Author Archives: agresseur

AnarchoCapitalism overtakes US Politics.

Posted on by
Reply

The coalition of the Conservative State.

The democratic unification of destructive conservative politics.

Just what do Republicans believe in? What do they stand for? Nothing they do or say is consistent nor stays for long in the political rhetoric of their party. They have become a witch’s boil movement seeking political gain amongst a widely varied conservative voters.

During the COVID crisis the Conservative movement called for bodily autonomy when asked to increase the US populations immunity pool through vaccinations. They protested vaccination requirement requests by employers and by the government with my body, my choice. Bodily autonomy or freedom was seen as the most important movement in a key Republican faction.

Yet, when Republicans decided that the major segment of the conservative electorate wishes to use a religious viewpoint to oppose the ability of women to choose what happens to their bodies the concept of bodily autonomy ‘does not apply’ and falls moot. Women are quickly stripped of the freedom to control their lives at a family level, any personal suffering and at the risk of the woman’s own death level by a Republican conservative faction. Here conservatives claiming that the State, alone, has rights to any decision when it comes to a fertilized egg, to force the incubation of the egg by the woman to term even before the State could possibly maintain or care for an embryo.

WomenforDemocracy-MothersAgainstGregAbbot https://www.youtube.com/@mothersagainstgregabbott

The Republican State has begun to remove the rights of others who care for women or help a woman in these heart-wrenching, both spiritual and physical, decisions. The Conservative State has outlawed and criminalized help for the women to physically travel from their home state or seek care that is not aligned with the Conservative State’s laws. These efforts wreak of a Conservative State which believes it has been baptized by divine Providence.

These are just a couple of the political ideals that have begun to appear as part of the coalition of a variety of conservative ideas forming itself into the Republican Party. This is not different from the wide liberal idea coalition that has formed the Democratic Party. The dangerous difference is the wide breadth of the conservative movement; The inclusion of Libertarian ideals as an integral part of the conservative idea movement; and The sudden increased success of certain extremist conservative factional ideals; has created a chaotic ripple in the fabric of the US political conservative model.

The overturning of the Roe v Wade ruling by a conservative Supreme Court stripped women’s rights at a national level and returned the debate on those rights to fractured local state politics. What has risen from this decision is a chaotic national fragmentation of rights for women across a supposed ‘One Nation’ concept for the United States.

What brings the discussion of danger presented by a Republican political coalition is the merger and fundamental inclusion of the Libertarian movement within the Republican Party coalition’s politics. Libertarians have not historically been part of a conservative movement. Libertarian-ism has in the past thought of being left wing and anti-State. The elements of Libertarian philosophy lie in a market driven regulation of the economy rather than by the State. Libertarian philosophy is rooted in classical anarchism that prioritizes individual liberty rather than any freely formed associations of individuals.

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES – US Libertarian Party Platform

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual. We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Republican Liberty Caucus politician records. The RLC formally organized in April 1991 when the 1976 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Roger MacBride called a meeting of like-minded Republicans.
Republican Liberty Caucus

Though most of the Republican members of congress ranked by the RLC would balk at being described as Libertarian the mixing of Libertarian political theory with Republican Party conservative politics is unmasked.

The phoenix rises; AnarchoCapitalism overtakes traditional conservatism.

The Trump Administrations and Elon Musk’s DOGE recent destruction of USAID foreign aid is founded in Libertarian economic policy. the opposition of taxation for the purpose of re-distribution is fundamental to Libertarian thought. Foreign aid is essentially a non-market action by a State that is enabled by taxation. The Libertarian statement; ‘People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others.’

The Reagan 1980 Republican Party platform was not opposed to foreign aid and stated;

Democratic capitalism has demonstrated, in the United States and elsewhere, an unparalleled ability to achieve political and civil rights and long-term prosperity for ever-growing numbers of people. We are confident that democracy and free enterprise can succeed everywhere. A central element in our programs of economic assistance should be to share with others the beneficial ideas of democratic capitalism, which have led the United States to economic prosperity and political freedom. Our bilateral economic assistance program should be directed at promoting economic growth and prosperity in developing nations.

It appears that conservative viewpoint does include economic assistance for nearly half a century. Yet, the Trump administration has taken a radical approach of destroying all foreign economic aid.

Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and political-economic theory that advocates the voluntary exchange of goods and services in a society broadly regulated by the market rather than by the state. The term anarcho-capitalism was coined by Murray Rothbard, a leading figure in the American libertarian movement in the 1950s.

Yes, conservative policies have long advocated for responsible government that is based upon fiscal conservatism. The idea of the destruction and stoppage of all US economic aid has not been a key focus point.

WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 20: Guests including Mark Zuckerberg, Lauren Sanchez, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai and Elon Musk attend the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Donald Trump takes office for his second term as the 47th president of the United States. (Photo by Julia Demaree Nikhinson – Pool/Getty Images)
Copyright: 2025 Getty Images

Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, directed that the Post opinion’s section would exclusively align with libertarian priorities. Coupled with Musk, Bezos is using his newspaper to advance the theories of Libertarianism and not democratic capitalism. You cannot call these two extremely wealthy individuals, anarchist leftists, but their activity is definitely libertarian political thought.

There are several types of political thought but social and economic theories have been used to separate the two political parties for the past seventy years. Every since Reagan there has been in Republican social theory a point on individual freedom.

A society … of maximum individual liberty and freedom of choice. Properly informed, our people as individuals or acting through instruments of popular consultation can make the right decisions affecting personal or general welfare, free of pervasive and heavy-handed intrusion by the central government into the decision making process. This tenet is the genius of representative democracy. – 1980 Republican Platform

Republicans have also been advocates that the capitalist free market economic theory was the bedrock method to advance any free and democratic society.

Free enterprise is fundamental to the American way of life. It is inseparable from the social, religious, political, and judicial institutions which form the bedrock of a nation dedicated to individual freedom and human rights.

Economic growth enables all citizens to share in the nation’s great physical and spiritual wealth, and it is maximized by giving them the fullest opportunity to engage in economic activities and to retain the rewards of their labor – 1984 Republican Platform

Anarcho-capitalism is a system that professes that individuals should be allowed use of free association for all matters now handled by a government bureaucracy. All decisions being made by what you would think as needed from a bureaucratic government would be made by those that own the rights to such a service. The basis for this is a market system that current government order and rules are run by private companies.

To understand the concept of having private companies/societies that regulate instead of government, think about the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). This society (one of many such societies) writes proprietary rules for pressure vessels. Their rules decide how the vessels are designed, manufactured and controlled. They make money off selling copies of their rules, inspection services and certification processes. Adherence to their rules in most states are cited in the laws governments made and all those using or selling boilers for heat, pressure vessels for air or other gases in those states have to comply with ASME and would get a visible stamp certifying it. An Anarcho-capitalists would say that there should be no government that forces you to use these regulations. The Anarcho-Capitialist would say that you would freely seek out such as your market dictates. Their is a similar concept in UL listed (United Laboratories) or ETL (Edison Testing Laboratories) in everything from waterproof watches, toasters, hair dryers and explosion proof equipment for hazardous atmosphere use. People would just stop working there or using your products if they blow up or electrocute you. You would freely use rules based products depending on the market. This forces the requirement understanding the benefit of certain rules onto consumer and is not dictated by government.

This concept is also true on the macro level for the Anarcho-Capitalists. Judicial and political power can be owned, sold, rented and bought. The society or company that provides judicial authority would be like a Western town sheriff. The residence would contract an individual or company of individuals to protect their towns. This lucrative contract could then be sold by the first company to another company depending on the terms of the private contract. The same concept is applied to judicial protections. There is no political bureaucratic system that appoints judges or police. They are locally hired.

This concept can be analogous to political power to decide daily decision like a city manger for instance who is contracted to run a city. The difference is that the city manger/company is for profit and owns all the rights within the contract to make all decisions. This includes employees that could be part of the company to run city required services.

The problems with this concept is that there is considerable power in the contracts at any level. Who has not watched the old western movie where the sheriff has gone rogue or the big ranch owner who hired the sheriff buys up all the town because the railroad is coming through?

Anarcho-Capitalism may sound good in principal, being free of a government bureaucracy but enables individuals to use market forces to acquire and monopolize great economic and political power. DOGE is an example of a private company hired to control and reshape the bureaucracy without input from the current system of people’s representation approvals.

These fundamental government principles are found in the Trump administration has allocated the effort to reduce of government staff and determine the efficiency of any remaining government agency to a semi-private company masked as an agency called DOGE. Musk, who heads DOGE seeks to further privatize the USPS and AMTRAK.

Anarcho-capitalism enables a few individuals to acquire immense economic and political power. The power Musk has suddenly gained over the government, under Trump, is an example. Musk moved at will to cut funding and Trump has covered his tracks by the removal of safeguards in our government against corruption and ethics failures by the removal of government Inspector Generals.

Some would claim, there are checks to the accumulation of power of executive branch. They would decry as alarmist any opposition but these are muted by two factors. The dissolution of legislative power by factional party politics and the gelding of the judicial branch first, by their grants of executive branch criminal immunity, second by intimidation through party line impeachment.

There are several types of governments that run nations in the world. Some if not all governments include both economic and social aspects of the societies or nations they govern.

China for example, has a Socialist-Capitalist government. There the governmental party owns all property and decides all social issues. It is often called communism but it changed in the 1970s to a market-oriented system. It has a hybrid form of Socialism where the the economic model is capitalistic in nature. Individual companies compete for markets and capital based on free market ideals. All the rules for doing business, retaining profits and social interaction are controlled by the single party government run by wealthy oligarchs.

Russia has a Oligarchy-Capitalist government. The government is formed and affected by a few extremely wealthy individuals in a free market or capitalist methods. The government decides all social issue but is controlled by a small group. Oligarchies are similar to a medieval form of an aristocracy.

One could argue that all governments are some form of Oligarchies, even the United States. Certainly the current Trump administration with so many extremely wealthy individuals in positions of power would ring at such a question. Republicans like to say they are capitalists defending the Republic against a liberal Democratic party form of socialism. Their rhetoric of denouncing the opposition party often uses social economics terms ‘Marxist, Communists and even Fascists. But have Republicans really become a recently evolved Anarcho-Capitalists movement resistant to a historically Liberal-Capitalist republic founded on the formation of political parties that sought by natural differences in interests real or supposed to establish a political equity among all?

So what does really all mean?

Libertarianism has often been considered a synonym for Anarchism. The dissolution of government in favor of the individual’s freedoms. If accused Republican party members will decry they are not an anarchists movement , anarchy is considered liberal or leftists. So why is it, as we began, Republicans hold that bodily autonomy is a fundamental right? Yet, it is no longer that fundamental right when the Republican religious faction needs to commission the state to enforce control over a female citizen’s body as an incubator to accommodate their views.

Republicans cannot answer those questions because theirs is a coalition political power party formed upon an anarchy coalition. Each faction of the party wields varying political power based on current cultural ideals. There are Republicans that don’t approve of the removal of women’s rights to bodily autonomy. Yet, they accommodate the inequality based upon libertarian economic measures or views that are offered.

Anarchy is defined as a society without rulers. Republicans under Donald Trump have become a party without rules. Trump would grab any idea and any political thought to keep the breadth of party politics as widely defined as possible to include those not truly aligned with conservative ideas.

James Madison President of the US

Anarchy is also defined as not only an absence of government but also an absence of governance. The Republicans party has no guiding leadership other than Trumps chaotic and wide ranging cultural visions. This has caused an extreme wide belief system coalition to be formed to hold onto power in the present day Republican party. As a party they did not form a ‘party’ in the sense James Monroe defined in 1792 essay. Republicans are unable to ‘establish a political equity among all.’ Republicans are unable or unwilling to ‘withhold unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by an immoderate accumulation of riches.’ Republicans are unable to ‘operate a government of laws without violating the rights of others nor are they interested in the reduction of extreme wealth or raise indigence to the level of comfort.’ Madison’s argued that a government should help to ensure political equality, create an equitable distribution of property and refuse to grant special privileges.

The present day Republican party is in fact an anarchist vision with no rudder on its beliefs or empathy for those it would tread upon to retain political power. A power for the increasing of economic advantage of the few to indulge (or engorge) themselves on extreme wealth. Republicans choose to wield this power to favor one interest at the expense of another. Republicanism has evolved into the Anarcho-Capitalist’s vision of limitless property and the support for private institutions with significant economic power.

Ukraine’s Zelensky is ridiculed in the Royal Court of ‘King’ Trump for his ‘Ditto Suit’

Posted on by
Reply
Franklin appears in the court of King Louis XVI in 1778

Benjamin Franklin was famous for wearing his simple ‘Ditto Suit’ to the French Court in 1778 after two years of war against the assault of one of the world’s superpowers England. The men of the court mocked his suit cut of the same silk for both coat and pants and unadorned with lace or different colored sashes or waistcoats.

“I am persuaded, a pleasure in reflecting on the generous benevolence of the action in assisting oppressed people” – Benjamin Franklin on Louis XVI

Vice-President Vance who laughed at Real America’s Voice host Brian Glenn’s derision of the Ukrainian President needs to remember the history of the nation he pretends to love.

Ukrainian President Zelensky in Ukrainian ‘Ditto Suit’ with US President Trump

JD Vance then took that cue of mockery to say it was disrespectful for Zelensky to wear the symbols of his nation’s struggle.

Screen capture of One IndiaNews coverage of the attack on Zelensky for his ‘Ditto Suit’

Vance then further attacked the Ukrainian President claiming that Ukraine was sending conscripts to the front. Actually a reversal of criticism of Putin’s need for Russia to send conscripts to attack Ukraine. Vance somehow forgot that US sent conscripts to the front in Vietnam. A full 30 percent of whom died in that US conflict.

It might be understandable for Trump to forget such a lesson in US military history. After all Trump used money to buy his way out of Vietnam service. However, one would think that after actually serving and military veteran, Vance would understand how nations force their citizens into combat during times of war or conflict. Especially a conflict as important as being invaded by a super power. Vance, after all, was a reporter during the US-Iraq invasion. The US called up more than 80,000 reserves to fight that war to protect him while he wrote apparent ‘touchy-feely’ articles about military life in the war.

Luckily for Vance and his three children, Benjamin Franklin was able to obtain understanding help and financing from one of the world’s great superpowers to fight the aggression by one of the world’s other superpowers. Vance’s children live, today, with freedom and liberty. It is the very thing the Ukrainians are fighting and hoping for their children.

Look hard Mr Vance and Mr Trump. The symbol on this map of Ukraine is that of a nation fighting just like 1778 US. The same symbol found on the Ukrainian President’s ‘Ditto Suit.’

The Sinister Indoctrination of US Children by Christian Nationalism.

Posted on by
Reply

Forty Seven States have state laws requiring all schools to indoctrinate students into ultra-Nationalism by requiring the daily ritual of prayer in the memorization and recital of a Pledge of Allegiance to a US Flag.

A classroom poster of the Pledge of Allegiance Words

Retaining liberty requires a fight against it’s enemies, foreign and domestic.

The past 20+ years of losing wars in the Middle East has turned Americans into a hot bed of ultra-nationalism. This movement has stolen political power using the destruction of liberty for thousands of Americans. There is no indication that their minacious activity will temper.

The right wing bellows that American schools are liberal breeding grounds of a ‘Woke’ agenda. It is a false definition of ‘Woke’ that has been invented not by what has been discussed in schools but by the agenda at the heart of the Christian Nationalist movement. American children are indoctrinated everyday by law in the right wing’s requirement of a recital of a pledge of allegiance prayer. The daily recital reinforces the Christian Nationalist themes of God and love as an invocation of the mystical powers of the US national flag. It ends in a blatant lie that a Christian Nationalist believes in ‘liberty and justice’ and ‘for all.’ They have ingrained this into the nation’s youth this concept everyday of their education. That is the best kept secret in the open that they don’t, noticeably to the latter statement.

The Oppressed become the Oppressor.

Ultra Nationalism has become a thing in the MAGA movement. They have achieve untold elective power from the corrupted discussions for the oppression of women’s rights to their bodies, transperson’s rights to exist and now a re-emergence of attacks on same-sex marriages and women’s birth control options.

Stephen Miller, Trump’s campaign advisor, raises his fist as he speaks during a rally for Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump, in Coachella, California, U.S., October 12, 2024. REUTERS/Mike Blake

Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy comes from a Jewish immigrant background that fled the 1903–06 anti-Jewish pogroms in Anatol region of Russia (currently Belarus). Agents of Jewish foreign influence were blamed for the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881 starting the attacks on Jewish communities. Even though only one of the conspirators was of Jewish decent, none-the-less the pogroms caused Jewish families to be stripped of rights, reduced to poverty and in many cases, murdered. Laws restricting Jews were enacted including the forbidding of Jews to adopt ‘Christian Names,’ and forced them to use only their Hebrew names to insure proper identification of their heritage. Jews could not conduct business on Sunday or any Christian holy day. Jews were forbidden from holding public offices. Jews were restricted by quotas to enter public schools and universities to the point that many public schools at the time were left half-empty. The laws were worded as ‘temporary measure’, and until a general revision is made of their legal status.

“This government had found occasion to express in a friendly spirit but with much earnestness, to the government of the Tsar, its serious concern because of harsh measures being enforced against the Hebrews.” – 9 December 1891 speech to the United States Congress, President Benjamin Harrison

President Benjamin Harrison
defends equalization of individuals in 1891 Russia

In a short three generations, Mr Miller has forgotten his family’s struggle against and ultimate flight from political oppression in Eastern Europe. To Mr. Miller, the history that political power was achieved or retained by the oppression of his ancestors is pretermitted. He has created the America First Legal Foundation. An organizations that sent flyers to voters in Colorado that were characterized as transphobic by the Queer and Trans People of Color Program of the Latino Action Council. America First Legal won the judgement in November 2022 that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity from Trump appointed Judge Kacsmaryk. Judge Kacsmaryk also vacated protections for transgender workers that prohibited employers from discriminating against employees for being gay or transgender, in 2022. This decision a violating contravention of the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). Clearly, being a gay or transgender US citizen you are not part of the ‘all’ in Judge Kacsmaryk’s or Mr. Miller’s pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

Demanding the equalization of individuals

No matter how many times, as a child, one says the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, it never seems to define the whole of society, as understood by the Right. The pledge appears to have allowed the creation of a society where ‘liberty and justice for all’ meant individual rights.

The Pledge of Allegiance in one word defines for all Christian Nationalists the reason they oppose the equalization of individual rights. That word is in the phrase ‘One Nation Under God.’ God used in this pledge is the very definition of discrimination. It is the sinister core statement attempting to orientate all children to the concept of a God. The biggest concern to Christian Nationalists is having forced a secular government into indoctrinating the children for them, God cannot be further defined by constitutional decree. The concept of a deity and divine rules for individuals are left to be discovered from a plethora of acceptance and policies by parents, teacher conferences, administration bodies and teachers themselves.

The ‘liberty and justice for all’ society began to move towards a vision of a humanity based on the equalization of individuals. Society had begun to allow for gay or trans children to participate as equals on its platform. This became antithetical to the Christian Nationalist of their concept of a society ‘under God.’

The Pledge of Allegiance could not be failing to provide the proper instructions for children to follow. Such a thought would be, at its heart, anti-American and anti-Christian-Nationalist. It had to be those entrusted with the education of children that have failed to define the harmonious concept of rules ‘under God.’ Thus began the underlying waspishness found in Christian Nationalists discussion of individual rights.

Individual rights ‘under God’ began a movement against societies inclusiveness of gay or trans children and their lives as understood by children. The ‘under God’ movement further had act to force society away from an equalization of individuals. This defined political power under such things as the Don’t Say Gay Laws or Anti-Trans Laws. All of them using children and the protection of society through call to protect children from indoctrination. A society to the Christian Nationalist that definitely was not ‘One Nation under God’

A new billboard welcoming visitors to “Florida: The Sunshine ‘Don’t Say Gay or Trans’ State’ is seen Thursday, April 21, 2022, in Winter Park, Fla. Billboards, which are being placed in key areas with high visitor traffic and visibility, are part of a new advertising campaign launched by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). (AP Photo/John Raoux)

The campaign created focused banter to claim political power at the national level. It produced laws in Florida, which was only the first of many, punished with imprisonment the discussion of gender or sexual orientation in grade schools. The Christian Nationalist’s society redefinition efforts created 391anti-LGBTQ bills/ laws in US States. The majority designed to apprehend and control of minors, their education, their parents actions, their medical care.

It should be noted, none of these laws did not take down the pledge of allegiance posters nor stop the requirements for its continued daily indoctrination ritual. To school children, at least, the US would remain the ‘one nation, indivisible, under God with liberty and justice for all.’

Children, for Christian Nationalists for the moment, no longer will be confused by a nation infected by a concept that would demand the equalization of individuals. Such a demand is defined by the Christian Nationalist as a radicalization of the concept of any ‘liberty under God’.

The Christian Nationalist movement continues to move in a more Machiavellian manner to define the literal definition of freedoms and the identification of anyone’s selves. Laws have passed defining “sex” as “the classification of a person as either female or male. They have forgotten to redefine Liberty.

Liberty is defined as the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.

By definition the US has killed ‘Liberty and Justice for All’ even as they make every school child blindly repeat its holy prayer each morning in a nationalistic pledge.

Selling your opinions is Not Free Speech.

Posted on by
Reply

The current trend of News organizations requiring a subscription or sign up to read their articles has become an impediment to our Republic’s constitutional requirement of a free press. The world of just a few decades ago only had local newspapers, free radio and free television. It was here that people found their viewpoints and windows into the events that formed their world opinions. But news and opinions now have become the world of YouTube, Twitter (X), Instagram, Bluesky and a multitude of streaming services or podcasts. All of these making it quite easy to discover your own personal news sources. This internet phenomenon has multiplied the voices into a Diverse, Enigmatic and Individual river of opinions from which one develops their viewpoints.

Since the advent of newspapers one had to purchase the paper to read the news. This newspaper could be read over-the-shoulder, discarded, left in a coffee shop or found in a library for the perusal of any number of informed opinions to be had.

Having been a paperboy, as a child, I can say that many of our nation’ s social and political opinions were illuminated from a cold winter’s morning delivery of that newspaper to a snow drift filled porch. Sure a small cost was collected by the paper boy for subscription but I believe that the majority of that fee was to secure the distribution process paying both the distribution delivery truck manager/driver and myself for walking in the snow that morning. Newspapers gathered much of their revenue from the advertisements within the paper along the side of their edited pages of stories/opinions about the days news.

News of current events is essential to the formation of opinions upon the politic of the nation. To understand and read/hear the opinions of others about a subject allows the formation of one’s own opinion. This formation takes time and can change amongst a varied amount of external events.

One of the dangers of the small exchange of information can be learned from the years of the late 19th and early 20th century control of newspapers by small groups of publishers that sought to control the narrative. The so called ‘Yellow Press’ with its sensational news form is blamed for everything from the War with Spain to the sensationalism of crime leading to a feeling of insecurity by American citizens.

I worked with a young colleague that broadcast with pride that he did not get news from the paid media but rather from following Twitter (X). The online aspects have changed the playing field and the necessary reading the free speech of others has become more difficult as the proliferation of opinion writing has opened widely in the internet. The need to subscribe on the internet to read an opinion has actually limited free speech not increased it. It has led to the narrowing of views to a small demographics of followings that have overtaken the wider writings of the professional pay-for-it media.

More now the dissemination of ‘Free Speech’ is found free in a legal voice sense that is not found in the physical world. If you read part of an article online of a major newspaper or news outlet invariably you are suddenly hit with a call to ‘join’ or subscribe. You cannot read the increasing varied opinions without some sort of not-free sign up. As such these outlet authors like the Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell, San Francisco Chronicle’s Joe Garofoli or even NBC’s Alexander Smith have their voices muted to the world without some form of payment. You cannot read an old discarded newspaper because they literally are so small in number now the physical copy is a rarity. You need a subscription to Apple News or to the Washington Post to get a varied opinion. Instead, you read the free opinions of radicals posted on Twitter(X).

This type of selectivity leads to a narrowing of the views one is exposed too. This type of exposure reduces the ability to form a varied opinion. This type of selectivity actually is a form of ‘self censorship.’

A reduced selection of opinions is not Free Press. My suggestion is to change the method of distribution to one that can withstand the winter storms of our politics and land up on your opinions front porch.

The Failure in Hero Worship or Participation Trophies For Everyone

Posted on by
Reply

Nothing has become more grating on my ears than when I hear the phrase; “Thank you for your service.” This is typically said aloud today, to every military serviceman, every fireman, every policeman, everybody except, well nobody. Yes, people even say it to me when I accidentally alert them of my time holding a US naval commission.

This singular phrase said with such abandon as ‘good morning’ at the first arrival of the day at the office or ‘welcome’ every time you enter a commercial store that it has cheapened the meaning and made everyone a hero for even their ability to drive a truck to the docks delivering goods to be shipped overseas for the military. It has made being a hero so prolific that they can even now be called ‘Losers and Suckers’ by the current President-Elect of the United States without retribution by those that support him.

Republicans of all walks of life look the other way or deflect the questioning of a man who was and will be the commander in chief of our military on this idea. Trump plays this game for his political enrichment but it is the American people that have abandoned the meaning of the terms hero and service. It is the American people who have allowed those wounded and killed in the defense of this great Republic’s objectives and ideals to be ridiculed by this man who himself is a beneficiary of their idyllic sacrifice.

Ever since 9-11 the awarding of participation heroism has become a cornucopia of verbal awards to those that served in any capacity the same status as those decorated. Their efforts cheapened. Their service almost becoming a tissue paper to sneeze the words in.

The 21+ years of seemingly endless Middle East wars has deadened the American people to the heroic acts during combat for their government. It has equalized all efforts to be reward with a single phrase, letting Americans thinking they are showing true gratitude when they are only saying it in a self-satisfying monotone. This relieves their souls of the guilt that the government they voted for creates these conflicts.

It may be better to look to the days of Vietnam or even the World Wars where soldiers knew where they stood. All soldiers enlisted, drafted and commissioned alike were one. They did not find the need to inflate their part but remained part of the whole. They knew they were summoned to be part of their US government’s efforts and felt the most pride in that quiet role.

I was summoned by my country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love. – George Washington.

The Conservative’s Bonanza on Discrimination Requirements for Political Gain

Posted on by
Reply

I often spend hours taking notes and collecting ideas for post that I literally have dozens of pages on differing ideas that never make it to the publish button. To make a post very often requires not just inspiration for me but a spiritual feeling that wells up then cannot be stopped. So it is for this reason that I start this post as an apology to any that follow. It should have been sooner.

The use of attacks on the right to liberty without fear for the Trans community has been something of a right wing conservative’s political bonanza in Republican States but most notably in Florida and Texas. Such states have governors and political party legislatures that created movements to attack the LGBTQ citizens of their State to further their political power. It is not a new method. It is a technique used by conservatives that is as ancient as civilization itself.

The United States and its conservative political parties have been one of the most discriminatory political movements in all of civilization. Yet, it is these conservatives that claim they are the sole patriots of liberty. How this dichotomy exists in this self declared, “Land of the Free”, is not such as perplexing as one might think. The United States political system not only allows for such discriminatory activity but actually thrives upon it. Conservative members of US political parties acquire political power through the acts of discrimination.

Conservatives are defined as persons who are averse to change and hold socially traditional values. A bunch of words that in reality lead to a contraposition proof to the existence of the United States in the first place. To clarify the term is more often used in mathematical proofs but is utilized here to provide insight in the fallacy of US conservatism’s claims as being the sole defenders of the Constitution and Liberty.

If the conservative viewpoint prevailed in 1776 then the colonies would remain loyal to King George. An American conservative in 1776 was not for the Declaration of Independence. So if an American was for freedom and liberty then they were not conservative.

No Conservative Americans in this firing line at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse

So we have now a mathematical contraposition establishing by inference and a logical equivalency that only liberal Americans brought forth this nation. We can further claim that liberal points of view have advanced our freedoms that even the conservatives who always oppose changes in liberty, enjoy today.

The political success of conservative attacks on the liberties and freedom of the Trans community in Florida and Texas are an example of discrimination against minority groups that provide political focal points and add to the power of those in government. I use the term conservative because political parties have change of the years on who is the conservative and who is the liberal party. Both Democrats and Republicans over their history have found conservative viewpoints and discrimination as a means to power.

After the Revolution and before the Civil War the ability to maintain political power required the discrimination against Blacks. With nearly 700 thousand Blacks in the US in 1790 almost 18% of the total population the discrimination tactic of using Blacks as political pawns, not to mention white wealth, was found throughout the formation of the Constitution. In fact the revered Constitution as adopted in 1788 protected the importation of slaves until 1808. Article 1 section 9 was written purposefully ambiguous to hide the discriminatory act and it denied congress the power to restrict the importation of slaves until 1808. The clause was a compromise between the liberal Quakers from the North that wanted to abolish slavery and the conservative Southern representatives opposing any such nationwide emancipation.

Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States; Howard Chandler Christy

The Southern representatives had found that discrimination against 18% of the population provided sufficient political power to change the Constitution in their favor. The subsequent banning of the importation of slaves in 1808 did not solve the liberal push for emancipation. Rather the Southern states resorted to a form of ‘breeding farms’ and breaking up of families to increase the supply and sell these new victims for profit.

The success of Southern politicians to protect slavery in the Constitution became so triumphant politically that by 1860 nearly 4 million Blacks were in the US with 89% of those enslaved. The population of the South’s free population was only around 5.5 million. This resulted in discrimination by enslavement against nearly a whopping 39% of the Southern State’s population.

This extreme percentage in a discriminated population provide so much political power to the Southern conservative politicians that the act of treason against the United States became the path of succession by Southern States resulting in the Civil War. Nearly 1.5 million persons, military and civilians, lost their lives to overcome this heinous act of discrimination against a segment of the population by a conservative viewpoint.

The numbers never lie in the result of power to discriminate

While the Civil War was the extremes to which proponents of discrimination in the United States have taken their beliefs and the horrors needed to correct their attacks on men’s liberty. Discrimination has never left the US political scene and use of discrimination as a crusade for political power persist to this day. It may take fewer and fewer numbers of those to be discriminated but political conservatives and radicals in the US have successfully used such practices for political power.

Throughout the 248 year history of the United States there are countless numbers of politicians using discrimination. Discrimination against segments of the population has become the crux of conservative politics even if they have had to rely on smaller and smaller percentages to achieve measurable results.

The reasons for these dwindling population numbers are mostly the result of the general population beginning to believe in the basic ideals of the Constitution and accepting those that are discriminated in the previous power grabs. Conservatives are pushed back from their claims and excuses of failures caused by the dangers presented by these smaller groups seeking to steal there own liberty. The greater US population has shifted and has accepted the rights to liberty protected by the Constitution for these attacked groups.

We want your labor and taxes but not you

During the 1800s Chinese immigrants began to appear amongst the citizenry of America. Many of them came over to provide needed labor for railroad construction that created an explosive growth in this country. But many came just for a vision of liberties promised by the Constitution enjoyed by Americans. They started business to support the communities in which they lived or like so many Americans sought instant riches in the mining for gold.

In the 1880s there were around 110,000 Chinese heritage citizens in America. This was basically 0.22% of the entire US population. However, this represented nearly 12% of the population of California where the majority of Chinese immigrants settled. However, the Chinese people had by that time been targeted by politicians desires for political power for over 50 years. In 1871 in Los Angeles Chinese-Americans lost not just their rights but 18 were murdered in a mass lynching.

A cartoon drawn by Thomas Nast in 1869 takes a sympathetic view of the difficult conditions faced by Chinese immigrants. It depicts abuse of a Chinese immigrant at the hands of a white laborer wearing a hat labeled “California.” Anti-Chinese sentiment was widespread in California at the time.

In 1852, California Governor John Bigler asked the California Assembly to pass laws to stop Chinese immigration. Bigler argued that the Chinese could not be assimilated for racial and cultural reasons, and that they were therefore incapable of becoming good citizens. The California Supreme Court in 1853 declared that the testimony of Chinese people could not be used against white defendants, and a white man convicted of robbing and murder of a Chinese-American was released.

Jobs are very often the motive for political discrimination as in 1920’s, Colorado had only 939,629 total Latino population, about 1.2% of population saw a movement to strengthen the State border to prevent further immigration of Latinos into Colorado. The Colorado government arrested Latinos to deport them. The tragic result of this political fervor was that 60% of Latinos deported were actually US citizens.

Today the conservative State of Texas takes in nearly $4.9 billion in tax revenue from undocumented immigrants. Florida takes in nearly $1.9 billion in tax revenue from undocumented immigrants. Since these populations cannot vote the Conservative politicians are free to use them in political attacks and fear mongering. This is not limited to the State political arena. Nearly $100 billion in taxes are paid to the federal funds by undocumented immigrants making for an analogous situation for misrepresentation in federal politics.

The smaller the group the more political power or Good News for Bigots

Growing minorities often gain political power as a counter to the discrimination against them. Modern social media and loud megaphone type television media have enhanced the ability of politically motivated discrimination to find value in small niche minorities.

In 1860, the Black population was listed as 5.5 million free and 3.5 million enslaved, over 40% of population.

In 1880 The Chinese population was 12% (110,000) of Californians and only 0.22% Nationally. However, Senator John Miller and Representative Horace Page, both Republicans from California proposed The Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) which was the first major immigration law aimed at a specific nationality or ethnic group. It
banned the immigration of Chinese laborers and their families for ten
years. Most importantly, it excluded all Chinese immigrants from US
citizenship, and any Chinese who temporarily left the United States (for
example to marry) had to obtain a certificate of residence to allow
re-entry.

Sexual behavior in the 1970s indicated that 7% of males and 3% of females had homosexual experiences. Yet, the religious and conservative politicians found themselves compelled to use discrimination against them to hold and define their quest for power. The Gay population found itself propelled into a movement to protect their civil rights. It took 20 years before the disapproval of Gay life was no longer great enough for the conservatives to use for any meaningful political attack to gain power. By 1980 the public saw tolerance of Gay life was nearly 30%. It took another 20 years and a demographic change in the population before it rise to near 50%. This forced religious conservatives to seek other victims to attack for their political banners. They could no longer attack these freedoms to create a movement.

Only 7.6% of the population identifying as Gay today in the US, the issue of Gay rights being the same as the broader population because the broader population thought they indeed had and were entitled to the same rights. Religious and radical right wing conservatives could not longer use the attack against Gay rights as a political forum to gain votes.

The percentage of those being attacked now has to be even smaller to support the calls for discrimination. So, the population of trans persons which amounted to less than 0.6% of the population was chosen to be singled out and attacks on any rights they had to be themselves was demonized.

Conservative politicians must they have generalized anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder when they attack the liberties of others. Conservatives slowly began to segregate trans persons who identified as the opposite gender, present themselves and act so to provide happiness and a general feeling of being presented as normal. Laws against sharing bathrooms in public began to appear. Prior to this most trans persons used the bathrooms of their identified gender without being notices. However, suddenly it was a politically powerful issue especially since schools began to allow for this because of Federal guidance. Conservatives in States could use a denial trans rights and dignity to attack liberal Federal rights protection guidelines to create their political power.

The smaller the discriminated population the higher is the need for general approval to reduce this discriminatory political power. With only 7.6% of the population identifying as Gay one would think they are still a target for the right wing attacks but today 80% of the US population approves on non-discriminatory laws against the Gay population.

The trans-rights opponents now only face a 64% approval with the smaller percentage of trans-persons it appears that a mere majority is not enough to secure trans-rights. Especially since the attacks across gender lines involves transactional issues that have been created by trans-athlete successes. Conservatives can now attack trans-persons on he basis of a imprecise broad judgement of immediate or unfair physical advantages in competitive sports not just social identity. While these should be left to individual sporting organizations and schools, their use in the political forum have as recently as the 2024 political attack ads used by conservatives against their opponents. Since the beginning of August 2024, Republicans have poured more than $65 million into television ads in more than a dozen states on anti-trans rights. 1 Unfortunately, the Conservatives are not using just ads to win political votes but actually enacting laws to gain political advantages in Republican run States to actively single out and discriminate against this small group of citizens.

Since the beginning of August 2024, Republicans have poured more than $65 million into television ads in more than a dozen states on anti-trans rights. 1 Unfortunately, the Conservatives are not using just advertisements to win political power but enacting laws with the sole purpose of political advantages in Republican run States that single out and actively discriminate against this small of group (1.1% of the US adult population identifies as transgender) of citizens.

The Conservative Century for the Protection of Bigotry

Due to increased immigration and a large rural-to-urban shift in population from 1910 to 1920, the Republican Congress in has refused to reapportion the House of Representatives because such a reapportionment would shift political power away from the Republicans. They have done this since Republican President Herbert Hoover. Signed into law by the Republicans in June 18, 1929 CFR 46 Stat. 21. This law prevents the US people from gaining minimal political power in the US Congress simply by being an increasing population. This law some say rewrote the Constitution and cemented bigotry discrimination into the American political system. It not only allowed conservative bigots to obtain power through the lower rural conservative population but enabled them to freeze the growing power of those that might oppose them.

The law froze the number of house representatives, keeping the existing constitution’s rule that every state gets one house representative. It apportioned the number of voting representatives in the House and fixed by law it to no more than 435, proportionally representing the population of the 50 states. This in effect created the US as the least representative government in the free democratic world.

The founders discussed a different issue of discrimination when they formed this nation. That is why they compromised (some would say cowardly) on the legislative branch to have both a State level politically determined house, the Senate and a citizen voted Representative’s house based on population. The smaller populated States were given the same ability of veto power in the Senate over any of the more populated and higher congressionally representative states.

Today, one representative represents upwards of 786,000 Americans. This cap on representation at 435 congressional representatives was formed because of conservative discriminatory fear of immigrants. This gives in-proportionate power to smaller right wing conservative populations in the Government leading to these discriminatory struggles. A representative in liberal leaning California (752,461 per representative) or New York (752,692 per representative) for example is normalized by Wyoming (580,000 per representative). That becomes nearly 200,000 voters out-voted by a smaller population in congressional House along with an equal vote in each state in the Senate.

Thou Shalt Not

Posted on by
Reply

The Proselytism destroying Liberty in America

The dictionary defines Proselytize; convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another. Yet, straight definitions in words alone hide the meaning in another word, Evangelize; convert or seek to convert (someone) to Christianity.

