The Tools of Political Repression were Built by Both Democrats and Republicans.

The Tools of Political Repression were Built by Both Democrats and Republicans.

Photo Credit: Neo.org

One of the biggest concerns people have about President Trump is his bombastic personally and ego having access to the nuclear codes. Of course, this is a somewhat " over the top" example but many Americans are rightfully concerned about Trump's authoritarian tendencies and how he might overstep his authority.

One of these powers is embodied in "National Defense Authorization Act," or NDAA.

Under provisions in the NDAA, the American Government can now detain anyone they claim is an enemy combatant, terrorist, spy, and what's worse they can detain them indefinitely without the right to counsel or trial. It’s important to note here that the NDAA was enacted into law by the Obama Administration in the midnight hour in 2011. The NDAA essentially permits the government to carry out acts of unimaginable civil rights violations against not only American citizens but human beings.

Basically, the NDAA says, if you support radical Islamic ideology you could be faced with the reality of being labeled an enemy of the state and face unlimited detention without " your day in court." Your rights to due process are stripped. In fact, you could end up in Guantanamo Bay detention camp!

The NDAA has been challenged by activist Chris Hedges and others, however, the Courts have upheld the NDAA as constitutional. [See Source]

There have been attempts by Hedges and others who have approached the Democratic Party leadership about excluding American citizens from the NDAA and those request fell on deaf ears.

The NDAA was written in a moment of civil unrest throughout the world. It essentially overturned the "Posse Comitatus Act."  What we have now is the military being used to quell civil disobedience. A good example is the Standing Rock protest.

I Stand With Standing Rock Shirt $20

What Is the Real Reason for The National Defense Authorization Act?

For starters, "Climate Change," economic dislocation, " Black Lives Matter" and other forms of civil disobedience are a threat to the ruling elites. These factions know and see that the American populist are becoming uneasy and more aware of the tools of political repression and that unrest is intimate.

So, the ruling elites want to use the military as a tool for breaking up these ever-growing national protests on a myriad of issues. To accomplish this goal, both the Democratic Global oligarchs and the Republican Nationalist oligarchs needed a law that would allow them to do so. Hence, the NDAA.

President Obama said when he signed it [NDAA] into law he would not use it. What our research here in the House of Public Discourse has led us to is the power of political repression has been thrust upon " We the People" by judicial mandates. These mandates have overturned many of our rights to privacy, civil rights, and to our liberty and freedom.

The unlimited amounts of money that can now be used to influence eager and ready politicians with their hands out through another judicial mandate " Citizens United" has created a whole new ballgame in American democracy.

You add to this the increasing actives of the surveillance state all these powers are now in the hands of people like Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, and others.

With our society going the way of the 1920's " Robber Barons" era and wealth inequality growing daily with our jobs continuing to flow overseas and our workforce being replaced by new technology and now our rights to protest being made illegal you can best believe the Donald Trumps of the world will not hesitate to use the military against angry civilians. We have already seen it happen.

These tools of political repression were built by both the Democratic and Republican Parties. We all should be putting on our shields and armor gear to fight against these grotesques violation of our civil liberties. "Civil Disobedience" is American as baseball and apple pie. It is the only mechanism we have left to combat these powers that be. Our Democracy is not dead yet.

America has not been a fully functional democracy for some time. Most of the traditional institutions in our country can longer be considered democratic. All of them have been taken over by corporate influence peddling Mass Media, Academia, political establishments, and the lobbyist. 

What we fear the most here in the House of Public Discourse is under a Trump regime we could see these tools of political repression become even more violent. Under this authoritarian and his authoritarian follower's anyone who dissents or doesn't fall in line will be labeled a traitor, terrorist, and they will be certainly demonized. 

Right now, not next week or next year it's time for people to step out of the grip of the mainstream media narrative and the tool of political repression. It's time to break out the pitchforks folks.

Don't Push Me, I,m Close to the Edge, I,m Trying not to Lose My Head! Reminds me of a song.

