"Do or Do not. There is no try."

“Supreme Anointment Court”: Sheltered From Sun And Light In Our Nation’s Holiest Building

True Blood, the magic, devilish, vampire TV world of shape-shifters where blood is a bottled commodity to drink in a bar and extreme graphic violence and sex is recklessly paired will finally have the stake driven into its heart and exit at the conclusion of this seventh season.

I remember the show’s big surprise lesson from season one that no matter how scary and powerful, vampires cannot enter your home without being invited. However, there is no end in site of the bad true bloody struggles between the five conservative and four liberal justices of our Supreme Court, and no matter how societal changing a Court decision is, the public mostly never gets invited in, never gets to be witness to these omnipotent secret cultish figures dressed in robes sitting elevated and fortressed behind sacred wood protected in their house from uninvited intruders while drinking their own ideological dogmatic “blood.” We never get to see their clever shape-shifting after taking up the bar forever in residence chambered and sheltered from sun and light in our nation’s holiest building. We never get to experience these high priests of the constitution experiencing the life we live that they interpret for us. We never get to see whose influential blood and money they drink that becomes the magic elixir of their last words that toss the ingredients of our melting pot. We never get to see their expressions as indicators of how bad the blood between them might really be as they depart company after each session to take solace and recharge in their secluded coffined off chamber.

Throughout much of our history, we have mostly accepted, obeyed, revered and patiently waited with undying respect for the Court’s directives. We knew they knew better what was better for our society. For Americans, this was the place where evil, malice, patronage, cronyism, politics, and the compromising inducements of avarice and greed humans are so easily soiled by held to a higher standard that truly defined how great a system ours was. We hardly ever get to see this side of the court any more. Just as divided and unpredictable as the world depicted in True Blood, the Supremes on the Court dominated by extremist conservatives are driving the stake into the disunited states of America.

Recent polling supports the perception of a society absolutely at odds with all forms of government. The Supreme Court has lost the confidence of Americans. We are now adrift without a moral compass, without checks and balances, without a credible mandate voice in any of our three plus media equals four branches of government. A majority of voters elected President Obama twice with such a mandate. But increasingly, we are witnessing a court that has anointed itself as representative to its secreted world to drive The Stake to drain the blood of Obama-ism. What after-world can and will emerge in such a divided state and in what state of health and personhood will each of us be in at that time? As we do get to witness many hot spots around the globe descend into horror, can we save America and ourselves?


By: Allen Schmertzler, The Huffington Post Blog, July 3, 2014






July 4, 2014 Posted by | Conservatives, Supreme Court | , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Consent” For The Public Good: What Our Declaration Of Independence Really Said

Our nation confronts a challenge this Fourth of July that we face but rarely: We are at odds over the meaning of our history and why, to quote our Declaration of Independence, “governments are instituted.”

Only divisions this deep can explain why we are taking risks with our country’s future that we’re usually wise enough to avoid. Arguments over how much government should tax and spend are the very stuff of democracy’s give-and-take. Now, the debate is shadowed by worries that if a willful faction does not get what it wants, it might bring the nation to default.

This is, well, crazy. It makes sense only if politicians believe — or have convinced themselves — that they are fighting over matters of principle so profound that any means to defeat their opponents is defensible.

We are closer to that point than we think, and our friends in the Tea Party have offered a helpful clue by naming their movement in honor of the 1773 revolt against tea taxes on that momentous night in Boston Harbor.

Whether they intend it or not, their name suggests they believe that the current elected government in Washington is as illegitimate as was a distant, unelected monarchy. It implies something fundamentally wrong with taxes themselves or, at the least, that current levels of taxation (the lowest in decades) are dangerously oppressive. And it hints that methods outside the normal political channels are justified in confronting such oppression.

We need to recognize the deep flaws in this vision of our present and our past. A reading of the Declaration of Independence makes clear that our forebears were not revolting against taxes as such — and most certainly not against government as such.

In the long list of “abuses and usurpations” the Declaration documents, taxes don’t come up until the 17th item, and that item is neither a complaint about tax rates nor an objection to the idea of taxation. Our Founders remonstrated against the British crown “for imposing taxes on us without our consent.” They were concerned about “consent,” i.e. popular rule, not taxes.

The very first item on their list condemned the king because he “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Note that the signers wanted to pass laws, not repeal them, and they began by speaking of “the public good,” not about individuals or “the private sector.” They knew that it takes public action — including effective and responsive government — to secure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Their second grievance reinforced the first, accusing the king of having “forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance.” Again, our forebears wanted to enact laws; they were not anti-government zealots.

