WE THE PEOPLE???

Why does the U S Constitution say, “We the people…” when the document really means “We the white land-owning men…”?

You would have to get in your time machine, don your time appropriate garments and head back to 1775 Philadelphia for the answer.

Of course, the real answer lies many years, if not centuries or even millennia earlier when the ‘weaker sex’ relied on the men to bring home the bacon, a beaver, or a buffalo and provide safety.

But before you make like Anne Boleyn, let me assure you this will not be a very long history lesson on the minority rule of men. It will merely be a roundabout way of showing that while ‘the squeaky wheel gets the oil’, ‘might makes right’ is the rule.

There are several more aphorisms that could be used but after a while they may take the reader’s attention away from my purpose, so I’ll stop before it’s too late, and strike while the iron is hot!

In law there is something called, ‘Adverse Possession’ which is generally used with regards to land ownership, but I will stretch it’s use a bit here for reasons which will become painfully clear.

Adverse possession states that if someone owns, or claims to own, or has in his possession, that which he was not originally entitled to, for a prolonged period, without dispute by the original owner, then ownership is given to the usurper.

The idea and practice comes from England, which just so happens to be where the United States came from.

So, where does adverse possession fit into the argument about “We the people”?

White, land-owning men have seemingly owned all other groups of human beings in America ever since arriving here from England. QED!

And since the above has only been disputed a handful of times, albeit successfully, the rule still stands and can be reinstituted at any time!

Two such successful disputes involve squeaky-wheel suffragettes, and equally squeaky-wheeled Civil Rights marching African Americans.

However, it now seems that the people noted in the Constitutionally cited, “We the People”, have decided that enough is enough and have started to rescind the hard-fought for rights of decades past.

Well, not all the “We the People´ have decided the above.

A mere five to four simple-minded; single-minded, simple majority on the Supreme Court of the United States is simply about to do so.

With a stroke of their conservative pen, those five individuals will strike down the first right from a list they hold sacrosanct; that of women being allowed to control their own bodies.

The archaic reason is, after all, they have been possessions of white men since before this Nation even began and were merely on loan.

And once “We the People” have taken care of women’s health issues, their right to vote against their husband’s wishes could be next.

Rescinding the rights of those they consider inferior sects of our citizenry will follow, as all the dominoes will topple and America will finally be ‘taken back’.

But no time machine is needed to stop that which would appear to be inevitable.

No new revolutionary war, or civil war be started, or rather continued.

The first shot heard round the world has been fired.

Now is the time for all good “We - All the People” to stand up and be heard before their voices are heard, like Poe’s Raven said, nevermore!

Dysfunction Junction

If one were to interpret the beliefs of what Republican and Conservative members of Congress think on two important issues in the news these days it might be that killing humans may only start after they have left the womb!

That provocative statement comes as a simple extrapolation of the arguments made by those groups and a juxtaposition of their talking points.

They claim that we must stop all abortions no matter what the circumstance but at the same time we must not infringe upon the rights of gun owners and in many cases mentally unstable individuals from obtaining weapons of mass murder.

In one case a woman has no choice but to bring a pregnancy to term even if she was brutally raped or was the victim of unconscionable incest.  She must even bring the future child into the world if it is medically evident the child will be severely deformed and may not live past a few agonizing and painful months.
And many of the less rational advocates of the far right support the murder of abortion providers in order to stop them!

That life begins at conception is the key to the ‘personhood’ movement, an attempted end run by the ‘right’ around the current law of the land known as Roe V Wade.

Attempts to change or at least parse the legal definition of birth back 9 months does not change the fact but rather points out the absurdity and contradictions of the right wing’s stance.

But on the other hand the uproar and outcry that came from the same groups over proposed gun control legislation aimed at making all Americans, including those brought to term after abortions, safer was deafening.

And what prompted this sudden defensive offensive move?

Obviously it was the massacre at the Newtown Elementary school.

It was merely the latest tragedy in our country involving such wanton destruction of life.

In fact so many of these types of massacres are occurring they soon may not even make the front page.

Words cannot fully express our
feelings for these beautiful children

But in Newtown so many beautiful innocent 6 six year olds and their caring brave teachers were viciously attacked and murdered for no apparent reason by the mentally deranged son of a strange now dead legal gun owning woman.

Leading the charge to continue allowing anyone interested in obtaining assault weapons the opportunity to kill more children and other Americans was the current ‘from my cold dead hands’ leader of the NRA Wayne LaPierre.

