freshwest
freshwest's JournalThanks for that. A lot of Libertarians don't believe in liberty and freedom for all, ya know:
The back of my insect hand to 'em!
Your definition of cost needs more serious thought. Supporting these rights cost many lives.
The 14th Amendment didn't cost any famous candidate but Lincoln his life. But the Civil War fought to bring those rights to pass cost 625,000 to 850,000 lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
And it's not over yet. More have died since then. Supporting the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act cost MLK, Jr. his life and that of Medgar Evers, the girls in the church in Birmingham, the Freedom Riders and more. The history of African Americans in America is one of bondage and terrorism for so many years that Americans ceased paying any attention to it. Untold numbers of African Americans died trying to live in peace and get their rights as human beings. For over five centuries.
Supporting reproductive rights have cost a number of people their lives. There have been so many incidents it has also been classified as terrorism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
Roe vs Wade reduced the number of women lost to illegal abortions. Those were lives being lost and why others were willing to lose theirs for rights.
Supporting marriage equality has set up a firestorm of genocidal ideology and religious fanaticism that calls for gays to be put to death, and some have been killed by those who can't stand the idea they might get those rights. There is a cost in human rights for seeking them.
Those are the costs that matter. These things are about living things, not money. People did not fight and die for some candidates, but for their very lives. This is not a game.
It is social indifference that permits the people you think are in charge to cause these deaths and this misery. We must work from the ground up. Then they will have to give in, they always have from a unified front. Supporting civil rights is a major part of unity. Ignoring civil rights is a major divider and permits those in power to get away with what they do.
To think of human rights only in terms of money is what the most powerful have taught us to do to divide us. Each of us will leave our record here of what we think and what we care about in this online community.
Oh, no. World Nut Daily is a BFD. Look at their regular commentator list:
http://www.wnd.com/commentators/A veritable glittering galaxy of batshit RWNJs.
I sooo appreciate RW smear jobs being posted here at DU, don't you? C'mon now, don't you?
If this fails, something fatal to democracy will happen.
Both Paul Ryan and Rand Paul have called for an Article V Convention. While the reason for calling it per this article is to overcome Citizens United that's not what they want it for.
Paul, Ryan, the Koches, Tea Partiers, Constitutional Party, Tenther and Sovereign Citizens movements have less democratic reasons. A little more of their agenda below. This is what they intend to do, and it will all be completely legal and the law of the entire USA if they get 38 states to ratify the changes. While this has not been done in the past, there's no certainty they can't do it. Especially since they are imposing draconian laws on their citizens right now which somewhat 'normalizes' it.
Attacking of the 14th Amendment is their goal. But don't think it would stop there, as they intend to eliminate the IRS and women's sufferage. Even women who are GOP elected officials say that women should not vote. So many laws we have taken for granted could be gone, as the Constitution supercedes all. Think about who is on the court now, which some already call the Koch Court:
See below what we stand to lose with them tinkering with or repealing it. **
Ryan said when they turned enough state legislatures 'red' they'd call for the Constitutional convention. Ryan gave the reason that they needed to repeal birthright citizenship to eliminate 'anchor babies.'
Paul is also eager to 'reform' the 14th to allow Congress 'to define what a human life is.' He says they'll define the unborn as having every right under the Constitution. Women will have none in that case. Isn't this the trend now throught the states?
I don't trust these legislatures to be in charge of a Constitutional convention.
It requires 34 states to call for an Article V Covention. Consider the makeup of the 'red' legislatures and what they have done in power since 2010 and more since 2014. Most of these legislators are Koch lackeys. Then read the Koch agenda below.***
Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution
A Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also called an Article V Convention, or Amendments Convention, is one of two procedures for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution described in Article Five of the Constitution. The other method is a vote by two-thirds of each house of Congress.
According to Article V, Congress must call for an amendment-proposing convention, “on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States," meaning 34 state legislatures would have to submit applications. Once an Article V Convention has proposed an amendment or amendments, then the amendment or amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 states) in order to become part of the Constitution.
