McConnell’s Secret Weapons

Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Krysten Sinema (D-AZ)

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has continued to work hard in derailing any attempts by Democrats to get bills passed in the U.S. Senate. When he was majority leader he could just simply refuse to allow bills to be brought before the Senate and with a solid majority prevent passage of those that did make it to the floor for a vote.

But, now McConnell has to use other means to stop Democrats and he has the perfect secret weapons to do it.

Senators Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema are two undercover Republicans in the Democratic Party. Described as Democratic centrists, these two politicians are thwarting efforts by Democrats.

Joe Manchin is the most public about his support of the Republicans in the Senate. He opposes doing away with the filibuster, which pleases McConnell, as well as standing in opposition to Senate Bill S.1, the For the People Act, that would set federal law protecting the rights of voters in America.

It seems that Manchin had an epiphany after the January 6th insurrection. In his “come to Jesus” moment he contends that he believed in bipartisanship to advance legislation in the Senate. He came to think that blocking out Republicans input on bills was not the way to bring healing to American politics. So, now he pushes for Democrats to include those poor Republicans and find value in what they espouse.

Never mind that those very same Republicans Manchin suddenly loves never cared about bipartisanship when they controlled the Senate and Trump was president. Never mind that Manchin sat in the Senate and watched Mitch McConnell rule over the chamber like he was some kind of god and treated the opposition like they were cockroaches infecting the Senate. Never mind that they backed every bit of Trump’s authoritarian rule and supported (and still support) Trump’s lies about the 2020 election.

Nope, Manchin doesn’t see any problem with overlooking the transgressions of the Republicans. He doesn’t need to since he sits in McConnell’s back pocket, bought and paid for. I can easily imagine McConnell dancing in his office at the good fortune of the Republicans to have Manchin as one of the roadblocks in the Senate.

The other roadblock, Krysten Sinema is just as bad, though she seems to keep a lower profile in her opposition to her own party. She, like Manchin, opposes doing away with the Senate filibuster rule. Again, like Manchin, the answer to the Senate’s problems is bipartisanship. Apparently she believes that’s what the country wants (Huffpo article).

Has Sinema paid any attention to what’s going on outside the ivory tower of the Senate? Has she not seen the white supremacist groups like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and such raising hell? Has she not seen right wingers blasting America about the southern border being overrun by those pesky “illegal” immigrants? Has she not seen the huge number of bills in Republican controlled states that are instituting laws to suppress voting in their states to insure Republicans maintain control of government. Has she not seen how the Republicans in her own state are carrying out an insane ballot audit to “prove” that the election was stolen from Trump?

She must spend her time watching reruns of Sesame Street while wearing rose colored glasses.

It’s clear that these two are Republicans in sheep’s clothing. Neither one of them has the courage to just come out and officially join the Republican Party. It’s clear to anyone with a brain that these two are more interested in obstructionism that bipartisanship. They’re as out of touch as the Republicans are in America.

There won’t be any healing currently or in the foreseeable future. Not as long as we have uncontrolled racism, cops murdering minorities, politicians suppressing minorities, hate towards any immigrants, propaganda masquerading as news, etc., there will be no healed America.

Until next time

Roundup April 13, 2021

Information and my reactions of news.

This is going to be a new thing here. Each week (not necessarily on the same day of the week) I’m going to do a roundup of some of the crazy stories I’ve read or heard and write my thoughts and reactions to them.

From the Idaho State Journal we have an article, written by an Associated Press reporter, describing a pitch to state lawmakers to add about 3/4ths of the Oregon to Idaho. A group called Move Oregon’s Border for a Greater Idaho is behind this fantasy. The people supporting such stupidity say it’s because all the rural Oregonians are dominated by liberal Portland and that they would rather join conservative Idaho. This group also looks to annexing parts of southeastern Washington and northern California in the future hopefully. Hell, maybe they should save some of the rural Canadians north of the border too (can you see me rolling my eyes?)?

Now this plan has a less than a hope in hell of ever succeeding. I find it somewhat hard to believe that these screwy Idahoans are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts for those unlucky conservative Oregonians. First of all, who says all those rural dwellers are conservatives? I live in a rural area in my state and I can damn sure tell you I’m no damn conservative (though this county is overwhelmingly made up of Trump loving conservatives)!

