June 22, 2017

A Case of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Void of sensible argument, let’s just say for the purposes of this discussion, that the corporate “citizens” of this corporation, the United States of America, live in a democracy. Might as well say it because most think we do and vehemently support it. A democracy sucks…especially when you are the sheep in a three-way discussion with two wolves deciding what’s for lunch. When you combine the ills of the so-called democratic process, with the ignorance of taking the high ground on all things democratic, scientific and wildlife management, spelled out for us in bold letters is HYPOCRISY.

To make my point, gander at the article written in the Kennebec Journal extolling the virtues of Maine’s Constitution and the democratic process in deciding who’s going to make the menu for lunch….er, well, kind of – until the promoter of the democratic process discovers she might be headlining the menu.

The article itself is garbage and so I will not waste my time with a step by step process refuting the endless claims of nonsense strewn through the blather of nonsensical words and hypocritical proclamations shouted from the position of the only one holding the high ground on all matters of what this person calls “rights,” science and the management of wildlife.

It would appear the letter writer assumes the position that rights are granted by governments and that those granted rights are how things should be, as in the rule of law, so long as they are the totalitarian rules of law she chooses to subscribe to that promote her ideology and choice of lifestyle.

The day we are born, our Creator gives us all our rights. It is only man in his sin that takes those rights away and/or doles them out as a means of controlling the population and presenting themselves as an “exceptional” government creating an “exceptional” nation. Sound familiar? Perhaps you don’t recognize it.

For each and every law that it enacted, one more aspect of our God-given rights is being chiseled away. We have reached a point in our uncivilized, greedy, nasty, hate-filled nation, where democracy, manipulated by money and power, is used to force the wills of only the most powerful and affluent among our society. There is a different name for this other than democracy…but, don’t go look.

In our own blind ignorance, created by the same powerful and affluent through essentially brainwashing (controlling all forms of education and media) once anyone assumes the high ground on any issue, of course the other side is wrong and need to be stopped, even to the point of wanting the oppositions rights removed. This IS but one of the nasty elements of democracy that you must like.

Aside from the blather of the letter writer, can anyone see the idiocy in the defense of what this person considers her choice in how democracy and the rule of law are applied? I see this most often but I wonder how many others do, especially those bent on forcing their idealism and totalitarian ways onto all others.

With but limited “rights” left, as most all “rights” are either taken away or have been limited to some degree, one can only employ the “democratic” process available in hopes of changing those laws.

In Maine there is but one more attempt at amending the constitution in order to establish what the promoters are calling a constitutional protection to hunt, fish and trap. Incidentally and most relevant to an honest discussion, since Maine became a state, there have been 172 approved amendments to its Constitution. Should it come as a shock to people that the process taken to adopt these amendments was the “democratic” process established within the original Constitution as defined in Article X, Section 4.? If you love this democracy so much, I hope you at least understand how it works.

How, then, is seeking approval from the Maine Legislature, to present to the voters of that state, a chance to consider, debate and vote on this or any other amendment, wrong as it applies to things a person doesn’t approve of?

The letter writer claims that a constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish and trap will destroy the rights of others and prohibit them from having any legal recourse in affairs concerning wildlife management. What nonsense. No constitutional amendment, unless so written, will supersede any and all other articles and amendments within a constitution.

Not that long ago, some in Maine were promoting a law that would remove a person’s right to petition the state in wildlife management issues of which I opposed. The proposed amendment, as written, would not do that.

It appears that in the letter writer’s enthusiasm and hatred toward all things hunting, trapping and fishing, she is skewing the lines between offering substantiated reasons to oppose an amendment for its content, and the actual democratic process established within the constitution.

I assure everyone that of the 172 amendments to Maine’s Constitution, not everyone liked and voted for them. However, as I have stated, democracy sucks, especially when you are on the short end of the stick.

The process is established and as much as some would like even to change that process, which can be done by implementation of the democratic and legal processes established within the Constitution, it is a process that shouldn’t be used to somehow demonize anyone’s or group of anyone’s right to petition the state and/or use the legal process to, in fact, let the voters decide. That is after all, what most American’s think is the best way to do things. It’s a classic Jeffersonian process.

The person who wrote this letter obviously does not understand the state’s legal processes, as well as the not so legal processes, that are presented as a right to assure a citizen the process to legally change the laws. It is not only ironic, buy of a double standard, that anyone would, while attempting to bless the Maine Constitution, out of the corner of their mouths, wish to limit those rights to anyone she does not agree with or that doesn’t agree with her.

The process is there, whether we like it or not. If you support this process and believe in it, then put your money where your mouth is and let the process work. In the meantime, if you oppose or support the proposed constitutional amendment then provide valid reasons for or against. Don’t pretend to understand the process while doing everything in your power to destroy the process.

Then again, all of this could be just a charade.

 

Share

Two Wolves and a Sheep

democracy

Share

Trust Your Elected Government Representative?

AHEM!

An op-ed found on the Maine Wire, says that making laws through the referendum process is not a good way to do it, and lists some of the reasons why this might be so. Unfortunately, the author doesn’t offer a precise solution but does intimate that placing trust in the representatives that got elected as being the best solution. “When we elect lawmakers, we expect them to weigh various proposals. Recognizing that a first draft isn’t always the best, we empower the Legislature to amend bills, sanding off rough edges and trying to fashion the best solution to the problem at hand. They don’t — or at least, shouldn’t — capitulate to an advocacy group simply because that group has a lot of money or yells the loudest.”

