SHOW AUDIO: Link is usually posted within about 72 hours of show broadcast. We take callers during this show.
TOPIC: SUPPORT KPFT! MEMORIAL DAY, + More
GUEST: Robert Hooks (Actor, Director, Producer)
Listen live on the radio or on the internet from anywhere in the world! When the show is live, we take calls at 713-526-5738. (Long distance charges may apply.)
For the purposes of this show, I operate on two mottoes:
- You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts;
- An educated electorate is a prerequisite for a democracy.
“We do not know one promise these men made, one pledge they gave, one word they spoke; but we do know they summed up and perfected, by one supreme act, the highest virtues of men and citizens. For love of country they accepted death, and thus resolved all doubts, and made immortal their patriotism and their virtue.” ~ James A. Garfield, May 30, 1868 Arlington National Cemetery (Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Ohio‘s 19th district, March 4, 1863 – November 8, 1880. Chairman of the House Committee on Military Affairs, March 4, 1867 – March 4, 1869) Source: http://www.pbs.org/national-memorial-day-concert/memorial-day/history/
1) MEMORIAL DAY
- We Did It, They Hid It: How Memorial Day Was Stripped Of Its African American Roots, by Ben Becker (published by BlackThen.com)
- What we now know as Memorial Day began as “Decoration Day” in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. Civil War. It was a tradition initiated by former slaves to celebrate emancipation and commemorate those who died for that cause.
- These days, Memorial Day is arranged as a day “without politics”—a general patriotic celebration of all soldiers and veterans, regardless of the nature of the wars in which they participated. This is the opposite of how the day emerged, with explicitly partisan motivations, to celebrate those who fought for justice and liberation.
- As the U.S. Civil War came to a close in April 1865, Union troops entered the city of Charleston, S.C., where four years prior the war had begun. While white residents had largely fled the city, Black residents of Charleston remained to celebrate and welcome the troops, who included the 21st Colored Infantry. Their celebration on May 1, 1865, the first “Decoration Day,” later became Memorial Day.
- Yale University historian David Blight retold the story: [EXCERPTS]
During the final year of the war, the Confederates had converted the planters’ horse track, the Washington Race Course and Jockey Club, into an outdoor prison…; at least 257 died of exposure and disease and were hastily buried in a mass grave …. Some 28 black workmen went to the site, re-buried the Union dead properly, and built a high fence around the cemetery. They whitewashed the fence and built an archway over an entrance on which they inscribed the words, “Martyrs of the Race Course.” Then, black Charlestonians in cooperation with white missionaries and teachers, staged an unforgettable parade of 10,000 people on the slaveholders’ race course. The symbolic power of the low-country planter aristocracy’s horse track (where they had displayed their wealth, leisure, and influence) was not lost on the freed people. A New York Tribune correspondent witnessed the event, describing “a procession of friends and mourners as South Carolina and the United States never saw before.”
(2) At 9 a.m. on May 1, the procession stepped off led by 3,000 black schoolchildren carrying armloads of roses and singing “John Brown’s Body.” The children were followed by several hundred black women with baskets of flowers, wreaths and crosses.
(3) Blight’s award-winning Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory (2001) explained how three “overall visions of Civil War memory collided” in the decades after the war.
- USMEMORIALDAY.ORG: Over two dozen cities and towns claim to be the birthplace of Memorial Day. While Waterloo N.Y. was officially declared the birthplace of Memorial Day by President Lyndon Johnson in May 1966, it’s difficult to prove conclusively the origins of the day.
- Regardless of the exact date or location of its origins, one thing is clear – Memorial Day was borne out of the Civil War and a desire to honor our dead. It was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11. … The date of Decoration Day, as he called it, was chosen because it wasn’t the anniversary of any particular battle.
The first state to officially recognize the holiday was New York in 1873. By 1890 it was recognized by all of the northern states. The South refused to acknowledge the day, honoring their dead on separate days until after World War I (when the holiday changed from honoring just those who died fighting in the Civil War to honoring Americans who died fighting in any war).
It is now observed in almost every state on the last Monday in May with Congressional passage of the National Holiday Act of 1971 (P.L. 90 – 363). This helped ensure a three day weekend for Federal holidays, though several southern states have an additional separate day for honoring the Confederate war dead: January 19th in Texas; April 26th in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi; May 10th in South Carolina; and June 3rd (Jefferson Davis’ birthday) in Louisiana and Tennessee.