Congress has the power to choose between two methods of ratification*: ratification by the state legislatures, or instead ratification by state conventions called for that purpose. In contrast to those separate state ratification conventions, a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution would be a single federal convention. While there have been calls for a second federal convention based on a single issue such as the Balanced Budget Amendment, it is not clear whether a convention summoned in this way would be legally bound to limit discussion to a single issue; law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen has suggested that such a convention would have the "power to propose anything it sees fit".[1] All 27 amendments to the Constitution have happened in a procedural sense by going through Congress and not through proposal by state legislatures.[1]
In recent years some constitutional scholars have argued that state governments should call for such a convention.[2][3] They include Michael Farris, Lawrence Lessig, Sanford Levinson, Larry Sabato, Jonathan Turley, and Mark Levin.[2][4][5] As of 2015, there is an active nationwide effort to call an Article V Convention. Citizens for Self-Governance, through a project called Convention of the States, is promoting Article V legislation in all 50 states in a bid to rein in the federal government.[6] In March 2014, Georgia became the first state to pass the group's Convention of States application.[7] Alaska and Florida followed suit in April 2014.[8][9][10][11][12] Similarly, the group Wolf-PAC chose this method to promote its cause, which is to overturn Citizens United v. FEC. Their resolution passed first in Vermont[13] in May 2014 and a month later in California. On December 3, 2014 Illinois became the third state to pass this resolution;[14] and on February 23rd, 2015 New Jersey became the fourth.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
*The Congress is dominated by the GOP radicals. What do you think they will do with that power?
**Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by Southern states, which were forced to ratify it in order for them to regain representation in Congress. The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade (1973), regarding abortion, and Bush v. Gore (2000), regarding the 2000 presidential election. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official.
The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom litigated. However, Section 2's reference to "rebellion and other crimes" has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement. The fifth section gives Congress enforcement power.
The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. The Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted in such a way that it does very little.
The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy.
The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation, and for many other decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
***BERNIE SANDERS Uncovers 1980 Koch Agenda- "What Do the Koch Brothers Want?"
What else do the Koch brothers want?
In 1980, David Koch ran as the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate in 1980.
Let's take a look at the 1980 Libertarian Party platform.
Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:
We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.
We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.
We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.
We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.
We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.
We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.
We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.
We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.
As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.
We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.
We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.
We condemn compulsory education laws and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.
We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.
We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.
We support abolition of the Department of Energy.
We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.
We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.
We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.
We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.
We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.
We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.
We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and aid to the poorprograms. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.
We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.
We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
We support the repeal of all state usury laws.
In other words, the agenda of the Koch brothers is not only to defund Obamacare. The agenda of the Koch brothers is to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country...
Tomorrow it will be Social Security, ending Medicare as we know it, repealing the minimum wage. It seems to me that the Koch brothers will not be content until they get everything they believe they are entitled to.
Our great nation can no longer be hijacked by right-wing billionaires like the Koch brothers.
For the sake of our children and our grandchildren, for the sake of our economy, we have got to let democracy prevail.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024806298
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a7980koch
People must ponder the implications of every item on that agenda that has been working on us for over 30 years. They have, or are close to, achieving all of them. We are at a tipping point. It is no time to attack each other, unless these goals don't mater to you.
If you look into the finances of the conspiracy pundits who scream about the government listening and reading email, or whatever outrage du jour is being presented, you can smell the stench of Koch above. They peddle anti-science for the masses, too.
Alex Jones and the rest say they are non-partisan but 'more Libertarian than anything else' as they spew old Bircher conspiracies. It's been an impressive psychological operation. Think the Koch brothers couldn't afford to fund this through the Tea Party, GOP, AFP, FreedomWorks, etc.?
Ever wonder where those slick production values for their films come from, with their 24/7/365 a year in multiple venues to get their message out, and where they get their money?
Not from the poor or nickel and dime contributors. They're never punished like real whistleblowers, who, BTW, are often out of the public eye and are not compensated. It's a con.
Note: The use of pronouns does not imply I am speaking to the OP author, DU posters or DU at large.
JMHO...
