Party Identification Has Become The Lens Most People See Through.

Huffington Post Image

According to Wikipedia, Party Identification refers to the political party with which an individual identifies. Party Identification is typically determined by the political party that an individual most commonly supports (by voting or other means). Studies have shown that most people consider themselves independent- minded people. As a child growing up I remember hearing grown-ups always saying "I vote for the person, not a party." I remember them saying this with such a sense of pride. In addition, I remember thinking how civic minded these persons were.

I remember thinking to myself how thoughtful and intelligent these people were to hold such an open-minded attitude. Even, as a small child, I remember thinking how ignorant it was to just blindly support a political position or candidate based on party affiliation alone. However, the reality is a little different now in my adulthood. First, it's a fact, most people vote on the basis of their party identification. We may hear people in the morning coffee houses claiming they are weighing all the issues and candidates but when it comes time to vote they do so with a political party they most identify.

Party Identification Has Become The Lens Most People See Through. 

The truth in modern day politics is that most people have a political party which they identify. Even more, but, not always, people have the same party identification as their parents. Second, in general, its people with strong party identification who tend to be better informed and better educated. These factoids have a number of implications. What they reveal to us is that voting and party identification are far more complex than we realize.

Today, when you ask someone, what party they support, you can pretty much guess who they are voting for and be right most of the time. When trying to ascertain a person's party identification, I would simply ask what political party do your parents support. Studies have shown that most people form their political views early in life and remain stable over time so for lack of term it's pretty fair to say most people are " born into it." Now, this writer is not one to generalize anything, however, in general 7 out of ten people identify with the political party of their parents. In some regions of the country, it has been shown to be almost 4 out of 5.

Gallup

It is very unusual for a person to switch their party identification in America today. Also, it is rare that in the political climate of today that people vote for a candidate that is not affiliated with the party they have supported all their life. In the 1940's and the 1950's political scientist started doing research on voting. The purpose of these studies was to see what affects campaigning had on voters. The basic mindset going in was that political campaigns would have the same effect on people as advertising. However, what they found surprised them. As it turned out, the campaigning had little to no effect on most people. Furthermore, there was something else that surprised them. It was the better educated and informed voter that was least affected by the campaign. It is these type people who overwhelmingly vote for their party identification. Voters who were most effected by campaigns and changed their votes were less educated and less informed.[See Article: Why Do Poor Uneducated White People Vote Republican.]  What was even more shocking, is that many of these less educated and inform voters did not even realize that the candidates they were supporting  had contrasting positions. These findings were quite disturbing. These finding raised serious questions about Democratic government.

.

     

    

These early studies changed the way academia thought about voters and voting. For example, it came to be that the mindset was you don't win elections by changing people's minds. You win elections by mobilizing your core supporters or base. The problem is roughly 40% of the electorate are Democrats and 40% are Republicans that leaves 20% more or less Independent. Bear in mind these numbers deal with people who take part in the process. These numbers create a dilemma. While it is imperative that political parties mobilize their base. In turn, they must attract these Independent or swing voters without alienating their core supporters.
 

  With such a wide spectrum of voter mindsets in modern day politics, the general rule of thumb has been to hug the middle. You want to be moderate enough to appeal to Independents without losing your core supporters. Normally, voters at the Republican end of the line will be conservative and at the Democrats end of the line liberal. The moderate voters are in the middle. This reality in the past has kept both parties platforms moderate. James Madison Federalist papers,  part of the narrative was how the extended republic solves the problems of factions. The American voter has created a paradox. We want our political parties to stand for something, but; we want them to corporate with one another. We want our political parties to work together in the public interest. However, there is an important exception that makes it really hard to generalize party identification.

The South       

In the South, we don't have the above mentioned spectrum of voters. In the south, moderate voters are few and far between, in the south, studies and surveys have clearly shown that the swing voters are highly conservative. Why? It only makes sense if we look at it historically. In my last article, Why Do Poor Uneducated White People Vote Republican, we covered the transformation of the south regarding politics. By and large southerners did not start voting for Republicans until the late 1960's. Back in the 1960's there was a very conservative faction within the Democratic party that left the party over the Civil Rights Acts. It was not until the early 1980's with the emergence of Ronald Reagan did we see a wholesale change of party identification from Democrat to Republican in the south. The term Reagan Democrat  was born.

Ronald Reagan

This transformation was largely due to an influx of northerners who started leaving the north and moving south. So, let's make no bones about it, in the south, in the 1980's and 1990's, swing voters were more conservative in mindset than moderate. Most racist conservative southern Democrats who for the longest time could not stomach calling themselves Republican because of it being the party of Lincoln finally started switching their voter affiliations. However, even in the south, with this new dynamic neither party has a majority in the region. So, to put together a majority and win elections in the south both parties have to appeal to these swing voters which puts the Democrats at a huge disadvantage. As we have seen, this disadvantage has translated to the south becoming almost entirely red states.

The Republicans can easily pick up the swing voters in the south without upsetting its core supporters. This fact is not the case for the Democrats. The Democrats face an uphill battle to win back swing voters in the south. So, starting in the 1980's there has been a complete take over by the Republicans in the south. One of the awful side-effects of these changing dynamics is partisanship.






