First a bit of history of the region for those who only watched “The 300” and Fox News and think they have a fully understanding of Iran.

Prior to 1935 the region we know of today as Iran was called Persia. This region is known for the oldest known civilizations in the world dating back over 10,000 years. From the 10^th Century through the 7^th Century BC the Persian tribes of the area coalesced into part of the Assyrian Empire. During the first half of the 5^th Century BC the region was embroiled in the Greco-Persian Wars of which a small part is the basis of the fictional account portrayed in “The 300.” During this time, the predecessors of Iran actually controlled 44% of the entire World’s population, to include exiled Jews from Israel (something worth noting). At no time in history or since has one empire controlled so much of the world’s population.

Towards the end of the Greco-Persian wars, the Persians began to withdraw from Western territories in Europe. In 334 BC Alexander the Great invaded and conquered Persia and the people were under the control of Hellenistic Seleucid Empire in much the same way the Greeks controlled Egypt via the Ptolemy line, ending with Cleopatra. All from when the European Greeks controlled much of the known world to include present day Iran.

In the centuries that followed, the Romans took control following the Roman Parthian Wars. The region was never stable and eventually fell under the control of the Eastern Roman Empire known as the Byzantine Empire. Because the Europeans fighting in the region exhausted themselves over the following 700 years, invading Muslim Arabs took control of the region. In the 7^th Century AD the Iranians converted to Islam. However after 200 years, semi-independent Iranian Kingdoms began to coalesce and the Arabic culture was replaced by a revived Persian culture creating a Persian bureaucracy for the region.

An “Islamic Golden Age” for the region began in the 10^th and 11^th Centuries. Persian literature, philosophy, medicine, science blossomed while Europe was deep in their “Dark Ages.” However in 1219 through 1221 the region was invaded by the Mongols, and three-fourths of the population in the Iranian Plateau were massacred. The population didn’t recover to pre Mongol size until the 20^th Century.

From 1501 through 1979 several Iranian/Persian Dynasties came and went. Battles with the Ottomans, Russians and other cultures continued through the centuries leading to the recent history of the region which must be noted because it directly relates to what the views of the Iranian People are today towards the West.

Following years of British and Russian Empire Building, Iran’s first National Parliament was created in 1906. Their Constitution gave formal recognition to Iran’s three religious minorities; Christians, Zoroastrians, and Jews. All three actually have recognition in the Iranian Constitution to this very day.

In 1911 the Russians invaded and occupied Northern Iran, During World War 1 the British invaded and occupied Iran until 1921. In 1921 Reza Kahn, Iranian Prime Minister became Shah and remained in power until 1941 when he had to abdicate due to the British returning and taking control of the region. In fact both the British and Soviets occupied Iran during this period.

Eventually in 1951 the Iranians elected Mohammed Mosaddegh as Prime Minister. He was extremely popular especially since he nationalized the Iranian Oil Fields to benefit of the people of Iran. Iran’s democratic government fell in 1953 when a joint Anglo-American covert operation overthrew Mosaddegh and installed a new Shah to take control of Iran and more importantly her oil fields to the benefit of Western Oil interests.

In the decades that followed, the Shah became more tyrannical and westernized. The Iranian people were subjected to totalitarian rule. Religious fundamentalists were imprisoned, killed or exiled to include Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who opposed the secular, westernized and brutal regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.

The people of Iran under this regime grew to be more and more anti-western. In 1979 the Shah was forced to abdicate, the Ayatollah returned, the American Embassy was overran and Americans were held for 444 days. This started over 30 years no diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran.

During those years, the United States sold neighboring Iraq and their leader, this guy name Saddam Hussein chemical weapons that he used when he invaded Iran. That war didn’t go well for either nation and it did not go unnoticed that the United States backed Iraq to the Iranians.

Also, many ignore that while we backed Iraq, the Reagan administration were selling weapons to Iran. Go figure.

Then a real odd thing happened. We decided we didn’t like Hussein and we invaded Iraq. The result of that invasion totally destabilized the region resulting in a stronger Iran, followed by Iranian influence in Iraq and what we have today.

Essentially, we created the current Iranian regime by installing the brutal Shah regime and we strengthened the Iranian regime by taking out the only regional power who held them in check. This is our mess.

Now as to be expected when religious zealots are involved in government, there’s a lot of hatred to be expected and this is true for the Iranian Government. Even though they still recognize and protect in their constitution Christians and Jews, they have very anti-Israeli rhetoric from their leaders. So you can expect Israel to be suspicious and fearful of the Iranians.

Further, due to the history of the region going back especially to 1953 between Iran and the United States, you can expect Iran to be suspicious of the United States and since 1979 the United States to be suspicious of Iran. Despite the fact that Israel is already armed with a nuclear deterrent force, they fear Iranian nukes being developed.

By the way, it was the United States Government that began the Iranian Nuclear program prior to 1979 under the Nixon administration.

Now here are some brief facts leading up to the current development of the Iran Deal that as of this rant 52% on the American public are opposed to (most likely due to misleading rhetoric from the right).

• We have frozen Iranian assets since 1979.
• We have imposed economic sanctions against Iran since 1979.
• These sanctions were never sufficient enough to get Iran to the negotiating table because other major powers continued to deal with Iran during this time.
• Upon taking office and with the assistance of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama for the first time was able to get strict international sanctions imposed on Iran. Both Russia and China joined in on these sanctions.
• This got the Iranians to the negotiating table.

The Iranians do not trust us, we don’t trust them and the current deal recognizes and deals with that mistrust.

Removing of sanctions will not begin until the Iranians demonstrate they have begun to dismantle their nuclear bomb program.

If they are caught violating anything in the agreement, the international sanctions are immediately reinstated to include the sanctions from Russia and China.

Inspections are guaranteed and there is no easy or quick way to cover up nuclear research.

If we break the deal as our neocons, AIPAC and Likud demand, Russia and China will pull out and the international sanctions are weaken. We can’t sanction Iran alone.

This deal effectively stops them from getting a bomb for 10 years and during that time, maybe we can start dialoguing and create better agreements and understanding of our two nations.