She's stated that she intends to support Obama's legacy. Here she was at a crucial point with Obama:
Both joyfully embrace each other in celebration of the passage of the ACA. See the electronic vote count board on the wall behind Barack. She's been for his goals all along.
Another one who is 'more libertarian than anything else' is Alex Jones. Who supports - LOL -
Rand Paul for POTUS, followed by another one he says he really likes - who woulda guessed - Ted Cruz! This 'more libertarian than anything else' is part of a long running scam on Democrats to create F.U.D.I stumbled on a view from an ABC story - no kidding and tortured myself watching a video of the imminent 'collapse!!!111!! of the dollar' while Ron Paul was interviewed by Alex Jones in January of this year.
They used the familiar bogeymen, 'federal reserve' evil, 'banksters' evil, MartialLaw© to be declared by the 'unitary executive,' AKA the 'imperial presidency of Obama,' etc. They threw in the now mandatory false flags on every news story, too.
Then they blew all the dog whistles!
They explained how the riots that will cause MartialLaw©, will be because of the 'inner city' people who just happen to be poor (see above) since they have 'an entitlement mentality' and want 'welfare.'All said with that familiar Clive Bundy 'Let me tell you about the Negro' tone. *winkwink*
Then they bloviated about the events in Ferguson, without bringing up the death of Michael Brown, hu. And how they 'didn't understand the second amendment there' and were all incited by 'race baiters,' that is Obama, Holder, Democrats, etc.'
Amd it got worse from there...
Needless to say we've got so many Libertarians, like Bryan Fischer, Rand Paul (both 'concerned' about teh gay) and the old standbys. I see things with memes to appeal to liberals and Democrats, or make them outraged. When you follow the links, they go to websites like 'Reason.'
Ain't fooling me. None of 'em.
Social Darwinim is the survival of the fittest economically, eugenics by wealth. Very Ayn Rand but
it predates her by some years:
Social Darwinism is a modern name given to various theories of society that emerged in the United Kingdom, North America, and Western Europe in the 1870s, and which are claimed to have applied biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology and politics.[1][2] Social Darwinists generally argue that the strong should see their wealth and power increase while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. Different social Darwinists have different views about which groups of people are the strong and the weak, and they also hold different opinions about the precise mechanism that should be used to promote strength and punish weakness. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism, while others motivated ideas of eugenics, racism, imperialism,[3] fascism, Nazism, and struggle between national or racial groups.[4][5]
The term social Darwinism gained widespread currency when used after 1944 by opponents of these earlier concepts. The majority of those who have been categorised as social Darwinists, did not identify themselves by such a label.[6]
Creationists have often maintained that social Darwinism—leading to policies designed to make the weak perish—is a logical consequence of "Darwinism" (the theory of natural selection in biology). Biologists and historians have stated that this is a fallacy of appeal to nature, since the theory of natural selection is merely intended as a description of a biological phenomenon and should not be taken to imply that this phenomenon is good or that it ought to be used as a moral guide in human society. Social Darwinism owed more to Herbert Spencer's ideas, together with genetics and a Protestant Nonconformist tradition with roots in Hobbes and Malthus, than to Charles Darwin's research.[7] While most scholars recognize some historical links between the popularisation of Darwin's theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution.[8]
Scholars debate the extent to which the various social Darwinist ideologies reflect Charles Darwin's own views on human social and economic issues. His writings have passages that can be interpreted as opposing aggressive individualism, while other passages appear to promote it.[9] Some scholars argue that Darwin's view gradually changed and came to incorporate views from the leading social interpreters of his theory such as Spencer,[10] but Spencer's Lamarckian evolutionary ideas about society were published before Darwin first published his theory, and both promoted their own conceptions of moral values. Spencer supported laissez-faire capitalism on the basis of his Lamarckian belief that struggle for survival spurred self-improvement which could be inherited.
Note the term collectivism is used by Libertarians and the Tea Party as the ultimate evil. Of course Rand used it. Much more worth reading at the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
As for Calvinism, see its roots and the current manifestations in play now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism
As I said, this was taught as wrong and an evil way of organizing society in my days in high school in the 1960s in a southern, progressive school system. We grew up living in the blessings of the New Deal era. Our texts taught us that laissez-faire capitalism was abusive, that it must be regulated for the public good. And a number of other things that are now open to debate, that we thought were debunked years ago. Big money is taking us backwards. They realized they could not stop social change by their ideas, so they worked to stop all liberal teaching and monopolized the media. So much of what is going on in America is due to brainwashing.
Those ideas were in our text books, but also the abolition movement, the labor movement and women's rights were also promoted as American ideas. But the Tea Party has taken over the text books in Texas since that era, reportedly removing men such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and others, replacing them with Calvin as important in the founding of the USA.
The danger is that Texas is one of the largest, if not the largest, purchaser of text books. Their text books when used, are sold to many other states and this, along with media, influences the younger generation to think of this as normal and patriotic.
Seattle did. They were widely dissed by talk radio for building a 'drunk motel' for people who were
unable to break their addictions in spite of years of drehabilitation programs. I think the standard was 7 failures.It was supported by the Catholic Diocese of Seattle, as people were dying of hypothermia at the time downtown. The people in the upscale housing, where some high rise condos start at a million, didn't like them living on the sidewalk, either.
And the cost of their trips to ER's, being jailed for whatever, was far less than giving them guilt free housing without any expectation except being peaceful, IIRC at the time.
The rightwing hate radio claimed the bleeding heart liberals were going to provide faucets in the apartments that dispensed 'free wine for the winos,' on the taxpayer's dime. Rightwingers didn't see the big picture, that it not only benefited the tenants, but the very well off and you know they love them.
The RW refuses to acknowledge the way government could make a difference for those whose brains would never be able to escape their addictions. Having a roof over one's head changes everything in a person's life for the better and that of those around them who can't cure them.
Arizona also built apartments for those trying to get on their feet. When they finally had the security of knowing where they would sleep at night, a bed, bath and kitchen to take care of basic needs, many improved to the point of going to school to learn new skills and have jobs. All from having housing.
This is not rocket science, but it does require leaving behind the punitive, petty, conservative mindset.
“If you want to end homelessness, you put people in housing...”
This is what I've always said. Stop doing studies and praising make do solutions for homeless people. Stop acting like you are doing them a favor by supporting a hodge-podge of help driven by the desire to feel good.
Just stop homelessness. With a house.
Then whatever their problems are, they will have the self-respect and mental ease of being able to work things out in private, like most people do and not begging feeding and housing on schedules that doesn't match their condition to stay alive. How is a person supposed to have the superhuman stamina of not being able to sleep safely, being broke and not able to get to social services or in a line for help?
People that are homeless are treated as feral animals dependent on the kindness of some, but in a position to be abused at any time. And they are forced to live outdoors, and scramble for baths, toilet facilities, food, water, sleep and the privacy most take for granted... And is there any wonder when that part of Maslow's pyramid is denied them, that they don't meet social standards?
Gimme a break. Walk a mile in their shoes.
That is a beautiful town, and I'm hoping he never has to wheel himself in a snow storm to get shelter again. These are the people that Libertarians and the GOP want to die.
According to Rand Paul, he's a slacker. Just take a look at that pic... who would volunteer to be in a wheel chair if they didn't need one, as it's an invitation to being assaulted, or be in the snow like that because he is poor and disabled, when it's obviously painful and not good for his health?
I am sure mental illness accounts for some of the problems, but being on the street with no way out would cause such severe anxiety due to a lack of sleep or privacy in the normal activities of a person, they'd be sure to develop a condition. They aren't safe at any time from other people. Imagine no place to get away from criminal activity by anyone. It'd kill or drive anyone over the edge.
Instead by leaving them out in public, they might as well live in a zoo where people gawk at them and say callous and uncalled for things. The folks in Utah have my gratitude for seeing beyond the alleged 'sins' of the poor and disabled and accepting them as part of the human family.
Thanks for another excellent thread.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 10, 2010, 11:36 PMNumber of posts: 53,661
