The 2016 Democratic Platform: A Plan For Destroying America

I’ve listened to the Democratic speakers this week and have their political platform in front of me as I write this.  There is much that is laudable in their positions – equality, fairness, eliminating discrimination and so on.  But there are some very sharp daggers buried in there that are aimed right at the heart of America and at the heart of the Constitution.  The Democrats know it and they are dissembling when they say they want to improve America.  Their Platform is a plan for destroying America.

Let’s start with the 1st amendment and the right to free speech.  The Democrats state their policy goal in straight forward terms:

Democrats support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo. We need to end secret, unaccountable money in politics by requiring, through executive order or legislation, significantly more disclosure and transparency—by outside groups, federal contractors, and public corporations to their shareholders. We need to amplify the voices of the American people through a small donor matching public financing system. We need to overhaul and strengthen the Federal Election Commission so that there is real enforcement of campaign finance laws. And we need to fight to eliminate super PACs and outside spending abuses.

On the surface, it sounds pretty good.  They want everyone to run a Bernie Sanders style campaign.  But let’s step back and remember WHY the Citizens United Decision happened in the first place.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), dealt with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that the first amendment freedom of speech clause of the US Constitution prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.

In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts which the FEC claimed was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or “BCRA”. Section 203 of BCRA defined an “electioneering communication” as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and “electioneering communications”.

That’s the technical and legal summary of the Citizens United decision.  The short form is that congress tried to suppress political speech and the FEC in particular tried to suppress political speech that was critical of Hillary Clinton. They got caught at it by the Supreme Court.  Now they want to go further and restore those political speech restrictions through a constitutional amendment.  Thus they want to strip Americans of the ability to form associations to provide a dissenting voice in politics, something that is at the core of our democracy and at the core of the US Constitution.  They want to force Americans to be silent.  Most individuals cannot compete with a national election campaign to buy air time and distribute political speech and they want to prevent Americans from banding together, pooling their resources and exercising their right to participate in the democratic process through public speech.

(By the way, The Clinton Foundation seems to be the epitome of  “secret, unaccountable money in politics”.  That plank in the platform sounds a bit like the pot calling the kettle black)

Next is their position on firearms:

With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM’s)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.

There is just so much wrong with that paragraph.  It embodies most of the lies that the Anti-Gun lobby tells, so let’s demolish them one at a time.  “33,000 Americans dying each year” – an inflated number that includes all suicide by firearms.  The actual number is closer to 8000 homicides a year and steadily declining.  “We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners…”  Hillary Clinton has said that the Supreme court was WRONG on Heller v DC and McDonald v City of Chicago.  She has steadfastly refused to acknowledge that the second amendment confirms an individual right to keep and bear arms. She has also said publicly that she thinks the Australian gun buyback program is a good model for America.  what she doesn’t say was that the buyback program was a mandatory confiscation in which folks who turned in guns were given a nominal amount of money for them.  fail to turn in your weapon and you became an instant criminal.

And then there is this little tidbit captured on the Convention floor.  This is a Clinton Delegate explaining that “Common Sense” gun control is merely a pretext and they intend to ban all guns:

To the point about the PLCAA, this is simply misrepresentation.  Firearm manufacturers and dealers are NOT protected from a liability lawsuit if a firearm fails in service and harms the user or bystander.  They ARE protected from nuisance lawsuits based on suing them for the actions of a third party, e.g. a criminal user.  This law came about because the anti-gun crowd was trying to bankrupt the firearm industry with lawsuits over every crime committed with a gun where someone was injured.  No other product has this level of attack through the courts and the PLCAA simply recognizes that fact and shut off the nuisance suits.

Keeping “weapons of war” off the streets is another misrepresentation as is the term “assault rifle”.  The modern sporting rifle is not a weapon of war.  It is a semiautomatic rifle like many others and, in the most common 5.56 / .223 caliber, not even a particularly powerful one.  My grandfathers 1910 lever action hunting rifle shoots a more powerful cartridge and can easily maintain the rate of fire demonstrated at Sandy Hook (about one round every 3 seconds) even with reloading the tubular magazine.  Complaints about “high rate of fire” and “high capacity” magazines are not relevant simply because no one ever shoots at those rates and a magazine swap can happen in about 1-2 seconds – insufficient time to “rush the shooter” which is the usual rationale given for limiting magazine size.

Now as far as getting the CDC back into the gun violence research business, the Democrats are failing to tell you WHY Congress banned them from doing such research.  The CDC was found, as part of their research and using their research funds, to be promoting and distributing Brady campaign anti-gun literature, thus violating the federal restriction on political advocacy by federal agencies.  The CDC has clearly demonstrated that it is NOT a neutral party capable of doing science independent of a political agenda.

The short version of all of that discussion is that the Democrats, and Hillary Clinton in particular, want to do away with your right to keep and bear arms, with your right to defend yourself against criminals, terrorists and your own government. They want to put the firearm industry out of business and they want to confiscate your firearms.

Summary:

The Democratic platform planks discussed above are designed to shut down your right to free speech through a collective voice and once that happens, then they can mange the public voice to keep Americans from speaking up about further abuses.  With no public voice opposition, then they can campaign for “common Sense” gun control leading to an eventual total ban on firearms in this country.

Hillary Clinton does not want to become President to “defend and protect” the constitution of the United States.  She wants to become President so she can destroy it.

2016 Election: The Issue

When I said awhile back that I wanted to discuss the issues for this election cycle, I thought I knew issues I would talk about – External Security, Immigration, Civil Rights, The Economy and Big Government.  Those are still issues, but I have come to believe that they have taken a backseat to a single major issue in America.  Let me describe a couple of problems for you and then how those problems roll up into a single major issue.

The first problem is the candidates themselves and what they say about America.  Hillary Rodham Clinton is a demonstrated liar who should be convicted of espionage, racketeering, influence peddling, obstruction of justice, perjury, and giving aid and comfort to our enemies.  Those are just the obvious charges.  That she remains the preferred candidate for the majority of the Democratic party says some really ugly things about what the Democratic party faithful and especially the leadership believe is acceptable behavior in high office.

On the other side of the aisle, Donald Trump has his own set of problems.  His blustering attack dog style of campaigning has had mixed results in attracting support.  Those who are fed up with business as usual in Washington are flocking to his banner.  Those Republican leaders whose interests are threatened by Trumps outsider attitudes and free wheeling style of assault politics are doing their best to undermine him, knowing full well that success will give the White House to Hillary, someone the republican leadership thinks they can deal with and continue “business as usual”.  That says to me that they are not interested in advancing their party’s agenda or even doing what the Americans they supposedly represent want them to do.  They are only interested in personally staying in power, near power and continuing to manipulate the government to their advantage.

Out in left field, literally, we still have Bernie Sanders hanging around like the ghoul at a feast.  His politics are antithetical to the very principles on which this nation was founded, yet he has a significant following.  He, or rather his followers also seems to think that violent protest against political opponents is acceptable behavior.  This also says ugly things about him and his supporters.  The current view among many is that he is simply staying in the game hoping the FBI and DOJ will take down Hillary and he can slide in to her spot on the Democratic ticket.

So to summarize the first problem, for candidates we have a candidate of zero moral character, a blustering angry entertaining candidate and a vulture waiting in the wings.  Moreover the leadership of both parties and a great many Americans are happy with that state of affairs.

The second problem is the state of the media these days.  For all intents and purposes, most of the political reporting these days might as well be managed by a Hillary Clinton Superpac.  The reporting is so biased that no negatives about Hillary are reported and only negatives about Republicans are broadcast far and wide.  The one exception, sort of, is Fox news which claims to be fair and balanced and actually does a decent job of achieving it.  The “Sort Of” qualifier comes from their practice of matching opposing spokespersons and letting them go at each other on the air.  Of course, each one talks over the other and no true information comes through to the viewer looking for thoughtful content.  So I suppose that qualifies as fair and balanced in that noise with zero content is neither a plus or a minus for either side on an issue.  Walter Cronkite should be rolling in his grave.

These two problems highlight a single issue and that America is in a dangerous situation.  Another country found themselves in this same situation a long time ago.  That nation fell from dominating the world to third world then nonexistent status.  That country was the Roman Empire.  Rome still exists as a city, but the Roman Empire has been relegated to the dust bin of History.  What I am referring to is the phrase that came to characterize the Roman empire in it’s later days and was a major contributor to it’s downfall:  “Bread and Circuses”

(adapted from Wikipedia)

The “Bread and circuses” phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace, as an offered “palliative“. Its originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns. The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty among the concerns of the commoner.  This phrase originates in Juvenal’s Satire X (circa A.D. 100). In context, the Latin panem et circenses (bread and circuses) identifies the only remaining cares of a Roman populace which no longer cares for its historical birthright of political involvement. Here Juvenal displays his contempt for the declining heroism of contemporary Romans. Roman politicians passed laws in 140 B.C. to keep the votes of poorer citizens, by introducing a grain dole: giving out cheap food and entertainment, “bread and circuses”, became the most effective way to rise to power. Per Juvenal:

… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses

Juvenal here makes reference to the Roman practice of providing free wheat to Roman citizens as well as costly circus games and other forms of entertainment as a means of gaining political power. The Annona (grain dole) was begun under the instigation of the popularis politician Gaius Sempronius Gracchus in 123 B.C.

And that is exactly our situation in America today.

[As an aside, lest you think I have ignored the external forces that brought down Rome, i.e. the Huns who pushed the Goths west into Rome, I would point out that Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Islamic migration are serving in that role quite nicely these days.  If the Roman citizens and their leaders hadn’t abandoned the civic virtues that made Rome great, then I believe they would have found the wherewithal to fend off the invading barbarians.]

The Democrats are providing the bread in the form of an expanding welfare stat. They are opening the borders to any and all people to build their voting base.  They are creating sanctuary cities where anyone can hide from the law.  They granting voting rights to convicted felons en masse.

Bernie’s supporters are attacking anyone who objects to this state of affairs.  The Media are providing the entertainment in the form of “news” and analysis that also attacks anyone with any civic virtue.  Trump is doing his share of entertaining by attacking anyone and everyone that challenges him with trivial insults and braggadocio.

Most of the common people care not enough about the civic virtues to worry about what damage can and will be done by politicians of no virtue.  They worry about bathroom equality, safe spaces and not being exposed to any form reality that might disturb their comfortable peaceful government provided world view.

The crisis in America today is to find that same wherewithal to tell our leaders that we don’t want bread and circuses; that we don’t want liars, crooks and self serving political leaders.  That we want to restore principled leadership and return to those civic virtues that created this country.  If we can do that, as a people and as a country, then maybe, just maybe, we can avoid the fate of Rome.