My Political Themes

From https://www.isidewith.com/

TraditionalvsProgressive

48

You side moderately towards “Progressive”, meaning you believe we should be a nation that values personal freedom, expression, and diversity. 

CollectivismvsIndividualism

28

You side slightly towards “Collectivism”, meaning you more often believe policy should protect and support the best interests of all citizens. 

PopulismvsElitism

92

You side extremely towards “Populism”, meaning you very strongly believe decisions are best made when everyone has a say. 

Everyone should have a say in policy that controls their lives

MulticulturalismvsAssimilation

90

You side extremely towards “Multiculturalism”, meaning you very strongly believe we should celebrate and embrace cultural diversity. 

UnilateralismvsMultilateralism

84

You side strongly towards “Multilateralism”, meaning you strongly believe policy decisions should be made collectively with support of everyone who may be affected by the outcome of the decision. 

IsolationismvsImperialism

74

You side strongly towards “Isolationism”, meaning you strongly believe we should focus attention on our most pressing issues at home instead of involving ourselves in non-threatening issues abroad.

EnvironmentalismvsAnthropocentrism

66

You side moderately towards “Environmentalism”, meaning you believe in sustainability, environmental protection, and improving the health of the environment. 

The world and it's products are not ours to own or control. Unless we create it by the work of our hands, it is not ours.

CentralizationvsDecentralization

62

You side moderately towards “Decentralization”, meaning you believe that administrative power and decision making should be handled at the local level and serve the best interests of the local community. 

ToughvsTender

54

You side moderately towards “Tender”, meaning you believe in showing compassion, empathy, and rehabilitation for small-time criminals or those struggling with addiction. 

Incarceration does not rehabilitate or create people who are assets to society. Getting to the root of the problem and correcting it does.

PrivacyvsSecurity

50

You side moderately towards “Privacy”, meaning you believe the government should not undermine the rights and privacy of its citizens under the guise of national security. 

PacifismvsMilitarism

38

You side moderately towards “Pacifism”, meaning you believe we should use non-violent diplomatic discussion to resolve conflicts. 

Use force in the case of self defense and the defense of others only

CapitalismvsSocialism

34

You side moderately towards “Socialism”, meaning you support an economic system which advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 

I think I'm a centrist in this regard. The people, not the government, should administer the means of production and distribution of goods. I believe the distribution should be fair. This would be made possible by reducing waste in housing and agriculture. Holding people accountable to the community for hoarding or creating false scarcity.

GlobalizationvsProtectionism

34

You side moderately towards “Globalization”, meaning you believe globalization is necessary in order to increase the economic strength, prosperity, and standard of living of the nation. 

I believe Globalization is a reality since people migrated from one region in Africa. It is a right to trade with anyone you want. 

Small GovernmentvsBig Government

20

You side slightly towards “Big Government”, meaning you more often believe the government should do more to address social inequality, corruption, and assistance for its citizens.

Actually I don't. There's a difference between thinking something should be done and thinking that the government should be the one to do it. 
I think private organizations and local communities should provide assistance for the citizens

RegulationvsDeregulation

18

You side slightly towards “Regulation”, meaning you more often believe the government should regulate business activity to ensure no one is taking advantage of the system. 

Again, I want to make sure no one is taken advantage of. How that happens is different. 
I'd rather more local consumer watchdog groups. More collective bargaining. Businesses must show their activities are not a detriment to the communities they operate in or serve. 

Laissez-fairevsKeynesian

4

You are a centrist on Laissez-faire and Keynesian issues. 

Social Justice in my mind

There is no true equality in the world. Some have advantages over others.
Physical, mental, social
Some given, some inherited, some paid for, some worked for
Instant or over time

Regardless
There should be Equal Opportunity in all areas.

Communities should ensure those within have their basic needs met.
Affordable access to safe shelter, healthy food, adequate health care, transportation.
Participation in creating and enforcing laws.
These things ensure the health of a society. If a group of people don't have these things, they negatively affect the rest of society.

Why I Don't Trust Politicians

None of them represent the people they have control over

Elected officials play a game
Say what you need to say to voters
Make promises you never intended to keep
Then when you get into office
you do the bidding of those who are funding you.
Most times at the expense of the greater public you said you would represent.

All in all I don't trust anyone who wants control over other people's lives.

Disciplined Restraint

Why are the Rules of Engagement more restrictive for military security forces in foreign lands?
Why are police forces in the United States allowed to take life with more leisure than military security?

Use deadly force triangle
Capability
Opportunity
Intent
Only when these three criteria are met, are you allowed to use deadly force.
And then it is only when lesser means of restraint are not effective or not reasonable.

Use of force continuum

Presence

Verbal commands

Bodily force

Less than lethal weapons

Police have this training. They have been trained to deescalate situations. There is no excuse.

Community Policing.

Being involved in the community they police. Getting to know the citizens of the community they police.

So that fear does not rule your actions. A person has a name. They are human. They are not a demon.

National institute of justice

Culture of destruction

Around the culture of Gun violence in America.
I used to say that guns are ingrained in our culture. They were a part of the American conquer. From Canada to the tip of Chile.
The second amendment protects the right to bear arms. State constitutions protect the right to bear arms to hunt and protect personal property.
Forces control our legislature through money. There is no way they will allow the ban of weapons.

I'd only hope to ask that automatic weapons would be restricted to the military and all weapons would be regulated like vehicles.

BUT, beyond all that, there is a deeper issue.
The lack of equanimity for life.
When particular humans are killed, the first thoughts of the public aren't of grief or dismay. They are wondering what the person did to deserve death. They are finding ways to justify the execution.
No one deserves to be killed. Killing another human being is only justified in self defense or the defense of others. Even in that case, that person did not deserve to die. You had no other option but to kill them.
As a people, we need to train ourselves to give ourselves more options

Where pro-life members want to stop at nothing to protect the life of an unborn child. Yet, they do not extend that passion to those living in poverty or prison.

Whose life is worth grieving?
What death is justified?

Notes on self defense

We should be clear about justifications of deadly force

Imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm

Use deadly force triangle
Capability
Opportunity
Intent

Understand that trying to get away from the situation or defuse the situation is the best form of self defense

Self defense is stopping the threat.

There is a line between self defense and retribution
If you have taken away a person's ability to harm you or their desire to harm you, you have successfully defended yourself.
If you continue to harm them after that fact, that is retribution

There should be no immunity for killing someone
All cases should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

overview of self defense

As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat.  The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm.  Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense.

Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended.  For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended.  Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense.

self-defense
n. the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of assault, battery or homicide. The force used in self-defense may be sufficient for protection from apparent harm (not just an empty verbal threat) or to halt any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse to continue the attack or use excessive force. Examples: an unarmed man punches Allen Alibi, who hits the attacker with a baseball bat. That is legitimate self-defense, but Alibi cannot chase after the attacker and shoot him or beat him senseless. If the attacker has a gun or a butcher knife and is verbally threatening, Alibi is probably warranted in shooting him. Basically, appropriate self-defense is judged on all the circumstances. Reasonable force can also be used to protect property from theft or destruction. Self-defense cannot include killing or great bodily harm to defend property, unless personal danger is also involved, as is the case in most burglaries, muggings or vandalism.

- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html#sthash.SqNuIZvH.dpuf

Original 9/11/14
mar 28 2012

Weapon Control

Bill Of Rights
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms


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.

The definition of a well regulated Militia and it's relation to the right to bear arms could be argued.
Constitutions of individual states secure the right for people to bear arms for self defense and hunting purposes.
Is this a right with no boundaries, no restraints?

Is it feasible or desirable to take this right away? To ban arms?  
What about simple controls?

What if the car regulations were enacted on guns.
You have to be a certain age to have weapons in public. Do whatever you want on your private property.
You have to pass a test. Written and practical.
You have to register the weapon.
You have to have insurance.
You have to have a license. You have to have special licensing and increased insurance to keep certain weapons.
If you violate the law, you can have your weapon taken away from you.
Your penalty will be greater If you have not followed these guidelines and you harm someone.


NO one can sell you a weapon unless you meet these guidelines.

Of course, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. BUT, clear guidelines can reduce the amount of people killed by other people.

Free Speech

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-First Amendment

You, as an American, can say whatever you want without any legal ramifications.
Oops, sorry, I forgot about the FCC.
My point is, don't expect to say whatever you want without any consequences whatsoever.

I'm not talking about PC,
I'm talking common sense.
Funding for your broadcast is a privilege not a right. Say something stupid and you may lose your sponsors... bye bye broadcast.
Owning a business is a privilege not a right. Say something stupid and you may lose your customers... and your business
You have the right to say whatever you want; others have the right to protest.

on the other side. With the internet and media reaching more people and more people having a platform for their opinions
I will do myself a service and continue to chill
Others have the right to their opinions and they have access to platforms that potentially reaches billions

Doesn't mean I have to listen. I don't have to give anyone my time. No one deserves my emotions
Just because you have a platform doesn't mean your opinion is rational or valid.
I have the right to walk away.
To ignore
To choose another form of entertainment.
This is for my own well being.
I don't have to and I shouldn't give audience to everyone who has a voice.

Sometimes it is better for me to ignore than to respond.


Question myself to see if a dialogue will create progress.


updated from
Apr 8, 2008

First law of property rights

Everything doesn't have to be owned.

Which leads to egalitarian principles:
Things that are made naturally should not be owned.
Water, land, subterranean resources
there is something to be said about the effort that goes into procuring subterranean resources and creating potable water from unhealthy sources.

If you make it, you own it.
If it is gifted to you by someone who made it, you own it.
Property is yours during the time you are actively using it; this is temporary.

Does power corrupt or do the corrupt want power

I'm weary of anyone who thinks they can/should control other people's lives (especially people they don't know/have never met).
Politics isn't about deriving power from the consent of the governed like it's supposed to be
It's about making decisions for others, whether they like it or not
It's about doing the bidding of those who control resources and capital.

I don't like the idea of giving anyone that kind of power and I don't trust anyone who wants that kind of power
The constitution talks of representatives
A representative must get consent from a client when making decisions for them
They must let the client know the decisions they are making and allow them to accept or deny
Politicians consider themselves leaders
They are not.
Their duty is to secure our rights
Not lead us or make decisions for us

*update from April 2013

Enslavement

I've seen people who want to highlight the fact that white people in America were enslaved too. As if people didn't know that. As if this fact invalidates racism. I want people to look further and ask some questions.
Throughout history, what was the common denominator of the people who enslaved others? Or rather, What traits did slave owners share? What method did they use to enslave people? Who allowed them to enslave people?
Who were the first people who were enslaved after America was 'discovered'? Why did they choose to kidnap people from another country and use them as labor? What was their justification? What methods did they use to enslave their fellow Europeans? Why did they stop using Europeans as slaves in the antebellum South? What did free citizens do in regards to the enslavement of other human beings?
What happened when slaves rebelled or escaped?
Hopefully those questions will spark other questions...

Slavery isn't about race.
Race is about dividing people so you can control them.

Then I want you to realize that slavery is still being practiced in the world, including in America. It never stopped. Many people of different origins are being forced into labor, beaten, being sexually assaulted/raped, and murdered. This includes children.
American citizens (including children) are being kidnapped from their homes and are being used as prostitutes.

I can't say that history will repeat itself because it's just being perpetuated. They call it human trafficking now.

*updated from February 2012

Deep thought

Those who control the past

Control the future

Those who control the present 

Control the past

George Orwell 

Deep thought

If economics must be governed by politics

Politics must be governed by the people 

Effective law maker

A Few of things law makers should ask before they create legislation.

Does the government have to be involved in this?
Can it be handled at a lower level?

How much does it cost?
How is it going to be paid for?

Can the legislation be enforced?
Will it impact a particular group?

Does the legislation fix the problem
or is it a bandaid?

Is the legislation temporary or permanent?

War is Theft

Actually it is robbery

Robbery is forcible stealing.
A person forcibly steals property and
commits robbery when, in the course of committing a larceny,
he uses or
threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for
the purpose of:
1. Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property
or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking; or
2. Compelling the owner of such property or another person to deliver
up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the
commission of the larceny.

Civil Rights

In his essay The Rights of Man, Paine states:

"Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have less rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured.
His natural rights are the foundation of all of his civil rights. . . .
Natural rights are those which always appertain to man in right of his existence. . . .
Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society.
Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent."

Phrase of the day

Summary execution

A summary execution is a variety of execution in which a person is accused of a crime and then immediately killed without benefit of a full and fair trial. 

Extrajudicial punishment

Extrajudicial punishment is punishment for an alleged crime or offense carried out without legal process or supervision from a court or tribunal through a legal proceeding.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

PART III 
Article 6
1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 
2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx

Deep Thought

Democrats want the government to help the poor

Republicans want the government to help the rich

Originally seen as

Democrats want socialism for the poor

Republicans want socialism for the rich

Deep Thought

“It is not the fact of liberty but the way in which liberty is exercised that ultimately determines whether liberty itself survives.”

Dorothy Thompson (1894-1961), Ladies Home Journal, May 1958

Land of the free?

Life liberty 

and the pursuit of happiness

 or property

It's always been a plutocracy

If you pay attention you learn that not all citizens are concerned with the rights of others

They don't want life or liberty or property or happiness for others

People want to be able to do what ever they want to do 

but they want everyone else to be controlled

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.