Written By: Johnny Hill

We Can Fix America’s Corrupt Political System

We Can Fix America’s Corrupt Political System 

Just about any person you talk to today feels that our government is corrupt. That’s right, the most powerful nation on earth is eat up with corruption. More and more Americans feel our democracy is completely broken.

If you have half a brain, it's obvious why? Lobbyist write our laws. Politicians are bought and paid for corruption touches every single issue in our governance. 


What is sad is that huge segments of people in America have disenfranchised themselves from the political process thinking there's nothing we can do about it. [corruption]

This thinking is one of the biggest cancers we have in our American democracy today! When you put this corruption under the microscope it's not that politicians are breaking the laws, in fact, there are no laws in place for them to break. There are some exceptions but not many or enough. 

Right Now, Corruption Is Legal in America

This factoid is something we can fix. For example, right now it's perfectly legal for "special interest groups" to hand over humongous checks to members of Congress who regulate and write laws. There is nothing to stop these members of Congress from passing laws that favor these groups even if said laws are a detriment to our society. 

Often, we see these same politicians accepting comfy jobs with these lobbying firms. This example is just one in a million we could use. 

We Must Make Corruption Illegal!

That's why the House of Public Discourse supports the "American Anti-Corruption Act." 

The American Anti-Corruption Act (commonly referred to as the "AACA" or "Anti-Corruption Act") is a piece of model legislation designed to limit the influence of money in American politics by overhauling lobbying, transparency, and campaign finance laws. ... Stopping political bribery by overhauling lobbying and ethics laws. [Wikipedia]

The "AACA" introduces a stringent set of ethical standards. For example, if you're a senator on the Banking Committee you can't take money or gifts from banking lobbyist. 

Stand With Standing Rock!!! $20.00 

Also, the "AACA" mandates full transparency so " We the People" know exactly who is paying what to whom. The "AACA" changes how elections are funded. The "AACA" achieves these things without taking away anyone's right to free speech. The bi-partisan constitutional scholars who authored this act wrote it in a way to withstand any legal scrutiny.

What About Citizens United?

While a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United would help corral those shadowy groups like "Americans for Freedom and Jobs and More Freedom." It would not fix any of the previously-mentioned problems. We could overturn Citizens United tomorrow and bribery, extortion, conflicts of interest, all of it would still be legal.

However, this corruption does pose an opportunity for those of us who desire to see it end. We can solve these problems with one comprehensive law. Which begs the question, but how?

How do we get such a law passed? Asking Congress to do so would be like asking a " Fox to put a lock on the Henhouse." However, not all is a loss here. We can go around Congress by using the " Ballot Initiative Process." This process allows citizens to pass laws ourselves. No politicians required. All we must do is gather enough signatures that would put the "AACA" up for a public vote and we can start fixing this out of control corrupt system we know as American Democracy.

Here's the Plan

We need a law and our research here in the House of Public Discourse finds the "American Anti-Corruption Act" a great comprehensive and common sense law to put up for a vote.
We need to bring all Progressives, Independents, and Conservatives together and get organized for this endeavor which in fact is one of the few political issues in modern politics that has bi-partisan appeal among the electorate. This is the only way to combat both the Global and National Oligarchs that control our two-party system in the present. For example, in 2014 both the " Tea-Party," and "Progressives" teamed up to pass the first anti-corruption act. In November 2014, a bipartisan coalition of Represent.Us members in Tallahassee, Florida, put America’s first municipal Anti-Corruption Act on the ballot – and they won. Since then, voters have passed initiatives for sweeping anti-corruption reforms in more than a dozen cities and states across America. In 2016, for the first time ever, comprehensive statewide anti-corruption legislation passed in South Dakota. [See Source]

Using the Ballot Initiative process Represent.us proclaims there are some 22,000 cities across the country that we could pass locally tailored anti-corruption legislation. We have always felt here in the House of Public Discourse that solid positive change within our political system always starts from the local level.

By starting from the local levels our efforts affect the communities we live in by protecting our schools, healthcare, resources, environment, and jobs from being sold out to special interest. Local politics matter! Also, starting at the local level builds momentum for passing legislation at the state level. 

