Those of you who follow my Twitter Time Line with any regularity might have noticed that I haven’t really tweeted or retweeted anything specifically favorable or unfavorable towards either of the leading two Democratic Candidates, nor have I live tweeted their debates. I have spent arguably an inordinate amount of time tweeting snark about the Republican Candidates and live tweeting their debates but not the Dems. 

Those who have read my bio and have followed me know that I was with the Republican party for over 30 years and out of total frustration of the hard right-wing turn and marginalization of moderates in the party by the Tea Party types, I left. Now to be clear, I did not become a Democrat. However I have found that I prefer the platform of the Democrats immeasurably more palatable than that of this current “faux” conservatism from the so-called “Christian” right “Constitutionalists” who are in reality narrow-minded, bigoted, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, lemmings for the corporate and/or tyrannical leaders of the party. Did I leave anything out? 

I welcome centrists and liberal leaning people to follow me as I follow back. As I also have mentioned I enjoy intelligent and humorous dialogue. I prefer pragmatism, fact based reasoning and most important of all, critical thinking, (all nearly extinct and verboten in the current manifestation of the Republican Party). Following “liberals” and centrists I make it a point not to favor or cast aspersions on their candidates of choice, providing they are good for the nation and the overall good of her people. Now I will go after those on the Democratic side who I see as causing damage to the mission statement of the party. For example, I am not impressed with Debbie Wasserman Schultz. In her position she should be focusing on spreading the mission of the Democratic Party to anyone within earshot in all 50 states and US territories. Media still covers the Republicans far more than the Democrats and by not holding more debates in Prime-Time, even less coverage is had. 

Now regarding Hillary and Bernie. I find that the vast majority of Democrats support either one. Many who personally advocate for one or the other will also add that they would still vote for the other if their candidate lost. Thom Hartmann, who has had Bernie on his radio show every Friday for “brunch” for years and is one of Bernie’s most noted advocate, has said quite candidly he supports Bernie but if Hillary wins the primary he could vote for her “in a heartbeat.” Stephanie Miller who supported Obama over Hillary in 2008 prior to Obama gaining popularity has made it clear she now supports Hillary. But as with Thom, if Bernie wins, she can vote for him “in a heartbeat.” That is the example all those on the left and middle should take. Sadly, it isn’t. 

There is plenty of good in both candidates. However it is also true that both have baggage that can and will be exploited in the General. However those who say “Bernie or Bust” or “Hillary or Bust” present a real and imminent threat to the progressive cause in November. Republicans can only win if voter turnout is low. The lower the turnout the higher the neo-conservative gains. To not vote because your candidate lost is almost guaranteeing one of the GOP candidates winning.

The odds are about 50/50 that the Dems can take the Senate back. It’s unlikely they can take the House back. The next president will likely nominate three or four Supreme Court Justices, will have to either carry on with the Obama agenda or kill it to satisfy the right-wing. The next President has to be a Democrat. Whether you think Hillary or Bernie are or aren’t Progressive enough, or capable of winning or not keep in mind (again as Thom Hartmann points out) “on their worst day, both Hillary and Bernie are better than any Republican Candidate on their best day.” 

I’ve seen battles between Dems on Twitter and other social media before. It can and does get personal and nasty. If you’re not following their litmus test, they can be as nasty to you as the worst Right-Wing Nut Job out there. Just today because I expressed my support for “whoever wins the primary” a Sanders supporter made assumptions and threw insults my way. This was someone I had followed and he had followed back for years. He’s now blocked. Another chimed in and before it got too bad, I blocked her. I went through this turf war among liberals before regarding Unite Blue. I won’t go through it again. 

One thing the Republicans have done and will continue to do that appears to be difficult for Democrats is that after the primaries are concluded, whether their candidate won or not, they will still unite and vote for the winner in the General. Too many Dems unfortunately give up if their candidate loses. They either don’t vote, vote for a third party candidate or do a write in. That is throwing your vote away. Nothing anybody can show me proves otherwise. 

So in closing, fight for your candidate during the primary season. Make your case but be respectful of the hard felt beliefs of others. Don’t alienate them from you or you from them. In the end, support the winner and push for as many Blue wins as possible in November. Otherwise you were part of the problem.

We all know from the years of propaganda floating in the West by Ranchers and anti-Government types about how the Federal Government has stolen their land and won’t allow ranchers their right to graze cattle on it without horrible restrictions. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are the Gestapo in their minds while they misrepresent history, the law, the Constitution and reality to prove their point.

Of course they leave out the fact that

1)      Article IV, Section 3, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States….” or

2)      the more reasonable complaint that the lands taken by the Whites originally belonged to the Natives and that the Supreme Court in 1823 disgustingly ruled in what’s been called “The Discovery Doctrine” in Johnson v M’Intosh that “discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest.”, or

3)      that much of the land not already taken by White American Settlers were owned by Hispanic Settlers before the Americans arrived, or

4)      that these “American Territories” who petitioned Washington DC for Statehood agreed to cede much of this land to the Federal Government, or

5)      finally that over the past 100 plus years, failed property owners in debt have sold land to the United States Government. In fact the land around the Malheur Wildlife Refuges is just such land. Prior to that it was property of the Paiute Tribe.

No matter, they complain that the Federal Government shouldn’t own or control this land. They demand it be privatized, sold to private interests and not managed by the Federal Government.

After all, all the BLM does is ensure the land isn’t over-grazed making it useless for years, or mined making it useless for those wanting to camp on these lands and enjoy nature, or developed eliminating the natural beauty and access to the land for ever. No, they want the land sold because the Federal Government has no business controlling the public lands held in trust and protection for the People of the United States. Only Ranchers should have that right.

Many “Conservative” Republican politicians at both the State and National Level agree with these people and have sponsored legislation to sell off these lands. In Arizona Senator John McCain worked to sell off Indian land to a Canadian Mining interest.

Well, let’s give these ranchers what they want.  

Why should they have to fork out $1.69/AUM to the Federal Government for grazing rights when they can pay private land owners $20.30/AUM?

Why should the tax payers be responsible for firefighting these tenderly dry lands from major fires? Let the private owners do it.

Now keep in mind, if this land was to go for sale in all these states, good business dictates it go to the highest bidder. The better the land, the better the resources on it, the higher the cost.

Now we know all these poor local ranchers are starving, relying of government subsidies to sustain their ranches and families (did I forget to mention that fact?) so they may not be in the best position or have the credit rating necessary to borrow the money to buy these prize lands. That being the case, multi-national ranching, mining, and land development corporations with the resources just might be making the better bid to buy these lands.

Wonder what a Saudi Family land development interest would charge local Christian Ranchers to graze on their lands? Wonder how they would handle these Christians poaching on their lands? Certainly they would be much kinder than the Federal Government has been.

Foreign interests love buying American real-estate. It’s the best investment they can make so much of this land sold by the U.S. Government is far more likely to end up in their hands and subject to their rules than private U.S. land speculators. Don’t think so? It’s already happening as I mentioned above.

Evil Tyrannical gubmit is an easy rallying cry from those wanting attention and more freebies. It’s a great way to gain financial support and some level of respect from those who don’t have the time to think and reason, it’s a great way to get the votes from those who don’t have the time to think and reason. However, it isn’t a way to deal with the Public Lands, held in trust by the Government of the United States and regulated by acts of Congress (not the President mind you) for the public good or public vote. You want this land privatized? May as well sell yours too in the process because they will drive you out of business and off their lands for their bottom line.

Additional Reading:

Doctrine of (Christian) Discover:  http://nativeamericanhistory.about.com/od/Law/a/What-Is-The-Doctrine-Of-Christian-Discovery.htm

Fact Sheet BLM Management of Livestock Grazing: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

During the Bundy Militia standoff at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon we were all introduced to Lavoy Finicum. He is one of the Militiamen fighting for the right to commit Arson and not serve out the sentence covered by law for two ranchers who don’t want anything to do with these nuts.

Many scoffed at Lavoy immediately naming him Tarp Man on social media. However that’s not fair, the Finicum name goes back to many battle scenes in our country’s history. Here are just a few:

As the Bundy Militia pathetically try to make themselves relevant by occupying Federal Lands to protect two convicted Arsonist (who want nothing to do with the Bundy Klan) social media is again abuzz about militias, gun rights and how the second amendment was written for the sole purpose to permit armed insurrection against the government of the United States, if “the people” sees it at “Tyrannical”. 

Many on the right extreme have come up with bizarre and unsubstantiated claims about our founding and what the constitution says, however this interpretation is among the most laughable of all of them. Nothing in the history of the time, not the Federalists papers, not the written works or diaries of the founders, not even reason or logic substantiates this idiotic claim from those who may have read the Constitution but either didn’t understand it or only read propaganda about the Constitution by NRA conmen and phony historians like David Barton. 

Let’s examine this theory from the loons on the right. However to fully understand what follows you need to have an open and clear mind and the ability to utilize critical thinking. So Gun Nuts will have problems sorting through this, but here’s hoping. 

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution adopted in 1791 and states clearly: 

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

Now we all know that the Gun Nuts out there like to ignore that first part. I read one blog that on one hand accurately stated it was a “dependent” clause but then oddly stated that as a “dependent” clause, isn’t relative to the rest of the amendment(?) Ah, rightwing logic! 

The issue of Militia is key. The current and popular theory of the Gun Nuts is that the whole purpose of this amendment was for the people who they see as the “militia” are the only way to remove tyrannical government, like the founders did in the Revolutionary War against George the Third. Now if the Second Amendment was the only amendment referencing the militia in the constitution and there were no other acts of Congress legislated and signed by the Chief Executive at the time, you may, with a lot of booze and no sleep on a school night, give credence to that theory. However, that isn’t the case. 

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution provides that the states transferred to Congress the power: 

“To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions” and “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia.”  

The founders were wary about having a standing army so they wanted to rely on calling for State Militias to defend our nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. They wanted to ensure that the Militias were well armed, trained and organized for just such an eventuality. In fact each time until 2008 with Heller, When Second Amendment rights were argued before the Supreme Court, the Justices ruled that the Second was a “group right” ceding to the dependent clause regarding a militia. It has only been since Heller that the Supreme Court has now changed over 200 years of stare decisis and has now made gun ownership an “individual right”. So much for Antonin Scalia saying the Constitution isn’t a “living document” subject to change. 

Now that’s not all. Congress in 1792 (keep in mind this Congress was made up of who we call our founders at that time) legislated the Militia Act of 1792. Under this Act and Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution father of our country, presider of the Constitutional Convention and first president of the United States George Washington twice put down armed insurrections against the government of the United States by calling out the Militias. It would appear as many clearly understand, the second amendment was written as a means to defend our government, not threaten it. If the latter were so, how was President Washington allowed to use the Second to put down armed rebellion? By the way, the Whiskey and Shay’s rebellions essentially were about the same things (taxes, federal government overreach, etc.) that the right cite now as “Tyranny.” After Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion he reported back to Congress stating: 

“To yield to the treasonable fury of so small a portion of the United States, would be to violate the fundamental principle of our constitution, which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail.  . . . Succeeding intelligence has tended to manifest the necessity of what has been done; it being now confessed by those who were not inclined to exaggerate the ill-conduct of the insurgents, that their malevolence was not pointed merely to a particular law; but that a spirit, inimical to all order, has actuated many of the offenders.”

He didn’t care much for “Second Amendment Remedies”. 

Now many on the right will cite quotes from the founders like Thomas Jefferson to support their claim the purpose of the second was to give the people a means to threaten our government. Interesting notion except for two things, if it isn’t legislated and signed into law by the Chief Executive, it carries no legal weight. And second, the quotes they cite have no basis in fact. One they love to cite is Jefferson saying: 

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” 

These are stirring words except for one thing. Thomas Jefferson never said them. It has been researched and no historians have been able to attribute it to any of his writings or speeches. In fact the quote first surfaced in 1914. Keep in mind Thomas Jefferson died on July 4, 1826. 

Some like to say it can be found in the Federalist Papers. I suspect they never read them or understand that the term “Federalist” is key. These papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay who were “Federalists” and it was the Federalists who advocated for a stronger central government to replace the weak one provided under the Articles of Confederation. Why would those believing in a strong central government write about a means to overturn it by a mob? 

Another thing these Gun Nuts don’t comprehend when they cite “Tyranny” as reflected in the Declaration of Independence as a warning to “Tyranny” in our government. At the time prior to our formal break from the rule of King George the Third, his leadership was absolute. He wasn’t elected King, he was born King. He wasn’t held to the will of Parliament, he controlled Parliament. He wasn’t bound to orders of the English Courts, he was the English Courts. When the founders created our government they wanted to avoid a Monarchy like the one they just rebelled against. They saw government as only being viable upon consent of the governed. So they created a Chief Executive who would serve terms of four years and to remain in office must win in a nationwide election governed only by the Electoral College. That Chief Executive could be held to account by a separate Supreme Court, that Chief Executive can be impeached by a Congress or by the people by not re-electing him or her.  So it would appear that the remedy for a “tyrannical” President is actually either our Congress, our Supreme Court or our ballots. Things that didn’t apply to King George the Third in 1776. So comparing Obama to King George is disingenuous at best. 

Another thing to consider if you still believe a small militia group has the right to overthrow the government of the United States because they see it as Tyrannical and they don’t want to wait for the next election or take the time to go to Court or Congress for redress of their issues: Who determines what’s Tyrannical and who elected these Militias to represent the rest of us? Seems that these people are nothing more than insurgents taking matters into their own hands regardless of what the rest of the nation thinks. That makes them far more dangerous than any elected official who is constrained by the US Constitution. These people see themselves literally above the law, which make them the tyrants. 

No my friends, nothing in the Second Amendment or the Constitution as a whole condones or permits armed insurgency against your government. Our system is set up to deal with redress in a much less violent manner than the idiocy of ne’er-do-wells who really have no business socializing with decent folk.

At best, private gun ownership is for your personal protection, not revolution. Certainly not a revolution you would ever win or live through. 

One final thought, people who join up with the weekend warrior types should be careful calling themselves “Militias”. As somebody pointed out to me on Twitter recently, if they are militias, then under the Constitution, Congress and the President can call them out and deploy them to defend our nation. They could be sent to Syria for all I care.   

Addiction: the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity: “he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction” · synonyms: dependency · dependence · habit · problem.

Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of psychology understands the concept of Addiction. Although it is usually ascribed to alcohol and drugs and represents an overwhelming and uncontrolled desire to a substance that is provably unhealthy for the individual or people around him or her, it has also been ascribed to pornography, sex, shopping, food, gambling and as I would serious like to point out (with a little snark to follow) is gun ownership.

Psychology Today has a more in-depth analysis regarding the overall condition of addiction than this blog post will go into. However here is their site:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/addiction

From this site I would like to focus on two key points they make:

1. “When referring to any kind of addiction, it is important to recognize that its cause is not simply a search for pleasure and that addiction has nothing to do with one’s morality or strength of character. Experts debate whether addiction is a “disease” or a true mental illness, whether drug dependence and addiction mean the same thing, and many other aspects of addiction. Such debates are not likely to be resolved soon. But the lack of resolution does not preclude effective treatment.”
2. How lack of insight sustains addiction: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/you-illuminated/201206/how-lack-insight-sustains-addiction

I encourage you all to read and tell me if this doesn’t explain the odd behavior of those who profess their guns over everything in life.

Gun Addicts cannot be dissuaded by validated research that shows beyond all doubt that ownership of a gun increases the likelihood of being shot and killed, research that an individual with a gun presents nearly zero impact in thwarting or stopping a mass shooting, research regarding the true history and nature of the 2^nd Amendment, they seriously believe the government is out to forcibly take all their guns away, they believe that they represent the majority view of all Americans despite clear polling that show 90% of all Americans (to include gun owners and members of the NRA) support Universal Background checks, ban of Assault Weapons and limitation of high capacity magazines. They refuse to accept that reasonable gun control measures in the world have been successful in reducing gun violence, they continue to be oblivious to the fact that their addiction is harming a nation trying to reduce the likelihood of another mass shooting and reduce other acts of gun violence. Also, many move beyond a mere psychological addiction to gun to the realm of psychosis when they say and believe, without batting an eye that the mass shootings at Sandy Hook and most recently in San Bernardino were “False Flag” government ran operations to try to take you guns away.

No, gun addiction is a problem for society as a whole and the addicts truly need help. One interesting thing I’ve noticed about these addicts is their fear of their guns being registered. On one hand they say they don’t want the government to know if they have guns while they proudly participate in Open Carry. Yes, these people have problems.

Therefore I suggest as a start to address this growing problem the creation of a new support group modeled under Alcoholic Anonymous. We can call it Armed Anonymous. It can be a group of Ammosexuals meeting together in a support group to address their needs and work on abetting their addiction to guns.

Of course it would require a 12 Step program:

1. We admitted we were powerless over the propaganda from the Gun lobbying group known as the NRA despite the overwhelming evidence countering everything they present.
2. Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves “Validated Research” could restore us to sanity. Oh so did compassionate Humanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives to the greater good of less gun violence because of our love for our fellow citizens.
4. Made a searching and fearless inventory of our weapon’s cache and ammunition and realized we weren’t going to war so why did we waste so much money?
5. Admitted to our family, friends and neighbors the exact nature of our gun fed paranoia.
6. We were entirely ready to have reason remove the defects of our pro-gun narrative.
7. Humbly ask our family, friends and neighbors to not be afraid of us anymore.
8. Made a list of all the stupid and unsupported claims we made about guns and became willing to admit to one and all we were completely wrong.
9. Told our representatives we were wrong about unfettered and unregulated gun ownership and finally pass Gunsense regulations.
10. Continued to take another inventory of the other guns we had stashed where children could get them and made them safe.
11. Sought through reason and research to question and debunk what other pro-gun advocates and the NRA say and vow to not be fooled again.
12. Told the nation that the best way to reduce gun violence is to reduce the number of guns especially among those who shouldn’t be anywhere near them like criminals, mentally/emotionally unstable people, domestic violence offenders, children and others who have not been trained and certified as responsible gun owners.

This is just a start, but I think it would be a good one. Share with your armed friends to help them gain realistic enlightenment.

By the way:

Since 9-11 the United States mainstream media have focused on “Radicalized Muslim Extremists”. Those on the Right and especially in the Republican Party get upset when a terrorist act involving a Muslim isn’t called “Radicalized Islamic Terrorism” or “Jihad”. They seem to focus more on the label than the act itself which I’ve always found interesting.  

Now a President cannot simply make broad statements declaring something as Terrorism because he is the Head of State and must contend with other Head of States who are still friendly to us that and who may be Islamic. His words carry the weight of our nation, our military and our foreign policy. This has applied to each and every President before Obama and every President to follow regardless of what mainstream pundits want to say. Now professionals in the State Department, FBI, CIA, Law Enforcement have specific “legal” criteria before they can label anything as “Terrorism” or anything else of that nature. So they tend to be measured when they make statements, but not as measured as the President must be.  

However, from a social media point of view which is where I speak from, I take the rule of social media and laymen around the country and world and have a very simple definition of Terrorism. I see it as an act designed to cause harm and death of innocent people to make a point of some sort. Many apply the term “Radical Islamic” when describing a terrorist act committed by a Muslim. I see that as a fair point. I actually have no issue with that. However, when you apply that label, you must consider that despite what many want to believe, because of what they hear on mainstream media or read on social media, Muslims are not the only group that can be radicalized.  

I really get annoyed with people like Bill Maher, who although despising all religions as mythology, singles out Islam as the worst. He says that from its roots it permits radicalization resulting in terrorism around the world. Bill is naïve. History shows clearly that there isn’t a faith or ideology that hasn’t had members “radicalized” to commit terroristic acts that they then in turn use some fragment of their faith or ideology to support the act. History is replete with extremists of some faith using violence against those within and outside that faith to commit violence. This is true with the Jews, the Muslims, the Christians, the Sikhs, the Buddhists, all faiths to include Atheists. It is also true that often the majority of victims from these groups tend to be members of the same faith. More Muslims are being killed by Radicalized Muslims than those from outside the religion. Doesn’t help when Christians help the radicals in killing more Muslims. 

We need not go way back in history for examples like the Crusades, the last century provides enough examples for us. In Ireland, extremist Catholics and Protestants battled each other with terrorist attacks. These attacks spread outside Ireland to England. In the Soviet Union, radical extreme Atheists under Stalin annihilated the Russian Orthodox Church, destroying their churches and sending the faithful to gulags to die. In Israel today, radicalized extreme Jews in small communities commit terroristic acts against Palestinian Muslims. In the Indian Sub-Continent, radicalized extreme Buddhist are slaughtering Muslims. In Africa a radicalized Christian sect has declared Homosexuality an act punishable by death. And in this nation, we have radicalized Christians in the KKK, Neo Nazi Groups citing their faith to burn down Black Churches, kill minorities, kill homosexuals, stalk harass and kill abortion providers. In fact since 9-11 the vast majority of all terrorist acts of violence in this country have been committed by radicalized extremist Christians, not Muslims. However mainstream media likes to focus on only the Muslim acts because news has gone from telling the public what they need to know to what they want to know. 

This is my theory for you all to consider.  

Radicalization has little to do with your faith or ideology. It’s more about your psychiatric and sociological environment. It’s more a result of a mental break than a religious break. However, once broken those involved grasp for anything real or imaginary to justify their violent acts.  

With the exception of Atheists, radicals can justify their acts by citing obscure Holy Book verses in or more likely out of context so they can say it’s with their God’s blessing. Again, it can be Allah, or the Jewish or Christian God (who in theory is the same God but that is another rant).  

Atheists try to explain it from a warped Humanism justification removing the constraints and lies of the opium of the masses. 

No matter, the problem isn’t the faith or lack thereof, it’s the radicalization that is to blame. Don’t blame Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs or Atheists per se for the acts of the radicalized extremists, blame the extremists. Perhaps explore what environmental and/or psychiatric factors played into the radicalization and look for ways to mitigate that.  

One thing is for sure, you create a vicious cycle when you blame and harm a faith for the acts of their extremists because that does tend to radicalize others, which radicalizes us and the cycle continues.

This rant is essentially an open blog post for Ben Carson, though I doubt he’ll ever read it. However, it also applies to anyone now or in the future who plans to run for president of these United States. This process is not for those with thin skins, easily bruised egos, or the faint of heart. From our founding, the vetting process for what is arguably the most powerful office in the world, chief executive of the richest, most powerful nation in the history of man has always been a test of character.

Even at our founding there was a press who, depending on where they stood, would vilify candidates for the office. Even George Washington was vilified in the press. John Adams was so vilified by the press signed the Sedition Act making it a crime to publish anything malicious about the government or it’s officials. 10 citizens were prosecuted.

In the years that followed, candidates were vetted and vilified by the press continuously. No candidate nor a candidate’s family were ever immune. No matter what they stood and advocated for, there were those vehemently opposed to them and they took to the press. They examined all facts, scandals, innuendos, anything to disgrace the candidate. This has happened with every election cycle since the first. So Ben, what you are experiencing is nothing new.

Now say you are ultimately successful and become President, do you understand what happens to you, your family and life after that? Every President has faced the threat of assassination. The first successful one was Abraham Lincoln, followed by James Garfield, William McKinley and John Kennedy. Andrew Jackson, William Howard Taft, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama had all went through actual assassination attempts. Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were actually shot and survived.

As much as a President is loved, they are also vilified. That is the nature of the position you seek. It’s not just people peeking into your past looking for dirt, there are and always will be people out there wanting to kill you. It’s a foreign and domestic threat that faces each and every President. If you can’t handle the press, how will you handle the assassination plot that is inevitable? By the way, our current president and his family have received more death threats than any other president in history. Look how he copes with it. Can you or anyone else do any better?

No Ben, Donald, Jeb, Chris, Ted, Rand, Mike, Rick, Carly, John, Lindsey, Bobby, Marco, George, Martin, Bernie or Hillary, none of you are immune from the scrutiny of the press and social media nor should you be. This is part of the process. It’s easy to say other candidates get it or got it easier than you, but frankly that isn’t true. For as much is out there, there will be an equal amount of scrutiny, both fair and unfair to contend with.

The press is your first test of character for being president. If you can’t handle the press, you’ll never be able to handle what follows.

If you’re serious about being president, suck it up and take it. Otherwise drop out now because the longer you’re in, the worse it gets. Ask the current and past living presidents. They have all gone through this too.

Recently America was given a glimpse of the home of Dr. Ben Carson, current GOP front runner for the Iowa Caucus who’s gaining on Donald Trump. Many commented on the rather unique artifacts strewn about the home as an homage to the good doctor. The one painting receiving much attention was this one of him and Jesus together.

However, that wasn’t all. It turns out Dr. Carson has an hidden gallery of paintings he has yet to reveal to the public, until now.

For your artistic curiosity and intellectual discussion, the hidden gallery of Dr. Ben Carson:

President Obama is right, this is getting too old. Another mass shooting and still no serious debate in the halls of government to examine the problem, analyze the data and develop Evidence Based Practices to reduce the odds of another mass shooting occurring. The statistics just on gun violence itself are staggering, but sadly ignored in many states and Washington DC.

The number of mass shootings (4 or more dead on average)? Since 2013, over 12 a year compared to 5 a year in 2008.

Number of gun violence deaths a year on average? 32,000.

Number of Congressional Hearings to examine the data and come up with solutions since 2010? Zero.

After each shooting Twitter and social media lights up with those clearly and understandably upset and frustrated that another shooting has occurred. They post their anger, their frustration, their facts, their proposed solutions, etc. And of course, they are met with those who oppose anything that interrupts the status quo. Some are thoughtful and reasoned in their responses, but most are simply trolling. They express sarcasm, harassment, hyperbole, insults, and bogus claims only to be blocked. Once blocked they post how the “Gunsense” crowd don’t want to debate the issues. Happens every time.

Each time there’s a shooting the trolls bring up pretty much the same positions, statements, and memes each and every time. Nothing new ever comes from them. They post and claim, as if this is a trial, that they have “proved their point” oblivious to the fact there’s no rule of evidence, no presiding judge and no jury selection. It doesn’t matter because these are trolls. I’ve always advocated to not engage trolls. They are a waste of bandwidth because they’re not there to provide useful knowledge, not there to sway your opinion, not there to respect you, they’re there to harass you. Just block or mute them and keep on tweeting your views.

Now, if you opt to engage with a troll, here are some common sense replies to their arguments:

“We already have enough laws.” “Laws only infringe on law abiding people, criminals won’t abide by any laws.”

Well, there are certainly a large number of diverse laws regarding guns both nationally and locally. However, many of these laws are either weakened when enacted to be ineffective or simply go ignore by elected Sheriffs who refuse to abridge what they see as citizen’s Second Amendment rights. The Sheriff in Oregon is one such official. Further, logically you are not a “criminal” unless you break an enacted and enforced law. If there is no law pertaining to a behavior that disrupts the community, you can’t be legally prosecuted for doing that. We all have the right of due process which means, you have a right to know what law you’re accused of breaking. No law, no crime, no prosecution. To say to protect the rights of “law abiding citizens” by not enacting laws is ludicrous.

We need universal and national standards for gun safety laws to prevent people going from a lax gun control jurisdiction to a strict gun control jurisdiction creating havoc. The only other solution is border walls between the states. This is why Congress needs to discuss this issue and explore what laws work and what don’t then set the standard nationwide. Further, any law enforcement officer not upholding that law without good and valid reason must lose their shield.

“Gun Free Zones must be eliminated because that’s where mass shooters go for easy targets.”

Statistically speaking, no. Nothing bears that statement out. While on the subject, a gun free zone is a place where “unauthorized” possessor of guns are not allowed to bring their guns on site. So guards, local police can have guns there. Examples of gun free zones: Airports, Schools, Government Buildings, Courts, NRA headquarters. Being in a gun free zone doesn’t make you a target. It’s merely an inconvenience to someone who feels the paranoid need to carry wherever they go. Fact is, many are put off by the presence of civilians walking in armed. They have no idea what’s on their minds, what their intentions are. Where are their rights?

“FBI reports show that guns save lives.” “Harvard research is biased against gun owners.” “John Lott has studied this and armed civilians reduce crime.” “Only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

A few things to point out here. FBI crime statistics reports are numbers gathered to give raw data on certain crimes and where they occur. They do not correlate that data into position papers about gun violence itself. It is however data used by researchers to examine crime trends and compare with other variables to determine trends and issues of cause and effect. Statistics isn’t simple math, it’s a study of the numbers, multi-linear regression tables, data samples, standard deviations, etc. etc. None of that are found in FBI Crime reports. Harvard has a large staff of statistical geniuses and years of experience and expertise in analyzing data and including additional data relevant to crime, i.e. social factors to determine cause and effect and risk levels. Their position papers are peer reviewed looking for errors in data collection, model errors, miscalculations etc. John Lott’s work has been reviewed by experts and found to be discredited for using poor sample sizes, relating wrong variables and coming up with unsupported conclusions.

What’s more, there’s more data out there to review that would help Harvard make even better analysis of the issue, but pro-gun representatives in Congress has forbidden the CDC from gathering that data. Wonder why? The research is clear and simple, it’s verified by the numbers, a gun in the house increases the likelihood of someone dying in the house of gun violence 5 times. Most gun violence deaths are between people who know each other, usually as family. Often at work. Armed civilians stopping or preventing mass shootings is statistically zero. In fact, those who have tried usually get shot and are killed. Those are the real facts.

“The Second Amendment” this that or the other thing.

They like to cite the Second, they like to cite Heller as the fact that per the constitution, everyone has a right to a gun (to fightback against a tyrannical government) and Congress can’t restrict that right in any manner or form. First of all, that argument was never even brought up prior to the 1960’s. Prior to that even the NRA agreed that absolute unfettered unrestricted gun ownership was a constitutional right. In those days the NRA support responsible gun ownership and did a great job ensuring that with their membership. Sadly they then became the lobbying arm of gun manufacturers and their mission changed. No, the second was created to ensure we had a well-armed, well trained and well-regulated militia during a time we didn’t have a standing army. Many forget that along with ratifying the second amendment, Congress also passed the Militia Act of 1792 that relied on the Second Amendment. President Washington used it to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Finally, Heller made it clear that “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The Heller decision ignored two centuries of legal precedent regarding gun rights, but still stated that even under the Second Amendment, guns and gun rights are subject to regulation. End of story.

“Gunsense is dead, you have no support.” “Gunsense wants to take all the guns away.”

Quite the contrary, latest polling still shows over 80% of the nation supports universal background checks, the core demand of Gunsense. Most members of the NRA support universal background checks. Now as with any movement, there are extremes. True some would like to ban all weapons, but that isn’t the core belief of the movement as a whole. They want Congress to study the problem in an open venue for all to hear and see and develop good plans to stem gun violence. To say that anyone seriously wants to take all the guns away is ridiculous. Over 300 million guns out there, it’s not going to happen. What is being asked for is making it more difficult for people to get a gun to ensure the wrong people aren’t easily getting armed to do harm. Further, some guns simply aren’t needed on our streets and can be banned as per Heller. Majority of the nation want common sense approaches to stem gun violence. That is a fact. As I like to point out, if you are so sure of you position, your data, your facts and your conclusions, you have nothing to fear presenting it to the public in a calm respectful manner to sway others to your position. Yet, the staunch pro-gun activists do all they can to ensure Congress never convenes hearings to discuss “Gunsense.”

I could go on but I’m not saying anything new or anything most of you aren’t already aware of. This debate is ongoing in social media and the streets. The debate goes on everywhere except in the one place it needs to occur, Congress. This is where those who want Gunsense must rise up. We can’t bitch and moan about inaction when we’re only active after a shooting and only on social media. Time to get active and get loud and not to let up one bit until Congress has the hearing this issue and this nation deserves. One way to address this, make Gun Control an issue for the Democratic Primary. Let them debate this. By doing so, the Republicans have to debate it too. Let the nation see who’s on their side and who’s not.

We know what they are and have been around as long as there has been a political process. Wedge issues are those social issues employed by a political movement to exploit and raise tensions within a group to curry favor and get support. They are used by all sides of the political spectrum and as you might suspect, are never fully resolved because of the battles such issues bring. What is less apparent is why these issues are rarely resolved.  

One side will bring up an issue to exploit regardless of its actual status in the real world. Once in a position of power they do little to resolve it beyond rhetoric because they want to maintain the raised tensions it creates to keep their supporters in line. The other side, who could put the issue to rest with what they have, also do little to resolve it because of the political laws of physics: Angry support for one side of an issue has an opposite and just as angry opposing side of the same issue. Often these issues are blown out of proportion with hyperbole, false facts, conspiracies, propaganda all designed to raise issues for those who may never had before even thought about it before.  

Once dealt, the other side can present a more factual presentation of the issues, even suggest some compromise to ease whatever level of tensions raised. However they don’t because if they’re successful fighting for the rights in jeopardy then that side loses their base support. The logical cure for wedge issues is reasoned and factual dialogue and implementation of fair compromise. Yet that is never done by either side of an issue because both sides need that angry base of support. 

Here are just a few of the issues being raised this election cycle, some date back many generations only proving my point:

Abortion Rights

Immigration Reform

Gun Control

Civil Rights and Equality

Entitlement Spending

Educational Reform

Climate Change

Military Spending

Religious Freedoms

Banking Reform

Healthcare

Both sides raise, defend and fight for their base regarding these issues whether they truly believe there’s a problem or not. Neither side politically want a solution because to do so gives them nothing to take back to their base for more support. 

The most persistent of these issues are Abortion Rights. Long before Roe v Wade this was a topic of discussion and discourse throughout the United States. Abortions always have and always will exist in this country. Abortions were never a serious issue until some on the religious extreme started to demand a political solution to what they considered a sin (regardless of the fact there is no stated opposition to abortion in the Bible). Politics picked up the cause, laws were passed in communities and states outlawing the procedure that hadn’t been outlawed before. The result, it went underground and became more dangerous. Many women left the country to have them done in countries that didn’t have the restrictions imposed by this country. Then those upset with their reproductive rights being denied by some locals went political to fight back. One nation, many diverse laws governing one issue, abortion. It ended up in the Supreme Court and the Justices ruled by majority that an abortion is a right. Problem solved? Hardly. 

This became a very important wedge issues for those who gravitate to the religious right and everyone else. To this day, abortion rights are favored by mass majorities in this nation but you wouldn’t think so because one party uses this issue effectively to get support. Enough support to win legislatures and Executive Mansions across the country. They tell their supporters they will end it, but it never happens. They only slow it down to keep the issue alive. To gin up support they continue to manufacture facts and investigations to tug at the hearts of those religiously opposed to it. 

The recent clearly edited and misleading Planned Parenthood tapes shows this. They mangle the facts and present a narrative of evil people purposely killing fetuses to sell at huge profit, fetal tissue for medical experimentation. None of that is true. These are legally aborted or miscarried fetuses and as allowed by law, tissue samples are provided for medical research based on the consent of the family. None of it for any profit whatsoever, only the cost of transport.  

Of course those who want to keep this issue alive now demand (to satisfy their base) total federal defunding of Planned Parenthood. However few point out that under the Hyde Amendment, no federal money can go to abortion. Further, only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s budget goes towards abortion services. However it make a good story to the base so they persist. Even Carly Fiorina adds to it by injecting scenes and dialogue in the movie that doesn’t exist. Still, the media won’t cover this because they also benefit from Wedge Issues. To resolve it kills the story and they lose viewership. 

So the Wedge issue, Shutdown Planned Parenthood because of illegal baby tissue sales. Democratic Response, tepid at best because though they talk about the good Planned Parenthood does, they won’t show the evidence that proves the allegations are blatantly false. Finally the media doesn’t investigate and tell the whole story because a wedge issue is good ratings. No solution to be found only harm to those caught in the middle. Wedge Issue Politics. 

Immigration reform is yet another wedge issue that dates back nearly to the founding of our nation. Nativists (an odd term considering their heritage as immigrants) begrudge new immigrants coming to the nation. To curry their support, politicians present to the people the problem and the dire threat to our nation in allowing our borders to be “unprotected.” Each generation it’s another group of immigrants to bear the brunt of the anger of these people. From the Irish and Italians, to Asians and throughout our entire history, Hispanics.  

Factually immigration has been a constant throughout our history, only the flow of the number of immigrants entering legally or otherwise varies. Throughout that time, despite the rhetoric of the “nativists” they do not and never have increased the level of crime of violence in our nation. In fact it has been shown that first generation immigrants, legal or otherwise have significantly lower per capita crime rates that native born Americans. However that doesn’t matter in politics. The issue presented is that our borders aren’t secure and we’re not safe. It’s been the argument for generations. Despite border security being at its highest level ever, despite the increase number of deportations, despite the unequivocal data showing they don’t increase our crime rate, this is the rallying cry from politicians to those who feel the opposite to be true in order to curry their support in the elections.  

The specific issues regarding immigration, legal and otherwise are well known and established. In fact all the issues can be resolved. However as we have seen, the politicians on both sides of the issue won’t do it. Again, because keeping the issue alive with their respected base supporters keep them coming out to vote. A bipartisan immigration reform bill was passed in the Senate that would resolve whatever issues the majority of Americans have. Yet, despite enough bipartisan support in the House, it’s never been put up for a vote. Why, the extreme right don’t want a solution or they lose a wedge issue with their base. What’s more, a discharge petition could be initiated by the moderates and left in the House forcing a vote but they won’t do that either. Why, because if they lose this wedge issue, they won’t be seen as the saviors for those in favor of immigration reform. In the meantime, millions suffer over an issue easily and equitably resolvable. 

The story continues. Occasionally some wedge issues can be resolved for a period of time, but usually only after an election only to be brought up again in another election cycle. There are no problems facing this nation that can’t be resolved for the majority of people involved providing all sides are heard, mutual respect given and a compromise is presented. However that makes for poor politics when your goal is to have your party run the show, not deal with the real needs of all the people. Wedge issues are presented by politicians, are grown by media, and like a cancer corrode public confidence in the process resulting in a more divided and dysfunctional society. However, for mainstream media, that’s good for ratings. For politicians, that’s good for votes. For the rest of us, not good for anything. 

So what’s the solution? I’m not really sure. We are a representative democracy meaning that despite what many think or hope for, the voice and will of the people don’t have any direct impact on their government. It’s filtered by the representatives we send to office. And those people are influenced by other more powerful forces like the wealthy and corporations and political “think groups” who use their money and power to drown out the voice, will and better interests of the ordinary people in this nation. We can try to take money out of politics, but it’s the money interests that control how our representatives vote. Many states have voter driven initiatives which is the truest form of democracy our nation has to offer. Perhaps we need to play the long game starting at the local level to start the process of metamorphosing our Representative Democracy to a more true Democracy where the people have more say in how issues are resolved at the local and national level. Is it possible? Most certainly. Is it likely? Not a chance but a boy can dream. 

The only thing we can do right now, the only weapon we have right now is our voice. We rarely use it anymore as we should. Through phone calls, letters, emails and social media we need to hold all our elected representatives (on both sides) accountable to actually solve the wedge issues that politics actually create or they don’t get our support or vote. We must still vote, but we can seek or even put up some people who are more willing to do what’s right, not what’s politically advantageous for them. As always, you don’t use your power, you will lose it.