If we instead go to war, the Iranians will get their bomb much faster and matters will be far worse than they are now.

Here is the text of the deal:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388-iran-deal-text.html

Despite mutual mistrust and bad history, the only way to resolve the matter short of war (which would prolong the problem at a cost that would dwarf the Iraq debacle) is to begin to take a leap of faith and work with each other with mutual respect and common goal of peace.

The only people who stand to gain from this deal not being pursued are those who profit from war, namely the very same people like Dick Cheney and Benjamin Netanyahu who got this nation into war with Iraq which made Iran stronger.

All we are saying is give peace a chance.

One final note to the people who are airing ads against the Iranian deal citing that Iran has violated over 20 international agreements. They aren’t the only ones:

List of Israeli Violations of UN Security Council Resolutions:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/01/27/rogue-state-israeli-violations-of-u-n-security-council-resolutions/

Although I will watch Rachel Maddow from time to time, I know I irritate many of my followers on Twitter because I generally do not like her as a political pundit. I know many of my followers are enthralled with her intelligence and style and I don’t fault anyone who feels that way. However, for myself I don’t share that much adulation for her. I never quite forgave her for her punditry in 2010 that I thought was dismissive of President Obama for not giving her all she wanted and as a result possibly reduced left wing turnout in that midterm resulting in the GOP taking the House. What’s more, I’m not all that crazy about her style. I accept she’s a progressive and is certainly left leaning; however, she often bores me to tears with her 15 minute introduction for a five minute interview or spot. She strikes me as someone who likes the sound of her own voice. Whether that person be liberal, conservative or moderate I think if you’re going to be a pundit presenting a salient point, get right to it. Maddow tends to repeat the same point over and over again just rephrasing the point she already made before getting to the final gist of her story. 

Recently I was listening to her trying to dismiss the whole concept that Donald Trump could be a spoiler in the 2016 election by making a comparison to what she described as a false narrative from the Republicans and Bush Sr. people that Ross Perot was a spoiler responsible for Bill Clinton beating him in that race. Although she took over ten minute to describe her reasoning, I’ll do it in one simple paragraph. 

Nationally, Perot had 19% of the vote. Exit interviews nationally showed that of his voters, 38% would have voted for Clinton, 38% would have voted for Bush and the rest wouldn’t have voted at all. Taking those numbers into consideration there is no way Perot took enough votes away from Bush to allow Clinton to win. 

Well, election results aren’t that simple. The major flaw in her reasoning is that she’s making her assumption on a national level. In this country, each state and the District of Columbia based on their popular vote have a certain number of Electoral College votes to send to DC to elect the president. In 1992 the winner of each state and the District of Columbia sent all their Electoral College votes to the man who won. In 1992 (nationally) Bill Clinton took 43.01% of the popular vote earning 370 Electoral College votes, George Bush took 37.45% of the popular vote earning 168 Electoral College votes and Ross Perot took 18.91% earning 0 Electoral College votes. 

You can’t rely on the popular vote, exit polling or national percentiles to determine who wins the Presidency. Ask President Gore. 

When you break the vote down to the 50 states and the District of Columbia, the percentiles for all three vary significantly. Further, there is no accounting for individual exit polling examining what each Perot voter would have done had he not been on the ballot. Some very key states had Clinton and Bush very close to each other with the Perot vote also making a significant impact. In fact in Maine (that went to Clinton) Perot came in second place. 

I looked at the numbers and found thirteen states that went to Clinton where the margin between him and Bush were not only close, the percentile of votes for Perot were high enough that if just over half of them had gone toward Bush Sr., he could have narrowly won those states. The states were:

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Georgia

Kentucky

Maine

Michigan

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

Ohio

Oregon

Wisconsin  

Had all these states gone to Bush instead of Clinton, 124 Electoral College votes would have changed hands resulting in Bush getting 292 votes to Clinton’s 246 and Bush winning a second term. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

Now of course this depends on how the Perot voters would have responded in each of those thirteen states. However I guarantee that how they would have responded would have varied in each state and not necessarily according to the national exit polling of 38% Bush, 38% Clinton and the rest not voting at all. It is conceivable that were it not for Perot, George H W Bush would have had a second term. 

I’m glad that Clinton won but I also recognize Ross Perot very well could have had an impact on this win. To not give him credit for this is disingenuous and serves no purpose if we want to live in reality. For the same reason, I also believe that Trump running as a Third Party Candidate will guarantee the White House to whomever the Democratic Nominee is, unless it’s Jim Webb. 

Finally, reading this takes less time than listening to Rachel droning on and on over something she is most likely wrong on.

Now hear me out. In this rant I’m using the research methodology, logic and same anecdotal data to prove a point that Republican Candidate Donald Trump and his followers (Trump’s Chumps) are using to say that immigration from the Southern Border is responsible for the crime rate in this nation.

Trump has made it clear that he “knows” the Mexican Government is sending their rapists and murderers across the border. He cites the case of San Francisco resident Kate Steinle who was shot and killed by undocumented immigrant Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez who is a convicted felon and has been deported to Mexico five times. Donald Trump is citing this incident as proof the border is unsecured and blames that on Ms. Steinle’s murder. In Los Angeles he held a presser with family members of victims killed by undocumented immigrants that he calls “illegals”. He and his Trump Chumps are quick to use this anecdotal data to support their cause theories as ironclad proof.

Three things to consider:

1) The family of Kate Steinle don’t want her name used as a rallying point of hate towards anyone.

2) Anecdotal data proves nothing, it’s merely story telling done in such a way the intellectually lazy develop a causal effect.

3) All the actual data and studies regarding crime and immigration proves an opposite correlation to what Trump and his Chumps are trying to portray.

In 2014 the Pew Research Center completed and released a validated study regarding immigration and crime in this nation. Some interesting facts (that were validated) came out:

1) Despite claims from the Republican Party, 59% of immigrants deported back to their country of origin have criminal records, so mostly those caught and convicted of State and Federal crimes are deported, most after serving their sentences or being placed on probation.

2) Border arrests and deportations have increased under Obama over those of his predecessors in office to include George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

3) First generation immigrants (documented or otherwise) have a significantly lower per capita crime rate than the national average. In fact, it’s lower than native born Americans.

4) The crime rate of first generation immigrants has had no discernible impact, positive or negative towards the overall crime rate of the United States. In short, it’s a non-factor, no correlation could be determined or verified. It doesn’t exist.

Pew Research Center: 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/15/crime-rises-among-second-generation-immigrants-as-they-assimilate/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/18/in-2013-59-of-deported-immigrants-convicted-of-a-crime/

But no matter, don’t let facts, validated research and data get in the way, we’re talking the logic of spectacularly successful and always right Donald Trump and his research and validation protocols. So taking that in mind I propose the following analysis of where violent crime actually exists in this country.

Robert Alan Durst is the son of Real Estate mogul Seymour Durst from New York. His brother Douglas Durst is currently the head of the Durst development and Real Estate Empire having taken it from Robert. Robert has been accused and is currently on trial for murder spanning three States in this country. He is suspected in the disappearance and possible murder of his wife in Connecticut, admitted to killing and dismembering body of Morris Black in Louisiana, and is currently on trial for first degree murder in the death of Susan Berman in California. He has also been arrested and charged on numerous weapons offenses.

The Durst family is estimated to be worth well in excess of four billion dollars. So what do we have here?

A narcissistic billionaire New Yorker with ties to Real Estate who’s implicated in the murders of three people across the country. I propose based on Donald Trump’s logic that Robert Durst is representative of all billionaire New York Real Estate moguls and as a nation we need to be on the lookout for them because they are murderers.

By the way, Donald Trump is a New York Real Estate Billionaire narcissist.

I rest my case.

King Internet Troll Donald Trump on his time line was explaining away the fact that he has the distinction of running a Casino who’s the odds are in the House’s favor into bankruptcy. He advised that bankruptcy is not personal, it’s a business tool. He points out that successful businessmen use bankruptcy on a regular basis to remain successful (for themselves and stockholders). However he also says that as a “successful businessman” that is his primary qualification to be our president.

Now any rational person knows full well that corporations are not people. What many do not understand on either side of the political divide is that government is not a business. The two have far too many conflicting goals in existence to justify that comparison or model. Let me spell it out. 

The primary goal, the bottom line of business is the financial profits of the owners and stockholders/investors. That financial profit is obtained by bringing in more money while spending as little as possible in operating expenses. The largest operating expense in most businesses is employees and their benefits to keep them employed. This is why business community opposes any increase in the minimum wage, this is why they usually go to the cheapest supplier of goods to produce whatever they’re marketing. When profits start to tank, it’s the employee who’s first to go on the chopping block. They reduce quality and even customer service to maintain that profit margin. When all fails, they declare bankruptcy to be exonerated from their debts, break-up and cash out on the business itself. All of this, by the way is monitored by the bankruptcy courts, a function of government to ensure as little harm to the investors as possible occurs. 

Now the primary goal, the bottom line of government is the well-being of her citizens. That concept precludes the whole financial profit goal of business. Revenues via taxation, tariffs, fines, etc. are redistributed to build infrastructure and provided needed services for the well-being of the citizens, especially those with little ability or means to supply things for themselves. The money goes to ensure the streets are safe, the water is clean, the bridges are sturdy, food is safe, sewage is properly taken care of, medical services and education are available and accessible. It is quite simply all customer service for a customer base of over 320 million people and balancing the needs and wants of all those 320 million. It doesn’t run a financial profit because to do so is to make citizens nothing more than disposable items on a balance sheet. Government is prone to run in a deficit when revenues are withheld or hard to obtain, so they often have to borrow.  

Keep in mind that borrowing and subsequent interest falls upon the government via revenues from us to pay back to the banks. If we were to declare bankruptcy like Donald Trump does as a business tactic harms every single citizen of this nation and possibly the world. Even coming close to defaulting on our debt decreases our credit rating and costs us even more. Business tactics to address these issues only benefits a tiny fraction while destroying everything else. 

No Donald, corporations are not people and government is not business. Government has a unique function in the grand scheme of things to care for flesh and blood humans from the cold callous hands of corporations and businesses trying to milk them for everything they got. There is no financial profit, there’s societal prosperity and care for all that effective government sees to where nobody is disposable and no function can be slashed or eliminated if it harms those who need it. Government by design is a poor business model because the customer is always right, and their rights must be maintained at all costs. No financial profit in that is possible.

In a horrific tragedy like the Charleston shooting, there is rarely only one or two factors in play that contribute to why the act occurred. Many tend to pick on only one or two items to fit their preconceived agendas, some do to simply deny the plausibility of uncomfortable causal factors.

When you listen to the debate over why this happened you hear about the racism of the perpetrator, easy access to weapons, institutional racism, mental illness, pure anger and then you hear about attacks on Christianity, not enough guns and the ever present “False Flag Operation” from the real loons on the fringe.

I find very little, if any justification that this creep was attacking Christianity. I find it interesting that those who throw that out have yet to state what his religious views were. It would appear that he was, as are many Whites in that part of the county, a staunch self described Conservative Christian. It would be interesting to see what his religious views are. However, as he himself said in front of witnesses and victims it was racially motivated. He had to do this because Blacks are “raping our women and taking over the country.” Hardly an attack on Christianity.

So it is apparent that in the grand scheme of things this was racially motivated. But why? How did this human reject get to be so racist? Did it come from his father who from accounts gave him the gun he used to murder these Church goers who welcomed him in with open Christian arms? Possibly, but how did dad and his family become racist? Is he insane? I would suppose you would need to make a clear definition of insanity. He’s clearly not representative of most thinking regarding the sanctity of human life, but is that insanity or his poorly developed sense of morality and justification of violence? Sociologists would point to his environment. Now Governor Nikki Haley has made it clear that racism no longer exists in South Carolina and she lays all blame on the shooter himself not caring what his motivations were or how they developed.

To counter Nikki Haley’s assertion, many point to the fact that the old Confederate battle flag still flies proudly in South Carolina. They will say that the Stars and Bars is a symbol of racism. The response is that the flag is merely a remnant to honor the Southern Heritage. They add that after all, the Civil War wasn’t about racism or slavery, it was all about State’s Rights and the tyranny of the Federal System and Northern aggression. There is a problem with that assertion, the very people who formed the Confederate Government were very clear at the time that this was about slavery.

Confederate States of America Vice President Alexander H. Stephens clearly spelled out why they seceded and why the Confederacy was formed in his “Corner Stone Speech” on March 21, 1861. He spelled out the differences in their form of government and specific changes in their government over that of the United States Constitution. However he was also clear, the corner-stone, the foundation of this government was slavery. Here is the full text of the speech:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

It is no wonder in the 21^st Century leaders of the South want to deny the obvious, especially with a Black President in office. Pure racism is very much alive and thriving in the South. To make even the slightest acknowledgement of it invites scorn.

However in not acknowledging it, in not accepting the truth, little if any is done to finally address it. To allow the Stars and Bars to fly in South Carolina only perpetuates and gives credence to the sins of their past and the sins of racism. You can’t fix something if you don’t admit it exists. That’s the problem with the spineless leaders in the South and many parts of the country, they’re too afraid to alienate the worst among the American people so they allow them to be racist and look the other way.

This rant wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t also make another mention about guns. Easy access to guns is also a major component to what happened, as all mass killings are. Nothing other than bombs or chemical weapons kill as many and as quickly with little effort than guns. Why do we continue to allow those with hate in their hearts, crime on their agenda, imbalances of the brain to have easy unmonitored access to these weapons of death? It’s the nation’s failure to finally and nationally impose real gun legislation to make sure those noted above don’t get guns and use them. All validated scientific studies prove more guns don’t make you safer, quite the opposite. All true readings of history and the creation of the Constitution proves the second amendment wasn’t a free unregulated path to gun ownership of all people regardless of their ability to handle weapons of death, even Scalia says so.

We will never abate this new normal of mass killings unless we address the two overlying issues that play a major contributory influence on them, easy access to guns, and allowing racism to continue and grow unaddressed by government and citizens tired of these morons.

Time to take the Stars and Bars, symbol of institutionalized racism and slavery by a failed rebel confederation down and start promoting equal rights and humanity for all people and not tolerate or ignore hatred.

As the nation goes full swing into another election year to determine which party will occupy the White House and possible control the House and Senate, both parties and all candidates and pundits will at some point speak of “Freedom”. No doubt everyone has a concept of freedom but are all these concepts the same? Not by a longshot.

This nation consists of over 320 million people. Of these people, we have numerous ethnic and racial backgrounds (Caucasians, African, Native, Asian, Semitic, Hispanic, etc.) and even these groups break themselves down to more specific groups of ethnic/racial divides. There are over 320 different religions and denominations in this country and like with ethnic and racial backgrounds, some of these religions break down to smaller groups based on interpretation and emphasis on some matter of theology. We have over 50 political parties throughout the United States and again, especially among the major parties, they break themselves down to smaller groups. We have the 1%, the upper middle-class, middle-class, working class, impoverished class. Further, not only do we have males and females, we have hermaphroditic and cross gendered people. We have people of heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and asexual orientation.  Finally as per the Supreme Court, we not only have “people” we have Corporations with the same rights of naturally born people. All of these groups and more, have varying degrees of ideology, values, morality and principals. However all of these people share one thing in common, they are all Americans guaranteed by the 14^th amendment equal rights, though many in certain groups will argue that point.

So if we are to hold the Constitution of the United States as supreme in this nation and the principal that this is a nation of law, all of these people share another thing in common as native born or naturalized United States citizens, “Freedom” shared by all. Further, not only do they all share the same freedoms, they should share the same rights to practice their freedoms. Obvious, many would think; but the history of this nation and the rhetoric being heard in this campaign season speaks otherwise.

Freedom isn’t so simple because to give blanket freedom to all is to invite anarchy. There must be limits to freedoms so as to not infringe on the freedoms of others. I do not have the freedom to take your car because I lack one myself. You do not have the freedom to take up residence in my home uninvited because you do not have a place to live. I do not have the freedom to endanger your life nor you I, because we do limit freedoms as they conflict with others and lead to discourse within the community jeopardizing public safety and cohesion. This is also the issues with “rights”.

I have yet to hear any compelling argument or historic research that states unequivocally that any class of United States citizen is excluded from exercising any right or freedom guaranteed in the Constitution or that any particular right or provision in the Constitution carries more weight than another. Under the constitution, not only are all people equal under the law, “rights” carry the same weight. The right to bear arms isn’t greater than the right of free speech nor is it the other way around. However it is true that in the real world, rights and freedoms can and will conflict with one another. When this occurs, it is the responsibility of legislatures and executives to propose, legislate and enact laws and regulations that level the playing field so as to not give one view or position extraordinary power and influence over another. This is why our right to vote and be heard is so important, so we can ensure those we elect to office and those they select to sit on the Courts recognize that common sense approach to a smooth operation of our democracy.

It does not devalue or lesson our rights and freedoms by interjecting responsibility, fairness and humanity into the equation. However many think it does and will go out by all means to ensure their priorities of rights and freedoms trumps all others. It is no surprise that those who do tend to do this have the money and influence over elected government to ensure their rights and freedoms do in fact trump yours. Today, many try to conflate religious freedom with the freedom to discriminate against others.

We always have been and will always be a class society. A classless society of over 320 million people isn’t possible. As Orwell pointed out in Animal Farm, when you try to instill a classless society and set up a structure to ensure it, you end up with “all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” This is the failure of large scale communism. Democracy can work under a class system, providing that one class doesn’t trump the other in power, voice and influence. However the only way to prevent that is avid knowledge of, and active participation in, the system by all. Despite the efforts of modern day feudal lords like the Koch Brothers and those they employ, ordinary Americans do have a voice if they only choose to exercise it. It is no surprise that more inclusive and populace government emerges when a higher percentage of voters exercise that right than when fewer do.

When you look at the overall platforms of the two major parties vying for wins in 2016 one thing is very apparent, the Republican Party will push for the “Freedom” to exert a fringe rightwing agenda based on an interpretation of Christianity upon the whole of the American People. They want the freedom to limit the rights of Women, LGBT, Minorities and others to exercise their rights to make their own choices regarding their reproduction, who they marry, voting, assembly, access and care. The freedom they appear to support more than anything else is the freedom to take rights guaranteed to all citizens from them so they can have greater power, influence and voice over everything in this nation. Is it any wonder that the majority of funding for the GOP comes from a small number of big donors who are in the 1% and are corporations?

As for the Democrats, they are pushing for the freedom to marry who you choose, make the decision for your reproductive rights, freedom to get the same healthcare and education to thrive and survive others can obtain, but you can’t afford, the right to vote unencumbered based merely on your socioeconomic status, race or age, your rights to enjoy safe water, food, clean air again needed to thrive and survive. They are for expanding more freedoms, more rights than the Republicans who want to limit them by law. Is it any wonder that the majority of Democratic campaign funds come from small individual donors?

Are the Democrats perfect? Not by a long shot. Many will introduce pro corporate agendas that run counter to the overall message. However that is to be expected and no matter how you look at it and measure it, it’s a far better deal from them than you will ever get from the Republicans. In fact from what I can tell, the only rights and freedoms the Republicans want to provide for the masses (at least the white masses) is the right to obtain, carry and use any classification of guns and ammunition on the streets of this nation. Not sure how that helps the nation as a hold since every validated study clearly shows that more unregulated gun ownership makes people unsafe, not safer. But that’s another rant.

So, if you believe in the same rights and freedoms for all regardless of whatever class or classification you may be in, governed and regulated by fair and enforceable laws to keep the playing field even and not prevent you from doing better for yourself and your family, you want to research and vote moderate towards left. However if you believe that only a select few in this nation are deserving of nearly full and unregulated, ungoverned freedoms to do for themselves what you can’t, you want to vote far right.

Most of you, despite efforts by the extreme right, still have the right to research and vote your choice. Do it while you still can because the pattern from the Republican Party clearly shows that like Animal Farm, all Americans are created equal, but some Americans are more equal than other so sit down and shut up.

Freedoms and rights, use them or lose them.

It’s no secret that as in 2012 a whole contingent of Republican Presidential candidates are gathering to debate each other to get the GOP nomination to run for president in 2016. This year the group is larger and are even more vocal to show that they represent the views of their core base of primary voters, the Tea Party.

We remember last time that in positioning himself as conservative Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan played directly to that Tea Party base. After the loss, an autopsy was completed and the final analysis was that the party showed no outreach to minority voters, took too far of a right wing stand on issues unpalatable to the majority of the general population and as Bobby Jindal himself said, they needed to stop being the stupid party.

Well, with this group, lessons learned are quickly lessons forgotten. This go around, an even larger group of unqualified, Tea Party sycophants are first going to billionaire funders and are now speaking praises to the position of the Tea Party so they can get their support in the primaries and caucuses.

To refresh your memories and enlighten you on who this voting base of the GOP are:

Nationwide support for the Tea Party and their ideology is now down to 22%. What’s more important, support for the Tea Party and their ideology among registered Republicans is now down to 41%

Gallop Polling:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/168917/four-years-gop-support-tea-party-down.aspx

To break down this group statistically, who despite lack of support among even Republicans the candidates are still vying for their support because they do make up the majority of primary and caucus voters:

18% of the nation identify themselves as members of the Tea Party. Of these 89% are White while only 1% are African-American. 75% are 45 years of age or older and 29% are over the age of 65. 59% are men and 41% are women. Further, 54% identify themselves with the GOP, 41% as Independent and only 5% as Democratic.

53% of the Tea Party are angry about Washington DC with 16% angry with the Affordable Care Act, 14% angry that government doesn’t represent real people, 11% angry over government spending and only 8% are angry about unemployment and the economy. This is compared to only 19% of the entire population “angry” with Washington DC to the degree the Tea Party are.

92% of the Tea Party believe that the United States is on the wrong track. Nationwide, 59% of the people think we are on the wrong track.

58% of the Tea Party own a gun or guns compared to only 35% nationwide.

88% of the Tea Party have a negative view of President Obama compared to 40% nationwide. 77% of Tea Party consider President Obama to be a “liberal” compared to 27% nationwide. 64% of the Tea Party believe that Obama has raised taxes on nearly the entire nation when in reality most of the country received a tax cut under the Obama administration.

1% of the Tea Party supports the Congress compared to 17% nationwide (which presents a problem for those in Congress running for President)

24% of the Tea Party believe that it is justified to take violent action against the United States government compared to 16% nationwide.

53% of Tea Party oppose the Roe v Wade decision compared to 34% nationwide, 30% think gun laws are too strict compared to 16% nationwide. 16% believe Whites have more advantages than African Americans compared to 31% nationwide. Further, 73% of the Tea Party think Whites and Blacks are on equal footing compared to 60% nationwide. 52% of Tea Party belief that race relations have been blown out of proportion compared to 28% nationwide.

66% of Tea Party deny Global Climate Change.

84% of the Tea Party believe their views are representative of the entire nation. However only 25% of the nation agrees with the Tea Party beliefs and 36% say they clearly do not.

CBS News Polling:  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-supporters-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/

So where does this place the GOP in terms of winning the White House not to mention retaining the Senate? Over the next year and more, over a dozen Republican candidates will stump for the minority views of this nation so they can win their party’s nomination. They will all be out Tea Partying each other to grab the attention of this group who although they are the base, represent a very small segment of the general voting population. Despite flip-flopping on issues as these candidates are prone to do, each campaign speech, each interview, each statement during the debates will be taped and available for Democrats to use against them. Once said, it cannot be unsaid.

By allowing the Tea Party to be their base and driving moderates and liberals away from the polls and even the party itself, the Republicans have placed themselves in an untenable situation for national office. Their base is thin and flawed compared to the majority views of the nation. Until they repair this base and go on record and heed the lesson of their autopsy from 2012, 2016 will be a major disaster to that party.

So while the GOP dig their political graves, the Democrats need to define a candidate and candidates as supportive of views shared by the majority of the nation. Stop reducing the deficit by cutting needed services of the people to pay for more tax breaks for the corporations and the wealthy. Instead support reducing the deficit and national debt by stabilizing and improving the middle and working class by taxing those at the top who have more money than they can possible spend in many life times. Get the economy growing via infrastructure repair, development of green energy to reduce global climate change. Legislate laws that guarantee equal rights for all Americans, not special rights that place some Americans over others. Campaign finance by Constitutional Amendment, the list goes on.

Polling Report:  http://www.pollingreport.com/issues.htm

Article II, Section 2, Second paragraph of the United States Constitution reads: “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Now I’m sure many rather skittish members of the Republican Party afraid that Hillary Clinton may run and be elected President of the United States will focus on that first word “He” to point out only males can be president, but we’ll deal with that possible argument on some other date. This rant goes to how foreign policy is initiated and practiced in this country under the Constitution and what the roles of the Exec and the Legislative Branch (Congress) are in foreign policy. This rant is of course in response to what Congress has been doing regarding the President’s attempt to broker an effective nuclear arms deal with the Iranian government and how the Republicans in Congress are trying to sabotage it.

Under the Constitution, the Executive Branch appoints a Secretary of State who runs the State Department. That Secretary of State must be confirmed by majority vote of the U.S. Senate (advice and consent). The focus and direction of the State Department is the purview of the Executive Branch. The President nominates ambassadors that also must be confirmed by majority vote in the Senate. The President, through his State Department and Secretary of State sets the direction of the foreign policy of this nation. Any treaty the State Department enters into must be ratified two thirds majority of the Senate in order for the United States to be held to the provisions of that Treaty. So in simple terms, the president tries to work out agreements with foreign governments but they do not become law in this nation unless the Senate concurs. However, this involves full treaties. The agreement the President is attempting to negotiate with the Iranian government is simply that, an agreement on issues the Exec Branch of our government has control over as well as what the government in Iran has control over. It’s not a full treaty requiring a Senate Vote.

An interesting side note to this civics lesson involves one of the very first treaties this nation ever negotiated. It was President George Washington who sent an envoy to the Barbary Powers to negotiate the Treaty of Tripoli. This treaty in part noted that the United States was in no way founded as a Christian Nation. When brought before the Senate it was approved by unanimous consent and signed by then President, John Adams. But I digress.

Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that the Legislative Branch has the authority to initiate any foreign policy for this nation. Per Article II, Section 2 that resides in the Executive Branch. Further, early in our history, on January 30, 1799 the Congress passed what is now codified as 18 U.S.C. § 953 (Last amended in 1994) known as the “Logan Act” which states: “Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.”

In short, the representative of the United States Government is the President of the United States and the Secretary of State and ambassadors nominated by and confirmed by majority vote in the Senate. The President sets the course of diplomatic relations with advice and consent of the Senate, not the other way around.

For anyone in the Senate or House or anywhere else to negotiate treaties or interfere with negotiations under way by the duly sanctioned representatives of the Government of the United States is violating the law. Not only is it conceivable that Speaker of the House John Boehner could be charged under violation of the Logan Act by negotiating with a foreign head of state without consent of the executive branch, so can all 47 Republican Senators who wrote an open letter to the Iranian Government with the admitted intent by Senator Tom Cotton to undermine delicate negotiations this nation is involved with dealing with the very real and very serious threat of the Iranians developing and nuclear weapon.

Now what was really interesting in this letter that states to the Islamic Republic of Iran “…you may not fully understand our constitutional system” was the response from the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif:

“Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that “in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

Foreign Minister Zarif added that “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.

The Iranian Foreign Minister added that “change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Irans peaceful nuclear program.” He continued “I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.”

He was absolutely correct. The Iranian Foreign Minister has a far better understanding of United States Constitutional Law and Foreign Policy practice than these 47 Republicans. As noted above, Senator Tom Cotton has openly admitted that this letter was designed to sabotage the current negotiation. In my opinion the 47 signatures at the bottom of the letter represent 47 confessions of violation of the Logan Act.

Here is a list of the Senators who admitted to violating the law and placing delicate nuclear arms negotiations at risk and possibly what little middle east stability that still remains.

Tom Cotton, David Perdue, Joni Ernst, James Inhofe, John Cornyn, Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Roger Wicker, John Hoeven, Richard Shelby, Thom Tillis, Richard Burr, Steve Daines, Jeff Sessions, John Boozman, Cory Gardner, Shelley Moore Capito, Ron Johnson, Mark Kirk, James Lankford, Chuck Grassley, Roy Blunt, John Thune, Mike Enzi, Pat Toomey, Bill Cassidy, John Barrasso, Ted Cruz, Jim Risch, Mike Crapo, Deb Fischer, Ben Sasse, Orrin Hatch, Dean Heller, Pat Roberts, John McCain, Rand Paul, Rob Portman, Lindsey Graham, Mike Rounds

Perhaps they would do better to go to Iran and learn United States Constitutional Law and Foreign Policy since they all seem to lack that knowledge. Let them know what you think of this treason on their part. Remember this in November 2016

#Gunsense is really only a hashtag used to bring attention to a topic of discussion. It is an interesting phenomena, use the hashtag #Gunsense in any context regarding what is frankly “gun sense” (a reasonable and open discussion in dealing with the very real and undeniable problem in this nation regarding too many, too powerful guns in the hands of too many unqualified, untrained and unhinged people with too few safeguards in place to mitigate the problem) and a cadre of twitter trolls will descend upon your timeline with insults, smears, harassment, false studies, false facts and utter contempt for you daring to use that hashtag.

When you view the accounts of these trolls, you often see avatars and backgrounds of weapons of death, patriotic symbolism, bios with terms “constitutionalist”, “molon labe”, “second amendment”, “conservative”, “patriot”, etc” followed by timelines almost completely devoted to one subject and one subject only, guns.

You also see attacks on anyone who brings up “Gunsense” and as if almost from a script, they use the same tired and previously debunked studies, positions, idiotic memes and of course groundless and baseless insults towards the character of those citing #Gunsense. They insist falsely that all who use the hashtag are “gun-grabbers” uninterested in compromise because they won’t give in completely to the views and lunatic extreme fringe position they hold regarding guns. They go after Moms Demand Action and particularly Shannon R Watts for having the audacity of caring about innocent victims of gun violence and wanting a discussion and action taken to mitigate the problem.

They will harass, insult, annoy, tease and bully you to the point where you simply block them. Then they will turn around and announce to the world that you are a coward for not sitting back and allowing them to harass, insult, annoy, tease and bully you. They take pride in being blocked by Shannon R Watts. They see it as a badge of honor.

So let’s examine this small group of armed unapologetic unreasonable compulsive armed gun owners afraid of a woman and women who want better gun control.

Who are the real cowards here? Why should anyone give a rat’s ass about these bullies who are stood up to or ignored by the population? Who are these idiots and what (if anything) do they base their positions on?

To counter and argue against a whole host of academia who study as best they can the issue gun violence (as best they can because NRA lobbying efforts have successfully cut funding from Congress to the CDC to study this issue) from Harvard and a multitude of peer reviewed statisticians and researchers, they will almost always use John Lott.

Who’s John Lott? A totally debunked and discredited researcher paid for and supported by the gun manufacturing lobby (shades of climate change science here). John has a supporter in social media who stands for and validates his work by the name of Mary Rosh. Who’s Mary Rosh? Well, she’s John Lott’s alter ego. They are one in the same. Why would a valid and self assured researcher create his own support group? Sounds similar to tactics used by Sarah Palin on FaceBook and Twitter.

Check this link from Media Matters that goes many of the full and validated stories regarding John Lott, his admittedly flawed research design and him creating the account of Mary Rosh to defend him.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/17/who-is-gun-advocate-john-lott/191885

If John Lott is the best the anti #Gunsense side can provide regarding the research of gun violence then they have nothing in science to help them.

Of course the anti #Gunsense group will project the obvious failings of John Lott on those who actually use validated and proper research techniques regarding sample sizes, demographics, multi-linear regression tables etc to do their studies and make their conclusions. However if their conclusions counter those of the anti #Gunsense crowd, they have to be wrong and not worthy of any consideration.

The anti #Gunsense crowd like to say that it is the sole and only objective of “Gunsense” to take all the guns away. They call them and even President Obama “Gun Grabbers”. While it is true there are many out there who do in fact want all guns taken off the streets, they don’t come anywhere close to the majority of those who advocate #Gunsense. Fact is all #Gunsense wants is real and universal background checks, elimination of certain weapons that clearly aren’t justified on the streets of our country, licensure for those who want to carry weapons on the streets to ensure they know what they’re doing with their guns much like what we do with motor vehicles. However the anti #Gunsense group always comes back to the second amendment on that argument. More to come on that issue as this rant continues, but first: The reality of the situation is that many who advocate #Gunsense, myself and over 70% of the members in the NRA are in fact armed and see no fear in our weapons being “grabbed.”

Further, the “Grabber in Chief” President Obama, in his only action regarding gun ownership in this nation actually expanded it. He signed into law the right to carry handguns in National Forests and Parks, a right that never existed before. Again, the anti #Gunsense crowd work from a false premise. I for one fault President Obama for not using his bully pulpit more to advocate more to Congress and nation that better gun control measures are long past due. But that’s just me, he’s still the President.

As to the United States Constitution, the anti #Gunsense crowd, who seem to think the entire constitution, from preamble to the last line of the last amendment consists of only nine words “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” and will always cite the Heller decision.

They also cite that due to “stare decisis” it is settled law and cannot be undone. What is “stare decisis”? Essentially it states that established settled law cannot be changed or overturned unless new previously unheard or unknown facts are brought before the Justices. Both John Roberts and Samuel Alito swore to the Senate during their confirmation hearings they would abide by stare decisis in all their rulings.

Prior to Heller it was the position of the Supreme Court of the United States that due to the phrase “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” that the right to bear arms in this country per the Constitution was a “group right” not an individual right. Over two hundred years of SCOTUS decisions based on prior court rulings, the notes and diaries of the founders and the history of the writing of the amendment, the Federalist papers etc found that to be the fact. Nothing new was introduced in Heller, no new facts, no new history. In fact Scalia acknowledged that, but he, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy and Thomas violated stare decisis and for the first time ruled an individual right to own a gun is protected in the Constitution.

However, what the anti #Gunsense folks refuse to acknowledge is that in his majority opinion (keep in mind each word, each phrase of a written opinion carries weight of law) Scalia himself said that although individual ownership is now guaranteed by the Constitution, the government maintains the ability to regulate it. To quote Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller, (the current law of the land):

“The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.”

Of course, an anti #Gunsense troll explained to me that the Court’s often get it wrong, even Scalia. Not sure how to take that other than the troll had no fucking argument to make.

Per Heller, guns can still be regulated. The major focus of #Gunsense is regulation of guns to keep the community safer. The anti #Gunsense folks have nothing; no validated studies, no law, no reason, no logic, no morality to counter the desire of #Gunsense. Only rhetoric, insults, selfishness, anger, paranoia, memes and bullying tactics. They don’t want to reasonably sit down and debate the reality of the situation and come to a reasonable accommodation and compromise for all of those involved, they only want it their way period.

In preparing this rant I pondered whether or not to identify the anti #Gunsense trolls I and many have had to contend with on Twitter. However, in much the same way as terrorists, trolls often merely aim for notoriety and attention. They simply want to be heard, not involve themselves in mature and reasonable dialogue. Thus, they troll, they insult, harass, annoy, threaten, bully anyone so that they themselves can be notice. So I won’t name them. Besides, they’ll identify themselves.

My only advice, and this is strictly your call, don’t feed the trolls. Ignore and block. You’re not a coward; you’re merely not wasting your time with someone who wants to waste your time. If someone wants a reasonable discussion of the issue with them, they’ll present themselves that way and won’t go into insults, belittling and threats to counter your points. They’ll show restraint and reasonableness, as should you.

The issue of proper gun control, proper #Gunsense is too important for the lives, wellbeing and security of our friends, families and ourselves to waste time with trolls.

If they’re afraid to have a mature conversation with you, they have nothing of value to offer. Ignore and block them.

If interested, here are some links that can help you educate yourself over the reality of guns in this nation:

Heller Decision:

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html

Harvard Injury Control Research Center:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/

Right to Carry Gun Laws Linked to Increase in Violence (Stanford):

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

FBI Study discredits “Good Guy with a Gun” argument (summary and actual study):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/fbi-report-active-shooters_b_5900748.html

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

What happens to the brain when exposed to lead residue on the firing range:

http://www.utexas.edu/safety/ehs/msds/lead.html

You can’t avoid it. Any discussion about the law, religion, government, society, economics, anything causes someone at some point bringing up the terms “Rights”. When you discuss Rights in of themselves you get varied degrees on where they come from. As Americans, especially those who don’t look far beyond a narrative of our own history talk about the “God Given Rights” that the founders inscribed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Some will parse that a bit and will cite “Natural Rights”.

On one twitter thread I was involved in regarding gun control, my worthy opponent didn’t want to go so far as to say Rights came from God but instead from Man evolving from the Neanderthal who developed a “genetic sense” of rights. An interesting take on the subject and certainly got me thinking. He was adamant though. Rights are absolute and constant and cannot be abridged and constitutions and laws don’t create rights, they merely acknowledge they exist and that even if they do not exist in any legal document, no man has any right to violate them.

Well the concept of Rights predates our revolution, going back literally thousands of years. If you believe in a Deity or Deities, you’re apt to believe that is where they come from. If, as my friend above tried to explain, they are essentially genetic, then you would expect some consistency in those Rights throughout time and region. Indeed there is some consistency, but not complete consistency. When you look at various cultures in various regions at various times, the concept of Rights do differ. Are they evolving? Perhaps, but if that is the case, then this rules out any single Deity or Deities providing them for they would be absolute and unchanging.

I reject the concept of God given rights and I’m not willing to accept the proposition of “natural rights” either. Full disclosure, my major was Sociology, so I look to culture in determining how societies came to exist and develop. I believe that the concept of “Rights” develop among societies over time depending on the physical and social environment where they exist. They also depend on the perceived necessities of the time, place and region.

At our founding, Europe was in the grips of the Enlightenment. An important aspect of the Age of Enlightenment was the belief that man had greater control and influence over life and environment than previously thought or tolerated by the strict teachings of the Church. Man had the ability of expansion of thought, creativity and doing better and being greater. God was still involved in many ways, but man had a say too. Humanism was coming to fruition. In the Colonies, a bigger rift was developing between the colonists and the mother Country ruled by a God anointed Monarch who saw his authority as a Right given him by God, family and class; as well as an English Parliament who saw their right to control the colonies, to ensure the Mother country’s wealth and prosperity. By that I mean the upper wealthy elite classes of society. Their rights were truly God given.

Back in the Colonies, a class of some ruling elites and influential businessmen were seeing their rights being infringed upon by the Crown and nation of elites abusing their rights over the colonists. The rights were conflicting. The founders enumerated their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they felt were being denied by the Crown and Parliament who were asserting their right of privilege over the colonies and colonists, who were by divine right, subservient to them. Since the colonies didn’t have a standing army, only militias and Great Britain had the greatest Navy and armed forces in the world, the colonists felt they had a right to have the arms necessary to ensure their right of freedom in opposing the Crown exercising their right to keep control over their colonies.

Let us not forget, the only rights being discussed and enumerated during this time were those of the White Male property owners. Owning property gave you rights. If you didn’t own property, you really didn’t have or deserved any particular rights. Rights were determined by socioeconomic class, race and gender. There was, even in the enlightenment, a caste system of rights. After the revolution and ratification of the Constitution, where the rights were enumerated, they were geared towards the white property owners and nobody else.

Over time as the country grew and more of her inhabitants became organized and began to demand things, rights were expanded and new rights were expressed to meet the needs and challenges that presented themselves as our American society developed. We remained a class society; however the lower classes weren’t going to sit idly by while their desires were left unfulfilled or acknowledged. The upper classes knew their rights could be endangered and lost if some token of reconciliation wasn’t given to those they depended upon to grow their personal wealth and influence, so things evolved. As the lower classes became larger, more educated, more self aware and more cognizant of where they stood, their desire grew as did their demands for recognition and their “natural rights” which really amounted to desires.

I don’t believe there are universal rights that came from the dawn of man or society; I believe that rights are nothing more than identified “desires from the masses” that the societal system eventually permits and recognizes to keep order. Our Constitution didn’t enumerate long existing “rights” per se; it codified desires of the masses and called them rights. Over time those desires/rights were expanded to others in the nation in order to keep order.

They’re not God given, they’re not natural, they’re societal. As the world changes and desires/rights conflict, we need to step back and determine where the greater societal right/desire exists to maintain order, structure, growth and peace.

An environment of open warfare, wilderness, need to provide for yourself and family created a desire, later codified as a right to bear arms. Over time a standing army has been created as well as police. Wilderness has given way to cities and towns. Since crime is ever present, the desire to have guns, as well as a rather paranoid view of tyrannical government is seen as a right that is absolute and shall not be infringed upon, even if it endangers the rights of other to not be killed by guns in the wrong hands.

Those who claim a right to own guns conflicts with those who claim rights to live in safety. The two rights/desires conflict. Which is more important?  Where is the compromise? If you hold to the paradigm of “rights are absolute” you will be hard pressed to come to a good solution because your rights are more important and absolute than another person’s rights.

If we can step back and replace the term rights with the term desire and accept that compromise is needed to maintain peace, structure, growth and society perhaps a solution beneficial to both sides can be found.

It’s not a popular or safe position to advocate, but in my humble opinion, rights aren’t guaranteed because at times they do conflict.

Rights must be massaged, as they have over history to keep society growing as the environment and desires of people change. Some rights do trump others and we need to accept that and come to a compromise that benefits the greater number of people and ensure their needs, their desires, their rights are protected and expanded for the betterment of our entire society, not just the angry and spoiled few.

Again, this is just my view as is my right to express and yours to accept or reject or debate as you wish.