Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Penigma, Catherine the Great, and Russian Interference in the 2016 Election

Catherine the Great! (Oh, the temptation to make a comment about Donkeys!)

Yep, you got that correct, Catherine II, also known as Catherine the Great (Екатери́на Вели́кая, Yekaterina Velikaya),  Empress of Russia from 1762 until 1796.

That’s because the only thing which made Donald Trump president was the electoral college, an institution created by the US Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2-4).  So, if there really WAS any “Russian” influence in the process that made Trump president of the US, it would have had to have been produced during the reign of Catherine the Great!

The Fact is Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with 65,853,516 (48.5% votes) to Trump’s 62,984,825 (46.4% votes), but lost in the electoral college by receiving 232 (43.1%) of the electoral votes to Trump’s 306 (56.8%) votes.

Of course, it is far easier to blame the Russians for this defeat than it is to address the real issues behind Clinton’s loss.

Although, that is a strategy that is sure to backfire since any claims of “Russian” interference result in the faults of the Clinton Campaign: her being a weak candidate, DNC misconduct, and pretty much everything that was common knowledge to Sanders’ supporters and Clinton opponents.

Any real discussion of Clinton’s loss must include the faults of the US system of elections: especially the radical overhaul of the electoral college, which was supposed to have prevented foreign interference in the US presidential process ( The Federalist Papers, No 68).

It is blatantly obvious that the Electoral College serves no useful purpose, but that won’t be addressed as long as people refuse to address the real cause of Trump’s becoming president.

Then again, any real investigation of the US election would be a threat to the current Democrat-Republican duopoly. The duopoly thrives on the illusion that US elections are somehow “democratic”, but it is hard to make that claim when an institution designed to be anti-democratic is allowed to continue its existence.

See also:


Americans Elect: Democracy in the Internet Age crosspost from Failed Empire

I couldn’t have said it better:

Americans Elect: Democracy in the Internet Age

Posted by Andrew B. on August 9, 2011

This is exactly the kind of development we need to get us out of the current One Party State:

Though many feel we are stuck with a two-party system after numerous attempts to elect a viable alternative candidate have failed, a new Internet-based political movement is emerging. The goal? To put a presidential nomination on the 2012 ballot derived completely from open voting on the Internet. Called Americans Elect, the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization isn’t a traditional new political party, although it must register as one. Instead, it’s a way to nominate candidates in a more democratic fashion. So far, the group has submitted the required number of signatures to put a nomination on the ballot in eight states and has plans to be on 18 by year’s end. Democratic representation is an old idea that modern technology is reinventing, and the movement has the potential to change American politics forever…and that means 2012 will be an even wackier election year than it is already shaping up to be.

So how does one vote for an Americans Elect candidate?

Visit Americans Elect to find out more.

The Revolution Will Not Be Deactualized

Tired of the astroturf, corporatocracy apologists? Do you believe in peace, economic justice, human rights and a healthy environment?  Then clear your calendar for the 6th, the 7th, the 8th…however long it takes for the Obama Administration to yield to key progressive demands, including immediate withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan and the other wars. Participants are being asked to sign a pledge to attend at

Join together in Washington, D.C., beginning on Oct. 6, 2011.

October 2011 is the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan and the beginning of the 2012 federal austerity budget. It is time to light the spark that sets off a true democratic, nonviolent transition to a world in which people are freed to create just and sustainable solutions.

See also:
SYNDICATED COLUMN: The Revolution Will Not Be Deactualized

It’s nice to have one’s suspicions confirmed

I was watching a PBS documentary about Richard Nixon roughly 10 years ago when the thought occurred to me that the programmes that came about in the Nixon administration would be considered liberal, or even “Socialist” (health care), by today’s standards. I also have to question why firearms regulations are being relaxed in the US: in particular the concealed carry laws which were proposed by the gun owners in the 1930s.

SouthernBeale has got me going with her Resistance is Futile and hope for the progressive movement.

Anyway, I was at the Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) website when I saw this post: Move Over—Over and Over: Media’s rightward push for Democrats with the words “You’ll be hearing a lot in this vein” under it. FAIR states that the Democrats are becoming more of a centrist party.

My opinion is that the two main US parties are tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum (or tweedle-dumb and tweedle-dumber). The rightward move is far more obvious in the Republican party than the Democrats. On the other hand, as the attempt and passage of “health care reform” shows, no one is really standing up for the working classes. In the US, the classless ruse has gotten rid of the working class making them the extreme lower middle class, but…

One must think of fascism as an infection of the body politic that can occur when there isn’t a strong leftist working class identified party. Neither US party identifies with the workers or the workers’ interests. Additionally, there is really no interest the ever widening Rich-Poor divide in the US. The term socialism is misused as SouthernBeale also points out. The “Sam’s Club republican” is like the feudal serf who is happy to eat the crumbs from his Lordship’s table.

I am not sure of what to do except hope for the progressive populist revival that SouthernBeale mentions in the Resistance is Futile post. We have to beware that any populist movement isn’t guided by the same forces which tried to push the tea party movement on the people.

Pardon me if I am not very hopeful for the States.

Red or Blue: what’s the difference?