- The Origins of Memorial Day – SNOPES: One legend associated with the creation of Memorial Day holds that it was started by former slaves to honor Union war dead.
- WHAT’S TRUE: In May 1865, free blacks in Charleston reburied dead Union prisoners of war and held a cemetery dedication ceremony.
- WHAT’S FALSE: The May 1865 event was not the origin of the modern Memorial Day observance.
- 1868 – Civil War dead honored on Decoration Day (www.history.com)
- Leery of N. Korea, US plans 1st test to shoot down intercontinental-range missile, BY Robert Burns, Associated Press [USA TODAY] May 29, 2017
- Preparing for North Korea’s growing threat, the Pentagon will try to shoot down an intercontinental-range missile for the first time in a test this week. The goal is to more closely simulate a North Korean ICBM aimed at the U.S. homeland, officials said.
- The American interceptor has a spotty track record, succeeding in nine of 17 attempts against missiles of less-than-intercontinental range since 1999. The most recent test, in June 2014, was a success, but that followed three straight failures. The system has evolved from the multibillion-dollar effort triggered by President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 push for a “Star Wars” solution to ballistic missile threats during the Cold War — when the Soviet Union was the only major worry.
3) Portland Republican says party should use militia groups after racial attack: County GOP chair James Buchal says security forces may be appropriate as tensions rise after two people died in a racial attack on public transport, by Jason Wilson in Portland, Oregon [TheGuardian.com] Monday 29 May 2017 17.38 EDT
- a) Multnomah County GOP chair James Buchal, however, told the Guardian that recent street protests had prompted Portland Republicans to consider alternatives to “abandoning the public square”.
- b) “I am sort of evolving to the point where I think that it is appropriate for Republicans to continue to go out there,” he said. “And if they need to have a security force protecting them, that’s an appropriate thing too.”
- c) Asked if this meant Republicans making their own security arrangements rather than relying on city or state police, Buchal said: “Yeah. And there are these people arising, like the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters.”
- d) Asked if he was considering such groups as security providers, Buchal said: “Yeah. We’re thinking about that. Because there are now belligerent, unstable people who are convinced that Republicans are like Nazis.”
4) Putin a ‘greater threat than ISIS’, John McCain tells 7.30., May 30, 2017 (www.news.com.au)
- a) SENATOR John McCain thinks Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose government interfered in the 2016 presidential election, is more of a threat to America than Islamic State terrorists.
- b) “I think ISIS can do terrible things,” the Arizona Republican told 30 last night.
- c) “But it’s the Russians who tried to destroy the fundamental of democracy and that is to change the outcome of an American election.”
5) WASHINGTON – Preparing for North Korea’s growing threat, the Pentagon will try to shoot down an intercontinental-range missile for the first time in a test this week., by Robert Burns, Associated Press Published [USATODAY.COM] 11:32 a.m. ET May 29, 2017
- a) Highlights
- i) Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.
- ii) The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
iii) NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
- iv) NATO has taken collective defence measures on several occasions, for instance in response to the situation in Syria and in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
- v) NATO has standing forces on active duty that contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence efforts on a permanent basis.
- b) TEXT: Article 5 Article 5
- i) “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
- ii) Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
A Civics discussion:
- Our founders did not design our government to be “efficient”. They designed it to be “safe”.
- People who say that they want government to run like a business miss the point: Government is NOT a business.
- People who say that they want government to run like a household miss the point: Government is NOT a household.
- Government is a Sovereign, which is an entirely different and unique thing, totally unlike a business or a household.
- No one branch of government is meant to be ‘supreme’. The 3 branches of government – executive, legislative and judicial – were designed to be co-equal.
- The tug-of-war that goes on among them – this inefficient, tug-of-war that goes on among them – is designed to slow things down, and make them “safe” but “inefficient’.
- In today’s terminology, the inefficiency designed into our government is not a “bug”. It’s a “feature”.
- I’ve said for many years that people who have run big businesses should not be politicians, and certainly should not be president. If there was ever an example of why I believe that, it’s Trump.
- We are now experiencing the wisdom of that “feature”, as the Trump regime attempts to establish its Supremacy over the other branches.
- Latest: Inmates cite Trump, education as motive for takeover, By Associated Press By Associated Press [National] February 1 at 6:35 PM
- Inmates inside a Delaware prison where four staff members were being held hostage reached out to a newspaper in two phone calls to explain their concerns, including the leadership of the U.S., educational opportunities, rehabilitation and how the state spends money on prisons.
