Do We Really Understand Our Rights?

A concern we have had for some time is how since 9-11 we have willingly give up our sovereign rights for “security”.  Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. “

We have been desensitized  to the erosion of our rights in the name of security. It is important that we understand the dangerous territory we are entering.  It is appropriate that we pause for a moment and think seriously at what we are willingly giving up in the name of security. The effort to have us give up such things as a right to privacy, habeas corpus, illegal search and seizure, due process has been intense in the name of national security. The question we must ask is have we truly benefited from the choices that have been foisted upon us?

 Hey Cristina presented a great discourse on this very subject.

WHAT IS A RIGHT?
What exactly is a right? Is it something that you are born with? Is it something that is a priori? Or is it a man made construct like time? You can ask one hundred individuals what they believe a right is and they will all have slightly distinct and unique perspectives on what it is. I want to use this essay as a way to bring about a discussion on what rights are and whether they actually exist.

A right is a legal, social, or ethical standard that people are entitled to. It is a social normative or idea of what is allowed by people and what is owed to people. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states.”

A right is something that an individual or a group of individuals feel entitled to. They may feel entitled to this because of the laws set before them or because they feel that it is innately understood for all humans to have these rights. What I want to discuss is the different types of rights and whether they are actually rights at all. Here I am going to discuss what natural rights, legal rights, positive rights, and negative rights are and whether they are what we think they are or privileges handed down to us.

NATURAL RIGHTS
Natural rights are rights that are not manmade. They are not given by a governing body. They are what some would call inalienable. The United States declares life and liberty as natural rights (although that remains to be seen).

According to John Locke natural rights have always been. Before there were states or other governing bodies, there was nature and the people of the Earth were all subject to the laws of nature. Those laws created what is known as natural rights. What exactly could be considered a natural right? “The right to live” is considered a natural right, but is it really natural? Does Mother Nature stop hurricanes from running up into cities where thousands or millions of people could be hurt because the inhabitants there have the right to live? No. She doesn’t. Nature is nature and it is bound by no [man-made] laws. So if there is no natural law, there can be no natural rights.

The Earth provides all the necessities to live (if we imagine a world without war mongering governing bodies controlling the resources and flow of energy), but it does not give any individual, whether human, plant, or animal, the right to live. It simply provides the means to live and you, whatever you are (plant, animal, or human) have to work in some form or another to survive. This may mean that you have to open up your leaves every morning to catch the sun’s rays, or it may mean you have to hunt for your food, or it may mean you have to build shelter to stay warm, but whatever it is, you, the individual, has to work to live. It is not a right provided by nature, it is actually a privilege.

LEGAL RIGHTS

Legal rights are easy. They are rights granted by a governing body. They are built into a society by a legal contract. Legal rights do not have to be morally acceptable. They do not, and usually are not, granted to the people of the world. Some countries maintain certain “rights” while others take “rights” away. Individuals are subject to whatever their authoritative ruling body declares as a right. It is something given, not innately possessed.

Legal rights are not rights at all. They are approved actions that the governing body allows the people to do. I think calling a legal right a right is contradictory to the term itself. We have the “right” to marry, but only under the conditions the governing body deems acceptable. We have the “right” to go to public schooling, but only the type of schooling the governing body deems honorable.

So, are legal rights, rights? By definition legal rights can be considered a right. They are written into a social contract that the individual signs (except that we didn’t actually sign any legal contracts with out government so are we therefore entitled to those rights? Read more here.) Is a legal right a right that is innately understood? No. Is it a right that everyone is entitled to? No. Different ruling bodies have different laws in place and they grant those rules or “rights” to the individuals of that land. Are legal rights yours? No. They are given, handed down to you. They are not yours by choice. I would argue that legal rights are not rights at all. They are privileges that the governing body allows the citizens to have. Is it really your right to marry if you can only marry under the conditions set forth by the state? Is it really your right too free speech when we have journalists being blacklisted and harmed for spreading truth the the people? Is it really your right to privacy when the NSA is watching our every move? Are these rights? No. They are not.

POSITIVE RIGHTS

Positive rights are rights that people give to themselves. They are rights the people believe they and others are entitled to. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “ the holder of a positive right is entitled to provision of some good or service.”  Some examples of positive rights:
-education
-healthcare
-housing
-internet access

-food

Positive rights can range from person to person. These are just a few common examples of what people claim they have a right to. Positive rights are typically enforced by a governing body. If we want universal healthcare, the people who believe this is a right would demand that it comes from their governing body. I do agree that IF we have a governing body working FOR us they should provide whatever the people insist on, especially since they are involuntarily taking our tax dollars to provide us with services.

However, I do not believe that positive rights are rights at all, they are privileges. They are ideas or agreements between the people and those who grant the positive rights. The right to life is not completely compatible or intertwined with the right to housing and food, although in some people’s minds these are one in the same. The current society we live in makes it very difficult to imagine different scenarios and this system creates a lot of the problems we face, but let’s say people have the right to live. Most people would say every person has the absolute right to live. They would then conclude that in order for people to have the right to live they must have the right to housing and food and in some cases, education. These are all really beautiful wants, but they are not rights. In order to provide these necessities for the 7 billion people of the planet it would have to be energy taken (either voluntarily or involuntarily) from another person or group of people. Yes, I agree that we should help each other out. If you see a hungry person on the road, buy him some food! If you believe education is important and everyone should have access to it start your own school! Or start your own initiative to educate. Make pamphlets, hold meetings, reach out! If you think everyone is entitled to something then do your best to expend that energy into your community, but do not insist that the government should grant you or anyone these rights. Remember that the government does not actually care about your rights (which is why it took 100 years of the women’s suffrage movement to gain the right to vote).

Positive rights are really beautiful and can be ideal, but they are not rights. They are privileges granted by someone to someone and in a world where freedom is becoming more and more limited we need to find a way to break away from the controlling entities that grant us these “rights” because where one person may gain, another may lose.

I want it to be clear that I do NOT support any governing body giving out rights. I do not think they are capable and trustworthy of such a task. The governing bodies have proven for centuries that they cannot handle the task of protecting the people. Ideally, the whole system would be abolished entirely.

NEGATIVE RIGHTS
A negative right is the right to non interference. It means that the individual has the right to do nothing. An individual is entitled to not help out their neighbor as much as they are entitled to help out their neighbor. Negative rights do not mean they are “bad”, it just means that no one can tell you what to do and that you are capable of deciding what you want in this life and whether you want to do anything about it.

WHO HAS RIGHTS?

Who exactly has rights? Is it me, an individual? The collective? Do children have rights? What about mentally disabled or handicapped peoples? Do animals have rights? Does the Earth have rights? Who has “rights”?

Every person on the Earth seems to believe they have “rights” and maybe they do, but how do we all agree on who has “rights” in our current society? With Big Brother watching our every move (Vault 7) one could argue that rights do not exist. We have been granted the right to privacy, but do we actually receive that right?

How do we solve the clashing of the right of the individual and the right of the collective? When is it morally acceptable to force an individual to obey or follow the demands of what you believe is your right? We believe we have the right to free speech here in the United States, but do we? What about when someone says something that is racist? Do racists lose their right to free speech?

What about when we have a group of people who need more financial assistance than another group of people? Do we invade the rights of one group to provide the rights for another? I do not agree with this form of action. I see why people would think this way, but right’s are not innate. They are given by others to others or to yourself. If everyone has rights, then we cannot rightfully overturn one individual or collectives rights to give rights to another individual or collective.

What about different people? Do children have rights? Do those deemed mentally ill (which is a whole different discussion on why the government might want to label individuals as incapable) have rights? Do handicapped peoples have rights?

Your initial response might be “of course!” Because what kind of a person would say that these people do not have rights? Not anyone with a good moral heart of course! But the truth is, no one has rights. If you believe people have rights, then when is it okay to take freedoms away from children? Why is it okay to yell and physically harm children? Do they not have the right to live in peace? To feel safe?

People labeled with mental disorders are the first individuals to lose their rights in the current political regime. Mental disorders cannot even be biologically pinpointed in many cases and are typically diagnosed based off descriptions found in textbooks. So who is to say who is mentally disabled and who is not? Why are they the first to lose their rights? They are forced into hospitals against their wills, they are told they cannot work in certain places, they are told they cannot own certain things (guns, etc.). Are these individuals less than those not stigmatized with a mental disease label? Do they really deserve less rights (if you still support the idea of rights at this point)?

What about animals? Do they not also have the right to life and liberty? Do you own an animal? Are you holding them captive? Do you eat animals? Aren’t you invading their right to life? So who’s right is it to live? Is it yours or theirs? Where is the line of rights drawn? If your rights interfere with another’s rights are they rights?  Again, this is why I say there are no rights. No one is entitled to anything at all because right’s get messy and they take away from others. This leads me to my next thought.

WHO GRANTS RIGHTS?

If we have rights, then who in this great massive world is granting them? Do you grant yourself rights? Are inalienable rights just supposed to be known (a priori)? Are right’s given as privileges by governing bodies?

If we have rights they have to come from somewhere. If you are religious you may say they come from your god. If you are a statist you may say they come from the state. Maybe you just believe they are there for the taking and no one grants them, but then this get’s really confusing because rights are either given or taken. They are not just floating in the air. If I say that I have the right to have decent housing do I go and take over someone else’s home to acquire my right to housing? Or do I force someone else to build me a suitable house? If it’s a right then I should obtain this right for free, shouldn’t I? If I have to pay for it, whether in monetary or energy wise, then it is not a right because it is something I have to work towards. If I coerce a group of people to build my house I have overstepped their rights in order to achieve my own. If I build my own house I have to invade the rights of the Earth (if you believe the Earth also has rights that is) to gather materials for my housing. In the end energy is always spent, voluntarily or involuntarily, to gain or take rights. Nothing is free and no one and nothing can grant you rights. You either have the capabilities to do something or you don’t.

Some people may argue that rights are innate. We have the right to live, so that means people do not have the right to take my life. Well, someone actually can take your life, unfortunately, so is that a right? Or a privilege?

Rights are privileges granted by someone or something with the power to enforce those rights. I personally love the idea of rights. I love the idea that I would have the right to live in a house without paying rent, or to get all the food I need to eat for the week, but the truth is I do not have these “rights”. I am lucky enough to have the means necessary to harbor these ideologies (aka: rights), but they are not provided for me and they are not provided for people anywhere. Maybe in smaller communities, where governments cease to exist, we would have the means to help those in need, but in this current system we do not even have the ability to grant others or ourselves these “rights”.

CONCLUSION

I hope that I do not give the impression that “rights” are silly. I think there are a lot of good intentions behind rights and why people believe we have them, but in the end I do not think rights exist. I do not think anyone has the right to anything, not even life itself. You were born without choice, but do you come here with inalienable rights? Or do you come here and have your rights protected and granted by governing bodies (who take rights away from others to give it to you)?

If my rights clash with your rights, then who keeps their rights? Someone must gain while someone must lose and even if it’s for a good cause it still doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t a right. All rights are man made ideas and there is no higher authority who grants everyone the same rights. Rights are privileges. They are things that some people are capable of and some are not. Should we help those less capable in achieving what we wish everyone to have? Yes, we should, but again this doesn’t change the fact that they are not rights. It is a privilege to live. It is a privilege to eat. Sadly, not everyone has these privileges. I hope that one day we can create a world where we all have the same privileges. Where everyone has the means to create or have a home, to grow or obtain food, to make or buy clothing, etc. In the end though, these are privileges.

Privileges are not given. They just are. Some people have more privilege than others based on a variety of things (race, gender, place of birth, etc). You do not choose your privileges and we have limited privileges due to the ruling body of government who maintains a monopoly on the privileges given. They maintain control over what “rights” are given and who has “rights” and who does not have “rights”. Without the central government controlling all aspects of education, energy, resources, businesses, protection services, we would have more privileges and we would be more capable of providing what we believe others should have. Unfortunately, we are subject to these rulers which is why it is essential we leave this currently dead end system in it’s place. We can create the world we wish to see here and now. We can help people without the government in place, but we have to unite as a people of the Earth. We have to believe in the power within ourselves. We have to create alternatives to the situations at hand. Agorism is a peaceful means to an end and as much as I would like to get into what agorism is I will just leave you with information for you to discover on your own.

We can discuss what privileges we believe we all should have, but this essay’s main purpose was to discuss whether rights are real or imaginary and whether or not we have them. Let me know what you think about rights and what conclusions you have come to based off your own thoughts.

Inherent Rights

A priori rights—rights that exist from the beginning (inalienable)—are harder to pin down because it requires highly abstract thinking. The more abstract the concepts become, the more they begin to make contact with concepts of divinity, and this is why any lawful system worth its salt defines inalienable rights as coming from the divine. And even within the existing fallacious system, all law traces back to the Vatican and Roman Curia.

To assert that some rights are inherent, without also speaking to their origin, leaves the door open for moral relativism or the idea that what is right or wrong is subject to change, depending on social queues or personal whims. It also opens the door for unequal rights—that some people have more rights than others (like royalty). But these claims are fallacious because part of what makes a lawful system real and valid is that it applies to all people equality, also known as the Golden Rule of Law.

While the origin of inherent rights is a huge concept to unpack here, what can be briefly said is that these rights are “extended” from the Creator because, ultimately, all things are a part of the Creator. Thus, any rights the Creator has, the creature has by extension—because ultimately the creature and Creator are one. However, the creature has to learn through experience how to use these rights properly (or discover what they even are), and this is why life is fraught with the potential for social problems—in the act of solving them (justice) knowledge of how to act without harm is gained.

Rights are NOT Privileges 

If we define a right as a privilege—as the vast majority of institutions do—then yes, it is accurate to say rights, as so defined, do not exist. This is because a right—an inherent capacity to do something—cannot also be a privilege—permission given by someone to do something. Although, as we just discussed, in order to use your rights honorably, you need to work with others.

You have the right to breathe; you don’t have to ask anyone’s permission to breathe. You simply breathe, and if someone tells you that you need their permission, then it is clear they are not understanding reality. To have a right that also requires permission would be a logical fallacy or an inherent contradiction.

But rights and privileges are related to one another because when a person exercises their rights they affect others and those people can choose to agree or disagree, to accept or reject that behavior. But this is more accurately described as consent instead of a privilege.

Introducing a new term to make understanding these things easier, consider then that in order to use your rights honorably, you should notify others whenever possible. Notice, in this sense, is the tool true sovereigns use to develop honorable dealings with their fellows, the thing that allows one to use their rights in a way that respects others.

Conversely, when someone uses their rights without notice, they create controversy, misunderstanding, or potentially, harm. For example, the right to free speech is one that most cultures acknowledge as valid, and yet almost everyone recognizes that using this right needs to be done with respect. The right of free speech is balanced by the recognition of mutual respect, specifically, the recognition that other people have the right to listen to you or not.

Stated more clearly, we all have the right to free speech, but a conversation is a “privilege” because the consent of another must be gained—we can’t have a conversation with someone who refuses to do so. Also, if we lie or intentionally deceive others then using our right of free speech causes harm to others and the world through the proliferation of falsehoods. Thus, there are two sides to the use of one’s rights, and it is up to the individual to learn how to use them wisely. Rights, if used properly, make things better for the person using them and all others.

Therefore, exercising rights—due to the nature of our contractual reality and the fact our actions affect others—is inexorably and forever linked to socialization. Matter of fact, if we consider that all things in the universe are made of consciousness, alive in their own right, then everything we do, including living in our own bodies, is a social enterprise—without other beings, we wouldn’t be able to exercise any rights at all.