This major contributor to the coffers and pockets of our Congressmen hid behind the 2^nd Amendment of the U S Constitution, an amendment clearly in need of an update.

LaPierre seemed to argue that it would be a slippery slope to take away Americans’ God given rights to own guns of any kind.

I can't wait for his
cold dead hands
to relinquish control
of Congress!

The fact that Mr. LaPierre represents and is paid quite handsomely by gun and assault weapons manufacturers and not the average citizen who have no interest in carrying such things should make suspect any testimony he gives on the subject.

And speaking of his testimony, why does he get a seat in front of Congress?

I realize in America we wish to hear all sides of an issue in order to make a more rational decision but listening to his incredibly partisan paid for opinion is like asking a fox whether there should be more hens placed in house.

When you realize that the stance on the above issues comes from the same people it should make your head spin.

I do not think that the Republican Party wishes more fetuses to come to term so that they may be used as target practice but this sort of inconsistency undermines many of their arguments.

And when we add the fact that the Republican led House of Representatives voted over 40 times to overturn President Obama’s Affordable Care Act aimed at making healthcare more attainable for every American you clearly see their belief that life may begin at conception but no longer matters after birth!  That is unless you are born with a so-called silver spoon in your mouth and are a scion of the 1%.

If life is sacred, all life then why do they stop caring about it at birth?

The Republican Party has become as dysfunctional as their own words and the ideals they appear to espouse and it’s past time to let them know we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it, or elect them anymore!

What's in a Name? PLENTY!

I was actually hoping to give this, or some form of this a s a speech in front of an AARP group but sadly the meeting for this forum was during the morning hours of a weekday.  I work during the week and could not possibly get away so here are the thoughts that I was hoping to share with other AARP members.

We have allowed certain groups of people and politicians to define and basically ruin some good words.

One such word is Liberal.

If one has guests over and is liberal serving food and drink it is generally considered a good thing. It is certainly a nice thing to do for guests and it will be appreciated and even reciprocated should the circumstances be reversed. AT least one would hope.

Liberal tends to mean being open and caring enough for the needs of others as to try and make sure they are taken care of. And some times we may put ourselves out a little to ensure this is done.

I don’t believe it would be very nice if you were conservative with your meal should you have guests over for a dinner party, do you?

So why is the word so bad?

Why is the act so bad?

Why have we allowed a small group of greedy, selfish people to define a word that symbolizes helping others as bad?

If they don’t wish to be nice then that’s their prerogative.

We are only on this Earth for a short period of time so why look to hurt others? Why make stepping on others’ rights for personal gain your main goal?

The world would be a far better place if more people acted in a liberal manner than a conservative way.

Another word that has been usurped by a small radical group of selfish people is “Entitlement.” And not just entitlement but by simple extrapolation all forms of the word ‘entitled.’

Suppose you had some extra cash. I realize in the current economic climate that might be a stretch but allow me an indulgence.

Say you placed that money in one of our formerly bailed out banks expecting an exorbitant 0.3% interest rate.

After a year or so you decided to withdraw that money.

Would you be ‘entitled’ to do so?

OF COURSE, IT’S YOUR MONEY!

Well what do you think Social Security is?

IT’S YOUR MONEY TOO!
Every paycheck you receive during your working life has a Social Security deduction removed before you get the cash!  You know it, conservatives know it, everyone knows it!
So why should you not have it coming to you when you retire?

So the conservatives are correct, Social Security is an entitlement.
And you are entitled to it, period!

Medicare is the same type of entitlement with the same result!

For a long time now I have been arguing that we must stop allowing a few disgruntled people to define our lives and the issues of our time by naming and then vilifying them.

And if I may go off on a slight tangent the group of people who call themselves Pro Choice argue for a woman’s right to make that most awful of decisions concerning the life of her unborn child.
That fetus may be the result of incest or a rape and the conflict that would arise in the mind of the suffering woman would be mind boggling.

But for some reason the group opposing her anguish who, by their very nature admittedly have no dog in the hunt will infer that the "Pro Choice" people are against life by naming their group, “Pro Life!”

I would argue that the “Choice” people do in fact offer women and their spouses a choice in dealing with this terrible scenario while the other side does not and should therefore be renamed, “No Choice!”

So what’s in a name?

It turns out there is quite a lot in a name!

And we must not allow others to name us or our group or our lives. We decide what we wish to be called and we are allowed to be damned proud of the name we choose.

I am a Liberal who believes in Pro Choice and I love the fact that America is such a forward thinking nation as to have wonderful entitlements for all its citizens!