Partisanship has undermined the aforementioned theory by James Madison and created an environment of factions and the quest of the political parties to appeal to the moderates. Bi-partisanship has been thrown overboard in today's political arena. The whole game plan of the Republican party has been to champion issues that make their base " foam at the mouth." Knowing there could be no compromise from the Democrats that puts not only the political parties at odds, but the American people as well. Issues like abortion, same-sex-marriage, social safety net programs, wedge issues. This divisive formula has led to a deep polarization in America today. What this all boils down to is the Republicans feel they can play to their base supporters and win in the south that will create political safe zones and allow them to gridlock and obstruct the nation on mass. We have seen this work quite well for them but, however, there is a change happening in the south.

    What is becoming clearer. By the day, is that this devilish political strategy by the Republicans that assumes winning over the base is enough to ensure victory could be put to the test by the changing population demographics in the south. As a writer and everyday person I have a few self-contained truism that I hold dear. Of those, my most valued is "that nothing in life is permanent except change." There are several changes going on now in the south. Minorities are starting to take part in the political process. It's a real simple equation. High voter turnout spells victory for the liberals and defeat for the conservatives. What we are seeing is all these divisive issues that the Republicans have been shoving down our throats is starting to backfire on them. Pushing all these wedge issues, and their lack of compromise and partisanship has backed them into a collective corner with no way out. The Republicans complete obstruction of the overall general welfare of the American people is soon to render a serious recompense. In addition, to these changing demographics we are seeing a new age voter today. We are seeing more younger voters abandon the politics of mom and dad and form their views. We are seeing the alienation of woman, veterans, and the elderly. All of this has put a strain on many of those southern swing voters who are sick of the partisanship.

Independent Voters In The South Are Changing! 

We can distinguish two types of Independent voters. One group of Independent voters can accurately be described as 'weak party voters,' meaning, voters who tend to lean to one party or the other, but; describe themselves as independent voters. These type voters tend to proclaim their independent mindsets but normally vote for the same party year after year. The other group, the true independent voter don't show a preference for one party over the other. These voters fit the pattern that was revealed about the mentioned voter studies back in the 1940's. These voters still tend to be poorly informed and lack any real passion for politics in general. These voters tend to be of the mindset their vote doesn't matter and that all politicians and the parties they represent are corrupt. The bottom-line with this type voter is they tend not to vote

However, these trends are slowly changing [in this writers view] and the election of Barack Obama is my proof. With the election of America's first person of color to the White House, we saw in 2008 how a candidate based campaign as opposed to a party based campaign could ignite the sleeping giant. These truly independent voters engaged themselves in the process. Both in 2008, and 2012 we saw record numbers of new voters enter into the voting process. With this renewed awaking, we have seen the Republican Party combat this by implementing regressive voting suppression measures in their political safe zones. We have seen political obstruction to the point some claim hinges on sedition. We have seen the use of institutional racism used to enrage less educated poor white people to call for the impeachment of Obama based on trumped up bogus scandal accusations.
[See Article: Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi, Enough Already!] 

It has become clear that one of the fundamental flaws in conservative thinking is manifesting itself. The inability to adapt to change or accept it. As previously stated, this writer shouts from the mountaintops that the only thing permanent in life is change! Cause of this reality, the Republican Party has been labeled by many as " the party of no."

What Does All This Mean, Now? 

Partisan politics has caused an eyesore on American's system of politics. Which in turn has led to more true independent voters which have weakened the element of Party Identification. This partisanship has led many political scientist to conclude that the mass electorate party that we have known is just about over. This factor means that political parties are going to become less relative. In a way, it brings the development of political parties back full circle. What this means could actually be a positive for We The People. This development forces  political office seekers to connect with the electorate not based on party platforms but the special needs and concerns of the citizenry. There has become a growing awareness in the mass electorate of how big-money corporations and factions have put American government up for sale. There are major grassroots movements to end corporate person-hood and money equals free-speech. Yes, Party Identification has become the lens most people see through, regarding politics.  And more people are starting to realize that it just might be the cause for much of the partisanship and dysfunction We The People have languished through in recent times.

Written By: Johnny Hill

       

   

Why Do Poor Uneducated White People Vote Republican?

According to a recent article by Quite Mike.org Republicans like to claim they are all about liberty. Then, they support the recent SCOTUS decision where five conservative appointed judges took responsibility away from citizens and placed it in the hands of the corporation.  Their politicians lie to get our country into war about these nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, and now are trying to blame the current situation in Iraq on Obama. The Republicans advocate cutting food stamps, unemployment, education, and healthcare, while cutting taxes for the wealthy. The GOP has a long history of demonizing poor people. The relatively new Tea Party crowd and their pals the libertarians have been on record with "go fend for yourself," type attitudes towards the poor. [See Article; Why Poor People Vote For Republicans]

If You're Poor, You're Just Lazy.

However, the Republicans garner much of the poor white uneducated votes, why do poor uneducated white people vote Republican? Yes, there are the gerrymandered districts and the voter suppression which have been exhaustive not only in the present but historically as well.

Paul Weyrich has often been labeled as one of the founding fathers of the modern conservative movement.

        

In this writers view, just as I reported back last year for Liberal America, racism is alive and well in the southern states. What is even more striking we have seen where this behavior by the uneducated low-income white voter has actually worked against their best interest and is generally the norm. This reality is what makes this whole topic puzzling. For example, white voters in North Carolina have loaded up the statehouse with one of the most radical right-wing factions of government in the country. What did they get in return? A tax increase. This political reality did not spring up over night. What we are seeing is the aggravated side-effects of the decade's long now southern strategy.

Lee Atwater

What is the Southern Strategy?

  In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.[Source: Wikipedia] Lee Atwater has been credited with being the founder of this political tactic. 

Let's not pull any punches here the southern strategies main purpose was to transform the south from blue states to red states by invoking the reality of institutional racism. This transformation is one of the most significant in American history. It is also one of the main factors that make modern politics what it is today. However, this transformation is a mystery to most people. People did not just wake up one day and start voting for Republicans in the south. There had to be a plan.



Changing demographics played a role in this strategy. With most industrialization and factories locating in the northern states many black families left the south to relocate in the north. All the while, the white middle-class was growing in the south. With this migration of blacks to the north many whites in northern states migrated down south. This migration lowered the black population in the south and increased the white population. This change in demographics alone set the table for a racist political strategy to take root.

 However, many of the whites that moved from the north were of a different mindset of the traditional southerner. Around this time, late 60's early 70's, the economics of the south improved and this change in demographics and economy gave the south much more power politically than it had before this transformation. These new southern implants from the north were not as preoccupied with the racial issues as the traditional southerner. The Civil War was not an issue for these new southern citizens. These northern implants to the south were a different brand of Republican. More moderate and centered politically than the far-right and radical southern Republicans. However, they were agreeable to the issues of lower taxes, individual freedoms, and less government regulation. So, this new dynamic created a different electorate in the south. This change in the south open eyebrows with the Republican Party elites and gave rise to opportunity for a minority party to garner a foothold in this region of the country.

In addition, with these changing demographics non-traditional type industry started locating in the south. Industries like communications, high-tech fields, like the Research Triangle in North Carolina. With these changes came more urbanization in the south. Cities like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, experienced phenomenal growth. All of these factors changed the political landscape in the south.

The Rise Of The Southern Middle Class In The South.

This change in demographics coupled with these new industries caused a huge rise in the middle class at this time. In the past, the south was mainly textile mills, basic factory type companies and farming. Traditionally, the south was largely made up of poor people. This change brought about different expectations from government. The voters demanded low taxes, a stable business environment, but, unlike the traditional southern voter they did not want government to go to sleep. Also, there were other changes other than these social and economic issues on the political front.

The African-America Civil Rights Movement.   

 The most dramatic change on the political front was the push by the national Democratic Party for the rights of African-American citizens. Prior to this movement, the Democratic Party had not been particularly favorable of civil rights for blacks. For example, Franklin Roosevelt [FDR] failed to endorse anti-lynching legislation. FDR did not support this legislation in fear that he would antagonize the southern members of the house and senate and not past other legislation he deemed more important. Starting in the late 40's the Democratic Party began to adopt civil rights legislation. President Truman integrated the military after World War II. The very first time civil rights legislation became a part of any political party's platform was by the Democrats in 1948. This eventually led to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's. So, the Democratic Party association with civil-rights was gradual. All this started in the 1940's but was largely interrupted in the 1950's when there was a Republican president and SCOTUS handed down the Brown v.Board of Education case. So, when the schools in the south began to integrate in the 1950's and all the civil unrest that sprang up from it the Republican president was blamed by the angry white bigots in the region. Case in point, Little Rock Arkansas.    

        

To the traditional white's from the south, these changes represented to them the old horror stories of the  Reconstruction Era passed down through the generation from relatives. The sending of the national guard troops was a nightmare come true for the southerners.

So, it was the Republican Party who bore the wrath of the angry white male in the late 1950's. However, in the 1960's this changed. With the changing of the political guard in Washington with John Kennedy and later Lyndon Johnson making a public commitment and contract with the American people on civil rights there was no turning back. While many presidential historians don't give president Johnson high marks on being a principled politician it is without question his efforts are the main reason we have civil rights for all minorities in this country today. It was Johnson who championed the coalitions. He [Johnson] was fully aware that this would spell doom for the Democratic Party in the South. And yet, he went forward with it anyway, because he thought it was the right thing to do. This change and political posturing in the 1940's and in the 1960's created a real crisis for the party in the south. Many southern Democrats became angry with the party over this legislation. One of the common quotes bandied about in those days ' we did not leave the party, the party left us,' represented the mindset on many southern Democrats of the times. Basically, the attitude was that their Democratic Party they knew and loved had changed. In response to this, the hierarchy in the Republican Party saw an opportunity. In fairness, unlike the Republican Party of today, moderation was the order in the party and Eisenhower sending in troops to restore order in the late 1950's is a great example.

The changing times of the political south.

With this new development, and the emergence of the racist Dixiecrat wing of the Democrat Party being shunned there were many in the Republican Party who felt that moderation should step aside to a more right-wing conservative approach. The Dixiecrat's represented a huge block of votes that the Republican elites needed to implement their less government regulation and lower taxes mantra. With these dynamics taking place in the south the Republicans were salivating for these new voters. In 1964, the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater who was considered a right-wing conservative at the dismay of the more moderate wing of the party. Their fears seemed to be realized as Goldwater went down in defeat. After his defeat, the party began to focus more and more on social issues and religious issues and by the time the 1968 elections rolled around the Republicans had a plan which really represents the early stages of what became known as the southern strategy. The Nixon campaign walked a fine line trying not to be overtly racist, but, his campaign did use soft-celled language that sent a message to southern voters if you are not happy with the civil rights laws we are your solution.

The Wedge Issues.

Issues like forced busing, which drove a wedge between some traditional southern Democrats and the Democratic Party which allowed opportunities for the Republican Party to capitalize on. The Republican Party used the term it was not overtly racist but functioned as a code to insight the racist whites of the south. Affirmative Action was also a wedge issues in the Untied States at this time. It was used effectively by the Republicans to weaken the southern Democratic coalition. In practice, using this drove a wedge between blacks and Jews. Jews up to this point had been sympathetic to civil rights legislation. However, affirmative action reminded many Jews of the days of quotas and created a division of viewpoints within the Jewish community. For the Jew, quotas meant only a certain number could take place in jobs, schools, and so forth. There were many of these wedge type issues whose language were not overtly racist but, in fact, were racist in code. Facts be known, Nixon was in favor of civil rights. Nixon knew to win the south he had to play the " old tricky dick," and be disingenuous. This tactic worked for Nixon. In essence, Nixon fooled a huge block of poor uneducated white voters in the south and Nixon won the south. Some say he would have swept the south had it not been for third party racist George Wallace. So, this in effect was the origin of the southern strategy for the Republican Party. The biggest wedge issues in American political history has been over abortion.  

The transformation of the south was decades in the making.

Even though, southerners had voted for a Republican president in the 1950's and with Nixon in the late 1960's the Democrats continued to dominate in local, state, house, and senate elections. That transformation has took decades to happen. The transformation of the south was a two-staged process. A top-down process. This reality has very important implications regarding party identification. The distribution of voters between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents is different in the south. Historically, the southern Republican voters in the 1980's were generally more moderate. The more conservative southern voter tended to be more Independent. These independent voters tended to be the old Dixiecrat voters the George Wallace crowd.

It was these racist old southern Democrats who were the last to transform themselves into card carrying Republicans. This has set up a dynamic in the south that has made politics in the south distinct, but, also has very important implications for the rest of the country. It is the primary elections that determine who will run in the general elections. What we have learned that people who vote in the primaries are generally the people most passionate about the issues of the day and more importantly most loyal to the party of their choice. This means they are quite different than people who generally just vote in the general elections. So, what has transpired from this is candidates that do well in the primary elections don't always fair as well in the general elections. This is paramount for a minority party like the Republicans. The primaries tend to be way more important to them [Republicans] than Democrats.

For example, in the Democrat Party most candidates from the south tend to be in step with the national Democrats as a whole. Which is basically the more liberal wing of the party. Moreover, because of the civil rights legislation, and the Democrats position on many of the aforementioned wedge issues Democrats have overwhelming garnered the black, Hispanic, and woman vote in the country. This reality has led to very successful general election outcomes for the Democratic Party over the years. In has become the order of the day to be successful a political candidate must not just get the support of the party loyalist but must attract what has become known as the swing voter.  However, in the south, for Democrats getting the support of these swing voters has become an issue. On the other hand, in the Republican primaries, appealing to the base is pretty much a given, but; attracting the swing voter is paramount.

What is so very distinct about the south, to this very day, is that the swing voters in the south tend to be the old Dixiecrat, that's right that now aging George Wallace crowd, the new racist Tea Party crowd and the growing number of white supremacist anti-government groups who in fact are nothing more than domestic terrorist. So, the realty of creating unconstitutional gerrymandered voting districts, by implementing illegal voter suppression laws these primaries have become vital in the transformation of power in the south.

Gerrymandering Has Created Republican Safe Zones In The South.  

These changes have made it increasingly hard for Democrats to win general elections in the south and these tactics and there success thereof has put the Democrats at a huge disadvantage in the south. This all started in the 1970's and has become the standard operating procedure in the region until this very day. This strategy of mobilizing the core supporters has intersected with the issue of race in a startling way. The Republican Party commitment to the southern strategy basically meant the party was writing off the black vote. The party decided they would have to find a way to win without the black vote. This meant that the Republican Party had to win more of the white vote in the south. A startling statistic used in Republican campaigns is called " white votes needed." What has created a huge problem for the Republicans in modern day politics is the upswing in political participation by blacks, Hispanics and woman. This new reality has created a situation were the Republicans now need to win what is called a super-majority, of the white vote. Doing the math on this means the Republicans need to get no less than 60% of the white vote. In this writers view, getting 60% of white people to agree on anything is almost impossible. So, the Republicans decided to use the one issue that they felt could galvanize the electorate to their side race. The thinking is that most white southerners harbor some form of prejudice towards blacks. This reality is nowhere more prevalent than in the poor white uneducated population of the south. Poor whites have a need to feel superior to something or somebody and blacks and now Hispanics are the ticket.

 This political strategy is unfortunate. It has created a huge divide in our country. What is really tragic is the Republican Party is stuck with this strategy and to abandon it would amount to political suicide. This approach on the ill side of the human nature does not fare well for the Democratic Party unless we as liberals can champion a cause of enlightenment and education to these wrongful motives sent forth and to overcome them by the one thing that destroys this plan. Voter participation.The Republicans want you to be discouraged by the process. They want you to surrender to their desire if you're not going to vote Republican you should not be allowed to vote at all. In closing, the Democrats face many disadvantages in the south. To get the issues of gridlock and obstruction from our governess we must not be idle observers. I think Pastor William Barbour, who hails from my hometown of Goldsboro, North Carolina said it best.

                        

Why Is Israel Putting Boots On The Ground In Gaza Now?

Gaza Strip

The Gaza Strip  is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Many have called it the worst place to live in the world. The Gaza Strip has been often referred to as the world's largest open-air prison. Here is why?

1. Gaza has been home to a majority refugee population since 1948. This occurred when in that same year Israel claimed statehood and forced many Palestinians to flee their homes. 
2. Since that time Israel has controlled the Gaza Strip by air, land and sea. Regulating what goes in and what goes out. 

When Hamas  won democratically held elections in 2006, Israel intensified its siege and punishment of the Palestinian people living there. Israel justifies this increase of force by claiming that Hamas is a terrorist organization. In the view of the Palestinian people, Hamas is nothing more than a political party that stands in rejection to Israel control of the region. Hamas has declared that this control which in reality is nothing more than a blockade is illegal. In fact, many U.N. experts say Israel's blockade of Gaza is illegal. [ See Palmer Report] 

Israel blockade of Gaza has cut the region off from the rest of the world and made life miserable for the people living there. 80 percent of the people living in Gaza depend on aid. 57 percent of the families lack enough food for their families. U.N. inspectors have determined that 90 percent of the drinking water in Gaza is unsafe. Due to the blockade, spare parts to repair and upkeep water treatment plants have not been available. Medicine and doctors are in short supply. The infrastructure in Gaza has also suffered. Basic building supplies have been largely banned from entering the region. Israel claims these materials could be used to make weapons. These negative factors are compounded by the reality that the population of Gaza continues to grow. Power outages are common in Gaza. Gaza has virtually no economy. The unemployment rate in Gaza hovers around 40%. 

A History Of Violence

Israel over the years has launched several large attacks against Gaza. The thing is with Gaza being such a heavily populated area no one is safe. Israel in the past and in the present claims these attacks are in retaliation to indiscriminate firing of missiles by militant groups within the Gaza Strip. However, as we have seen in the past and now here in this current affair a disproportionate use of force. 

Hamas Explained.  

  

This latest conflict was kick-started by the death of three Israeli teens. Right on cue, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blamed Hamas for the killings and ordered air strikes. Not long after this declaration a Palestinian youth was killed by Jewish extremist in what appears as a revenge killing. Many have suggested the right-wing prime minster and other Israeli government officials knew weeks ago of the whereabouts of the murdered teens bodies and the persons responsible. In fact, the Israeli government imposed a gag order on journalist covering the abduction of the three Jewish teens to keep the media from covering the story.[Source: Mondoweiss]

Many suggest this was done to fuel the fans of anger and heighten tensions in the region. There are those who claim that the Israeli prime minster did this on purpose. That he wanted to stage manage the events and arouse the public to back his known warmongering spirit. This would not be the first time the Israeli government has manipulated what should be a police action, into a military action against Hamas. For example, the Israeli housing authorities are now calling for settlements in Gaza.

There is a media bias in America towards Israel!

This is were the sore spot comes for this writer. We see in the American press sensational articles of the dead Jewish teens. We have for decades been spoon fed a huge dose of woe is Israel at the expense of a nation of pure poverty with no standing army and arsenal of a few rockets and rock throwers. For many years there have been illegal occupation by Israel of the Gaza Strip in the form of settlements. These illegal settlements were a serious sticking point for the Palestinian people. These settlements were the genesis of much of the civil disobedience and terrorist acts on the part of the Palestinians.

What are settlements?        

In 2005 the settlements were removed from the Gaza Strip. However, Israel was forced by the international courts to do so and many scholars suggest Israel is looking for any excuse they can to re-settle Gaza. The American media has done a huge disservice by shadowing the overall facts surrounding the Middle East conflict as a whole.

One Palestinian child has been killed by Israel every three days for the past 13 years. [Source: Stop the War coalition ]

Often times in the America media we hear of a cycle of violence, a cycle of oppression, and as in this recent case we here mostly of the three dead Israeli teens and very little of the dead Palestinian youth. This is the norm here in America. Anyone with any sense of fairness and a solid mind to seek out the facts can clearly see that in terms of the people of Gaza and the West Bank Israel has been the aggressor. We have seen time and time again that the Israeli's are the worthy victims and the Palestinians are the unworthy victims. There is the underlying fervor that's narrative is the Palestinians are less human and probably deserve what they are getting. There has been an ongoing dehumanization of the people of Gaza and the West Bank by the American media. The American government no matter right or left has been in the hip pocket of Israel and the Jewish lobby.

Supporters of Israel ask a very legitimate question. What do you expect Israel to do when rockets are being shot into their country and its citizens targeted by terrorist plots? It begs the fair question, what is the proper response? For starters, Israel should allow the 80% refugee population of Gaza to move around and colonize themselves back in their homeland that was taken from them. You can't just go back a couple of weeks or years to grasp the impudence behind the Palestinian rejectionism of Israel. Every since the 1948 declaration of statehood by Israel the people who were forced from their homes have had to live in effect under apartheid type conditions imposed by the Israeli's who have been backed by the West and largely the Untied States.

Why is Israel putting boots on the ground in Gaza now?

Benjamin Netanyahu

“In light of Hamas' criminal and relentless aggression, as well as the dangerous attempt to infiltrate Israeli territory, Israel must act to defend its citizens,” 




This past Thursday Israel launched a ground invasion along with continued air strikes into the Gaza Strip. The

purpose of this invasion is to weed out the tunnels Israel claims will be used to invade their homeland. Once again, on the surface, this sounds like a legitimate claim by the warmongering Netanyahu. However, his motives are suspect. Why? The main purpose for the tunnels is the Israel blockade of Gaza. Hamas can't get much supplies into the country due to the blockade. So, they have developed an alternative way of resupplying the people of Gaza. The warmonger [Netanyahu] knows this and by destroying these tunnels it will cause the population as a whole to suffer. Moreover, the majority of these tunnels pop out beyond the Egyptian border. Smugglers supply them with goods that Israel can't or won't let through. These tunnels serve both Hamas and the Gaza civilians. In fairness, Hamas and other militant groups do use these tunnels to smuggle in weapons, components for homemade rockets and other materials they need to fight. The civilians bring in medicines, food and whatever else they can that doesn't get through the blockade.

However you score it, sending in ground troops to Gaza constitutes a major escalation of this ongoing saga between Hamas and Israel. Since Hamas won fair elections in Gaza there has been an up-tick of tensions in the region. If the truth be told and you won't get this from America mainstream media Hamas has done a masterful job of helping improve the lives of the people of Gaza. Despite the Israeli blockade of Gaza that strictly limits the movement in or out of the country and the importation of vital goods Hamas has remained in firm control of the Strip. These tunnels have played a major role and Netanyahu wants them destroyed. So, by sensationalizing the deaths of three Israeli teens and by imposing a gag order on the media to report the facts the game-plan has seemed to work for the warmonger to turn a police matter into a military matter which has now become a full-scale military operation.

President Obama Has Warned The Warmongering Netanyahu About Failing Peace Talks With The Palestinians Would Isolate Israel. 

             

Written By: Johnny

Calling On The Yellow Rose Of Texas-Save Us Again!

An overflowing of immigrant families, mostly children, at the U.S. border with Mexico has led to calls for aid from the Obama administration and has sparked the conversation regarding immigration reform. Border patrol spokespersons have indicated that within the past two-weeks the number of people detained has fallen from 1,400 per day to 1,000 per day. The decrease has been attributed to several dynamics from both sides of the border.

Raul Ortiz

 Raul Ortiz, deputy chief of the Rio Grande Border Patrol Sector, told NBC News.

The decrease can most likely be attributed to dynamics at play on both sides of the border, Ortiz said. While border patrol officers usually see a 10 percent decrease in immigration in July, he said, this month also followed a June "deadline" that people crossing from Central America thought they had to make in order to stay in the U.S. legally. That supposed benefit was false.The rumors were spread by cartels, looking to make money by ushering people into America through Mexico. 

There have been messages put out by the Dept of Human Services warning people of the dangers in trekking across the U.S. and Mexico border. Also, the Obama administration has beefed up the agents on the border as well. 

With all this happening you then factor in the right-wing politicians making political hay of these present realities by placating to their largely racist anti-government base blaming the current administration for the problem when, in fact, is only following the protocols put in place by their own past president George Bush. We have heard of domestic terrorist groups masquerading as so-called organized militia threatening to locate to the border and start shooting woman and children.

In this writers view, what we have in play here is a cultural war and a total ignorance of the history of both the United States and the State of Texas. As a resident of Houston, Texas, I know firsthand just how diverse this city has become and the entire state for that matter. Very few people realize that Houston has surpassed both New York and Los Angeles as the most diverse city in the nation. This distinction is also relative of the state as a whole. Our country has long been labeled a ' melting pot." and has always been a country that has prided itself for its welcoming of people looking for a better life. So, why the indifference now? If you look back on it, the same elements whining and crying about these children at our border now where outspoken in allowing temporary work furlongs for immigrants to combat unionize workers and to facilitate so-called " right to work," legislation. What this is boiling down too is a cultural social war and the issue to this point has become a play toy for the right-wing radicals and their wind up doll politicians like U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who incorrectly said that Barack Obama has promised amnesty to illegal immigrants.[See Article] 

Calling On The Yellow Rose Of Texas, Save Us Again!

    Many people may or may not know that the person who was credited for detaining Mexican General Antonio López de Santa Anna, was a lady by the name of Emily D West also known as Emily D Morgan. This detainment according to both folk-lore and secular history enable the Texas rebels time to form and defend and defeat the Mexican army at the Battle of San Jacinto. This battle has been widely accredited for turning the tide in the Texas Revolution. Ironically, this decisive battle was fought right here in Harris County,Texas and home of  the nation's most diverse city Houston. What does this story have to do with woman, children, and families crossing into our state borders, one might ask?

Firstly, it goes to the word diversity. Not being originally from Texas, this writer was aware of the famous folk tune ' The Yellow Rose of Texas.' however, I did not know the story behind it and I surly assumed she was a white person. How wrong was I, very!

According to several reliable sources Ms. Emily West was a mixed race person. A teenage orphaned free Negro woman in the northeastern United States, journeyed by boat to the wilderness of Texas in 1835.  Colonel James Morgan, on whose plantation she worked as an indentured servant, established the little settlement of New Washington (later Morgan's Point). When Santa Anna and his troops arrived in the area, he claimed West to take the place of his stay at home wife in Mexico City and the traveling wife he had acquired on his way to Texas. The traveling wife had to be sent back when swollen river waters prevented him from taking her across in the fancy carriage in which she was riding. Santa Anna was either partying with West or having sex with her when Sam Houston's troops arrived for The Battle of San Jacinto, thus forcing him to escape in only a linen shirt and "silk drawers;" in which he was captured the next day. West's possible forced separation from her black lover and her placement in Santa Anna's camp, according to legend, inspired her lover to compose the song we know as "The Yellow Rose of Texas." [See Article]

In Closing, how ironic that the icon for saving Texas from defeat in it's fight for independence was a woman of mix race. This should serve as a symbol to all Texans and Americans alike how endorsing the detainment, and unwelcoming of these woman, children and families goes against our heritage as a state and a nation.We as concerned citizens should not let the voices of the racist and politically motivated politicians dictate the policy of We The People. With that said, we call on the yellow rose of Texas, save us again! 

The Statue of Liberty Song

Written By: Johnny Hill

Research: Roni May

What Would Thomas Paine Say If He Were Alive Today?

Who Was Thomas Paine?

According to Wikipedia, 

Was an English-American political activist, philosopher, author, political theorist and revolutionary. As the author of two highly influential pamphlets at the start of the American Revolution, he inspired the Patriots in 1776 to declare independence from Britain. His ideas reflected Enlightenment-era rhetoric of transnational human rights. He has been called "a corsetmaker by trade, a journalist by profession, and a propagandist by inclination. Moreover, he promoted reason and freethinking, and argued against institutionalized religion in general and Christian doctrine in particular.

With that said, what would the Britain born political activist of his day have to say about America Today? What would his views be on Corporations as people, and money equaling free speech. Would he approve or is he turning over in his grave? Would the recent Hobby Lobby case cause him to take the stump and pen to paper or would he affirm the decision? Based on this writers research the answer to these questions would be an emphatic no. Paine's early activism caught the eye of then statesmen Benjamin Franklin. Ironically, Paine's early activism centered around better pay for the working class in his home country of Britain. Thomas Paine moved to America was mainly because he was a failure at many of his endeavors in Britain and America offered him a fresh start. Once getting to America he began working as a journalist. The breakout of the American Revolutionary war gave Paine the chance to define in print the purpose of the war which to many had remained ambiguous. This condition of not really knowing what the American colonies were fighting for inspired his most famous literary work entitled " Common Sense."  

In this writers view, Common Sense was the first litmus test on how political activism and journalism could co-mingle themselves not only to educate the unknowing masses, but to actuate change in public thinking which resulted in changing public policy which in this case led to the American Revolutionary war. What to this day is a little known fact is that only a third of the organizers of the rebellion in America were for total independence. It was not until the publishing of Common Sense that the tide swung and what resulted was the Declaration of independence.

I offered nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and Common Sense. [Thomas Paine, 1776]

It was this pamphlet that stirred the public discourse to such a point that it brought about the desired recourse for We The People. 

George Washington  was quoted

" The American people owe their liberty to Thomas Paine more than any other man."

One of Thomas Paine's most famous quotes:
'There are times that try men's souls.' Are we not living in such times today? We have a high court that places more regulations on a female's vagina than on weapons of mass destruction in the hands of mental incompetents. In addition, we have a high court through judicial over-reach totally ignores the separation of church and state doctrine  in our constitution. In fact, the behavior of the U.S. Supreme Court mirrors very much the actions of the British monarchy of Paine's time. We have an attack of the rights of workers in this country that was the genesis of Paine becoming politically active in the first place. What was a British monarch in 1776 has become a corporate monarch of 2014. With everyday citizens losing rights on a daily basis to corporate bought legislative tactics such as "right to work," "voter ID laws," and gerrymandering just to name a few these are truly times that can try a man's soul.

Just like today, conservative thinkers of Paine's time found him bothersome. John Adams called Thomas Paine a mongrel. Just like today, when you have politicians like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Christian zealots applauding the Hobby Lobby decision  for upholding so-called religious liberty at the expense of everyone else we see our present condition here in America reverting back to a truism this writer holds dear," history does repeat itself." Conservatives of Thomas Paine times are no different than modern-day conservatives. They fear change. In closing, the important thing and example that Thomas Paine's story teaches us is that we must as individuals make a mark for ourselves on what we stand for and believe. No matter how insignificant you may feel your voice crying in the wilderness might be it's the collective voices crying together that can become a roar and effect change. What would Thomas Paine say if he were alive today? Rise America, participate in the process these are times that try men's souls use your common sense with reason.

    


  

   

Libertarianism Is Not Only Wrong, It's Dangerous!

Abraham Lincoln 

We are living in ever-changing times. These changes are happening in all facets of our lives. On the political front, there are more and more people who call themselves or at least identify with what has come to be called libertarianism. Over the last year, I have been putting to study the behavior and attitudes of these pro-claimers of liberty and justice for all. Frankly, I have not been impressed with their narrative from their outspoken correspondence which makes comments like. "You sure love letting people steal your money!" 
Moreover, their behavior brings to mind the famous quote from one of the most popular presidents of all time, Abraham Lincoln.

"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of other people." -- Abraham Lincoln

To a libertarian, property rights are sacred. Any government is bad. Capitalism has no flaws, and the capitalist are the modern-day nobles of our society. Worker rights and activism is evil. Lastly, they feel the poor are pampered and "good-for-nothings," who should be left to fend for themselves. For example, an outspoken libertarian Murray Rothbard, who claimed to be such an intellectual, advocated a dangerous spew to the least common denominators of our society. The libertarian’s emphasis is the demagoguery of government and taxation, and here is an example of his rhetoric:

   

Rothbard was an early pioneer of modern-day libertarianism. In a nutshell, libertarianism is a radical anti-state political philosophy. It unites a free-market system of economics,with a no exception attachment to property rights, a so-called profound love of human liberty and a love of peace, with the conclusion that society should be allowed to develop with no interference from the state whatsoever. In fact, the libertarian feels there should be no state,  period. The libertarian hates worker unions. They [Libertarian's] claim labor unions pursue policies that disrupt a capitalism in action that is the cause of their prosperity.
Renowned libertarian Ludwig Von Mises once said:

Ludwig Von Mises

  

       "What is today euphemistically called the right to strike is in fact the right of striking workers, by recourse to violence, to prevent people who want to work from working."

With The Libertarian Who Needs Facts?

One thing this writer has uncovered in research of the libertarian and the followers of its ideology is that facts don't matter. Who needs facts, seems to be their mantra. Studies have shown when people leave one ideological extreme they usually end up in another. The methodology of the libertarian is not that hard to follow. Oppose their perceived evils of the world with a fairy tale; "Obama coming to take your guns, Obama is a Muslim and not a natural born citizen who is going to hand America over to our enemies, there is epidemic voter fraud." These are but just a few of the libertarian backed fairy tales of our current times. The bottom-line is the academic libertarian loves abstract, fact-free arguments. This type of behavior may go over well with like-mined right-wing authoritarian followers, where nobody is going to pull the old fact-checker out. But, en masse, it matters to the American people and time after time these flawed untruths being levied by deep-pocket backers of the Libertarian party have backfired on the libertarians.

The Libertarians Think They Are The Modern Day Founding Fathers!

All the modern day political parties want the founding fathers on their side. The facts, with any earnest study, clearly shows all modern day political parties laid their roots in the 1700s. All of us are liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and independents against the monarchy which hovered over us, and we fought as a nation to unleash ourselves. We all fight for liberty and the pursuit of happiness. History has revealed to us times when our founding fathers not only encouraged rants against government, but led the charge. There were also times when our founding fathers were against rants of rebellion, anarchy, and the anti-government rhetoric that has become so common-place in today's environment.

James Madison

"It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end."

"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society."

 

"All the Property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it."

The Constitution of the United States is the very definition of a strengthened government. The Federalist Papers were nothing more than an extended argument in support of the Constitution. In fact, the founding fathers comprised a balance that was arbitrary and coercive. Fast forwarding to modern times, the founding fathers had no way of foreseeing the New Deal. There was no need for this type of action back when our nation was being forged. However, there are examples when the founding fathers were quick to resort to the resources of the state as quick as any modern day liberals. For example, Ben Franklin, played the Pennsylvania legislator like a "piano in the dark," using it to fund a hospital he wanted to establish. One of the first instances in our nation’s history, using the state to do good social work. It's also worth bringing to the light that the founding fathers' words were much nobler than their actual deeds. Most were quite comfortable with owning slaves. Women were given no voice whatsoever. George Washington himself, by executive order, made it a crime to criticize the government.

For almost 150 years, in fact, the Bill of Rights was paid lip service in patriotic orations and ignored in the marketplace. It wasn't until after World War I that the Supreme Court began the process of giving real meaning to the Bill of Rights.[ Source: Robert Allen Rutland]

Why Are Libertarians Dangerous? 

The libertarians are dangerous because of their growing influence within the Republican Party for starters. Then there is the emergence of the radical Tea Party, which is nothing more than the repackaging-of-the-fascist-playbook. These people are political crackpots and are, usually, harmless. However, with America electing a black president, the Republican Party hierarchy began to come to the realization that its Southern strategy no longer can win national elections. Catering to the lowest common denominator in our society; the uneducated, racist, anti-government types, and their fairy tale propaganda is spurning not only division among people in America it is emboldening anyone with an ax to grind. To act out in violent anti-social ways which have brought on the genesis of new terms like ' hate crimes', and 'don't tread on me,' mentalities. With the already flawed doctrines of the Republican Party being proven to be failures, we see a faction develop that says we must hang on to power no matter what.  In short, Republicans have taken the libertarian mantra that " government is bad," and run with it, largely with the help of deep-pocketed influences like the Koch Bros. Judicial decisions like corporate-person-hood and money is free-speech and lastly gerrymandered voting districts we are, in fact, looking at a governess by organized mob. Take all of this into account with the following  Republican doctrines already in place and we have a civil storm brewing in this country. This storm is why Libertarianism is not only wrong, it's dangerous. Here are just but a few of the ills of the libertarian's influence on the Republican Party.

Reagan's "Government is the problem."

Phil Gramm's contention that the country's "economic crisis" and "moral crisis" were due to "an explosion of government."

Talk radio hosts' advocacy of armed resistance to "jack-booted government thugs."

Dole's 1996 campaign, advancing the notion that taxes were "Your Money" being taken from you.

Gingrich's Contract with America (welfare cuts, tax cuts, limitations on corporations' responsibility and on the government's ability to regulate them)

Dick Armey's comment that Medicare (medical aid for the elderly) is "a program I would have no part of in a free world."

Bush's tax cuts, intended not only to reward the rich but to "starve the beast", in Grover Norquist's words: to create a permanent deficit as a dangerous ploy to reduce social spending.

Jeb Bush's hope that the Florida state government buildings would one day be empty.

Intellectual support for attacks on the quality of working life in this county and for undoing the New Deal.

   In closing, here is a video by an ex-libertarian who, mind you, clearly states his narrative is a worst case scenario if the libertarians were to gain a foot-hold of our We the People government. For one, this writer hopes never to see such a day. 

Written By: Johnny Hill