Secondly, since – as this Idaho group states – both Oregon and the U.S. Government would also have to agree, the likelihood of Oregon to give up territory and the income from that territory to a Idaho makes no sense at all. But,l since when has that thought stopped crazy ideas from being pursued in America?

As Forrest Gump says, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

Next up we move to troubled Minnesota, where yet again a Black man has been shot and killed by a Minnesota cop from the Brooklyn Center Police Department. A story from CNBC says that the cop involved in the killing can not be charged with a crime, according to Civil Rights attorney David Henderson. Also in the story, the police chief – Tim Gannon – that he thought this was an accident, that this senior officer meant to use her Taser, not her firearm.

Let’s look at the information we know. One, Mr Duante Wright, was stopped by the cop for either having an air freshener hanging from the rear view mirror or for expired registration (whichever you choose to believe). Two, it’s reported in news sources that Mr Wright had an outstanding arrest warrant and that he fled when police tried to take him into custody. Three, cops wear Tasers on the opposite side from their firearms on their duty belts. Fourth the feel and weight differences alone should have altered the cop that she had her firearm in her hand, not her Taser. Fifth, this cop – identified in an Insider article – as Kimberley A Potter, a 26-year-veteran of the police force.

Now I worked in law enforcement and corrections. I’ve carried both a firearm and a Taser (not at the same time though), so I know what I speak of. The size, feel, and weight differences are blatantly noticeable. How did this veteran cop, who has had training in the carrying of these weapons, grab the wrong one and not know it? Was the outstanding warrant of so serious a nature that this veteran cop was overcome with adrenaline during the attempted arrest that she “accidentally” pulled the wrong weapon and killed Mr Wright?

It seems pretty clear to me that this veteran cop was incapable of keeping a clear head. If she had, Mr Wright would be alive right now. Since she apparently isn’t able to handle situations, then what in the hell is she doing on patrol? Seems she should have duties that do not require her to use either weapon.

As for the thought that she can’t be charged with a crime, why not? In my military service (as a cop) had I ever shot someone with my duty weapon, I would have to stand court-martial to determine if the shooting was justifiable. With the number of police related shootings in America, let cops have to have a jury determine if the shooting is justifiable or not. It’s outrageous that this cop may well be protected by state law. At the least, would this not be negligent discharge of a firearm – whether or not it was a mistake by this veteran cop?

Lastly on this topic, was there no other way to handle this? Since the cop supposedly meant to pull and use her Taser, this says to me this wasn’t a life threatening situation. It seems to me the cop could have let Mr Wright leave the scene and arranged for his arrest at a later point, since they obviously had identified him. It seems clear there was some poor decision making by this veteran cop.

Her employment as a police officer needs to be terminated. She can no longer be trusted to make good judgment calls.

Lastly today I want to speak to the “battle” going on among U.S. Senators over the filibuster rule used by senators to stop votes on bills before them. Since when does the Constitution they so value allow them to refuse to represent the citizens of their state? The filibuster rule is nothing more than obstructionism to stop the Senate from doing their duty for the public. The idea that there is need for 60 votes just to get legislation voted on is criminally negligent. “We the people” don’t send you fools to Congress to find ways to avoid fulfilling your responsibilities. Bills in either chamber of Congress should be voted on and a simple majority should determine the outcome. Senator’s like Mitch McConnell and the tactics he used as Majority Leader and those he now uses as Minority Leader shows his contempt for the American people.

The filibuster rule needs to be done away with. While we are at it, a term limits amendment needs to be added to the U.S. Constitution to keep these lifelong, corporate and billionaire’s toadies from subverting the will of the people.

Dead on Arrival: The US Constitution

A Document to enslave, suppress, and oppress the American underclasses.

I was 18 years-old when I joined the military. I took an oath to the US Constitution, as stated below:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

I lived up to my oath I made through my military service and for long after I left the service. I believed in the importance of the US Constitution to American society. I was prepared to defend the US Constitution when arguments about the Constitution arose. I believed that our society could not survive without it. I chose to overlook any parts of the Constitution that were defective, such as in Article 1, Section 2, wherein Black people (meaning slaves primarily) were to be counted as 3/5th’s of a person for determining representation in the House of Representatives and for taxation. I believed this rule became null and void with the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. I never questioned any part of the nation’s founding document. It should never been in the Constitution in the first place, but it was added to protect slavery and get the Constitution ratified.