State Acts not only would clean up statewide corruption it would change how elections are funded. In doing so, "We the People" get clean politicians, not one's like in the present who are in the hip pocket of special interest groups. State Acts would affect federal candidates as well. Once these state laws are passed we can truly "drain the swamp," by sending a new wave of clean politicians to Washington. 

By taking this fight against corruption to the local and state levels we can win this struggle against political corruption from the outside. And, once we have elected these fair-minded ethical politicians on the federal level we can then pass the "AACA" at the federal level.

Some may say this is a loss cause that it's pie in the sky thinking and isn't practical.  Our response here in the House of Public Discourse to these claims is quite simple.

• Was it pie in the sky for a band of thirteen colonies with no standing army to win a war against the strongest military power of its time?
• Was it thought practical that slavery would be abolished?
• Or, that woman and blacks would be allowed to vote.
• Was it unpragmatic to think that Same Sex Marriage would be a reality in American society?
• How many people said there would never be a person of color in the White House?

Corruption of Influence - The History of Campaign Finance

Written By: Johnny Hill

Bigotry,Theocratic Law Rule North Carolina

Bigotry and Theocratic Law rule North Carolina. The year is 1959 in the state of Virginia. Richard Loving and his wife Mildred got sentenced to a year in prison. There crime. They loved each other. [See Case]

In 1959, it was considered a felony for  white’s and black’s to marry. That’s right interracial marriage was a crime. The couple got married in Washington D.C., where it wasn’t against the law and then drove back home to Virginia. Of course, in Virginia not only was interracial marriage against the law it was a crime for such a couple to live in the state as well. This felony crime carried a one to five-year prison sentence.

The couple plead guilty, and both received a one-year jail sentence. The judge in the case instructed the couple they would not have to serve time, and he would suspend the jail term if they packed up and left the state. The Judge in the case said the following:

” Almighty God created the races white, black, Malay, and red and placed them on different continents. And, but for interference with this arrangement there be no cause for such a marriage.” 

The judge went on to say:

“The fact he[GOD] separated the races shows he did not intend for them to mix.”

With all the political back and forth, the finger pointing and name calling that goes on today in the political sphere surrounding same-sex marriage this 1959 case, and all its connotations have resurfaced. The Loving case is often used as an analogy in much of the ever increasing courtroom litigation involved with same-sex marriage. It does provide a good example of how times change and how public opinion on any given issue changes like the ocean tides.

Eventually, the Supreme Court overturned the state law that banned interracial marriage in Virginia. The high court held that under our Constitution the freedom to marry, or not to marry a person of another race resides with the individuals and cannot be infringed upon by the state.

This same train of thought and standard has become a cornerstone for legal advocates regarding same-sex marriage.

Now, North Carolina Has Embraced Bigotry By Theocratic Law

Recently, North Carolina Republican’s in the state legislature in Raleigh passed an anti-gay marriage law. This law does not just remind this writer of the Loving case it overwhelms it in terms of loss of civil liberty.

The North Carolina Senate Overrides The Veto of The Religious Freedom Bill

What North Carolina has done not only reminds people of the banning of interracial marriage in the 1950’s it would in practice allow for that same discrimination to manifest itself again. North Carolina Gov. Pat McCory(R) vetoed the bill but saw members of his Republican party override the veto. The bill’s authors wrote it as an anti-gay draft law. The Federal Courts have ruled that same-sex marriage is legal in North Carolina. The Federal Court’s ruling demands that North Carolina recognize same-sex marriage.

In practice what this bill allows is racist Christian Zealots who function as Magistrates, Assistant Magistrates, Registers of Deeds, Deputy Register of Deeds, to remove themselves from performing duties related to marriage due to their religious objections. What this legislation does allow is state government workers to break federal law? There is no other better analogy. People’s civil rights are being violated by scapegoating a religious conviction. What is sad bigotry is behind this, not religious beliefs?

