his decrees. It is not known if he is still watching CNN.

In Gaza conflict, news media are more interested in pictures than the truth.

 

 

We've seen the pictures over and over. We see them every few years. Members of the news media wearing flack jackets but standing at a recommended safe distance from actual shelling, their cameras rolling give their reports of the latest barrage of rockets fired into Israel by Hamas from Gaza and the latest on Israeli retaliation and its aftermath and are on the scene quickly to record the carnage, the pained faces and the destruction.

What they never get to is the truth as if they are actually afraid to ask the right questions, the most important questions. The questions are there  to be asked but they never ask them.

 This was apparent a few days ago as CNN showed a home in Gaza damaged by a nearby Israeli missile strike and the Palestinian woman who lived in the home saying to the journalist and the camera, "what did we do to deserve this"?

It was the single most telling and important question of the conflict and one that had an answer. But the reporter on the scene didn't answer her question when the reporter clearly could have.

What is so poignant and important about the Palestinian woman's question of "what did we do to deserve this"? is that it was clear by her question that she didn't know. She seemed to not know that Hamas initiated the conflict and caused the retaliation by firing rockets into Israeli civilian populations, into apartment buildings, into homes and have tried to hit Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The Palestinian woman gave every indication that she didn't know.

If she didn't know, it would have said a great deal about Hamas and their control over the news media and the free flow of what information gets to the Palestinian people. But the reporter could have told her. And the reporter could have asked the woman some critical questions.

The CNN reporter could have asked if she knew about the rockets Hamas had launched into Israel. The reporter could have asked her if she held Hamas responsible for the damage to her home and what the Palestinian people are now going through because of the rocket attacks by Hamas.

Whatever her answers would have been, they would have been crucial to understanding just what the real issues are regarding this outbreak for Palestinians living in Gaza. It would have been crucial to know whether this woman supported Hamas and their attacks or not  because  it would have given insight into how much support from Palestinians in the street Hamas really has for its actions and whether Palestinians in Gaza are willing to pay the price for Hamas rocket attacks.

If, upon learning of the Hamas rocket attacks, the woman did blame Hamas or felt they bore some responsibility for the retaliatory Israeli missiles coming into Gaza including the one that hit her home, it would have an enormous effect on how third parties and the rest of the world would view the conflict and whether Hamas is truly acting in the name of the people who elected them.

On the other hand if the woman said she did support the rocket attacks by Hamas the next logical question would have been, " and did you expect Israel to just absorb the rocket attacks and do nothing to retaliate or try and stop them"?

In the unlikely event the woman said yes ( unlikely, since if she had known about the rocket attacks in the first place she never would have asked " what did we do to deserve this"?) then the rest of the world would know what Israel is up against and be clear about the will of the Palestinian people in Gaza.

In either instance, the CNN reporter didn't ask, didn't inform her or answer her questions about why her home was damaged.  The reporter could have told the woman  that what happened to her house was the byproduct of Israeli retaliation for the Hamas rocket attacks into Israel, initiated by Hamas. The woman could have been asked her feelings about that and did she support what Hamas did and does she understand now why her home was damaged.

Instead all the CNN reporter wanted to bring you were pictures. Pictures of grief. Pictures that say war is bad as if anyone needed to be told, and  using pictures of this woman's grief and the grief and damage of those on the Israeli side brought to you for your viewing pleasure.

 Does it really take more courage to ask a question in Gaza than to put on a flak jacket? Apparently it does.

NOTE: an addendum to CNN's coverage: Suzanne Malvaeaux was her usual smiling self during her reporting of the Gaza conflict seemingly unable to contain herself and was especially smiley promoting a Piers Morgan interview to be aired with Shimon Peres on the Gaza crisis. Anyone watching Malveaux's smiling coverage might rightly ask what she thinks is so funny. Malveaux who can never stop smiling no matter what she is reporting is one of those TV journalists who seem to think she is always making an audition tape. Someone should remind her she got the job.

 

New documentary to expose media, NCAA and Penn State Board dishonesty in Paterno role related to Sandusky charges.

 An upcoming documentary will expose the self-serving and blatantly dishonest ratings- first- truth- last reporting by the news media as it pertained to Joe Paterno in the Sandusky matter as well as the rank dishonesty of the NCAA, the Freeh Report and the actions of the Penn State Board of Trustees as it all related to Jerry Sandusky.

