A Well Regulated Militia

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Everybody knows those words. The Second Amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights.

More lies have been told about that simple sentence than about anything else in American history with the possible exception of sex and gas mileage.

The most pernicious lie of all is that the 2nd Amendment somehow justifies the people in taking up arms against their government. The framers of the Constitution did not write in a clause that said it would be acceptable for the citizens to murder them while they went about the business of governing the new nation. Forget that.

As of when this screenshot was taken this tweet had been retweeted nearly 8,000 times.

Senator Rand Paul, of the governing Republican Party in the United States, sent this tweet: He claims that he was quoting her, but the format of the tweet doesn’t look that way to me. But it’s real: his account sent it. Real men don’t make excuses.

Steve Scalise is paying the price. Rand Paul, some Fox News TV “judge”, and a million other Conservatives, all stood together and held the gun that forever changed Steve Scalise’s life. His wounding is in their hands. Some dim bulb took Rand Paul’s word, and Rush Limbaugh’s word, and Alex Jones’s word, that he had a right to do it, and shot at his government. It’s called Stochastic Terrorism

In the first place, all that fancy talk about overthrowing tyrants isn’t in the Constitution. It’s in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson meant those other tyrants in England. (Of course, Rand Paul meant those other tyrants the Democrats.) At no place did Jefferson mean to imply that the same rules would apply to the Good Guys, the United States Government that they were fighting a war to create, after the Revolution was over. To say so is the purest form of lie.

The blurring of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution undermines the stability of the nation. It is a serious failure of education and a powerful tool in propaganda. The Declaration of Independence is specifically a challenge to the validity of government by King and Parliament over 13 faraway colonies. The Declaration of Independence was written to justify the colonies’ overthrow of that government.

Not this government.

The Constitution was written to create, codify, and hopefully operate into perpetuity this government. The United States of America.

The Declaration of Independence does not apply to the duly constituted government created after the Revolution. I have had dozens (at least) of misinformed people tell me that the the 2nd Amendment was written specifically to permit the overthrow of the United States government by force of arms; that the Constitution says so. I think that these people, without exception, believed that they were telling the truth. Violent overthrow of the government, these people believe, would be not a side effect of the Second Amendment but literally the framers’ reason for creating it. We are to believe that the framers, in Philadephia in the summer of 1787, said to themselves “we’ll make this Amendment so that if we annoy the people between elections they can come with guns and kill us all.” I cannot express how absurd this is.

The American people have been told, over and over, that they have a Constitutional right to overthrow their government by force of arms. Rand Paul, a sitting Senator told them that, on his United States Senate Twitter account which exists for official communications with his constituents.

Why would an average American even think that his Senator was lying to him?

Many of the people who have told them this currently are the government. Most of the remainder support the current government in various media and financial ways. By a marvel of misdirection that same government, the Trump Regime working together with the Republican Congressional Coup (with propaganda support from most of commercial media) has flipped the 2nd Amendment propaganda upside down and backward: Now they are saying that the 2nd Amendment gives some portion of the American people the Constitutional right to enslave the rest, to conquer all the people who would otherwise vote against them, again by force of arms. People who call themselves (but are not) militias claim a Constitutional Right to march down the streets of our cities in their camouflage suits and bulletproof vests with their (maybe semi-) automatic rifles and their war paraphernalia and order us around and kill one or two of us.

The President of the United States, The United States Congress, and most of the United States’s allegedly free press sees that same redefined Constitutional right in flaming letters written across the sky and bows down before it.

The party controlling the government today and the people who own over 99% of the money and media outlets in this country have spent 40 years pushing that lie. We are, today, in grave danger.

I have claimed that there is no Constitutional right to overthrow the government or enslave other Americans by force of arms. Why, then, do we have the 2nd Amendment, and what is a militia, anyway?

The “well regulated Militia” referenced in the 2nd Amendment is not an abstract, otherwise undefined armed group. The militia is defined clearly in the base Constitution. The 2nd Amendment, written after the base document, has its foundation in the Constitutionally defined militia.

