G.O.P. Demise Predicted 2 1/2 Years Ago Here, Thoughts on Ms. Charen, The Gun Violence Pledge and Much More

                                      
We Called It
In a posting on this blog back on April 16, 2014, I predicted the demise of the Republican Party before the middle of this century.  From that party's confusion in Congress in its efforts to choose new leadership now that a fed-up John Boehner has resigned as Speaker, it looks like that will happen much sooner.  We are 

  Boehner fed up with his right wing


witnessing the beginning of the G.O.P.'s death throes. Only state legislature-controlled gerrymandering keeps it in power in the House of Representatives and that will be changing far sooner than I predicted.  The American public can take only so much of this nonsense.  Here is my posting from 2 1/2 years ago.
Jack Lippman

                          

G.O.P. Demise Predicted Before Mid-Century ... UNLESS

Ultimately, our country will enact some sort of immigration reform which to some extent will increase the number of Latino voters.  Given the G.O.P.’s refusal to actively push for and support such reform, this is likely to increase the number of Democratic voters nationwide.

 

In addition, poorer people recognize that the solvency of the Government’s “safety net” (unemployment insurance, supplementary nutritional aid, aid for dependent children, Medicaid and various other social programs) is generally fought for by Democrats and threatened by Republicans.  Hence, people on the lower end of the economic scale, many of whom are Black, tend to vote Democratic.  They also have a higher birth rate than Americans with higher incomes, which over the years will result in more voters from this demographic.

Taken together, these factors spell disaster for the Republican Party.  It may not happen this year, nor for another ten or twenty years, but sooner or later the Republican voter base will shrink to the point where it will not even be sufficient to control State Legislatures (which enable them to "gerrymander" Congressional districts), state houses, Congress itself and of course the ability to elect a President.  It's simply a matter of demographics. 

Republicans know this and many want to change their party’s position on these issues.  Other parts of the G.O.P. which do not want to make these changes seem to be calling the tune.  Their tactic, and it is the one the Republicans are following today, is to attempt to disenfranchise as many of the prospective Democratic voters discussed above by limiting early voting hours, making voter registration more difficult and under the guise of fighting non-existent voter fraud, demanding stricter voter identification documents at polling stations.

 

This is the last stand of the anti-spending, anti-gun control, anti-health care reform, anti-business regulation, anti-environment, anti-women’s rights Republican Party, otherwise devoted to preserving the wealth of the wealthiest of Americans.  The G.O.P. is certain to sink into the sunset along with the Whigs and Know-Nothings before mid-century UNLESS its position on social issues changes radically.

JL


                                               

A Far, Far, Far Right-Wing Columnist Speaks Out

One of the columnists I least agree with is Mona Charen whose words invariably epitomize right-wing thinking.  Liberals should read her columns if only to better understand what fuels their “opposition.”  Her recent thoughtful column about suggestions that we reduce the number of those incarcerated in our federal and state prisons http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425261/doj-prisoner-release-mass-incarceration-myths   was unusual in that she not only attacked Hillary Clinton’s and Bernie Sanders’ support of such a reduction, but she even disagreed with Charles Koch, Carly Fiorina and Rand Paul on this issue, none of whom have many fans on the left!  True, Ms. Charen was part of the Reagan White House team three decades ago, and was a speech writer for Jack Kemp (Bob Dole’s 1996 running-mate), but obviously, her right-wingedness has no limits.  In fact if she were a bird, she would only have one wing.

JL

                                            



The Gun Violence Pledge and Some "Links"
Once again, here is the copy of my Gun Violence Pledge which was included in last week's posting.  As I then said, I have sent it to my Congressman and others who will be seeking public office at the highest levels in 2016.  It has since appeared in local newspapers here in Florida.  If you agree, please reproduce it (copy and paste and print) and send it to your Senate, Congressional  and Presidential aspirants!  There are far more of "us" than the mere five million members of the NRA.  Don't let them outshout us.   Let YOUR voices be heard.  Copy, sign and send out this pledge!!  Please do it today!  Now!  Don't put it off.
JL

I pledge not to vote for any candidate in any election, statewide or national, primary or general, who will not agree to the following:

1. Support of gun control legislation.

2. Opposition to the National Rifle Association, and similar organizations such as those advocating "open carry," in every way possible.

3. Support of national candidates who will appoint and confirm Supreme Court Justices who will properly interpret the Second Amendment in the manner its writers intended, which was to apply to state militia personnel, and not to the individual, personal right to keep and bear arms.

4. Working toward changing the language of the Second Amendment so that it reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.” This is the language suggested by retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in a recent book he has written.  The proposed change only involves the addition of five words.   

                           
                              Signed  __________________________________________ 



 
  

For those interested in learning more about organizations advocating gun control, the following sources are available to you.  We appreciate the assistance of Rachel Mintz in compiling the following information.

There are many other ways to learn about and support programs which advocate gun control.  Reach out to organizations like The Brady Campaign.  You can find out more at by visiting their site where you also can become a volunteer:  https://brady.cp.bsd.net/page/signup/volunteer-to-help-cut-gun-violence

You can also see if there is a local chapter of the Brady Campaign in your area at http://www.bradycampaign.org/chapters.  There are many other organizations to which you can reach out such as  Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence,  Violence Policy Center,  Everytown  and so many more.
JL

                             

It can be useful to reach out to these organizations because many of them are in the trenches, so to speak, with lawmakers and aware of policy changes and upcoming bills. Many have direct access to lawmakers. They can also help people like us figure out who our local lawmakers are and provide scripts when calling or emailing. 
JL

   

  James Madison
And while we're on the subject of gun control, let's take a stroll back in history to try to figure how the Second Amendment to the Constitution was born in the first place!  Let's try to get a fix on how James Madison's mind worked as he threaded his way among slave-holding Southerners and Northern Federalists to work out a compromise which would provide sufficient support for the new Constitution, without which the new nation would have fallen apart.

James Madison and the Second Amendment

What was James Madison thinking about when he framed the Second Amendment?  Guns, of course!  And something a bit more.

To assure Southern states that a Federal Government’s “standing army” (a dirty word in those days, reminiscent of the Redcoats back when the “states” were British colonies) would not use its muscle to take away some of their powers, he included the language we now know as the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, resulting in military power being shared with the States. That was how Madison got the votes to ensure the passage of the Constitution back in 1789.  (Give the “rednecks” their guns and they’ll vote for the new Constitution!  Madison knew, because he was one of them.  Things haven’t changed that much.)  Since any “standing army” would be relatively small, Madison knew that to defend the new nation, troops from the individual States would of course be needed, and hence, it was expected that each State would have its own militia, ready to join with that “standing army.”  

These “citizen” soldiers would vastly outnumber the “standing army” and be crucial in coming to the defense of the country.  And as for arming them, it was expected in those days that every citizen would have a gun in his closet to bring with him if and when he was called up for “militia” duty.  And in addition to thereby providing for the defense of the nation, the presence of these much larger “State” militia would balance any Federal government which might want to use its much smaller “standing” army to lessen the power of the individual states, something the South feared. Lurking behind this Southern fear was the constitutionally-unmentioned 500 pound gorilla in the room, slavery. The Second Amendment was thence an insurance policy to come into play in that remote eventuality, should the Federal Government attempt to disarm state militias.  But it was important that when the call went out for a State militia to assemble, the citizen soldiers would have those guns in their closets with which to show up. The Second Amendment prevented the Federal Government from taking that right away!  So there were several good reasons for Madision to include it in the Bill of Rights: (1) to guarantee an adequately “armed” army, and (2) to quiet slave-holding Southern fears of the Federal Government.

Hence the language of the Second Amendment reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”  That language guarantees that the Federal Government cannot do anything to prevent citizens from having that “gun” in their closet, ready when called to serve in a militia either to defend the nation but also, to serve to discourage the Federal Government from using its “standing army” to encroach upon the rights of individual States.

Madison’s thinking, in his own words, on this subject appears in Federalist Papers #46, a portion of which follows.  The Federalist Papers were a collection of articles written by Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay presenting arguments in favor of ratifying the Constitution.    (In case Madison’s language is a bit obtuse, I’ve included some comments of my own in blue.)

                                   * * * * *

“The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Madison imagines an unlikely hypothetical situation where a Federal Government would use its standing army to take away State powers by force. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. But the State militias, taken together, would far outnumber the “standing army” and they would be led by competent local officers, and motivated by loyalties to their State government and they would win.  It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. And as they proved in the Revolution, they could fight!  Besides the advantage of (1) being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, (2) the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, (3) and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.  Foreign countries restrict gun ownership out of fear of an overthrow of their government, but even if the people had guns, they might not succeed.  Why not?  And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Because they lack local militia, organized and led by local government, which the United States has!  We have a great combination: local leadership and a gun in everyone’s closet.  Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.”  But in America, it shouldn’t reach that point.

                                    * * * * *

Madison’s comment that “notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms” has sometimes been quoted by anti-gun control people as a good reason why American citizens’ right to bear arms should not be “impinged.” 

But Madison goes on to point out that even with arms, the yokes of tyrannical government might not be shaken off without citizens with such arms having first been formed into a “militia.”  This is what James Madison was thinking when he framed the Second Amendment.  The right to bear arms is firmly wedded to the concept of balancing a “federal standing army” with citizen soldiers organized in State militias to defend the nation. And the unwritten corollary to that is that those militias also form a counterbalance to an armed overly aggressive Federal government, a real fear which Southern states had in 1789, but which exists today only in the minds of psychotic right wing extremists, constantly on the look-out for those "black helicopters."  Today, Madison would be appalled at what the NRA and the Supreme Court reads into its language about that gun in the closet being for personal use.

 

The “impinging” that the Second Amendment forbids, if it occurred, would be on the part of the Federal Government in an effort to weaken State militia.  There was no intention that it would apply to state and local laws regarding weapons intended for personal use.  In fact such laws were non-existent at the time.  Everyone had a gun. There was no “911” to call and in fact, the telephone hadn’t been invented yet.   And if someone feels they need a gun for self-defense today, as they might have in 1789, it remains entirely legal, but not because of the Second Amendment as designed by James Madison.  What makes such weapons intended for personal use legal are local and State laws, which had nothing to do with the Second Amendment until the “politlicized” Supreme Court erroneously changed things in 2008. 

Unfortunately, that tortured Court decision which included weapons intended for personal use under the Second Amendment remains the law of the land today.  But it is entirely legitimate to oppose it, and fight to change it, just as those opposed to abortion rights devote enormous resources to opposing another law of the land, as enunciated in the Rowe vs. Wade decision 42 years ago.  (But more about that in a forthcoming blog posting.)

JL

 

                                               

HOW TO BE ALERTED TO FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.

Many readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an Email.  

HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S POTPOURRI. 

BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com   YOU ALSO CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS.  (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a Comment" link at the blog's end.)

MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.

DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?   

HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.                                                

To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search Box” in the right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for which you are looking.

HOW TO FORWARD POSTINGS.

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below, enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.  You might also want to let me know their Email address so that they may be alerted to future postings.

Jack Lippman