 While the media coverage of Paterno and a false and dishonest Freeh Report pushed for by some members of the Board of Trustees, a report that clearly had an agenda that had more to do with covering up for others ( possibly even Freeh himself given his own connection to Sandusky) while pinning blame on people who were not in a position to defend themselves, was one of the most dishonest, incompetent and self-serving examples of unethical media coverage in recent memory, the fallout has gone further resulting in the NCAA punishing students and student athletes most of whom were in the 3rd grade when Sandusky committed his crimes defying both logic, decency, common sense and any principle of justice.

 These are punishments that fits the crimes,  not of Sandusky, but the crimes of  the  NCAA, Penn State Board of Trustees, the  Louis Freeh, Governor Tom Corbett and the news  media as a whole who thought it just to selectively punish students and athletes who had nothing to do with Sandusky or his crimes.

 While there is still much more to be said and more to be exposed and more wrongs to be righted, from the clearly dishonest and manipulative Freeh Report, including getting to the bottom of why Freeh, a man with a documented history of smearing people and unethical conduct (and the subject of a Justice Department recommendation of official censure) was chosen in the first place, and why the NCAA acted on the report, as well as exposing more of the dishonest and self serving media coverage, this upcoming documentary could be a catalyst for getting these events re-examined and eventually hold the real culprits accountable, none of whom is named Joe Paterno.

 The 32 minute documentary preview can be seen by clicking on the image above.

Election rejection and dejection for Republicans, conservatives, the Tea Party and Big Money.

 

The party is over, literally and figuratively for the Tea Party,conservatives and Republicans. If you're a Republican you might want to point out that the popular vote in the presidential election was close. If you're a Democrat when you hear that you roll over laughing.

 This election was as decisive a rejection of conservative principles, Republicans in general and the Tea Party most specifically, as one could get.

 Yes Obama won the popular vote by a narrow 3 million while winning a decisive and very large electoral college vote. But only weeks before the election, in national polls which proved to be reliably accurate this time around, when asked if Obama deserved re-election, 54% said no. And understandably so given Democratic voter disgust with his first four years in office and all that could have accomplished and wasn't when he had super majorities in congress his first four years.

 Yet given that 54% said Obama didn't deserve to be re-elected, he was re-elected anyway given the voters choice between Obama or Romney whose vice-presidential candidate drafted Tea Party endorsed economic proposals that the rest of the country soundly rejected.

 That isn't just rejection or losing an election. That is repudiation. And that is in spite of tepid, even weak Democratic campaign commercials and political strategy. In the end the election was about people making up their own minds. Had Democrats had better strategists who knew how to hit harder, the margin of victory would have been much larger, especially in the House.

 Along with Obama's win, the Democrats substantially increased their control of the senate in an election where Republicans thought they would take control. Instead they lost 3 seats, the long held Republican seat in Indiana thanks to the Tea Party and a candidate who replaced Richard Lugar who  said a pregnancy from rape was a gift, Elizabeth Warren beating Scott Brown in Massachusetts and a pro-choice independent who took Olympia Snowe's seat in Maine and will caucus with the Democrats giving the Democrats and liberals a 55-45 majority. 

 Then there was good old Todd Akin another Tea Party candidate who made medieval comments about rape and was landslided by Democrat Claire McCaskill.

 Along with the Tea Party and Republican conservatives the other big loser was Big Money. No one got less for their money than Karl Rove, his super PAC and  other Republican and conservative PAC's.

 The Koch Brothers poured hundreds of millions into this election and lost big. Republican Linda McMahon who ran for the Senate in Connecticut reportedly spent $100 million of her own money. She was destroyed by the Democratic candidate in a landslide defeat.

 According to post election statistics, the NRA, once but probably no longer feared by Democrats who oppose their agenda, spent over $7 million and received a 0.018% return on their investment based on money spent on candidates and who won. Conversely, Planned Parenthood, constantly and irrationally attacked by conservatives saw a better than 99% return on investment in terms of  money spent on candidates they supported and candidates who won.

 The corrupt and preposterous Citizens United 5-4 Supreme Court decision in which conservatives on the court undid years of precedent and declared that corporations were people and therefore had the same right of freedom of speech as individuals ( a proposition utterly preposterous since corporations employ thousands even tens of thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands of people none of whom have a say in who the corporation decides to support, a decision generally made by one person) in the end, gave corporations enough rope to hang themselves.

 The hundreds of millions they spent trying to push candidates and ideas the majority didn't want made the alternatives look even more attractive. So it all backfired.

 Their money bought nothing. And it proved to Democrats as well, who kept sending out hysterical fund raising emails about being outspent and begging for more money, that as I kept telling them, it wasn't about money but message.

 In the end, the election was clearly more about a rejection of conservatives than an embrace of Obama. A majority decided they would prefer to give Obama another chance at not being a political cigar store Indian and actually do some of the things he promised rather than see a Republican in the White House implementing polices most didn't want.

That Obama won in this economic environment is testimony to just how unattractive Romney, Ryan,  Republican and Tea Party polices both econimic and social really are. When facing a choice between a failed Democratic president and Republican ideas and polices, a majority chose the failed Democratic president. Again, not just rejection but a resounding repudiation.

 So, does that mean that voters will now see the liberal ideas and policies they voted for  become reality? Not exactly. Because now that the election is over, Democrats and liberals still have to face the very sobering fact that the person in the White House is Barrack Obama.

Presidential choices: a waste vs. a wasteland part II.

 

 

 

There can be no arguing that Barrack Obama's first four years in office has been a waste. The same kind of waste that was predictable given his previous 11 years of elected office in which he accomplished absolutely nothing. Given the super majorities Obama had in congress in his first two years he could have accomplished anything he wanted. Instead he accomplished what he has always accomplished as an elected official - nothing. And that nothing is the single biggest reason Democrats lost their super majorities and in fact, any majority in the House.

 What could have been his legacy, a public health insurance option and real health care reform the most important piece of legislation since the Civil Rights Act in 1964, was sold out to health insurance lobbyists. In its place was Obamacare which every Democratic senator, 55 of whom publicly pledged to vote for a public option had it been brought to the senate floor, could only call "better than nothing". Nancy Pelosi, who was instrumental in engineering a dishonest 2008 Democratic primary season and DNC convention to give Obama the nomination, had to use a broomstick to whack Democratic members of the House over the head to get them to vote for Obamacare since most of them said they would not vote for any healthcare reform bill that didn't contain a public option. The list goes on and on.

 But the other choice is Romney and a Republican party which, if it had its way, would turn the country into a wasteland.

 If the country was divided into two countries -- red state and blue state, Blue State America would now be living in economic prosperity, buoyed by the multi trillion dollar surplus left by Bill Clinton, a balanced budget and a zero deficit. Unemployment would be low. There would be enough money to take care of any contingency. There would have been no 911 attack since it was Bush and the Republicans who dismissed terrorism as a real threat prior to the attack. The cost to the country in lives, way of life and trillions in economic resources including the war in Iraq, a war the country was lied into, are costs that are all the result of Republican ideology.( It is still a fact that Bush and the Republicans were the first and only government in American history to take the country to war --   an unncessary one -- and cut taxes at the same time. That did more damage to the country and the economy than anything Al-Qaeda was able to do.)

 Conversely, unlike Blue State America, Red State America under Republican conservative ideology would look like and function like a third world country. The education system under Red State America conservative ideology would be a mess. Like Texas who dropped Thomas Jefferson from their school curriculum because Jefferson's contempt for the church made it impossible for Texas to teach their students the country was founded on Christian values and principles. Red State students would know nothing of the philosophy of the man who authored the Declaration of Independence. Red State students,unfettered by liberal challenges,  would have a school system that taught creationism over evolution, and curriculums would be based on political and social beliefs and propaganda as in many middle eastern countries. Their schools would also be choked with 50 students or more to a class in order to accommodate tax cuts resulting in fewer teachers and lower teacher salaries as they want to do in Wisconsin.. The overall result would be Red State America students with inferior educations making them unable to compete globally.

 While the economy of Red State America governed by conservative Republican principles would be choking on enormous deficits, high unemployment and soaring inflation, they would be without most government services ( like Departments of Education and Departments of Transportation that conservatives want to do away with)  because they would no longer exist. There would be no FEMA so any natural disaster like Katrina, the wild fires in Texas or a disaster like Hurricane Sandy hitting Red State America would put them in a position of having to depend on the charity of other nations to help them through.

 In Red State America, governed by economic policies that have  already caused the worst economic crisis since the Depression, the differences between the assets of the wealthy vs. the middle class would deepen the divide and make Red State America no different than a banana republic.

 Socially, with abortion outlawed for the last 20 years because it is condemned by a church that Jefferson, Adams, Paine and other Founders wanted to insure never had an official say in the government of the United States, thousands if not tens of thousands of unwanted children, many of whom uncared for, some the result of rape that Indiana senate candidate Richard Mourdock thinks is a "gift",  would grow up without love, guidance or a good education with many ending up roaming the streets and resorting to crime. Under conservative Republican policies Red State America would lead the western world in prisons built and people incarcerated and have the biggest drug problem in the western world, putting another huge drain on the already depleted financial resources of a Red State America government. In Red State America, building more prisons, yes, schools no.