Under the Constitution the Militia is primarily a creature of Congress and the States. The first reference to it is in Article I Sec 8. Article I creates the Congress; Sec 8 spells out several of Congress’s specific powers and duties. Par 15 says,

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

The Militia works for Congress. There are no self-employed militias in the United States.

The very next paragraph continues to define Congress’s duties regarding the Militia:

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

If Congress didn’t organize it it’s not a militia.

If Congress didn’t arm it it’s not a militia.

If Congress doesn’t discipline it it’s not a militia.

During such times that the militia might be activated for duty service to the country, Congress would directly govern the militia.

If the state of Virginia did not appoint officers for, and train, those thugs on the streets of Charlottesville, they were not a militia.

As envisioned under the Constitution, the United States of America did not have a standing Army. The only somewhat permanent army would be the Militia, organized by Congress but operated by States except in times of invasion or insurrection, when Congress (only) could call them up, after which the President would command them.

Article II of the Constitution creates and defines the Presidency. Section 2 defines his or her powers and obligations. The first paragraph of Article I Section 2 begins with

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;…”

Notice that the President only commands the militia after Congress calls them up.

Why does some huge majority of Americans think that little bands of armed thugs are militias? Because virtually every reporter in my lifetime has told them so. The thugs in Charlottesville were reported to be one or more militias. The difference is not a semantic quibble. A militia is an armed force in service to one of, or all of, the United States. A militia is to serve and protect the United States. These bands of thugs are specifically threatening war against the United States. Some – the Bundy mob comes to mind – have taken up arms against the United States more than once. The difference is as significant as the difference between birth and death.

The groups on the streets of Charlottesville may have been called militias by every TV and radio station and every newspaper in the country. If not, it was close. They were not, by any definition of the term applicable in the United States, militia.

Those groups were one of the following:

  • Armed gangs
  • An insurrection

If in fact the United States had a militia – and some believe that the National Guard is exactly that, our Constitutional Militia – it would have been Congress’s duty to call them out to preserve the peace in Charlottesville. Again:

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

The thugs on the streets of Charlottesville, VA, on the 11th and 12th of August, 2017, were not militia. They were an insurgency. Congress, every single member sworn on their honor to uphold and defend the Constitution, failed their duty and violated their oath.

Spread the word...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page

Negative Campaigning: The Death of Democracy

“Negative campaigning works!” You hear it or read it if you are interested in the mechanics of politics and the people who operate it. “That’s why we do it.”

Essentially there are two ways to win an election. One, get people to vote for you. Two, get people to not vote for your opponent.

Unfortunately one of our political parties has spent the last 40 years teaching Americans to hate their government. If everybody hates the thing you’re running for it’s much harder to tell someone a positive reason to vote for you. Except, “She’s terrible. You can’t vote for her!

Think of your own life. Now imagine someone takes at least a million dollars, and often more, and hires investigators to go back over every day of your personal life, looking for anything which might be dirt, or which might even be made to sound like dirt. Your life.

Say they went back to middle school or junior high. Because they would. “Hillary was a Goldwater Girl when she was 15. She’s a flip flopper.” Yes. That really happened on national TV and all over social media. Now we’re doing it with your life.

You can hire a lot of person-on-the-street hours with a million dollars, or five, or ten. Those people look for everybody you ever met who didn’t like you. They look for everybody who called you a slut or a fag in high school, and if they’re still mad at you they get them on video.

Did you get too drunk to walk and then drive home? Good. Plan to see that on TV in every major market. 37 times a week.

Were you a butt patter? (I was. It was the 1960’s and we hadn’t heard your side yet.) Plan to see every pitiful aged remnant of the flaming foxes you knew in the parties of your youth, on TV, telling America that you sexually assaulted them on 16 separate occasions.

Did you shoplift a pair of sunglasses when you were in junior high?Headlines. Today. Nationwide.

It’s even worse if you have dared to try to help run your society, from school board through US Senator. Every  word you said in official business or campaigning for office, plus half of everything else you said during that time, is on official record and digital video. Ever say anything you wished afterward you hadn’t? Plan to hear that, every day, for the rest of your political life, any time you run for office or do anything that annoys somebody with money.

The odds are, if somebody spent, say, 7 million dollars digging up dirt on you, and 240 million dollars buying ads spreading that dirt nationwide on prime time TV and drive time radio, if you’re just a regular, mostly good person, they could make you look so bad your mother wouldn’t vote for you.

To make it better, your own party would do it too. We got rid of the bad old days where party pro’s got together and said, “Lucille looks good for the House, and Bob for the Senate, and…” picked candidates and people just went along with it. Now some old man and some old woman want to be president, and the next thing you know people supporting each of them are buying up dirt and putting it on TV. And Facebook. And Twitter.

The separate entities, the Democrats and the Republicans, the Sam campaign and the Mary campaign, don’t each have to hire their own flocks of investigators to do this. They used to, but it became so lucrative that investigators started searching out dirt on spec. Forming big multi-million dollar companies to dig dirt. Now when some campaign needs to butcher Mary’s reputation all they have to do is call one or more Opposition Research Professionals. Pretty soon if you wet your pants in second grade it will be on national TV.

None of the dollar figures I am using here are exaggerations. People really would spend that kind of money to savage your reputation and your public image if you ran for President. Maybe for Governor or Senator, depending on the state. Possibly even Representative if you’ve stumbled into a Media Frenzy Race.

Because the ads aren’t the big deal. What they really want is Free Media. If a campaign can run a really sneaky, nasty negative ad on you, they have a chance of getting all the Sunday morning TV shows to talk about it. “Did Mary really run over her neighbor’s dog over poop in her flowers? Video after these messages…”

And nobody will ever know whether you did in fact run over your neighbor’s dog out of spite or not. Fact will not be established. Even if you never drove a car, the TV station will have somebody on each side of the story. One will swear it didn’t happen. The other will swear it did. Next story.

Leaving aside for a moment the question of why anyone would run for any office anytime anywhere ever, why would anyone vote?

By the time the election rolls around everybody in the country is certain that at least one of the candidates is all the terrible things that have been reported plus more. In fact, the plus more, made up dirt industry is booming too.

Unfortunately, about half of the voters are convinced that both candidates are every bad thing that’s ever been said about them, and figure, why vote? It’s not the lesser of two evils, it’s the flip-a-coin no difference choice between two total slimeballs you wouldn’t trust in your house.

To add insult to injury, besides doing it to individual candidates they do it to political parties. Many of the people I talk to appear to be utterly convinced that both political parties are entirely corrupt and evil. Katherine Pickering Antonova, in The GOP is No Longer a Conservative Party (Huffington Post, July 25, 2017) gives the clearest definition of a political party I have ever seen: “Political parties are fundraising organizations attached to a policy platform.” A political party coalesces around a theory of government and raises money in order to get people elected and try to govern according to that theory.

If you’ve ever done, made, or attempted anything you are probably aware that theories never translate 100% into practice. So it is easy to slaughter the reputation of any political party. Almost no matter what they said they would do, it didn’t come out quite like that. So they didn’t do what they said they’d do. Liar, liar, pants on fire. And more Americans register as Independent than as either Democratic or Republican, even though Independent is technically defined as “no fundraising organization attached to no policy platform / theory of government.”

So over a third of voters hate both political parties and some unknown quantity appearing to be up around half of voters hate both candidates. Half the people don’t bother to vote. Can’t bear to vote.

The press and TV spends all the time between elections telling the American people that of all the candidates are being pushed into office for nefarious reasons by bunches of anonymous crooks called political parties, and none of them are fit to vote for anyway. Then the day after the election this same press corps looks up and says, Gee, why didn’t anybody vote? Couldn’t they see this was an important election?

Um… fellas…

Spread the word...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page

Third Parties and Independents

In states where voters choose a party affiliation when registering, the largest single affiliation is “Independent.” More people register and identify as Independent than as either Democrat or Republican.

The largest “party” cannot participate in Congress without “caucusing” (sitting, meeting, and voting) with one of the two “smaller” parties.

The largest party cannot run candidates in most elections or get on ballots in most states.

The largest party is, in governing terms, irrelevant. The largest party does not participate in self-government in the United States.

This is bizarre.

I have a feeling that most self-identified “independents” really are either Democrats or Republicans on election day. I think that most of them vote for the same party over and over but just don’t want to have the name hung on them,  but I don’t actually know that. If this is not the case, these people’s view of governance is so different from mine that it is not likely that I could comprehend an explanation should they offer one.

I don’t know the details of registration in other states. In my state we don’t state a party preference until primary election day; we ask for a Democratic or Republican ballot to vote in the primary. So maybe some of the Independents are people who would register Green, or Libertarian, or Constitution Party, but they don’t get that choice in their states. So third party affiliation might explain some of the imbalance too. I don’t know.

But whatever the reasoning is, registering Independent is a poor fit with the American system as it has evolved.

There are many Americans who express dissatisfaction with our two party system. If, as I believe, registering as an Independent is an expression of dissatisfaction with our two party system, then more than a third of registered voters are dissatisfied. Fewer than a third are registered Republican; fewer than a third are registered Democrat. That’s our two party system. Over a third are registered Independent. That is dissatisfaction.

It may not be obvious, but every actual real republic, every openly and honestly elected government, is a two party government every day but election day. There is a majority party, and there is a minority party. That’s it. One group of elected officials controls the government. The other group of elected officials tries to keep the group in control from going off the deep end.

That’s it. Two parties. Majority, and minority. I don’t care if there are two names, three names, or twenty named parties. Except on election day there is a governing majority and everybody else.

We hold elections to choose our government. How do you want to be governed? That is the question.

Most of the people I hear talking about third parties – parties in the United States other than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party -seem to have an image in their mind of a governing party. I don’t think anyone really desires to create a party that gets, year after year, 1/10 of 1% of the vote nationwide, and 2% of the vote in their stronghold states. Why bother? No, I think people have a vision of displacing the Democrats (at least of the ones I talk to most want to displace the Democrats) and replacing them with a different second party in a two party system.

Because remember: Majority Party. Minority Party. Show me a legislature on Earth that can’t be defined in those terms, or accept them. Majority parties enact laws. Period.

OK, so what is a political party? If one were to make a serious effort to replace the Democrats what would it take? Tweets? Facebook pages? Voting for Greens? Libertarians? So far none of those approaches have shown any sign of success. They are 1/10 of 1% parties. Their voters are not attempting to elect a government.

I operate on the following principle: to produce results requires action. Laws of thermodynamics: nothing moves until energy is applied to it. So say the desired result is to replace a nationwide political party which has ballot access in 3,142 counties or county equivalents in the United States and is written by name into the rules of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate as well as many state governments. What actions will this take?

First, a political party requires organization. A national political party requires a national organization. Humans cannot even make a grade school co-educational soccer league without creating an organizational structure. It is how we work, we herd creatures. I am confident that when we were pre-human hunter gatherers, even before we evolved into Homo (allegedly) Sapiens, we had organizational structures. Wolves have organizational structures. Coyotes do. Chimpanzees do. So let’s just agree that in order for a group of like-minded people to be a nationwide political party requires a nationwide organizational structure. This new party needs to organize 3,142 county committees. These 3,142 local committees need to work towards a common goal, electing a government. In order to communicate and share efforts they will need a nationwide umbrella organizational structure to collect and pass messages if nothing else. The most logical place to put such a headquarters would be in Washington DC, because  Washington DC is where the national government is. Once again, the stated objective is to create a governing political party.

So far we have 3,142 county offices and one national office. That won’t work. One office can’t communicate with 3,142 offices. Information going up has to be consolidated; information going out has to be distributed.There will have to be one or more intermediate layers of organization. States. Districts.