I should have questioned it though. Now, when I look at the Constitution, I see a document written for the elite class only. It was written to keep the elite as the rulers of America. It was to keep all of the underclasses loyal to the demands of the elite. This is the living legacy of the Constitution right up to today. We are taught of the rights each of us have been “granted” and the prohibitions that the government can not use against the people. But, it’s all a lie because there is no equal treatment of all people.

I figure many are shouting, “No, that’s not true.” It’s your right to disagree, but it’s mine to maintain my current belief about the Constitution. The Constitution implement sdifferent ways of determining who represents us in Congress. Originally, for example, Senators were elected by the state legislature until the adoption of the 17th Amendment on April 8, 1913. Yes, it can be argued that the state legislatures were the representatives of the citizenry of the state, but were they?

The Electoral College is an obsolete in the need to determine the President of the United States. In our current technological country, there is no reason that the popular vote should not select a president. As with anything, there are opponents and supporters of the Electoral College. It would take amending the Constitution to end the Electoral College system. Or, completely scrap the Constitution and write a new one more designed with the current state of American society as the focus. My personal belief is to scrap it, along with the current political and economic systems that we have. I’m a socialist, what would you expect me to say, we should fix it?

With the current protesting ongoing in America, the Constitution’s Bill of Rights are being violated on a regular basis. Look at the 1st Amendment. Freedom of the press is ignored as members of the press reporting on protests are attacked, assaulted, and arrested by the police. Freedom to peacefully assemble has resulted in protestors being gassed, shot with pepper balls, rubber bullets, and violently assaulted by police, and hauled away to jail after being arrested – with bogus violations of law being charged. Yes, there is violence at protests, but they are by groups of people who hide among the lawful protestors before setting off looting, arson, attacks on police, and riots. Many of those arrested are held in confinement without charge and later released, a clear violation of the 6th Amendment. Oh, and about the arson, looting, and rioting, when has any demands for major societal changes been accomplished peacefully?

Tell me again how the Constitution protects the rights of the people? Lets go further. President Donald Trump has ordered that cities that he declares are in a state of anarchy should be stripped of federal funding. The memo sent to the, not ever honest, US Attorney General from Trump states, as reported by the Daily Beast:

“For the past few months, several state and local governments have contributed to the violence and destruction in their jurisdictions by failing to enforce the law, disempowering and significantly defunding their police departments, and refusing to accept offers of federal law enforcement assistance. To ensure that Federal funds are neither unduly wasted nor spent in a manner that directly violates our Government’s promise to protect life, liberty, and property, it is imperative that the Federal Government review the use of Federal funds by jurisdictions that permit anarchy, violence, and destruction in America’s cities.”

Show me where in the Constitution Trump has the authority to do this? Don’t give me any garbage about “preserving and protecting” the Constitution. The protests are not an attack on the Constitution, in fact rights are being exercised that are protected by the Constitution. Trump is just exercising his supposed “absolute power” he thinks is his right. There is NO authority for absolute power in the Constitution and there is NO prohibitions in the Constitution to prohibit such delusions.

Plain and simple, the US Constitution is outdated and insufficient as a governing document for the United States. It’s time that it is burned and a new model, suitable for the America that now exists, be put in it’s place. But, I figured people will cling to the Constitution unto death.

Until next time

Ending the Two Party Lock on the US Government

Both at the State and Federal Level

Are you tired of the two party political system in the United States? Would you like to see a system wherein third party candidates can succeed in being a representative for the people? Is there any way this can be accomplished, to break the two party stranglehold on American politics? Are you wondering how? Okay, let me explain an idea (certainly not the only idea either).

First, let me say that any change to break the two party hold on government will likely require some alterations to the US Constitution. The Constitution will be an integral part of this new political system. There will still be a House of Representatives and Senate as well. Making it possible for third party representation in Congress will provide a benefit that we do not have at the moment. It will provide a greater representation of the people. There are those who don’t want to vote for either major party candidate. While they could vote for third party candidates, they do so knowing that their candidate won’t likely win.

So, how do we end this problem? We change the form of our elected officials at the state and federal level from what it is now to a Constitutional Parliamentary form.

Pages: 1 2