 With conservative ideology at the forefront, Red State America would be a society where the idea of "right to life" ends at birth since these are the same people who during a Republican presidential debate  cheered the idea of letting someone who couldn't afford health insurance simply die.

 This is what the country would be like under a strictly conservative Republican government, a government put in place by people who call themselves "values voters',  but whose values are filled with hypocrisy and predicated on what they don't want other people to have. Values rejected by most in Blue State America, and most of the western world as well and "values" that were anathemas to the Founders of the country.

This is what a Red State America would be like and the best reason to vote against and reject Romney and the Republicans and the damage they would cause in every area of American life.

 The unkindest cut of all for Romney and the most telling, is that in Salt Lake City, the heart of Mormonism, the Salt Lake City Tribune today, Sunday, endorsed Obama and called Romney "shameless" in his embrace of right wing Republican conservative ideology which they said would be bad for the country.

That the polls show a close election is a testament to the almost universal distaste among Democrats and Democratic voters for Obama's personal failures and weakness as president. It's also a the result of the underhanded tactics used by Pelosi, Donna Brazille and others in the DNC and the press who wanted to insure they gave the nomination to Obama in the first place without his having honestly earned it.

But that said, while Obama has been a waste as a president for what he could have accomplished and didn't, a man who may not accomplish much in the future ( unless Democrats regain control of congress and force Obama to actually do something) the alternative is a Republican wasteland based on values that are and always have been anathema to the country and those who founded it, values that former Supreme Court justice and Republican Sandra Day O'Connor said was " destroying the country" and would make even worse the kind of damage Republicans have already caused.

Republicans pressure government agency to withdraw report that discredits Republican economic policy.

 

 

 

 While Democratic groups politically have proven they can be as dishonest as Republicans at times in their spin and distortions, (when they don't have to) it's left mostly to Republicans to chronically lie about their policies and the provably negative effects these policies have on the country as a whole.

 In the past Republicans have both credited and discredit the same agency and their findings depending on whether those findings were favorable to Republican positions and ideology or unfavorable.

 During the health care debate, the CBO scored the public option and said that it would actually decrease the overall deficit by $160 billion ( a far cry from the projections of Obamacare, Obama's poor political substitute which will inevitably cost people more).

 Republicans were apoplectic since they had staked out a position as deficit hawks and opposed health care reform at the same time and this undermined both positions. So they discredited not just the CBO's numbers but the Budget Office itself as being partisan and unreliable and even incompetent. Except when Republicans regained control of the House, CBO numbers on another issue, favorable to Republicans, were touted by Republicans as accurate and used as a political weapon against Democrats.

 Now the New York Times is reporting that Republicans pressured the Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan agency and arm of the Library of Congress, that issued a report that found no correlation between tax cuts for upper income earners and job creation or economic growth, substantially putting the lie to what many already knew -- Republican trickle down economics, the idea they use to justify their tax cuts for the upper 1% of income earners is a fiction and would be the same failure under Romney that it was during the Bush years.

 Democrat Charles Schumer pointed out that " they ( Republicans) didn't like the report and instead of rebutting it made them take it down".

 Though the research service is non-partisan Republicans protested the reports use of the words " Bush tax cuts", and "tax cuts for the rich" and used that,and charges that those words proved the report was political, as part of the reason they pressured the agency to withdraw the report.

 The real reason of course is they don't like what the report says since it undermines every aspect of what was already proven to be a failed economic approach. They also discredited the Tax Policy Center which put out a report that Romney's proposal to cut tax rates 20% while cutting the deficit was mathematically impossible.

 No matter what math is used, it all adds up to the same thing - Republican unable to support their ideology with facts, truth, or reality, and try and repress anything that proves their ideology and policies wrong. They have proved in the past they will resort to anything , any subterfuge to try and push their ideology through and what makes their policies dangerous is that they have shown they really don't care whether their ideology solves problems or not -- its the ideology that matters not results.

 So anything that discredits their ideology or policies in turn gets discredited by Republicans whether its economics, unemployment ,climate change, or anything else. Which really becomes the best reason in the world for voters to decide this election that its the Republicans and their ways of doing business that no longer matters. And to keep in mind the admonition that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.