This is why armies have generals, two layers of colonels, majors, captains, two layers of lieutenants, and and four layers of non-commissioned officers between the civilian command and the troops on the line. One general can’t command a few hundred thousand soldiers directly. And those few hundred thousand soldiers are just one tiny fragment of what the new political party will have to manage, should they become the majority party.

Remember, the United States government is probably the largest organization ever created by humans. If the objective is to create a party to operate this government, that party has to be widespread and organized.

In my lifetime this is not how attempts to create a third party or independent party in the United States have gone. Some small group of people, loosely organized in a few dots on the map, picks a candidate for President. They get their candidate on the ballot in some states. They campaign ferociously, negatively, against the opposition candidate who most nearly agrees with their policies.

This is not an attempt to elect a government. This is not even a serious attempt to elect a President. This is an attempt to pass a miracle.


Spread the word...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page

Hating America the Republican Way

This essay shares the first 8 paragraphs verbatim with my essay Hating America - The Social Cost.

Fewer than 1 in 5 Americans trusts their government or thinks it is a force for good.

Our own government. Self government. America’s government. The first Republic in over a thousand years, a government made up of and elected by the people, our government carried us from obscurity to world leadership in just a few generations. Now 4 out of 5 Americans hate and fear it. Why?

Because America’s governing party taught them to. The Republican Party taught Americans to hate their government.

What is America? What makes America unique? Our government.

Americans elected Republican Dwight David Eisenhower with the understanding that our system of government had saved the world from Hitler and Hirohito, from Nazism and Empire. During his presidency, all but the first two years of which were spent with Democratic Congresses, almost 3 out of every 4 Americans trusted our government and believed it had their best interests at heart.

By Lyndon Johnson’s presidency it was almost 4 out of every 5. Americans knew that our government was what made us America and what made us great.  Americans were optimistic, pleased and proud. We were on our way to the Moon. We told our government to solve some problems and it did. Unfortunately Johnson also got us into an unpopular and unsuccessful war. I can’t say that there is cause and effect, but things did get uglier from there.

Twenty-eight short years later America elected Ronald Reagan based on the proposition that that same small-r republican American government that we had worked on and believed in since our founding, the government that we fought and won a civil war to save, government of the people, by the people, and for the people, was everything that was wrong with our lives. His party has pushed that message non stop ever since.

From here there are two different directions to continue this essay.

Political Considerations  The Social Cost

The Democratic Party has, since at least the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, been the party of active government working to make life better for the American people. The reason Ronald Reagan told the American people to hate the government was because Democrats used government to help people. By calling out a few flaws – and of course there were flaws, there are flaws in absolutely everything – and focusing on those flaws every day, and talking about them every day, and getting more and more Americans every day to look at them, he could undermine everything the Democratic Party stood for. Democrats wanted to govern, to use government to help Americans, so Reagan said, Hate the government. Hating the Democrats was the obvious corollary.

The Democratic Party stood for the proposition that government could make people’s lives better. Democrats had spent 47 years proving it, but the improvements had become so much a part of everyday life that Americans quit noticing them and forgot where they came from. Of course we had highways; of course we had safe meat; of course the countryside was wired for electricity. Of course we had air traffic controllers looking into radar screens. Of course old people could get medical care and spend their final years under professional care if they required it. Of course veterans got medical care and disability payments. Of course we had Social Security, wasn’t it written into the Declaration of Independence? (No.) America entirely forgot that Democrats had given them all this and more.

Since the collapse of our economy in 1929 under Republican governance, Americans entrusted Democratic Congresses to legislate continued progress. From 1933 until Ronald Reagan’s inauguration Americans elected Democratic Congresses in all but two election cycles, four years. Two of those years were Eisenhower’s first two years, but it wasn’t a Republican Congress that granted Ike’s wish of an Interstate highway system from coast to coast. from Canada to Mexico. Eisenhower proposed it but Democrats made it happen.

in the depth of the Great Depression Americans looked around themselves and said, we’re in a mess. This entire country is in a mess. The only thing big enough to address that is our federal government. Democrats offered to use the government to help the people and by huge majorities the people said Yes.