Abuses three through nine also referred in some way to how laws were passed or justice was administered. The document doesn’t really get to anything that looks like Big Government oppression (“He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance”) until grievance No. 10.

This misunderstanding of our founding document is paralleled by a misunderstanding of our Constitution. “The federal government was created by the states to be an agent for the states, not the other way around,” Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said recently.

No, our Constitution begins with the words “We the People” not “We the States.” The Constitution’s Preamble speaks of promoting “a more perfect Union,” “Justice,” “the common defense,” “the general Welfare” and “the Blessings of Liberty.” These were national goals.

I know states’ rights advocates revere the 10th Amendment. But when the word “states” appears in the Constitution, it typically is part of a compound word, “United States,” or refers to how the states and their people will be represented in the national government. We learned it in elementary school: The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation to create a stronger federal government, not a weak confederate government. Perry’s view was rejected in 1787 and again in 1865.

We praise our Founders annually for revolting against royal rule and for creating an exceptionally durable system of self-government. We can wreck that system if we forget our Founders’ purpose of creating a representative form of national authority robust enough to secure the public good. It is still perfectly capable of doing that. But if we pretend we are living in Boston in 1773, we will draw all the wrong conclusions and make some remarkably foolish choices.

By: E. J. Dionne, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, July 3, 2011

July 4, 2011 Posted by | Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Democracy, Equal Rights, Freedom, GOP, Government, Government Shut Down, Ideologues, Ideology, Lawmakers, Liberty, Politics, Populism, Public, Republicans, Revolution, Right Wing, States, Taxes, Tea Party | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

John Adams On The First Independence Day

On the morning of July 3, 1776, John Adams, delegate to the Second  Continental Congress from the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote his wife Abigail:

Yesterday the greatest question was decided,  which ever was debated in America,  and a greater, perhaps, never was or will be decided among Men. A resolution  was passed without one dissenting colony ‘that these United Colonies are, and  of right ought to be, free and independent states, and as such they have, and  of right ought to have, full power to make war, conclude peace, establish  commerce, and to do all the other acts and things which other states may  rightfully do.’ You will see in a few days a declaration setting forth the  causes which have impelled us to this mighty revolution and the reasons which  will justify it in the sight of God and man. A plan of confederation will be  taken up in a few days.

When I look back to the year of  1761 and recollect the argument concerning writs of assistance in the superior  court, which I have hitherto considered as the commencement of the controversy  between Great Britain and America, and run through the whole period from that  time to this, and recollect the series of political events, the chain of causes  and effects, I am surprised at the suddenness as well as greatness of this  revolution. Britain has been fill’d  with Folly and America  with Wisdom, at least this is my Judgment.

Time must determine. It is the will  of Heaven that the two countries should be sundered forever. It may be the will  of Heaven that America  shall suffer calamities still more wasting and distressing yet more dreadful.  If this is to be the case, it will have this good effect, at least: it will  inspire us with many virtues, which we have not, and correct many errors,  follies, and vices, which threaten to disturb, dishonor, and destroy us. The  furnace of affliction produces refinement, in states as well as individuals.  And the new governments we are assuming, in every part, will require a  purification from our vices and an augmentation of our virtues or they will be  no blessings.

The people will have unbounded  power. And the people are extremely addicted to corruption and venality, as  well as the great. I am not without apprehensions from this quarter, but I must  submit all my hopes and fears to an overruling Providence,  in which, unfashionable as the faith may be, I firmly believe.

In the evening, he sent a second letter, in which he wrote:

The second day of July, 1776, will  be memorable epocha in the history of America.  I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations, as  the great Anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the day of  deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be  solemnized with pomp, shews, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and  illuminations, from one end of the continent to the other, from this time  forward forever.

You will think me transported with  enthusiasm; but I am not. I am well aware of the toil, and blood, and treasure,  that it will cost us to maintain this declaration, and support and defend these  states. Yet, through all the gloom, I can see the rays of light and glory; I  can see that the end is more than worth all the means, and that posterity will  triumph, although you and I may rue, which I hope we shall not.

Happy Birthday America.


By: Peter Roff, U. S. News and World Report, July 3, 2011

July 3, 2011 Posted by | Congress, Democracy, Equal Rights, Freedom, Government, Ideologues, Ideology, Lawmakers, Politics, Revolution | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


%d bloggers like this: