Showing posts with label RepubliKKKan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RepubliKKKan. Show all posts

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Democracy: One person, one vote?

One of the most enduring myths of the United States holds that we have a democracy.  An actual democracy has all eligible citizens voting on all issues, which we can admit as not practical for countries larger than ancient Athens.

Since we vote in these United States for people to represent us in our state and federal legislatures, we can more accurately call our government a republic based on voting by individuals.

Nevertheless, as Supreme Justice and judicial crank Antonin Scalia noted in oral arguments on Bush vs Gore, the case the conservative Supreme Court justices would have us all forget, the right to vote does not appear in the Constitution we have.  Mr. Scalia, who acts and writes as as strict constructionist basing his rulings on the literal text of the Constitution--when it suits his needs as a regressive, conservative, wannabe segregationist slave owner--ignores his own jurisprudence and issues expansive opinions when for instance he issued an opinion interfering in counting of actual votes in Florida in 2000.

Instead of rehashing the past, however, let us note now our right to vote lays under siege by Republican dominated state legislatures in the name of stopping the negligible, statistically insignificant cases of voter fraud.

Nonetheless, we should never forget, first, that even if we define democracy simply as universal adult suffrage, the United States has only recently come close to living up to its proclaimed purpose of serving as history’s grand democratic experiment; and second, that even when the right to vote itself has finally been won, it does not mean it has been fully secured.
Enfranchisement has neither prevented ruling elites from continuing to exploit and oppress, nor kept them from turning things around and effectively stripping fellow citizens of their hard-won rights—including the right to vote itself.
The post-Civil War Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granting African-American men the right to vote states very clearly:  Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. ­  And yet, as President Franklin Roosevelt himself was to observe in the 1930s: “New laws, in themselves, do not bring a millennium.” And he might well have added that not even constitutional amendments necessarily do.... 
In Give Us The Ballot, Nation magazine political correspondent Ari Berman has written an extremely valuable and terribly timely history of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).  Terribly timely not just because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the enactment and signing into law of the VRA (August 6, 1965), but all the more so because the VRA and the right to vote are not just under continuing attack but actually under siege. 
Under the ruse of preventing “voter fraud,” Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country have enacted laws clearly intended to make it more difficult for minority, poor, and young Americans to actually exercise their right to vote. (emphasis added)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/18/think-your-voting-rights-are-guaranteed-think-again.html
For one particularly egregious incidence, a state legislature banned college identification cards with photos as proper id for voting but allows National Rifle Association id for voting purposes, obviously aimed at suppressing votes by the young: people who lean towards progressive policies.  Mother Jones has an excellent piece on voter suppression measures passed or pending in 22 states, all in the name of preventing nearly non-existent voter fraud.

So we must fight for the right to vote, for the most basic cornerstone of our representative democracy, for the rights of all eligible voters.



Thursday, June 25, 2015

Ringling Brothers - Republican Presidential Race 2016

Rumour has it Comedians took up a collection to entice Donald Trump--Republican clown emeritus and walking punchline--into the 2016 Presidential fray for fodder their acts.

Plus, Romney might run again, giving us an opportunity to recycle all our Mitt jokes and thus maintain a small comedy/carbon foot print.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

These RepubliKKKans Scare Me

Update:  First found this fool at Juanita Jean's--the most dangerous beauty salon on earth--and thought her description of West TX apt: [Judge Tom, first off, nobody is coming to Lubbock. It’s a hellhole. It’s hot as a frying pan in the summer, colder than a witch’s boob in a brass bra in the winter, and one damn crappy place in between. You can’t pay people to come to Lubbock. Hell, son, you could offer starving people in China a fancy condo in Lubbock and they wouldn’t take it.


Tom Head: Raising Taxes Because He Wants To

Second off, I do not care how seasoned your police are, they cannot take out a predator drone or the United States Marines. And there would be thousands of them — all whining about being in damn Lubbock.]


How in the name of blind justice did this fool become a judge?  Lord, I know it only TX, but this strains the bounds of credulity.

How did crackpot borderline psychopaths get so comfortable stating publicly what they secretly believe, in this case a duly elected President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, who would disband the United States and turn it into a fiefdom of the United Nations.

What do these people smoke, ingest, imbibe, inject, or consume?

Timothy Leary's ghost, give me some of them drugs.