From my perspective, the entire process of electing representatives and making laws is flawed and corrupt. The author’s perspective also appears a bit idealistic and probably is rooted in his own connections to the political system. However, to think that wealthy political influencers can control the law making process through the referendum process and such corruption is immune via the legislative process is naive. It’s the only thing that drives all laws in this country.

A troubling part of this process is when political activists begin demanding changes to how the system works when things aren’t going their way or they are feeling threatened. Often overlooked in the emotional action and reaction is that changes to processes work in all directions and often comes round and bites you on the backside.

To suggest doing away with the referendum process, relying solely on elected officials, is both foolish and dangerous. Doing so would further eliminate the right of people to petition the government. Is that what we really want? When’s the last time you saw an elected politician refuse to “go along to get along” in order to carry out the majority wishes of his or her constituency?

It seems in Maine over the past few years, a lot of noise has arisen about the signature gathering process to get referendums onto a ballot. And now we hear suggestions that the process is a terrible way of making laws. Isn’t the real problem a matter of finding a way to keep the referendum process for Maine, or any other state, within the political processes of that state, as well as discovering, somehow, ways to control the flow of money?

Government is dangerous enough without handing them another free pass to disregard the wishes of the voters. Unfortunately, we live in a Socio-Democratic society where all it takes is 51% of the people to force the rest to live by their rules. This may be a terrible political system to live under but I assure you that having no recourse than to simply allow government officials to dictate terms more than they already do, is an even worse suggestion as a possible solution.

Share

Conspiracy Labelers: Ignorant of Elementary Procedures or Conscientious Role Players

“Everywhere and at all times groups, organizations and leaders meet in closed meetings, before going ‘public’. A minority of policymakers or advocates meet, debate and outline procedures and devise tactics to secure decisions at the ‘official’ meeting. This common practice takes place when any vital decisions are to be taken whether it is at local school boards or in White House meetings. To label the account of small groups of public officials meeting and taking vital decisions in ‘closed’ public meetings (where agendas, procedures and decisions are made prior to formal ‘open’ public meetings) as ‘conspiracy theorizing’ is to deny the normal way in which politics operate. In a word, the ‘conspiracy’ labelers are either ignorant of the most elementary procedures of politics or they are conscious of their role in covering up the abuses of power of today’s state terror merchants.”~Prof. James Petras

The madness of normalcy in this psychopathic society bares it’s fangs when critically challenged..
Edward Bernays must have been “purely insane….”
“psychologically conditioned, the public will accept the stages of the New World Order as if they were self-evident.”~HG Wells

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”—From ‘Propaganda’ by Edward Bernays

Share

Democracy = Mobocracy

This was the definition of democracy in 1928:

“DEMOCRACY: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard for consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.”
1928 U.S. Army Training Manual

A very accurate definition;
“Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor”and he begins the process by oppressing his neighbor.”

Share

Do We Live in a Constitutional Representative Republic?

“We live in a Constitutional Representative Republic not a Communist Country owned by the Collective.”

WRONG!

Actually we live in a constitutional, collectivist, capitalist, communist country owned by the wealthy elite, Posterity of the Adopters of the Kings, deal in Paris in 1783 [Treaty of Paris] that has merely posed as a representative republic since day one.

In a true or pure Republic the leaders are “titular” and therefore its governmental authority remains with the people. The United States Constitution did not create a true republic. A pure republic requires that the individual take responsibility for himself and his neighbor by a personal daily choice. Article IV, Section 4 the U.S. was created to “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” The United States itself was an indirect democracy which is not a Republic. In an indirect democracy the people elect leaders who can make laws without our consent, for they are no longer titular in authority but have power. That power may be restricted by constitutions and contracts. It is still power and power corrupts. The mere idea that 51% of the people can rule over the rights of the other 49% is already an usurpation of the Republic; the states operate in this fashion as well… In order for the majority to gain lawful authority the individual must first relinquish his natural authority over himself. This nation has fallen prey to its own oppression; already one civil war, various foreign wars and domestic political conflicts resulting in irreparable division. Another internal civil war is likely, survival unlikely.

Share

Democracy: Surrendering One’s Own Conscience to Mob Rule

Oxford Professor Carroll Quigley also wrote about a dictatorship of “experts,” suggesting that a cognitive elite “will replace the democratic voter in control of the political system” (Quigley 866). Of just such a democracy of “experts,” H.G. Wells stated:

The world’s political organization will be democratic, that is to say, the government and direction of affairs will be in immediate touch with and responsive to the general thought of the educated whole population. (26)

Literary critic and author W. Warren Wagar comments on this statement:

Read carefully. He did not say the world government would be elected by the people, or that it would even be responsive to the people just to those who were “educated.” (Wells 26)

I don’t know why any informed man would support democracy either, because it means surrendering ones own conscience to mob rule.

(Source)

Share

James Lovelock: Gaia Guru Quote

From Wikiquote:

Dr James Ephraim Lovelock CH CBE FRS (born July 26, 1919) is a British independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist and futurologist. He is most famous for proposing and popularizing the Gaia hypothesis, in which he postulates that the Earth functions as a kind of superorganism (a term coined by w:Lynn Margulis).

A Lovelock quote:

“Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Share