The Apostle Paul Explains His Faith in the Presence of King Agrippa, his Sister Veronica, and Proconsul – Vasily Surikov

It could be easy for a person to confuse the meanings as similar or equivalent words. Their could not be two very different verbs or action words. In the two the actions conveyed are quite different. The difference in meanings are so subtle that it’s usage in recent Baptist sermon, that I attended while visiting with family, allowed the Pastor to use Acts 24:25 and the trial of St Paul to confuse their meanings in his approach to teach his congregation of the actions and justification in Trans-identity opposition. This point has recently moved from the religious podium into mainstream American political legislation, rhetoric and debate.

To understand the definitions as understood by the faithful themselves we examine another Christian Orthodoxy in how they define those similar words. In a homily given on Aug. 5, 2013, Pope Francis discussed the difference, reiterating again and again some of the differences between evangelization and proselytization.

Pope Francis blesses the crowd from the central balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican.

Paul in the Areopagus (Acts 17:15-22, 18-1) proclaiming the name of Jesus Christ among the worshipers of idols. It is the way in which he did this, that is so important: “He did not say: Idolaters! You will go to hell… ”. No, he “tried to reach their hearts”; he did not condemn from the outset but sought dialogue.

Paul, too, was “aware that he must evangelize, not proselytize”. The Church “does not grow by proselytizing, as Benedict XVI has told us, but grows by attracting people, by its witness, and by its preaching”

Pope Francis       

08.05.13  Holy Mass  Santa Marta      

Acts 17: 15-22, 18-1 

Proselytism is the strongest venom against the path of ecumenism.
– Pope Francis, Oct. 13, 2016

So using the Roman Catholic definitions we find a small but distinct difference in the two words besides the lay ‘opinion’ definition. We see that Proselytism is a declaration and judgement while Evangelism is a method of listening and letting the message define the conversion. In some Roman Catholic discussion the ‘Holy Spirit’ fills the listener and does the convincing. Pope Francis declares that ecumenism or the principle or aim of promoting unity among the world’s Christian Churches is at stake in the two words

There is a meaning found under the Baptist Pastor’s discussion. “They don’t mind if you proselytize but they don’t like if you evangelize.” The Pastor raised his voice and pushed his bible forward towards the congregation in a forceful manner when he said this. The vision of his imposing figure on the stage moving quickly and thrusting his bible conveys a much different idea of evangelize than that defined by the Roman Catholic leader. It appeared that the Pastor relied on a the definition of a proselytizer as being passive and merely excluding those not listening. He used his forceful movement to emphasize action in the word evangelize to determine an outcome. While he tempered his movement of with words of encouragement in helping someone make a hard decision about their life, he was unable to cover the lesson on evangelizing was not something easily welcomed and needed to be thrust upon the audience.

If one visualizes the scene in the previous paragraph you can determine the definitions from a small town Baptist point of view. Proselytize is to passively try to convert someone and if that fails excluding them. For this small Texas town Baptist Pastor, Evangelize was an active and forceful action albeit with some attempt to help the person to understand why they need to convert or repent. This point of view is almost 180 degrees the opposite of Pope Francis.

This meaning proclaimed from the lectern of that small town Baptist church can be found in the nationwide actions of the religious right in recent politics and legislative actions limiting the liberty of LGBTQ+ and specifically against trans-persons or transgender persons. A transgender person is someone whose gender identity or gender expression does not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth. Many experience gender dysphoria, which they may seek to alleviate through transitioning, often adopting a different name and set of pronouns in the process.

A Baptist based school next to the Baptist Pastor’s church states its concerns and in order to enter their children, parents must state that they align with the beliefs as a prerequisite to admission of their child. In the belief on gender the admissions documents declare; “God created male and female with the distinct and biological sex of each person immutably determined and manifested at conception by God.” The use of the term immutably is key to the opposition to any child’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria or unease with one’s birth gender.

Immutably:unchanging over time or unable to be changed

Definitions from Oxford Languages

So the beliefs are condemning trans-children from the outset and not seeking any dialogue. They are declaring that they are predetermined in their psychology since birth. There is no way to change and that it is physically impossible to change one’s sexual orientation from that of male or female at birth as determined by their God. As you can see they are not listening or trying to evangelize with God’s help but proselytizing their feelings declaring it is impossible for someone to seek happiness and peace through emotional and medical change to blend into society.

Both of these acts upon which members of a religious sect are choosing to act as medical and psychiatric doctors of medicine in their diagnosis and declarations against LGBTQ society. They have with this, created a violation of the sacrosanct chasm between government and the right of personal conscience.

The school, as in no manner of opposition, has the right to proselytize and exclude children whose parents do not hold the similar views. The Pastor has the right to proselytize against LGBTQ and even attempt to evangelize to ask the LGBTQ to make the hard decision upon their perceived sins and repent.

Our rulers have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. …. The rights of conscience we never submitted. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god

Thomas Jefferson – 1783

Thomas Jefferson wrote the above statement to warn against the infiltration of government into the beliefs of conscience found in religions. He later warned of an equal menace of political sermons interference into the affairs of state.

The ominous equal menace of the Baptist lectern has manifest itself into the rapid passage of anti-trans laws in Texas and other conservative States. The destruction of parental rights to seek medical treatment for their trans-child has been a direct result of the Baptists proselytizing the spiritual damnation to their congregation that do not act. The Pastors have taken to preaching medicine rather than lessons in religion. Will they soon turn towards law and other principals of government?

They are imparting injury upon families with their preaching of medicine from the pulpit. Yet, the State Government fails to protect the rights of the individual and has let the Pastors turn their politics into a religious duty. So what will stop any and every branch of human art or science being controlled in this manner?

American personal freedoms so easily taken away with the humble opinions of a Pastor or Priest are not easily won back. There is no dispute of the Pastor’s right to express such opinion nor the congregations right to listen. The rise of these religious ‘Robespierres’ and their influence upon society has not tempered calls of religious rights but imparted political duty manifest upon their congregations. There is no greater threat to Liberty than this. There is no larger reason to oppose such action on the principals upon which our democratic government has been founded.

The Right to Discriminate because of Religious Beliefs.

Posted on by
Reply

When I read this article from the Washington Examiner; Justice Barrett is allowed to have religious beliefs, (by Hugo Gurdon E.I.C.) I found myself conflicted in its intention and taken aback by its content. I slowly read the absolute bias and abundant usage of harsh cliche terms for those that are termed “The Left”. The entire article could have been written without the jaundiced derision of those who doubt Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s ability to rule blindly on the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act case before the Supreme Court. Because of her membership association with a religious group that is clearly opposed to the outcome of the case this author’s seemingly only intent is on attacking those that call for impartiality.

The case is based upon the religious freedom of a woman who’s business is the designing of public webpages. In this case the women has been refused the ability to expand her business to provide wedding webpage services because of her refusal to allow public service for an LGBTQ wedding solely on her religious beliefs

“I want to create for weddings, but I can’t because Colorado is censoring and compelling my speech and forcing me to create custom messages and expressions … celebrating messages that violate my deeply held beliefs,”1

The concept of Religious Freedoms as being so inalienable by the Conservative or Religious Right as presented by Mr. Gurdon and those that oppose this web designer and her ruling on the case as solely the acts of ‘Leftist’ religious persecution deserves a remonstrance regardless of Justice Comey-Barrett’s ability to rule fairly.

I too, feel there is a fine line between using your own beliefs in business and the government’s ability to maintain general authority in society. The conflicts of any civil society with the Governor of the universe and the duty one owes the Creator based upon each individual’s right to exercise it as they themselves dictate cannot be held apart. Religious viewpoints are inalienable because as Madison wrote;

The right is unalienable because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men. – James Madison

However, as was revealed by Madison’s dissertation there is a conflict between Freedom of Religion and being a member of civil society. It is not just the pocketbook that rules our society as Mr. Gurdon inaccurately portrays but our willing subordination to the institutions of that civil society that acts to protect our basic freedoms. The conflict arises from the Constitutional holding that in matters of religion no man’s rights are to be held back by the institutions of civil society. Religion must be wholly exempt from the institutions of civil society is our belief. “No other rule exists”, Madison writes. Yet questions that divide society can only be decided by the majority for a free and democratic society to exist. As Madison continued the concept”

but, it is also true the the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority

Since the make up of civil society has never been a fad or a short lived movement it cannot be fleeted away by Mr. Gurdon as simply a ‘cultural revolution’ and its change in society as simply ‘fashionable opinion.’ Civil society adherence to the Constitution has a requirement to uphold the will of the majority and at the very same time protect the rights of the minority. In this article Mr. Gurdon directs a reader into the idea that the ‘traditional Christian’ viewpoint is the minority to be protected. Yet, it is just that Christian viewpoint in the majority that trespasses and persecutes the LGBTQ minority and violates the separation of civil powers that have protected so called traditional Christians from the dictates of other Christian sects, including protection of Justice Coney Barrett’s own Roman Catholic sect.

Can Justice Coney Barret rule impartially on the matter without recusal? I cannot tell you the conscience of this Roman Catholic and her inalienable right to the Creator left to her own reasoning and convictions by . I can hope she will not overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of people. She must do so without the violation of the free rights of every citizen in every aspect of their equal participation in civil society. She must do so free from the dictates of religious viewpoints and opinions of other men, in this particular case women and of her own.

“If all men are by nature equally free and independent.  All men are to be considered entering into society on an equal conditions;  as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less one than another of their natural rights.  Above all are they to be considered as retaining ‘equal title’ to the free exercise ..to the dictates of their conscience.  While we assert for ourselves to embrace, to profess, and to observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yielded to the evidence which has convinced us”  – James Madison.

Writings on Putin’s war to destroy the future of the young

Posted on by
Reply

It cannot taint their innocence in the death and destruction brought solely from Putin’s ego.

Who is bombing and using artillery to kill these women and children? What are they doing it for? Is it Putin having a sissy fit at Ukraine because the Ukrainians have tasted pure liberty and realized that Russia offers them only a sub-human enslavement?

Rulers in Moscow have been killing Ukrainians for centuries starving them in the Great Famine (Holodomor) where 3.9 million Ukrainians died because of the rulers in Moscow. Moscow’s rulers racism against them has been long endured by the Ukrainians. Ukrainians tried to unite and set up a free government in 1919 that was short lived. Almost a century later in 1991 they declared their independence again.

The signing of the Act Zluky, on the St Sophia Square in Kyiv –
Also known as the Unification Act January 1919
Human chain in Ukraine 1990 for protesting for independence

Russians are not free like Ukrainians under Putin. Putin jails those that oppose him. He steals billions from the Russian people for his rich and lavish villas. He feels he has to protect his power because the Russian people would remember why they took down the Soviet Union then again rose up and stopped the 1991 anti-democratic coup against Gorbachev.

Yeltsin addresses Russians in the Street against the hard right coup attempt 1991

Putin does not want his people to see what liberty will do for them. He thinks that they want stability over freedom. He is wrong. He and those around him are cowards that hide behind their military dictatorship over a great people.

If the Russian people were truly free and democratic, they could demand Putin to stop this attack. A free people could direct their country towards better economic prosperity with liberalization of the economy and provide a better life for themselves by restricting their government from alienating them in the free world. Alas, they are not free. The Russian people know this. The Russian people have shown courage before to shake off the despotism that enslaves them.

What Putin failed to realize is that once tasted true democratic freedom fundamentally changed the Ukrainians. Russians under Putin have never really touched the face of freedom. Putin stole their revolution for freedom with his quest for personal power and wealth. Even those with equally enormous wealth do not have freedom. Putin has showed that he will steal it from them, give it to others and imprison those that stray away from surrendering all power to Putin.

The Ukrainians are not Russian. They are free, democratic and Ukrainian. Their grand father’s families suffered the Holodomor or Terror Famine of the 1930s. They were considered lower than human to sustain the Russian State and died by the millions. Ukrainians found a common goal with other free democratic peoples and were beginning to see the prosperity of their struggle.

Putin was worried of their prosperity. His disdain for Ukrainians grew. Putin used the Donbas separatists as an excuse to freeze the Russians there desires for true freedom. Why, Ukraine and not Azerbaijan with a large ethnic Russian population? It was Putin’s worry that Russians would grow jealous of freedoms Ukrainians enjoyed and dream of clawing freedom’s power back from him.

Equality is something even those Ukrainian separatist in the Donbas regions have never realized. They attempted to remain ‘Russian,’ thinking they would be allowed to gain the blessings of the great Moscow rulers. They grew bitter at never breaking the subservience to a Russian view of Ukrainian inferiority. Their choice for self government providing a dream it could elevate them as equal to ‘Russians’ in Moscow. They have become pawns for Putin’s war on democratic freedoms. Likely, they then hope they will win freedoms and equality with the help of Putin which he will never do in reality.

Russia is the aggressor. Russia is the murderer. Russia is the criminal.

Glory to Ukraine.