Seriously cannot make this shite up, justifying raising local taxes to fight off black federal government helicopters.

[Texas Judge Tom Head is worried about what might happen if President Obama wins reelection in November. There could be riots, unrest or a “civil war, maybe,” he told a local television station this week.

Because of that, the Lubbock County judge has decided the only way to prepare is to increase taxes to help beef up local law enforcement.

“I’m thinking worst case scenario now,” Head said during an appearance on FOX 34 in Lubbock. “Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war, maybe. And we’re not talking just a few riots here and demonstrations, we’re talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy.”

The judge spun the elaborate conspiracy theory while calling for a 1.7 cent hike per $100 on property taxes in Lubbock County, a measure being considered by the commission there. He said he feared Obama would hand over sovereignty of the United States to the United Nations and the unrest would naturally follow.

Head’s role as judge is an elected position akin to executive of the county commission, which is known as a court. He presides over commission meetings, prepares the budget and is in charge of the county’s emergency management.

Under Head’s theory, the United Nations would then send in peacekeeping troops to try to quell the violence and that’s where he would draw the line. He vowed to stand in front of the county’s armored vehicle and stare down the U.N. troops if that happens.

“And the sheriff, I’ve already asked him, I said, ‘You gonna back me?’” the judge said. “He said, ‘Yeah, I’ll back you.’ Well, I don’t want a bunch of rookies back there. I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me.”
]  Sure, like a bunch of beer bellied red neck sheriffs will stand off a fleet of predator drones.  
Emphasis added to ridicule.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/tom_head_civil_war.php?ref=fpb



Saturday, August 6, 2011

Dang, I Did Not Coin RepubliKKKan

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=republikkkan

2006, long 'for I knew what a blog were or could become.

In 2011, I disagree that that amounts to an insult.

My little patch of dirt does pop up if you google the word.

"OMG!!!...I'm somebody now!"

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Did Y'all Miss MY Understated Point?

[The Triangle fire laid bare a reallocation of risk that had previously accompanied revisions in corporate structures. New laws limited the liability of stockholders for corporate debts, spurring investment and making it possible for firms to raise more capital and expand. Corporations also successfully claimed to be "legal persons" and gained access to some Bill of Rights' protections originally written with human persons in mind. These legal innovations reduced the risks of doing business for owners and investors. Firms expanded exponentially, and a merger movement ensued, giving us our first modern megastructures, such as US Steel and American Tobacco.
Workers increasingly gained employment in these giant companies, but no similar legal structure protected them from the risks of business. Wages flattened as monopolies decreased competition for workers, and industrial accidents increased, as owners had great incentive to push workers but had little motivation to invest in safety measures.
The owner of the Triangle factory had broken no laws in locking women into their workrooms, for no regulations existed. In effect, the legal imbalance shifted risk downward so that investors enjoyed protection while workers experienced heightened economic and bodily dangers.]  emphasis added

Saturday, February 19, 2011

GA RepubliKKKan Against Choice

[Republicans took over the House after November's elections, making this year's legislative session the first time the party has run the show in both the House and Senate. When Democrats were in power, their leaders often avoided votes on controversial subjects, much to the dismay of many conservative lawmakers.

The abortion ban's chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Bobby Franklin, of Marietta, said he had hoped the new Republican majority would look more favorably on bills relating to conservative social issues.

Mr. Franklin said he believes the U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong in 1973's Roe. v. Wade case, which legalized abortion throughout the nation.

"From a practical standpoint, 32 years ago, someone whose life was terminated might have discovered a cure for cancer by now or some new invention that would make (Microsoft founder) Bill Gates look like a pauper," Mr. Franklin said.

The Republicans' refusal to embrace the bill highlights the juggling act the new GOP majority is wrestling with as it struggles to hold together its socially and fiscally conservatives wings.

"My concern about the unintended consequences of the bill is that it could have ramifications on women seeking fertility treatments," said Rep. Jill Chambers, R-Atlanta.

She said many women undergoing in vitro fertilization often have more than one embryo implanted at a time in the hopes of increasing the chances of carrying a child to term. Sometimes one or more of the embryos are aborted to prevent the mother from miscarrying the entire pregnancy. Ms. Chambers said she worried Mr. Franklin's bill would severely restrict in vitro pregnancies.]
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2005/01/26/met_440966.shtml