Where I come from “Blue” means “conservative” and “Red” is usually some form of collectivist philosophy, such as Socialism or Communism. This colour scheme is true for most of the world.

Of course, the US in its arse backwards way has these reversed. Although, I am not really sure what US parties actually stand for since it appears to be the party of the rich and powerful v. the party of the rich and powerful (republicrats and Demicans). In fact, the parties are terrible at making any real political stands in such topics as gun control, health care, the environment, transportation, education, and pretty much everything in general. That is a major reason nothing seems to get done in this country, other than making a show of electioneering. We have “wedge issues” such as gun control and abortion, which are really non-issues since gun control and abortion should exist and shouldn’t be any sort of “wedge”.

Actually, I don’t understand the progun crowd’s disliking abortion since the children aren’t alive anyway. They haven’t been born, which means that life is speculative. On the other hand, the gun crowd sees no problem in the death toll in the USA. Perhaps, if we ensured that wanted children came into the world, we wouldn’t have an issue with crime.

But the ultimate bottom line is the public welfare, which I see neither US party as being very interested in promoting. In fact, I am not very sure of what exactly the US parties are interested in promoting other than havoc.

Political Parties

I belong to the Constitutional Monarchist party even though I am registered as a Democrat. This is because being an independent in Philadelphia is like being an atheist in Northern Ireland: I.e. “Are you a Democrat Indpendent or a Republican Independent?” Anyway, being a Constitutional Monarchist is the best way to express my political philosophy, but unfortunately, I am probably the only Constitutional Monarchist in the United States.

Republicanism is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic, with an emphasis on liberty, rule of law, popular sovereignty and the civic virtue practiced by citizens. Republicanism always stands in opposition to aristocracy, oligarchy, and dictatorship. More broadly, it refers to a political system that protects liberty, especially by incorporating a rule of law that cannot be arbitrarily ignored by the government. Or as John Adams put it, “They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.” Much of the literature deals with the issue of what sort of values and behavior by the citizens is necessary if the republic is to survive and flourish; the emphasis has been on widespread citizen participation, civic virtue, and opposition to corruption.

Now the “Republican” party has truly fallen away from this, especially in terms of its attitude toward rule of law and the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment would make sense if there were still a strong institutional militia; however, most “republicans” aren’t willing to accept that institution. Moreover, they are willing to destroy the rule of law for popular opinion, which is the exact opposite of how Adams defined a republic.

People in a republic are expected to participate and give their efforts to running the democracy. In early American times, I would have had some government job where I could have contributed my skills and knowledge. Nowadays, I am marginally employed. People seem to get government jobs by knowing somebody, not by ability.

Worse, the “Republicans” have taken to talking about democracy, which is a contradiction. Not to mention it leads to my next point.


In political theory, Democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights.

Competitive elections! That doesn’t really apply in the United States as I think that it is a system where loads of money is required to get anywhere in the political process.

Absolute democracy is mobocracy where the majority rule. Of course, this isn’t really the case in the United States as the 2000 and 2004 elections have shown. Also, I have never had the opportunity to vote for a candidate I support (e.g., Wesley Clark in the 2004 election). We are seeing a wonderful thwarting of democracy regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries and apportioning of delegates.

I find it interesting that both a Democracy and Republic demand rule of law, as does a Constitutional monarchy. However, we may be seeing the thwarting of the rule of law by the Second Amendment/Right to Keep and Bear Arms crowd. The Heller case is a wonderful example of how the rule of law works and how it may be thwarted. the principle of rule of law means that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule.

I keep rattling on about stare decisis which is part of procedural rules. A court must follow precedent unless there is a valid reason to overrule that precedent. In other words, judges should rule in a predictable and non-chaotic manner. Even more salient, judges should not be swayed by popular opinion or the law will change willy-nilly. Justice Breyer recently summarized this Court’s approach, “[T]he rule of law demands that adhering to . . . prior case law be the norm [and] [d]eparture from precedent is exceptional and requires ‘special justifications’ . . . . especially [where] the principle has become settled through iteration and reiteration over a long period of time.Randall v. Sorrell, 126 S. Ct. 2479 at 2489 (2006) (declining to overrule Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)). Additionally, if our “leaders” aren’t bold enough to show some backbone in time of crisis, then the courts should stand on precedent. I am not really going to go back into this since I have run on about how Heller could and should stick with precedent and just clarify the Miller decision in terms which even idiots can understand.

Anyway, with the exception of Constitutional Monarchy, these systems require some form of personal responsibility and civic mindedness. Constitutional Monarchy realises that the masses are peasants and do indeed need a nanny state. fortunately, Constitutional Monarchists practise noblesse oblige meaning we have a requirement for social responsibility. We can come up with elections, but there are institutions, such as the landed aristocracy which keeps some form of mob rule under wraps. Also, the landed aristocracy are able to keep land use issues under control, which is sort of sad given the interregnum we have had has led to urban sprawl.

Fortunately, we may have a individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment and I can set up my private army and start my own duchy. I mean my Royal Pennsylvania militia will be very well trained if that is what “well regulated” means. And if Justice Scalia is correct that militias are outside of government control, then we are perfectly justified in setting up a Constitutional Monarchy.

I wonder if Prince Charles will accept our invitation to be King.