The people did not have jobs. The government hired them. Paid them a living wage.

To be old was to be poor and miserable. The government created Social Security.

A handful of city people had electricity but nobody else did. The government created and partially funded Rural Electric Coops. While they were at it they dammed up the Tennessee Valley and turned it into a giant electric generating plant. Democrats led us through the greatest war in human history, and afterward they passed laws to educate, house, and care for the veterans who had fought it for us. For the first time in American (and possibly world) history, veterans too badly damaged by war to go back to work had decent medical care and a decent livelihood.

We still have things those government employees built for us; we still use them today.

For many years old people were reasonably comfortable, although today’s Republican party is undermining that every way they can. An American has to get older and older or sicker and sicker to get less and less of a livelihood after a lifetime of contributing to Social Security.

Veterans still rely on the benefits Democrats gave them then, although Republican budgets continue to whittle away at the value provided. A World War II veteran could get a college degree, could pay tuition, buy books, and find bed and board with his GI education benefits. Today that benefit will barely buy books enough for a degree; there is no need to even discuss tuition and lodging. Student veterans walk away with mountains of debt just as surely as other students.

Tens of thousands of Americans were losing life, limbs, sight, and mobility through workplace accidents. The government said, Do better, and business did.

Lake Erie died. The Cuyahoga River caught fire. 13 times. At least. Americans said, Fix that. The Democratic government did.

Deer, turkeys, wolves, and the bald eagle almost vanished from the earth, Americans said, Fix that The government did.

Children living along busy roads and highways were stunted and unable to learn. They were breathing lead with every breath. Americans said, Fix that. Democrats in Congress did.

95 years after the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, and in direct violation of its clear language, Americans were still being denied the right to vote “…on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Americans of all races said, Fix that, and the Democratic Congress and President Lyndon Johnson did.

This may have been the beginning of the end.

Americans said, Our old people are spending our inheritances on medical care. They are impoverishing themselves just over being old and feeble. Fix that. And the Democratic Congress created Medicare.

I could go on. Americans turned to their government, over and over, and said, All over our country people are suffering, Things we value are becoming extinct. Our air and our water are not fit to breathe or drink. Fix that. Fix what you can. The Constitution says you, our government, are supposed to provide for the general welfare, Do that. And the government did.

And then Ronald Reagan said, This is terrible. When common people have live fish in their lakes and rivers, rich people make less money. When common people keep all their hands, arms, and fingers through their entire working careers profits are lower. What’s worse, very rich people have to pay large dollar amounts in taxes to make all these things possible. Government is Bad!

Only he didn’t say it like that. He laughed his charming grandfatherly actor’s chuckle and talked about welfare queens in Cadillacs. He said, “The biggest lie on earth is ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.'” People laughed and voted for him.

At the exact same time that he was saying that, Hurricane Frederick was blowing a giant hole in Alabama and Mississippi, doing more dollar damage than any other hurricane in American history. Although the agency had only been created (by a Democratic Congress) 3 months earlier, FEMA was able to provide a quarter of a billion dollars in aid and reconstruction for the victims.

FEMA, created by Democrats, came from the government to help Mississippi and Alabama. Reagan made fun of it. The voters of Mississippi and Alabams chose… him. And a Republican Congress.

And they’ve been getting slowly steadily poorer ever since.

My advice to Democrats is simple: get Americans to quit hating their government. Because until you do that you have no chance of getting elected. Telling them what you want to use government to do for them is not going to help get you elected as long as they hate and fear their government.

I have some suggestion for working on this problem. Here is one. And another. Yet another.

Still more. They’re not too different, but if you’re interested here’s another. Here is a word or two about those flaws that Reagan killed us with.

And, since Republicans do currently have control over the government, and since they have made it something to hate and fear with their policies, another look at talking about it.

Spread the word...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page

One Honest Republican

I would like to see one honest Republican. I would like to hear one honest Republican speak. The way I would know I was listening to an honest Republican would  be by hearing her or him acknowledge that they have been in charge of Congress almost non-stop for longer than Millennial voters have been alive. All but two Houses of Representatives, four years. All but four Senates, 8 years. Since 1995. 22 years.

One honest Republican would acknowledge that the government we have today is the government Republicans created.

One honest Republican would acknowledge that the debt and deficit we have is the debt and deficit created by Republican Congresses.

One honest Republican would acknowledge that Presidents do not have the power to raise taxes, borrow, or spend money. Republican Congresses have exclusively held that power for most of the past 22 years.

One honest Republican would acknowledge that their economic system has been tried and failed. One honest Republican would acknowledge that a Republican administration joined by a Republican legislature in Kansas gave their system unbridled free rein and drove the state almost into bankruptcy. One honest Republican would acknowledge that under their economic plan, Kansas could not repair their highways or keep their schools open for the full school year.

One honest Republican would acknowledge that there is no historic evidence anywhere on Earth that tax cuts create jobs. Further, she or he would acknowledge that it has been tried, over and over, and it never worked.

One honest Republican would admit that jobs are never created because someone has money to spare, but rather are always created because someone observes an opportunity to meet some unmet need and get paid for it.

One honest Republican would admit that their policies, as enacted by themselves in Congress, have created the biggest gap between the haves and the have-nots, between the very rich and all other Americans, in our history as a nation.

One honest Republican would acknowledge that they designed and enacted the policies that made the Great Recession, and that they designed and enacted the policies that made the following “recovery” so unrewarding for the vast majority of American workers.

One honest Republican would acknowledge that the fiction of corporate personhood was created strictly to enable corporations to enter into contracts, and that it was never intended that corporate “persons” could participate in our self government and electoral system along with flesh and blood persons.

One honest Republican would take a stand that corporate persons are not citizens, and that participation in our elections is not the privilege of persons, but strictly of citizens. Real, human, flesh-and-blood citizens.

One honest Republican would acknowledge that the Affordable Care Act (ACA – Obamacare) was a market-based solution designed entirely by Republicans and first enacted in Massachusetts at the behest of Republican Mitt Romney, and that from a policy standpoint their only objection to it was that it was enacted by Democrats under President Barack Obama.

One honest Republican would acknowledge that our Constitution expressly forbids the government from enacting laws based on any particular religion’s beliefs and practices. One honest Republican would acknowledge that the United States has no more place enforcing Mosaic (Old Testament) law than Sharia law.

One honest Republican would admit that there is no justification for outlawing abortions that is not drawn directly from some religion.

One honest Republican would agree that “the free expression of religion” as guaranteed in the Constitution in no way obligates anyone but the individual believer to act according to that believer’s beliefs.

One honest Republican would acknowledge that money is not speech. One honest Republican would agree that the Constitution was written with the assumption that the words used would be understood as meaning what the dictionary said they meant, what reasonable people meant when they used those words. Money means one thing. Speech means another. Everybody knows that. One honest Republican would admit it.

One honest Republican would admit that the phrases “big government” and “small government” are absurd on the face of it. the United States Government is a vast enterprise to which millions of Americans trust their lives every single day, and it’s not going to become anything else. A partial list of what our government does can be found here.

One honest Republican would admit that the only way to operate the government without increasing debt is to levy taxes sufficient to pay the costs.

One honest Republican would admit that their party has patiently, intentionally taught the American people to hate their government without offering any alternative.

One honest Republican would acknowledge that the creation, training, and control of the Militia as referenced in the Second Amendment is clearly spelled out in Article I Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution, that said militia is not a self-organizing armed mob, and that the founders of our nation in no way intended to arm the people so they, our founders, could be murdered in the course of operating our government. One honest Republican would admit that the Second Amendment was not intended to enable mobs of armed thugs to roam our streets and threaten other citizens.

If there were one honest Republican, I wonder what his or her Republican party would stand for. Certainly none of what they push today.

How I wish we had One. Honest. Republican.

Spread the word...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page