What is going on has been so dark, I thought I'd take a break from #Trumpenführer's effort to inject fascism into the USA. So what do I do? I start reading a bio of Federico Garcia Lorca, by Ian Gibson. If I wanted to ease my mind about Fascism, he was exactly the wrong person to read. Or maybe it was my destiny and the emergence of imminence that was speaking to me that "now is the time to finish reading him." Unfortunately, the book reveals parallels to current times.
Trump practices these methods of the "Big Lie"
Further he also practices the 5 principles of Autocratization that propaganda that others have used before him. Amazingly, Steve Schmidt, who I remember shilling for GW Bush years ago when GW was doing some of these things, recognized and had enough with #Trumpenfuhrer's methodology that even he is raising the alarm. His formulation of the 5 Principles of totalitarian propaganda, restated in my own words, is as follows:
This post enlarges points made in:
As I've said elsewhere owning and using weaponry for self defense is an "auxiliary and subordinate" right. Samuel Adams quoted Blackstone and Parliament when he wrote, referring to the Glorious Revolution when English Parliament overthrew the Stuarts:
“At the Revolution, the British Constitution was restored to its original principles, declared in the bill of rights; which was afterwards passed into a law”
Note the wording "restored" and "afterwards passed into a law", is expressing the principle that these human rights existed all the while in their denial, which is the reason that any right to own and use arms other than in the military is actually linked to the 9th and 10th Amendments and the product of hundreds of years of resistance by Citizens against Government Oppression. The right to bear arms is the right to participate in the defense, and by logical extension, the governance of the country.
This was a principle that dated back to "Old England." Samuel Adams in an essay published in the Boston Gazette during the early stages of the rebellion in New England that became our Revolution referred to the right to “have and use” arms as part of a list of "auxiliary and subordinate" rights that only apply;
Which are rights that people have auxiliary, to resisting oppression:
These are only rights in a context of protecting the primary rights of:
In Britain, only those with real estate property, "the gentry" were permitted to bear arms in the Militia. The Gentry were afraid of "the rabble" being permitted to bear arms, and as a result, Sam Adams said that:
“having arms for their defense” ... “a public allowance under due restrictions of the natural rights of resistance and self preservation, when the sanction of society and society are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”
This right to bear arms is an auxiliary right necessary to resist "the violence of oppression", not a right of mere disaffection, or to engage in oppression or ethnic cleansing. If there is no oppression and no occupying military, there is no need to possess and sue arms. Hence the word "auxilliary." To the nascent Rebellion, it also was a response to the presence of “Military Troops” due to the fear that;
“Violence is always to be apprehended from Military Troops”
If you talk to any gun nut, they know full well this history, and that the great fear of "Standing Armies" was what drove the founders of this country to create a second Amendment. But they interpret that fear the way Southerners did in the antebellum period before 1865. They saw it as a right for the Free Men (they expanded the franchise from the Gentry) and Gentry to defend their property, which included other people. They didn't see slaves, peasants, indentured servants and the property-less worker, as full equals in society. But their arguments saying "All Mankind" meant that this was a deluded attitude.
One con argument against welfare in general and government supplied health care in particular is the notion that healthcare costs can't be controlled because they are labor intensive. This notion reflects the general disrespect for human beings and labor that is behind elitism and the push to replace people with machines in more and more businesses. It sounds plausible from a micro-economics view, but from a macro-economics view it reflects misplaced causality and misidentification of the culprit for cost increases. Especially in healthcare. Actual Labor costs are not the issue with healthcare. Profiteering, speculation, bureaucracy and administrative inflation are.
Piracy is as old as the use of the oceans in commerce. A pirate is a thief who operates on the ocean. However, due to the way this world works, a pirate can be a "legitimate businessman" or a "common thief" depending on who they attack and rob, and how they do it. There are some real differences between a pirate and a privateer:
Related Posts:
The Supreme court has gone out of its way to weaken:
But no matter their rulings, the issue with corruption is and remains an ethical issue of:
So why is that the case? When I started this post I hadn't heard yet Justice Kennedy's announcement that he was retiring in favor of a former Law Clerk, Kavanaugh, and through the influence of his son and Donald Trump. I was going to change this post to talk about it in detail. But in the interest of KISS, I'll finish this one first and put the details somewhere else. I'll come back here and put the references in the post later. The scandal of the Kavanaugh appointment happened, illustrates:
Keeping officials on the "up and up" requires fairly clear ethics rules, with statement both of principle and particular prohibitions. This is because unless prohibited many of these actions seem perfectly legal to the corrupt. After all, negotiating a retirement is something every business does!
Expanding the role and scope of the National Guard to include health care, emergency response and police training, is in the scope of what the intent of the Militia clauses in Article 2 Section 8 and the Second Amendment would have intended.
This post continues a theme I started long ago, but directly follows my post:
It is my contention that the second amendment is not primarily about the right to bear arms, but about the right to participate in self government and in the defense and security of our local areas and of our United States.
It is important to remember that from the beginning of the country, for Democratic Republicans:
“Arms were merely a tool to accomplish the constitutional end.”
The Founders sought in militia a corps of civic mindedness and self reliance, a:
...a band of brothers, and maintain your rights, liberties and independence with your last breath.” [Palladium]
Thus the core of the militia concept and the second amendment is the notion of Virtuous Citizenship! The Second Amendment is about the importance of Arming with the appropriate tools and training needed for citizens to participate in their own governments, self defense, disaster response and emergencies both local and national. That spirit is present in first responders to this day.
Therefore being "Armed" has a broader meaning than merely carrying an AR-15 or a military weapon; it means people being educated, trained, drilled and provisioned with the tools and resources needed to respond flexibly to whatever situation may arise both within or outside our country. Not everyone need bear a musket, but the underlying concept also includes all the tools and resources needed to rescue, repair, restore, and sustain our society. Thus in the modern and broader sense, the "right to bear arms" is the right to opportunity to participate in our Country's welfare and to become fully participating citizens. The "arms" involved include medical supplies, tools, tools and resources needed to keep communications open, power-lines and pipe-lines, all of them, operating, repaired, sustained and restored during emergencies and in preparation for emergencies.
The fact is that all our Police, Firemen, military forces in general, all descend from Militia. Health-care, power distribution and communications emerged within our communities, often tied to the necessities of self defense. When they are of, by and for locals, people feel a sense of both belonging and personal empowerment.
When police, fire, etc... come “from outside the community” they tend to be “standing armies” When police kill innocent people, it is usually because they feel like they are trying to control people who are alien to them. Police can be local volunteers and professionals or they can be from outside. When from outside they are either acting the role of “Standing Armies” or coming to the aid of locals who needed help. The founders saw standing Armies as an evil. As:
“that potion of idleness and corruptor of morals, a standing army”
The militia were meant to be an antidote to standing armies. A modern national guard can be an antidote to communities that feel oppressed and invaded. The old militia became unworkable as drilling for war became irrelevant to most people's daily lives. The country went to “select militia” they brought in police and firemen, often from outside the communities they were serving. Even so the modern version of a select militia National Guard was meant to be an antidote to Standing Armies. As also was the draft. A select militia makes service mandatory for a limited period. But not everyone is suited to carry a weapon. And there are so many more important services needed to respond to disasters and exigencies than Ar-15s or Military weapons.