- In that call, an inmate said their reasons “for doing what we’re doing” included “Donald Trump. Everything that he did. All the things that he’s doing now. We know that the institution is going to change for the worse.”
- That caller said education for prisoners was the inmates’ priority. They also sought effective rehabilitation for all prisoners and information about how money is allocated to prisons.
- LATER REPORTED: “Early Thursday, the siege ended after police breached the building and rescued a female staff member who was not injured. They also found Sgt. Steven R. Floyd, a 16-year veteran of the Delaware Department of Correction, but he was unresponsive.
- Floyd, 47, was declared dead a short time later…”
I don’t like to engage in hyperbole, but I believe we are approaching a real existential, Constitutional crisis.
Up until now, I’ve been arguing that the only to remotely realistic choices we have is Pres. Trump or Pres. Pence. I know longer believe that is even Constitutionally acceptable.
John Ibanez’s post (which I have pasted below) persuaded me. His last two paragraphs locked it up. Essentially, this whole administration is tainted. They have all “bitten of the poisoned apple”, as they sometimes say in law. Therefore this administration must be pulled up by the roots of the Republic is to survive as we have known it.The solution may lie in a minor precedent called “Marks v. Stinson” ([MARKS v. STINSON | 19 F.3d 873 (1994) | Leagle.com]). The ruling states, in part: “Substantial evidence was presented establishing massive absentee ballot fraud, deception, intimidation, harassment and forgery.”
According to the New York Times: “Judge Newcomer ordered that Mr. Stinson, a 49-year-old former assistant deputy mayor of Philadelphia, be removed from his State Senate office and that Mr. Marks, a 36-year-old lawyer and former aide to United States Senator Arlen Specter, be certified the winner within 72 hours.”I am now convinced that as farfetched as this may sound, it is in fact the only real solution to our nation’s current dilemma.
The election must be overturned.
Some people are calling for impeachment. I believe impeachment would take too long. They first have to introduce articles of impeachment, then have hearings, then vote. If he is impeached by the House of Representatives, they then have to bring it before the Senate. The Senate would have their own hearings and then vote on whether to remove him from office. If he is removed from office, Vice President Mike Pence becomes President.
Impeachment would remove Trump, but then we get a President who believes GLBT people should be sent to some form of concentration camps to be reprogrammed.
I think Impeachment would take too long, and would not solve the problem.
The intelligence community already has the evidence that a foreign government interfered in the election so that Trump & Pence would win. That foreign power was Russia. So long as Trump is in office, he will be beholden to Vladimir Putin. If Pence were to become President, he also would be beholden to Putin. The interference of a foreign power on behalf of one of the candidates invalidates the election, and the elected candidates are rendered unqualified to serve.
The oath of office is given to the candidates who abided by the rules, and did not compromise their integrity. Inspite of all the Republican protestations, the oath of office should be given to Hillary Rodham Clinton and Tim Kaine.
“Substantial evidence was presented establishing massive absentee ballot fraud, deception, intimidation, harassment and forgery.”
- Emoluments Clause of the Constitution (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia):
- The Ineligibility Clause, one of the two clauses often called the Emoluments Clause, and sometimes also referred to as the Incompatibility Clause or the Sinecure Clause, is found in Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. It places limitations upon the employment of members of Congress and prohibits employees of the Executive Branch from serving in Congress during their terms in office. The name “Ineligibility Clause” is only used by a minority of writers, as compared to the name “Emoluments Clause”.
- The clause states: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”
- Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
The Twenty-fifth Amendment (Amendment XXV) to the United States Constitution deals with succession to the Presidency and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, as well as responding to Presidential disabilities. It supersedes the ambiguous wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution, which does not expressly state whether the Vice President becomes the President or Acting President if the President dies, resigns, is removed from office or is otherwise unable to discharge the powers of the presidency. The Twenty-fifth Amendment was adopted on February 10, 1967.
- Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
- Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
- Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
- Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
- Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
- Group will sue Trump over business’ foreign profits, By Cyra Master 2 hrs ago (The Hill) 1/22/2017 via MSN
- The Title of Nobility Clause [Also known as the Emoluments Clause] is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress. Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the republican character of the United States against so–called “corrupting foreign influences”. This shield is reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the Republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section ~ Title of Nobility Clause – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) announced Sunday night it is bringing a suit “to stop President Trump from violating the Constitution (the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause ) by illegally receiving payments from foreign governments.”
- At issue is Trump’s refusal to divest from his business or place his assets into a blind trust, which would separate him entirely from his business empire. He has said his adult sons will run his business while he is in office, that they will not conduct any foreign deals and will subject any domestic deals to an ethics review.
- Trial Balloon for a Coup? Analyzing the news of the past 24 hours, by Yonatan Zunger
- White House vows to fight media ‘tooth and nail’ over Trump coverage, By Doina Chiacu and Jason Lange [Reuters] 1/22/2017
- The White House vowed on Sunday to fight the news media “tooth and nail” over what it sees as unfair attacks, with [Kellyanne Conway] saying the Trump administration had presented “alternative facts” to counter low inauguration crowd estimates.
- Tanks Roll Through ‘Chunnel’ as Europe Frets About Trump, Russia, NBC News by Alexander Smith and Carlo Angerer and Keir Simmons 5 hrs ago
- … in the dead of night this week, Britain’s military sent five tanks down the 30-mile “Chunnel” to test whether it would be an effective route for forces if deployed to places such as Eastern Europe amid tensions between Russia and NATO.
- the potential need to fast-track forces to the Russian front served as a reminder of how seriously Washington’s allies in Europe perceive the threat on their doorstep.
- These allies have traditionally felt that Washington has their back, something thrown into doubt by Trump cozying up to Moscow and branding NATO “obsolete” earlier this week.
- Trump’s comments this week came after he suggested during his campaign that he might not honor NATO’s central tenet that an attack against one member state would be seen as an attack against all.
- “It’s certainly freaked people out,” according to Alexander Lanoszka, an expert in American foreign policy at City, University of London. He said Trump’s comments have brought European concerns about an emboldened Russia “into sharp focus.”
- How Wisdom Teeth Are Fueling the Opioid Epidemic, By Melissa Pandika 1/22/2017, [Ozy.com] via MSN
- … In 2015, opioids killed a record 33,000 people, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About half of those deaths involved a prescription opioid. Now, a new study drills down to one source of these drugs: wisdom-tooth extractions.
- More than half of the opioid painkillers prescribed to patients after wisdom tooth removal surgery in a recent Drug and Alcohol Dependence study went unused.
- 100 million opioid pills, prescribed for wisdom-tooth extractions, go unused.
- Which means they’re available for misuse and abuse by patients, their loved ones or others. But the study also found that offering information about a pharmacy-based drug-disposal program, plus a financial incentive, made patients more likely to properly dispose of their unused medication, or at least plan to do so.
- The worst passwords of 2016 are as lazy as ever: Please, stop using “123456.”, By Charlie Osborne for Zero Day (ZDNet) | January 13, 2017 — 14:00 GMT (06:00 PST)
SOURCES WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO OTHER DISCUSSION:
- Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton, By Alex Mohajer, Political Writer and Commentator (Huffington Post) 12/10/2016 06:28 am ET | Updated 6 days ago (12/13/2016)
- …at least one federal court decision suggests there may be some federal case law on the question of whether it is possible to invalidate the outcome of an election after the fact when there is fraud, and replace a candidate benefitted by fraud with his opponent. The case, Marks v. Stinson, is the first and only known case in which a federal judge reversed an election outcome.
- [In] a case originally brought before a federal district judge in Pennsylvania in 1993, which was subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1994. The Third Circuit partially upheld the federal judge’s decision to intervene and invalidate a 1993 state senate election due to fraud. Interestingly, the federal district judge ordered the winner be removed from office and the subsequent vacancy be filled by his opponent.
- In February 1994, after Stinson had already taken office, the federal judge ordered he “be removed from his State Senate office and that [his opponent, Bruce Marks] be certified the winner within 72 hours.”
- Two of the elected officials who testified in the Pennsylvania case said under oath that they were aware of the fraud, had intentionally failed to enforce laws, and hurried to certify Stinson the winner in order to bury the story. To some, the narrative draws parallels to the Washington Post’s revelation that Republican Mitch McConnell was aware of the CIA’s conclusion that Russians had intervened and opted to do nothing.
- The case deliberates interesting rationale that could theoretically be applied in part if, after Donald Trump assumes office, it is shown that Russian hacking (or any fraud, for that matter) robbed Hillary Clinton of the presidency. The case offers clues that imply courts may intervene.
- There is also, of course, no constitutional Electoral College process or system in Pennsylvania, so the situations are not exactly analogous. But the reasoning behind the federal court’s decision may hold muster. It is not clear how the case would impact a presidential election.
- | Updated 6 days ago [MARKS v. STINSON | 19 F.3d 873 (1994) | Leagle.com]
- BREAKING: Russian Interference In The Election Just Handed Hillary The White House (DETAILS), December 10, 2016 New Century Times
- His opponent in the race, Republican Bruce Marks was then made the winner. The judge who made the ruling, Judge Clarence Newcomer, said:
“Substantial evidence was presented establishing massive absentee ballot fraud, deception, intimidation, harassment and forgery.”
According to the New York Times: “Judge Newcomer ordered that Mr. Stinson, a 49-year-old former assistant deputy mayor of Philadelphia, be removed from his State Senate office and that Mr. Marks, a 36-year-old lawyer and former aide to United States Senator Arlen Specter, be certified the winner within 72 hours.”
- His opponent in the race, Republican Bruce Marks was then made the winner. The judge who made the ruling, Judge Clarence Newcomer, said:
- Donald Trump is making a strong case for a recount of his own 2016 election win, By Aaron Blake, Nov 28, 2016 (Washington Post): On Sunday morning, President-elect Donald Trump assured us all that a recount of the 2016 election wouldn’t change the outcome and was a waste of resources.
- “…the president-elect is also, unwittingly and amazingly, calling into question the results of an election that he won nearly three weeks ago. The logical extension of his argument is that all results should not be trusted. In effect, Trump is lending credence to the very same recount effort that he criticized as superfluous.
The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people “everywhere in the world” ought to enjoy:
- Freedom of speech
- Freedom of worship
- Freedom from want
- Freedom from fear
- Roosevelt delivered his speech 11 months before the United States declared war on Japan, December 8, 1941. The State of the Union speech before Congress was largely about the national security of the United States and the threat to other democracies from world war that was being waged across the continents in the eastern hemisphere. In the speech, he made a break with the tradition of United States non-interventionism that had long been held in the United States. He outlined the U.S. role in helping allies already engaged in warfare.
- Claiming mandate, GOP Congress lays plans to propel sweeping conservative agenda, By David Weigel [Washington Post] January 1, 2017 at 7:46 PM
- Republican Congress puts priority on targeting regulations, by Herb Jackson, USA TODAY 11:23 a.m. EST January 2, 2017
- The House is expected to take up two bills — the Midnight Rules Act and the REINS Act (which stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) — that passed on largely party-line votes in the 114th, 113th and 112th congressional sessions, but died in the Senate. The REINS Act would require that before any new major regulation could take effect, the House and Senate would have to pass a resolution of approval. The Midnight Rules Act would let Congress invalidate rules in bulk that passed in the final year of a presidential term.
- And under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress can pass a resolution of disapproval to block a rule if it acts within 60 days of notification from an agency.
- [The bill’s sponsor is Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia.] The new legislation would further expand congressional power by preventing an administration from implementing rules without another vote. Under the REINS act, a proposed regulation would be deemed rejected if Congress was in session for 70 days and took no action. The bill allows for a major rule to take effect for a single 90-day period if the president determined it was necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency.
- Differences between Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians and neo-Conservatives
- Left–right politics, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- History of the terms: The terms “left” and “right” appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained, “We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp.” However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms “left” and “right” to refer to the opposing sides.
- Greens and Libertarians: The yin and yang of our political future, by Dan Sullivan (originally appearing in Green Revolution, Volume 49, No. 2, summer, 1992)
- … Libertarians tend to be logical and analytical. They are confident that their principles will create an ideal society, even though they have no consensus of what that society would be like. Greens, on the other hand, tend to be more intuitive and imaginative. They have clear images of what kind of society they want, but are fuzzy about the principles on which that society would be based.
- Ironically, Libertarians tend to be more utopian and uncompromising about their political positions, and are often unable to focus on politically winnable proposals to make the system more consistent with their overall goals. Greens on the other hand, embrace immediate proposals with ease, but are often unable to show how those proposals fit in to their ultimate goals.
- The most difficult differences to reconcile, however, stem from baggage that members of each party have brought with them from their former political affiliations. Most Libertarians are overly hostile to government and cling to the fiction that virtually all private fortunes are legitimately earned. Most Greens are overly hostile to free enterprise and cling to the fiction that harmony and balance can be achieved through increased government intervention.
- Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left includes anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, anti-racists, democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.
- Researchers have also said that the Right includes capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.
- Left–right politics, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia