Problematic Second Amendment

I totally agree with Robert Parry concerning the framers' intentions; however, the actual words of the US Constitution's Second Amendment remain more than problematic. "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." Here's why.


Tom Usher

Even though the people and their arms are not being used for the purpose of a well-regulated militia, that does not remove the right of the people. The reason is that the state retains the legal authority to form such a well-regulated militia. If the right of the people to keep and bear arms were removed without properly altering the amendment, then the entire amendment would be nullified, which simply can't legally be done in any such manner.

The fact is, the right of the people to keep and bear privately owned arms is not necessary for a well-regulated militia. The question concerns the security of a free state. Is the right of the people to keep and bear privately owned arms necessary for the security of a free state? The framers weren't worried from that angle, but should we be? Should the Second Amendment be amended or removed to accomplish the needs of the current United States of America, which is facing a huge number of murders via privately held guns. It would not be a panacea, but would it be heading in the right direction more than leaving everyone who passes a background check armed with a private gun or guns?

I think so.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bernie Sanders deliberately avoided "Palestine" in his recent "major" foreign-policy speech

This was just a bit before Sanders' "major" foreign-policy speech, in which he never even mentioned Palestine or ethnocratic Israel (that's Jewish-supremacist Israel for those who don't grasp such things; you know, exactly like White Supremacism only specifically Jewish that gets a pass because, well, "holocaust" that ostensibly excuses them doing to others what they bemoan others doing to them):

Bernie Sanders image

Bernie Sanders

One foreign policy issue, however, on which Sanders has attracted criticism from members of his own left-wing base is the Israel-Palestine conflict. Some pro-Palestinian progressives have accused him of giving Israel a pass. In an interview in April, for example, Sanders dismissed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement; he also signed his name to a controversial letter attacking the U.N. for having an “anti-Israel agenda.”

Nonetheless, it is undeniable that in recent years the Vermont senator, who is Jewish and briefly lived on a kibbutz in Israel in the 1960s, has taken a more pro-Palestinian position on the conflict and, specifically, against the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu. “There comes a time when … we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time,” he told Clinton during a Democratic primary debate in April 2016.

These days, unlike other members of Congress, Sanders has no qualms about identifying, and decrying, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. But does he accept that the United States is complicit in Israel’s occupation, through its military aid and arms sales? And does he also accept, therefore, that the occupation of the Palestinian territories will never end until the U.S. stops arming and funding the Jewish state?

“Certainly the United States is complicit, but it’s not to say … that Israel is the only party at fault,” he tells me. However, he adds, “in terms of Israeli-Palestinian relations the United States has got to play a much more even-handed role. Clearly that is not the case right now.”

Would he, therefore, ever consider voting to reduce U.S. aid to Israel — worth at least $3bn per annum — or U.S. arms sales to the Israeli military?

“The U.S. funding plays a very important role, and I would love to see people in the Middle East sit down with the United States government and figure out how U.S. aid can bring people together, not just result in an arms war in that area. So I think there is extraordinary potential for the United States to help the Palestinian people rebuild Gaza and other areas. At the same time, demand that Israel, in their own interests in a way, work with other countries on environmental issues.” He then, finally, answers my question: “So the answer is yes.”

It is — by the depressingly low standard of modern U.S. politics — a remarkable and, dare I say it, radical response from Sanders. “Aid to Israel in Congress and the pro-Israel community has been sacrosanct,” the Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted earlier this year, “and no president has seriously proposed cutting it since Gerald Ford in the mid-1970s.”

Posted in Holocaust | Leave a comment

Trump thumps Kim. Sanders thumps Putin. Not bright!

Trump thumps Kim in the chest while Sanders thumps Putin. Both are completely wrongheaded, ignorant approaches.


Tom Usher

Did US Senator Bernie Sanders really say this? "We saw this anti-democratic effort take place in the 2016 election right here in the United States, where we now know that the Russian government was engaged in a massive effort to undermine one of our greatest strengths: The integrity of our elections, and our faith in our own democracy.

"I found it incredible, by the way, that when the President of the United States spoke before the United Nations on Monday, he did not even mention that outrage.

"Well, I will. Today I say to Mr. Putin: we will not allow you to undermine American democracy or democracies around the world. In fact, our goal is to not only strengthen American democracy, but to work in solidarity with supporters of democracy around the globe, including in Russia. In the struggle of democracy versus authoritarianism, we intend to win."

Yes, he said it. Look Bernie, there has been absolutely zero evidence supplied showing that Russia "engaged in a massive effort to undermine one of our greatest strengths: The integrity of our elections...." In exactly what way did Russia undermine the integrity of the election? Be specific. Be prepared to back it up with substantiating evidence rising to the level that doesn't fit mere negative and false propaganda against the Russian state/government. Simply pointing out what private Russians said somewhere won't suffice. Simply pointing out facts stated by Russian media won't suffice either.

I find it interesting that the Senator can make such claims against Russia while he backed Hillary Clinton for President after her campaign definitely colluded against his supporters and him.

Mr. Sanders also called Vladimir Putin a kleptocrat. That's an extremely serious accusation for which no actual evidence has been forthcoming. President Putin, more than any other Russian, has been responsible for the revitalization of the Russian economy and the improvement of the general welfare of the Russian People. He did that while now stopping the Islamic State dead in its tracks and then reversing it (to end soon in its final and utter destruction), a monstrously terroristic organization that the US, under President Obama, did relatively nothing (thereby actually aiding and facilitating it).

The Senator sounded plenty of solid themes in his speech, but he sounded too much the identity and closet-liberal-interventionist (possible Zionist) politician still to suit me.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment