Update no.1084

Update from the Sunland

No.1084

17.10.22 – 23.10.22

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- My oh my, that was a very swift collapse! Liz Truss resigned after just six weeks (44 days) as prime minister [1078]—the shortest serving prime minister in British history. The Conservative Party will once again try to elect a leader and replacement for Truss. She made an unusual number of mistakes and missteps during her short tenure.

-- Stephen Kevin Bannon [1032] was sentenced to four (4) months in prison and fined US$6.5K for his defiance of a congressional subpoena [1071]. His lawyers immediately appealed, and the court allowed him to remain free pending appeal. He belongs in prison, but the gears of justice must turn properly.

 

A friend and frequent contributor to this humble forum sent along the following query:

“I'd like your confirmation/opinion on the voting story under ‘More from Snopes.’”

With this URL:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/10/14/no-the-right-to-vote-isnt-in-the-us-constitution/?utm_campaign=Debunker%20101722%20%2801GFKA83J87JSJQZCGQEF69M81%29&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Snopes%20Debunker

“No, the Right to Vote Isn’t in the US Constitution – The framers of the Constitution never mentioned a right to vote. They didn’t forget. They intentionally left it out.”

by Morgan Marietta

The Conversation

Published 14 October 2022

My response:

Thank you for the query . . . interesting topic, especially given the bent of the current bench of the U.S. Supreme Court.

A simple search of the text of the U.S. Constitution validates the observations of the article. The word ‘vote’ is used explicitly with respect to the conduct of the Congress and the Electoral College process, not regarding a citizen’s right vote in general. The strict constructionists among us will argue that such absence of explicit definition of a citizen’s right to vote in the Constitution means or rather implies, the matter is an issue for the states.

Section 2, Amendment XIV states the denial of the right to vote, which implies that the inverse must exist, i.e., something cannot be denied that does not exist.

Section 1, Amendment XV involves the same argument; “denied or abridged” . . . “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Something must exist to be denied. Amendment XIX added “sex,” but did not define sex, i.e., gender or action? That said, I think the simple recognition of “race” and “sex” implies the greater right of all citizens.

There are ample historical documents that validate the concerns of the framers for the fickleness of a popular vote. They sought insulation or a deliberative damper to intervene with wild, emotional, mob rule. The original criteria to vote was rather narrow and exclusive—adult, male, freehold property owners and in some states only Protestants.

While the Constitution deals primarily with the authority of the federal government, the framers felt the need to define the constitutional rights of citizens as represented in the Bill of Rights (Amendments I through X). Voting was not among those rights. Neither was a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy . . . among others. Dissimilar rights of citizens in states is an anathema to the definition of American.

The fundamental conflict between progressives and strict constructionists sitting on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court has only just begun to play out. Voting will be one of those weathervane issues to watch. The Court has several voting matters on the agenda for this session. We shall see what this Court does. I suspect we will not be happy.

“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

. . . follow-up comment:

“I found the item interesting (and it's not Snopes' own research), so I thought I'd call on your scholarship. Our current situation highlights the Founders' flaws in choosing whom to trust.”

 . . . to which I replied:

A mere handful of years ago, I would have never considered questioning the validity of our right to vote. Yet, with the dawn of the 45POTUS era, we now question the most basic and foundational elements of representative democracy. The reconfigured U.S. Supreme Court as a direct consequence of 45POTUS has begun the process of altering long established law. The social conservatives do not care how immoral, outrageous, despicable, and disgusting ihr Anführer is as long as they can get their agenda codified in law. I do not think 45POTUS has any clue who the people were who he appointed to the Supreme Court; The Federalist Society decided and 45POTUS delivered. Given the Court’s recent performance, nothing is stable; nothing is decided. We have only seen the very beginning of a very tortuous road ahead. And now, even our fundamental right to vote is in doubt because it is not explicitly written in the Constitution. Tortuous road . . . indeed!

Who da thunk’it?

 

The PBS Frontline program titled: “Lies, Politics and Democracy” [S40 Ep17] broadcast on 9.June.2022, painted a very detailed, pointed picture of events that led to the Day of Insurrection. They documented each segment with a countdown “Until January 6, 2021” and “After January 6, 2021.” The first segment is titled: “Democracy is for Losers,” and the countdown clock in the upper right corner read:

February 1, 2016

4 Years, 11 Months, 5 Days

Until January 6, 2021

The event they marked was the results of the Iowa Caucuses in 2016. Ted Cruz won and [the person who shall no longer be named] lost. And what did the loser do? He accused the winner of stealing the election in some unspecified, undocumented, un-factual manner. From him, it was the only possible conclusion because he never loses . . . of course excluding his five bankruptcies, his countless failed business initiatives, and two failed marriages. The threats to democracy were there from the very beginning, long before the man became 45POTUS.

A fact I did not know until this program was [the person who shall no longer be named] made a telephone call from Air Force One to RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel as he retreated from Washington after refusing to participate in the transfer of power to and inauguration of President Biden. In that call, he threatened to leave the Republican Party and form his own fBICP formally separate from the Republican Party. That telephone call explains exactly why so many bloody Republican leaders did an instant reversal from publicly condemning 45POTUS on the floor of the House and Senate to staunchly defending him. They recognized that if [the person who shall no longer be named] left the party and took his MAGA supporters with him, the Republican Party would cease to be a nationally relevant political party.