From this discussion we can see very clearly that we must each decide what rights are for the entire population of the planet.  There are very concerted efforts to divide us; to polarize our beliefs. We must now stand as individuals, as sovereign beings, and declare our rights as individual human beings. We suspect we ALL share a vision of what those rights should be. It is now time to overcome these artificial divisions that have been foisted upon us and as INDIVIDUALS declare our right as sovereign human beings. We suspect when we perceive this reality, our lives can improve quickly and positively. Stand up!

 

Advertisements

The Illusion of a Democracy is Gone- Welcome to The Oligarchic State of America

As we watch this clown car of Republic presidential candidates play their roles in the theater of the absurd by seeing who can say the most outrageous comments, and as we watch the Democratic candidates try to appear without the influence of the cabal, and we witness a total media blackout of the only true independent candidate, it seems impossible not to come to the conclusion that the coup by the ½% in America is complete.

BUT if there are any reasonable people out there that think that is not the case, we challenge you to come forth with any logical argument to the contrary. To be specific, how do you refute these following facts.

An Associated Press analysis of fundraising reports filed with federal regulators through Friday found that nearly 60 donations of a million dollars or more accounted for about a third of the more than $380 million brought in so far for the 2016 presidential election. Donors who gave at least $100,000 account for about half of all donations so far to candidates’ presidential committees and the super PACs that support them.

The review covered contributions to outside groups that can accept checks of any size, known as super PACs, and to the formal campaigns, which are limited to accepting no more than $2,700 per donor. The tally includes donations from individuals, corporations and other organizations reflected in data filed with the Federal Election Commission as of Friday, the deadline for super PACs to report for the first six months of the year.

That concentration of money from a small group of wealthy donors build on a trend that began in 2012, the first presidential contest after a series of court rulings and regulatory steps that created the super PAC. They can openly support candidates but may not directly coordinate their actions with their campaigns.

  • “Now [the United States is] just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. … So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors …” — Jimmy Carter, former president, in 2015.
  • “You have to go where the money is. Now where the money is, there’s almost always implicitly some string attached. … It’s awful hard to take a whole lot of money from a group you know has a particular position then you conclude they’re wrong [and] vote no.” — Vice President Joe Bidenin 2015.
  • “Lobbyists and career politicians today make up what I call the Washington Cartel. … [They] on a daily basis are conspiring against the American people. … [C]areer politicians’ ears and wallets are open to the highest bidder.” — Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in 2015.
  • “When you start to connect the actual access to money, and the access involves law enforcement officials, you have clearly crossed a line. What is going on is shocking, terrible.” – James E. Tierney, former attorney general of Maine, in 2014.
  • “Allowing people and corporate interest groups and others to spend an unlimited amount of unidentified money has enabled certain individuals to swing any and all elections, whether they are congressional, federal, local, state … Unfortunately and rarely are these people having goals which are in line with those of the general public. History well shows that there is a very selfish game that’s going on and that our government has largely been put up for sale.” – John Dingell, 29-term Democratic congressman from Michigan, in 2014 just before he retired.
  • “When some think tank comes up with the legislation and tells you not to fool with it, why are you even a legislator anymore? You just sit there and take votes and you’re kind of a feudal serf for folks with a lot of money.” — Dale Schultz, 32-year Republican state legislator in Wisconsin and former state Senate Majority Leader, in 2013 before retiring rather than face a primary challenger backed by Americans for Prosperity.
  • “The alliance of money and the interests that it represents, the access that it affords to those who have it at the expense of those who don’t, the agenda that it changes or sets by virtue of its power is steadily silencing the voice of the vast majority of Americans … The truth requires that we call the corrosion of money in politics what it is – it is a form of corruption and it muzzles more Americans than it empowers, and it is an imbalance that the world has taught us can only sow the seeds of unrest.”Secretary of State John Kerry, in 2013 farewell speech to the Senate.
  • “I think it is because of the corrupt paradigm that has become Washington, D.C., whereby votes continually are bought rather than representatives voting the will of their constituents. … That’s the voice that’s been missing at the table in Washington, D.C. — the people’s voice has been missing.” — Michele Bachmann, four-term Republican congresswoman from Minnesota and founder of the House Tea Party Caucus, in 2011.
  • “The banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.” – Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., in 2009.

These statements coming from politicians and government officials as diverse in ideology as Michelle Bachmann and Jimmy Carter should be the wake-up call for us all. Any hope of representative government has officially ended. Any hope to achieve a fair shot of opportunity outside of the cabal is a pipe dream. Any future for 99.5% of our children simply does not exist.

The truth of this election cycle is the “in your face America” manner that the process is unfolding. The ballot box IS the place where we have equal power. Think for yourself, ignore the spin, and start to participate in the process as both voters and candidates. Saying nothing and doing nothing simply is not an option. We cannot wait for someone or something to “empower” us, we must empower ourselves and we must take aggressive and specific actions, EVERY ONE OF US. This is not a conservative or liberal issue, it is an AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC issue.

The End of Democracy in America?

For over two years we have been writing about the undue influence of money in American politics and government. We dared to say on several occasions that we now live in an oligarchic society, not a democracy. Some of our readers thought that was somewhat extreme, however, now, a scientific study seems to bear out what we have been saying all along.
The reality of the study is the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do SEEM to enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, …” and then they go on to say, it’s not true, and that, “America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened” by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead “the nearly total failure of ‘median voter’ and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories of America. In America, money talks… and democracy dies under its crushing weight. A study, to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the study’s opening question, “Who governs? Who really rules?” in this country, is:
“Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities organized interest groups are controlled for and by the elite, and the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an oligarchy.
The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled “Testing Theories of American Politics.” The authors clarify that the data available are probably under-representing the actual extent of control of the U.S. by the super-rich:
“Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis, even though our findings probably understate the political influence of elites. Our measure of the preferences of wealthy or elite Americans – though useful, and the best we could generate for a large set of policy cases – is probably less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments of engaged interest groups. Yet we found substantial estimated effects even when using this imperfect measure. The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater.”
Nonetheless, this is the first-ever scientific study of the question of whether the U.S. is a democracy. “Until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions [that U.S. policymaking operates as a democracy, versus as an oligarchy, versus as some mixture of the two] against each other within a single statistical model. This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.” That’s an enormous number of policy-issues studied.
What the authors are able to find, despite the deficiencies of the data, is important: the first-ever scientific analysis of whether the U.S. is a democracy, or is instead an oligarchy, or some combination of the two. The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, not a democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it’s pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation’s “news” media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious “electoral” “democratic” countries. We weren’t formerly, but we clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” That’s it, in a nutshell.
In the years we have been blogging, our hope that the electorate would finally wake up and understand the danger that their apathy toward the political process would eventually cause their enslavement. We all understand the words “erosion of the middle class” but we don’t seem to link that statement to concepts such as extreme poverty, lack of opportunity for our children, police state, political suppression, lose of freedom, and several more realities that we seem to believe we still have and don’t have at all.
It is time we do what we need to do. We need to understand that our democracy and freedom must be fought for and defended at all times. That is not only our right to vote, but our RESPONSIBILITY and OBLIGATION to vote and when voting, cast an informed ballot. Today, the American people are the least informed voters of any of the developed nations and most of the under developed nations. In each of those nations we clearly understand the plight of the people and the poverty and hardships they are enduring on a daily basis. We are now numbered among those nations.
The recent changes in political campaign financing orchestrated through what should be the least corrupt arm of government, the Supreme Court, and the effectiveness of the number of state efforts to suppress voter’s rights should be a ringing bell to wake us up! We, the people, still have the power to correct these atrocities and assaults on our democracy and constitution, but to do so we must take the time and effort to understand the issues and most importantly cast an informed vote. That means voter turnout needs to be in the 80-90% range even in off term elections like those coming up in 2014. We need to repeal these ridiculous campaign financing laws and voter suppression actions, and finally those among us who can run for office as true patriots should step up and run. The cast of characters lining up in state and congressional seats so far are the most pathetic in our history.
Stop for a moment, forget the political rhetoric, and simply look at your children. If you fail to participate, what is their fate?