What the state of North Carolina is doing here is Civil War in reverse. What this says is the hell with the Federal Government. Sure, same-sex marriage is legal here but I got my Holy Bible and I follow God’s law, not man’s. The very gatekeepers to a paramount part of two people in love lives are being put into the hands of an individual. Who can claim a theocratic law over a ruling in a federal court and the state of North Carolina is proxy to it.

As a person growing up in the South, in my rambunctious youth I had several run-ins with local magistrates. I can speak with authority most are racist bigots with a power complex of self-righteousness a country mile long. And to think that all magistrates need to do under this bill is declare they hold a religious objection to same-sex marriage he or she can legally refuse them service sickens this writer.

Leave Your Authoritarianism At The Church House Please!

What is Authoritarianism? 

Authoritarianism is something authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders cook up between themselves. It happens when the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want--which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical and brutal. In my day, authoritarian fascist and authoritarian communist dictatorships posed the biggest threats to democracies, and eventually lost to them in wars both hot and cold. But authoritarianism itself has not disappeared, and I,m going to present the case in this book that the greatest threat to American democracy today arises from a militant authoritarianism that has become a cancer upon the nation.[See Source]  

Do you remember back in grade school when the teacher would leave the room and before she did she would ask who wants to take names? I remember hands going up left and right. These type people want to be a tyrant for just once in their lives. In a democracy, the only way we allow for tyrants is if we allow them. Moreover, if we follow them. Right Wing Authoritarian Follower---Is a condition in the human mind. This condition has been around as long as  man himself. The authoritarian follower conforms to the  perceived norms of the authority who has him under their control. 

To Bow Without Question Of One's Culture?

If you have been a person staying abreast of these issues or just learning of them now, please these people are real as real can get. 

Liberals have stereotypes about conservatives, and Conservatives have stereotypes about liberals. Moderates have stereotypes about both.Anyone who has watched or been a liberal arguing with a conservative (or vice-versa)knows that opinion and rhetoric can be had a penny a pound[See Source]

Authoritarian followers usually support the  established authorities in their  society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders." "Such people have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled,
Customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians.

Robert  Altemeyer

So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have. Conservative political views. Instead, he’s someone who readily submits to the established authorities in society, attacks others in their name and is highly conventional. It’s an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics. Right-wing authoritarianism is a personality trait, like being characteristically bashful or happy or grumpy or dopey

I think it fair to say the War Protester Hippies were right in their  protest, and their positions were held valid as well. The collective human voice made a difference.  The Nixon Crowd[Authoritarians] were calling these people radical protesters a bunch of " loud mouths" showing off their ignorance. The Ted Cruz Crowd [Tea Party] would have woman promise to obey their husband at the altar. Our country needs Ted Cruz, this mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy every sinful and liberal viewpoint which is ruining America. I can hear it already. 

Ted Cruz , Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else!

There is a never-ending search for the " Holy Grail." When do you follow man's law or GOD'S Law? How do you contain the noisy rabble-rousers who are trying to create doubt in people's minds? I will tell you this Atheist and others who have rebelled against organized religion are no doubt every bit as good virtuous as those who attend church regularly. 

In closing the first of many reports regarding this issue when put to study the only way this country can get through some of this drama brought on by the haphazard Republicans is not to do the Authoritarian Follower Way, which revisits the traditional bombs away mentality. And, more importantly, tries to silence the troublemakers telling WE THE PEOPLE what a BAD idea this return would be for America.Leave Your Authoritarianism At The Church House Please!

The American Experiment Is Under Crisis!

Is the American experiment under crisis? Today you can ask five people their interpretation of any given constitutional  question, and chances are you will get five different viewpoints. Our founding fathers gathered  themselves in a small room in Philadelphia to hash out what at the time was nothing more than a governmental experiment, to form a new type of government for a new country they would call the United States of America. Not only were there no assurances that it would work but history at the time told them it wouldn't.  In their day, nations were ruled by rulers, not rules.  Kings told everyone else what to do. A government run by the people themselves was an old idea;  however,  it had never worked. People fight with each other. It's human nature. People are messy,  they have their interests, and they disagree. Rulers knew it took armies to keep people under control. These men [Founding Fathers] believed it took a constitution. They felt they could create institutions that would let conflict occur, then deal with it and that people would accept the outcome. That is, in fact, what they believed. In the Spring of 1787 it was time to deliver. There was much indecision as to whether they could. The Constitution was written in a time of crisis. Our founding fathers at that moment knew if they failed,  their country would fail. They responded by starting a nation in a small room with just a handful of ideas.[See Sources]

Many of the images and ideas we have of our founding fathers comes from 19th-Century historians. These historians advocated GOD himself handed down the Constitution. 