Democracy is indeed fragile and thin, and far more easily lost than I ever imagined. So much of representative democracy rests upon good faith. That conman who was 45POTUS legitimized the dark forces that have existed in the shadows for centuries. I am continuously reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s prescient reply when asked after the constitutional convention [17.September.1787] whether we had a republic or a monarchy. Franklin answered swiftly and succinctly, “A republic, if you can keep it.” I cherish that answer for many reasons beyond the directness and brevity. We did indeed have a republic, a representative democracy. However, the punchline to me is “if you can keep it.” He chose 2^nd person plural rather than 1^st person plural, i.e., the framers created the republic, but it was up to all of us to defend and preserve the republic.

Regrettably, far too many citizens in this once grand republic have chosen to abandon the republic and seek an autocracy, or worse a dictatorship. That reality alone virtually validates the Tytler Cycle, named for Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee. In 1787, Lord Woodhouselee wrote and gave a lecture titled: “The Fall of The Athenian Republic.” He hypothesized and contended that democracies only last 200 years as governance transitions through the cycle

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”

We have passed through apathy and are deep into dependence. Bondage is next. For those corroding the very foundations of the republic, I hope you are happy. I am not!

 

Another PBS Frontline program, this one titled: “Michael Flynn’s Holy War” [S40 Ep18] was broadcast on 18.October.2022. The program featured the post-insurrection activities of Lieutenant General Michael Thomas Flynn, USA (Ret.), the guilty and pardoned MAGA activist. In an interview with an Associated Press (AP) journalist, Flynn was asked, “A lot of people hear your rhetoric and wonder are you a Christian Nationalist. Are you?’ Flynn replied, “That was a stupid question.” Then, because of that question Flynn declared, he would never talk to AP again and stormed out. Reverend Doctor Jacqui Lewis, Middle Collegiate Church, NY, observed, “Mike Flynn is in a movement that is designed to impose a small minority ethics on the rest of the nation.”  She is spot on correct, and that is precisely the definition of moral projection. Flynn and his acolytes are deep into the BIG LIE and the whole MAGA nonsense.

Christian Nationalists believe it is their duty to take America back to Christian values (as they define them). From my perspective, Christian Nationalism is just another form of white supremacy, xenophobia, isolationism, and extreme moral projection—the antithesis of freedom and liberty. No thank you!

 

Election integrity as defined by the fBICP (remnants of the GOP) is only citizens who support them should be able to vote. To the fBICP, the will of the People is irrelevant. The only factor that matters is they win and continue to dictate to all of us as they see things in some distant past. We are about to see the consequences.

To me, election deniers and proponents of the BIG LIE are and should be disqualified from holding public office. Any such candidate cannot and will not get my vote.

 

A program that would have never been made just a few years ago, and we certainly would not have seen, was broadcast on 19.October.2022. The PBS Nova program titled: “Can Psychedelics Cure? [S49 Ep14] informed us of the scientific and medical uses of controlled substances to successfully treat addiction, depression, and PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder). The Schedule I substances at issue in this particular program were: LySergic acid Diethylamide (LSD), known by many other names, including Acid, Dots, and Mellow Yellow; Psilocybin, more commonly known by its street names, Magic mushrooms, Shrooms, Mushrooms; and 3,4-MethyleneDioxy-MethamphetAmine (MDMA), also known as Ecstasy, E, Eve, Adam, Beans, Clarity, Disco Biscuit, Go, Hug Drug, Lover’s Speed, Peace, STP, X, and XTC. As illuminated by the Nova program, what is different between the noted therapeutic uses and the common street usage is the pharmaceutical quality (purity, consistency, and uniform dosage) and therapeutic dosage to achieve a known response. To me, the program implicitly represents the insanity of Nixon’s “war on drugs” and exemplifies the reality of ignorance over knowledge.

One of these days, we will mature as a society and recognize every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and our precious freedom of choice. The reality of life is, any substance can be abused to toxic levels, eventually essentials to life on this planet, e.g., water and oxygen, can be lethal if consumed to excess. In my life, I have been prescribed and taken powerful derivative and synthetic opiates. I have never been addicted and never felt the urge to consume more than the amount prescribed. They are valuable medicines. Yet, like all substances, if they are consumed to excessive amounts, they can be lethal. To me, drug use is not different from any other choice in life. If you like the thrill of jumping off a bridge, you accept the risk that one day you might jump from too great a height, or hit the water wrong, or hit some unseen object in the water. As free people, we make choices that matter to us every single day of our lives. There is risk in everything in life. We assess the risk in our choices, and we accept the risk. Psychotropic substances are no different from any other risk we accept in life.

When Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act (AKA CSA) [84 Stat. 1242; Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 [PL 91-513; 84 Stat. 1236; 27.October.1970], I was a 22-year-old Lieutenant of Marines who was well aware of the burgeoning drug culture growing from the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement, and the sexual revolution. At the time, I believed what the president and the government were telling us that drug abuse was “America’s public enemy number one.” As I aged and learned, I realized that Nixon had lied to us. He probably believed what he said. I am certain he disapproved of recreational use of all psychotropic substances . . . well, except alcohol. And clearly, the majority of Congress 50 years ago agreed with Nixon in that they passed the law by substantial majorities in both chambers. What was not discussed, and I was not knowledgeable enough to realize, was the extraordinary sacrifice of our most fundamental rights to enable the CSA. In the following decades, we witnessed the progressive erosion of our precious freedom of choice and the governmental abuses of our other constitutional rights. The moral projectionists of the day decided to impose their choices or rather limits on choices on all citizens. They knew better what was good for us.

Lastly, it is my opinion that the greatest majority of fatalities from street drug consumption is contamination and inconsistency. A drug user who is used to taking 10% cut heroin and is inadvertently or intentionally given 100% pure heroin dies by overdose—not his choice. Today, we see simple marijuana laced with the powerful synthetic opiate fentanyl, and people die from smoking a joint—not their choice. A century ago, our forefathers prohibited alcohol. People died from alcohol consumption for many reasons including contamination and inconsistency. They learned the fallacy of their attempted prohibition. Today, alcohol is legal and regulated. It is consistent and regulated in content. We still have deaths due to excessive alcohol consumption, but that excess is a personal choice of the individual. We must find the will and courage to do the same for all other psychotropic substances. Our latest attempt at prohibition and imposition upon private choice was wrong 50 years ago; it is even more wrong today. It is long overdue to choose knowledge over ignorance. We must find the means to respect every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and return our precious freedom of choice.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1083:

“Goodness Cap-quite an astounding piece of work. If course I was expecting your comments and I’m utterly confident there are more to come.

“Your former person who’s name I’m not permitted to mention has figured quite extensible over this side in many front page headlines.

“Mind you we’re not without political disturbances of our own which I’m certain you’ll be aware of.

“Politicians-hell, the country should be governed differently. We need a new method of running the nation.”

My reply:

Thank you, mate. I try. In the main, I respond to contemporary stimulants—some weeks bounty, other weeks drought.

Yes, unfortunately, there will be more. I feel a very strong drive to confront evil, and we have the consummate evil in front of us. He is a huckster, conman, and snake oil salesman extraordinaire who has dupped millions of Americans into believing in his nonsense and worthless drivel. He is a grotesquely offensive human being by just about any metric we wish to use. I cannot turn away from the confrontation of our current evil persona, and I refuse to even mention his name, because to do so elicits a string of associated profanity. I am sorry that our principal Ugly American has infected your media. The best I can say is, this too shall pass.

I do not see the gory details, but PM Truss seems to have poked the hornet’s nest more so than her predecessor. Why are these politicians so bloody tone-deaf?

It seems we are in the same or similar boat. Perhaps our form of government has run its course. Further, it appears we are validating the Tytler Cycle in real time. Very sad!

 

Comment to the Blog:

“We have the beginnings of a defense of Planet Earth from asteroids. The likely dangers are already here.

“Remember that, in and of themselves, the Chump’s rantings are “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” (Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5) If powerful people didn’t help and support him, he might be institutionalized by now. The followers are the same as tyrants’ followers throughout history.

“The crux of the abortion debate is an unanswerable question; when does the spirit or separate consciousness enter the body? Humans can’t answer that, but we can argue about it forever.

“I disagree with your other correspondent’s statement that, “We must also vote even when none of the candidates are to our liking.” Nope. My mail-in ballot is here awaiting my research of whether several races have any candid ate that deserves my vote. Negative campaigning will do that.

“Knowledge—awareness of fact little slanted by teacher viewpoint—can lead to wisdom, but neither of our parties wants that from the masses.”

My response to the Blog:

Yes! We have plenty of dangers and threats. The earthly man-made threats are far more immediate than the astronomical versions. Yet, it is encouraging that at least a few scientists are keeping their eye on the horizon, as we say in aviator terms. The DART mission cost us roughly US$325M, but at least we have a tool for planetary defense.

Very appropriate application of Macbeth’s wisdom. He should have been imprisoned long ago for the multitudinous frauds he has perpetrated as a conman. Agreed!

I understand the ethical and moral debate. We can discuss how the threshold should be defined. Social conservative definition as the instant of conception is NOT and never will be scientifically supportable. To me, this debate of threshold is just another form of Victorian morality, paternalism, and moral projection trying to impose upon the sexual behavior and reproductive rights of free citizens. As I have written and will continue to write, the foundation issue is not a medical procedure or the threshold of life, but rather the fundamental rights of women as citizens with equal rights and protections under the law. The Supremes have thrust us all into imbalance, and we have only begun to feel the consequences.

You will vote as you choose, as you wish. I will do the same. But, we both will vote, and that is the objective. We must VOTE!

Your condemnation of both political parties seems rather cynical to me, and I cannot agree. From my perspective, one singular party seeks ignorance over knowledge. They attack knowledge at nearly every turn. I do not see a comparative drive for ignorance from the other party.

 

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)