Thomas Jefferson was a founding father. Jefferson wrote the " Declaration of Independence." Jefferson called the men who wrote the Constitution demagogues. So what did this make Thomas Jefferson? Our founding fathers are the equivalent to " Greek Gods" in America. We The People have transformed these men into larger than life figures.  We have written untold books about them and have cast them in bronze. We have made educational films about them with many of those films' facts being entirely unsubstantiated. The average school child in America has been taught to speak of these men in a hushed whisper. These men were going to be whisked straight to heaven. These were real men that faced real challenges, but they were not gods. Our research here at the House of Public Discourse has found several who did not believe in God period. These men knew they were not gods. In fact, they were in fear of any man who would march himself a god. King George II ring a bell? Our research found these men would be disgusted at the reverence "We The People,"  pay these men. Some of them would for sure. We should admire these men by all means but to give them GOD status is over-the-top. We should find solace in that these men were not " Supermen. " They were just ordinary men involved in an extraordinary ordeal of forming and shaping a new country, a new nation that the world had never experienced before:  the'' American Experiment."

For the record, Ben Franklin felt the Constitution would last about ten years. 

The Articles of Confederation were a disaster and  the primary reason for much of the conflict. So history tells us that the first Constitution of America was a failure. The Articles of Confederation did not bind the new states together into one nation. This document functioned as a " league of friendship." We must remember the populists of that time still had the memories of being ruled and lorded over. The population was wary of any identity that would somehow become too dominant. And as back then as is the order of the day today, people were Virginians, North Carolinian's, Pennsylvanians, and New Yorkers. Sectionalism  was rampant. Just like in these modern times these citizens clamored for states' rights. These states saw themselves as sovereign nations.  In practice, they kind of, sorta, made an agreement to work together with other states. These arrangements fell apart so quickly that it boggles the mind. One of the biggest problems was there was no power of taxation. Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States government was flat broke. The US could not afford to protect ships on the Atlantic from pirates. They could not protect citizens on the western borders either. Each state printed its money. For example, the state of New York was charging Connecticut and New Jersey an " arm and a leg" for everything coming into its port.  So, in turn, these states planned a military attack on New York. The real breaking point was Shay's Rebellion. 

WHAT WAS SHAY'S REBELLION?

In closing, Part 1 of this series of articles,  do you the reader see where we here at the House of Public Discourse are going? This writer believes that history, in fact, does repeat itself. Sectionalism is on the rise in America. The Articles of Confederation  were a complete failure falling prey to sectionalism. Is our great "American Experiment." the Constitution of the United States, destined to go the way of the Articles of Confederation? Today, there is much talk of secession. Sectionalism has risen its ugly face more and more by the day. We are seeing shades of the Shay's Rebellion rearing its head through hate groups, radicalized religious zealots, political corruption, and domestic terrorism just to name a few. " The American Experiment Is Under Crisis," and in part 2 of this series we will investigate the question, "Is Secession  Inevitable?"  Back in 1987, a woman in the presence of Ben Franklin asked him the question. " Mr. Franklin fine sir, did the Constitution establish a Republic or Monarchy, Franklin replied:

Johnny Hill is a freelance writer who has extensive experience in writing for sales, marketing and advertising.   He has a background in radio broadcasting which is showcased in the music mixes he creates for his FB page, "One Nation Under the Groove."  Johnny  has been an avid  and life long student of politics . He is the founder of the House of Public Discourse Political Organization, which he created as a platform for his progressive liberal ideology.  You can follow Johnny on Twitter, @hillj60.