Special to the Cape Charles Mirror – Opinion by Paul Plante
As this presidential campaign season in America heats up, we hear the word “progressive” being bandied about quite a bit, especially today with Bernie Sanders endorsing Hillary Clinton, while touting the “most progressive platform” in history, with some people treating the label “progressive” as a pejorative, while others look at it in a more positive light.
Given the seeming confusion over what the word actually means, if such can ever be said with any degree of specificity with respect to political labels, which “progressive” is, I would like to take a moment to delve the subject.
First off, “progressivism” is a philosophy.
It is a philosophy based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition.
So, if you are for or against “progressivism,” either way, it is dependent on what the term “improve the human condition” actually means to you.
According to my research, and as is stated in WIKIPEDIA, in America, progressivism began as a social movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and grew into a political movement, in what was known as the Progressive Era.
So we are not talking about something new here, and in fact, we can see that as a political philosophy it is quite old, which gives some needed context to the statement of Bernie Sanders today that we are seeing the “most progressive platform” in history.
Of importance to this discussion, in our past political history, some American progressives rejected Social Darwinism, believing that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace.
As I see it, those are certainly not radical propositions, and in fact, they can be viewed as being quite rational.
Looked at another way, who in America today would advocate against providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace?
In our history, perhaps not surprisingly, progressives lived mainly in the cities, they were college educated, and they believed that government could be a tool for change, and American President Theodore Roosevelt of the US Progressive Party declared that he “always believed that wise progressivism and wise conservatism go hand in hand”.
On the other side of the political coin, American President Woodrow Wilson was a member of the American progressive movement within the Democratic Party.
So we see that the label “progressive” is not the exclusive property of either major political party in this country, nor could it be, since as said before, it is a philosophy, and philosophies are either accepted by an individual, or rejected, since philosophy is not something than can be imposed by a political party on free citizens in the United States of America.
Again, of importance to this discussion, progressive stances in America have evolved over time.
For example, just as it is again today, imperialism was a controversial issue within progressivism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, where some progressives supported American imperialism, while others opposed it, which shows that “progressivism” is hardly monolithic.
In that regard, in response to World War I, progressive American President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points established the concept of national self-determination and criticized imperialist competition and colonial injustices; views which were supported by anti-imperialists in areas of the world that were resisting imperial rule, such as Viet Nam, where we became mired down in a quagmire in the 1960s by trying to impose our will on the people of Viet Nam at the point of a gun, after the French imperialists were defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954.
Moving forward in time, and bringing this into the context of the presidential campaigns on-going today, according to David Sirota, a newspaper columnist, radio host (AM760), and bestselling author, there is a fundamental difference between liberals and progressives when it comes to core economic issues.
In his view, traditional “liberals” in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society, while a “progressive” would be those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.
As he puts it in more concrete terms relevant to today, a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), while a more “progressive” solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry’s profiteering and market manipulation tactics.
Further, a liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor while a progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America, much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money.
So is proposing free college tuition really a “progressive” idea?
Think about that for a moment, if you will, but as I see it, the answer would be no, it is not progressive at all, since giving out free college tuition, as fine an idea as that might seem to some, does not comport with the idea of progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition.
To the contrary, since it is essentially just throwing more government money at something, without clearly defining what the throwing of government money will be “buying,” it is a liberal proposition, instead.
When we think of the magnitude of that liberal idea masquerading as a “progressive” idea, instead, we need to consider that at present, Americans owe nearly $1.3 trillion in student loan debt, which is spread out among about 43 million borrowers, and the average Class of 2016 graduate has $37,172 in student loan debt, up six percent from last year.
Cast that number against the Total Receipts expected by the U.S. federal government in 2016 of $2.99Trillion versus Total Outlays of $3.54Trillion, and we can see that “free” college tuition puts a large load on our federal budget, a load we American taxpayers will be forced to have to pay, since that cost will have to be borne by someone, and that someone is us.
So is this really, as Bernie Sanders said today, the “most progressive platform” in history, handing out free college tuition to anyone who wants it, even assuming that an American president had such power, which is not conceded, or is it just a liberal idea gone crazy that could well cripple our economy?
As always with all of these “good” ideas thrown at us on a daily basis as these politicians pander for our votes with all kinds of “pie-in-the-sky” promises such as a “chicken in every pot” and a “car in every garage” and “doubling exports,” no real details are given as to how it is to be done, just trust us, they say, we are the ones fighting for you, and we will make it happen.
But can they, really?
For the record, I am and have been since the 1980s a political independent, which means I am not for either major party in this contest.
What I am for is common sense, which in politics today is not very common at all, and rationality.
If someone says they are going to do something, like give out free college, I would like the details now, not next week, because in my experience, next week never comes, but the tax bill always does, and each year, our pile of debt grows deeper and deeper.
At the end of FY 2016 the gross US federal government debt is estimated to be $19.3 trillion.
This liberal idea of free college masquerading as a “progressive” idea will be adding a Trillion dollars a year to that figure.
Is that something you want to bequeath to your grandchildren?
In closing, please do “progressivism” a needed favor by not mistaking it for liberalism, instead.
The difference is important for our future as a nation, and that is something we should not forget, for if we do, it will be at our peril.
In the name of “progressivism,” which it most assuredly is not, if brought into power in this up-coming presidential election, the Democratic Party in the United States of America intends to impose on these United States of America a tyranny not seen in this land since the time of the tyranny of King George III back in 1776, a tyranny similar to that now on-going in Turkey under Erdogan where Turkish society is being “purged” of Gulenist elements.
In support of that assertion, all I need do is to refer us to page 14 of a document, a manifesto, really, with manifesto being a public declaration of policy and aims, especially one issued before an election by a political party or candidate, titled the 2016 Democratic Party Platform, July 21, 2016, As Approved by the Democratic Platform Committee July 8-9, 2016 – Orlando, FL, where we find these following words of importance to us all in this nation: Ending Systemic Racism.
Systemic refers to something that is spread throughout, system-wide, affecting a group or system, such as a society as a whole.
In other words, in the words of the Democrat Manifesto for 2016, American society is sick from one end to the other, so that it is now time for the Democrat Party to take the law into its own hands to purge the United States of America of this “systemic racism” the way Turkey is being purged of Gulenism.
In that section of its manifesto, we are informed as follows:
Democrats will fight to end institutional and systemic racism in our society.
We will challenge and dismantle the structures that define lasting racial, economic, political, and social inequity.
end quote
Dismantle the structures.
Focus your thoughts on that for a moment if you will, people, especially the word “dismantle.”
The Democrats, who according to Gallup polling in 2010 constituted just 31% of Americans, have determined that they have the right to dismantle OUR nation and re-structure it the way they want it to be for them.
More to the point, that 31% of Americans have made a broad-brush accusation with that unsupported claim of theirs that there is systemic racism all throughout this land.
Where is their evidence?
The answer is they don’t have any and they don’t need any.
It is how they “feel,” and for them, that is all that is needed, and that is good enough.
Based on their “feelings,” our nation has to be “dismantled” and then re-structured in their image, because they alone know what is good for the rest of us in this nation.
The Democrat Manifesto then continues as follows:
Democrats will promote racial justice through fair, just, and equitable governing of all public-serving institutions and in the formation of public policy.
end quotes
As stated above, this 31% of our population, based on how they “feel,” knows what is best for all the rest of us in this country, and so, they are going to impose their will on us, which is what tyranny is really all about – a small group with political power imposing its will through force on a majority.
Getting back to the 2016 Democrat Manifesto, we next have this:
We will push for a societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter and that there is no place for racism in our country.
end quote
ALL lives matter, and “societal transformation” is not “progressivism”; it is social engineering, plain and simple, indoctrination and coercion being its tools of change.
And that must be understood in light of this statement made in a political gathering in Philadelphia on April 7th of this year by Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton:
“If someone has white skin, they are a racist because of Implicit Bias, and we need community programs here in America to cure them,”
In the name of “progressivism,” we are looking at something more akin to Stalinism in the Soviet Union where those deemed as dissidents were locked away in Gulags for re-education through hard labor.
Is this what you want for your children?
Is this the future the United States deserves?
Think about it, people, for a clock is ticking.
In closing, to me, this “progressivism” being put forth by Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and the Democrat party is the same “progressivism” a cancer exhibits as it metastasizes through a human body, except their cancer will metastasize through the body politic in this nation instead, and bring chaos and disorder in its wake.
And that is as far from the true goals of “progressivism” as one can possibly get.
No analysis, devoid of details, no data, no substantiation, no facts, no solutions, but very long on emotional and accusatory rhetoric.
That is the only way to describe what failed Democrat presidential contender, political sell-out and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, when he endorsed Hillary Clinton on July 12th, said as follows:
“I am happy to tell you that at the Democratic Platform Committee … there was a significant coming together between the two campaigns and we produced, by far, the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party.”
Referring to that same document, the 2016 Democrat Party Manifesto, in an article in the Washington Post entitled “Bernie Sanders is right: It’s time to support Hillary Clinton now – Democrats need to unite against Donald Trump this week” by Sally Kohn, an essayist, community organizer by training and temperament, and CNN political commentator, we were informed:
The Democratic Party platform – the most progressive platform in American political history – actively reflects Sanders’s campaign and vision.
end quote
Let us be incandescently clear here: the 2016 Democrat Manifesto is not a progressive document.
It is a revolutionary document, which is quite a different thing altogether.
If it were a progressive document, one would have found somewhere between its covers analysis, documentation and intelligent solutions to problems which affect us all in this nation.
Instead, as said above, one finds emotions and accusations, instead.
For an example, let’s go back to page 14, where we find this heading: Closing the Racial Wealth Gap.
In that section of what is now being touted and trumpeted in the pages of the Washington Post as “the most progressive platform in American political history,” this is what we find:
“America’s economic inequality problem is even more pronounced when it comes to racial and ethnic disparities in wealth and income.”
“It is unacceptable that the median wealth for African Americans and Latino Americans is roughly one-tenth that of white Americans.”
“These disparities are also stark for American Indians and certain Asian American subgroups, and may become even more significant when considering other characteristics such as age, disability status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
“The racial wealth and income gaps are the result of policies that discriminate against people of color and constrain their ability to earn income and build assets to the same extent as other Americans.”
“It has accumulated over time and is made worse by ongoing policies and practices.”
end quotes
What policies?
What practices?
Whose policies?
Whose practices?
No answers forthcoming, just the emoting and accusing, although we don’t even know who is being accused, or of what, other than “The racial wealth and income gaps are the result of policies that discriminate against people of color.”
At page 15, the 2016 Democrat Manifesto continues by stating:
“For example, African Americans and Latinos lost more than half of their net worth as a result of the housing crisis and the Great Recession, because they lost jobs at a much faster rate than white workers and because they were disproportionately targeted for subprime, predatory, and fraudulent mortgages during the run-up to the housing crisis.”
end quote
Targeted by who?
The 2016 Democrat Manifesto itself does not say and in fact walks wide around that answer, because the answer will point the finger right back at those BIG BANK$ who have been stuffing so much money down Hillary Clinton’s deep pockets, and not only at Hillary, but at some of the top players in the Democrat Party itself, going right back up the ladder to Hillary’s husband Bill, when he was president.
Can I substantiate that statement?
Most certainly, since that issue of sub-prime mortgages by now has been well researched in the technical literature, but we don’t need to go that far.
All we need do at this point is go to the Albany, New York Times Union article “Second former top Cuomo official, Howard Glaser, got loan from political insider – $200,000 “balloon” mortgage for ex-director of state operations” by Chris Bragg from July 21, 2016, where we find as follows:
A second former top Cuomo administration official, Howard Glaser, received a home loan from a business tied to a longtime Cuomo insider who has — quietly — had business before New York government.
The broker, Abraham Eisner, also signed off in 2012 on another “balloon” mortgage for Joe Percoco, Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s former executive deputy secretary, which has raised eyebrows for its favorable and unusual terms.
Mortgage deals with Eisner are a common thread among several Cuomo insiders who worked for the future governor in the 1990s when he was the country’s top housing official, and who later held prominent positions in Albany after Cuomo’s election as governor in 2010.
Glaser, Percoco and Howe all worked for Cuomo at the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, which has broad influence in the mortgage industry.
Cuomo was HUD secretary during the second half of President Bill Clinton’s administration, from 1997 to 2001.
Eisner has been a major player in the mortgage business in New York, and his interests have intersected with Cuomo’s tenures in Washington and Albany.
end quotes
With respect to subprime mortgages, in that same Times Union article, we find as follows:
At the same time (as Eisner was doing sweetheart mortgage deals for Cuomo insiders), Eisner’s subprime lending business was expanding, according to a 1997 interview in the New York Times.
“We’ve created new products for people who have glitches, hairy credit,” Eisner told the Times.
“No-doc means all we need is your name, address and Social Security number, depending on your credit history.”
According to the Times, subprime lending in 1997 represented about 25 percent of the company’s business, while two years earlier, it was 10 percent.
“We geared up with staff that specializes in subprime lending,” Eisner said.
“It’s a different mentality, different guidelines; almost like two separate companies.”
Some critics of Cuomo say that as the head of HUD, Cuomo did not do enough to rein in the subprime housing market, which collapsed and was a major factor in causing the Great Recession of 2008.
Critics also contend Cuomo did not go far enough in ending the practice of kickbacks paid to mortgage brokers which may have encouraged bad loans.
end quote
And here is the kicker:
In 2012, Eisner signed off on a $3.5 million settlement after (U.S. Attorney) Bharara’s office alleged that GFI Mortgage Bankers, a company that originates loans and has been led by Eisner since 1983, charged higher interest rates and fees on mortgages to minority borrowers than to whites with similar financial profiles.
end quotes
Of course, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party take pains to make no mention of any of that in their 2016 Manifesto, which instead levels a broad-brush accusation or smear of “systemic racism” against seemingly everyone in the United States of America who through accident of birth, has skin that appears white in color.
If Bernie Sanders really wanted to be progressive, as opposed to revolutionary, he would have pointed to those above statements, and said, “People, we need to get our democrat house in order; we need to purge these parasitic elements amongst us who prey on and feed off the people of color in this nation out of our ranks for the good of the nation as a whole.”
But he didn’t.
Instead, he endorsed Hillary Clinton, and by endorsing Hillary Clinton, he endorsed the predatory and discriminatory policies of Democrat New York State Governor Andy Cuomo, as well.
That, people, is not progressivism, it is pandering, plain and simple, and make no mistake about that.
This 2016 Democrat Party Manifesto Bernie Sanders raves about as being “by far, the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party” may in fact be that, where “progressive” is interpreted as the spreading of a cancer or disease.
What it is not, is something good for America.
At this point in the discussion, I would like to go back to differentiating between what is today called “liberalism” versus what is today called “progressivism,” as with many terms in the political lexicon, their meaning is not concrete, but instead, is squishy and changes over time.
An older person with whom I have been corresponding on political matters in the USA over the course of so many years since John “Jack” Kerry was defeated by George W. Bush states that today, a “progressive” is nothing more than a “liberal” with a new name after Rush Limbo made such a mockery of the word “liberal.”
According to The Heritage Foundation, “Liberalism” can be understood in two very different ways, which always serve to add to the confusion surrounding these types of discussion in our present day and age.
Liberalism, or what some call “classical liberalism,” is a political philosophy based on individual liberty and limited government.
Over the last century, however, liberalism has come to take on a different meaning.
The contemporary understanding of liberalism is based not on individual liberty, but on the use of government to grant benefits and advantages in order to give everyone the ability to achieve a certain standard of living and reduce inequalities.
Therefore, modern liberalism encourages an extensive network of interest groups that receive benefits from government and organize in order to preserve those benefits.
end quote
It is that last sentence which is of importance to this discussion, which now focuses on the 2016 Democrat Party Manifesto, which is nothing less than a recipe for a new world order based on the belief of the Democrat party as expressed in the 2016 Democrat Party Manifesto that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs and that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign like Hillary Clinton.
That, people, is not progressivism.
It is instead what can be termed “galloping federalism,” where the federal government under the Democrats and Hillary Clinton will become our Leviathan in the sense of political philosopher Thomas Hobbes.
Getting back to The Heritage Foundation, they inform us that modern liberalism grows out of the Progressive rejection of American constitutionalism and an embrace of a new conception of freedom, anchored in big government.
Of importance to our understanding in here is this sentence: There are however certain significant differences between Progressivism and modern liberalism.
Whereas modern liberalism exalts freedom of self-expression, especially sexual liberation, most Progressives embraced traditional morals.
Liberals are also obsessed with equality of outcomes in ways that the Progressives were not.
Today, liberalism has lost the faith in progress that characterized Progressivism, mostly because of a loss of confidence in the inevitability of progress and the creeping effects of having embraced relativism from the start of the Progressive movement.
end quote
It is that loss of faith in progress that permeates the 2016 Democrat Party Manifesto, and it is that loss of faith which then leads to the MANDATE expressed throughout the 2016 Democrat Party Manifesto that because ordinary men and women have proven themselves, in the eyes and minds of the modern-day liberals who are the leaders of the Democrat party today, to be too small-minded to govern their own affairs, order and progress can now only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign like Hillary Clinton.
As I say, that is not progressivism in its classical sense; that is the progress of a tyranny, and I for one am against it.
Is this the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country by totally rejecting that MANDATE?
Think on it, people, while there is still time.
To understand why this 2016 Democrat Manifesto under discussion in here is not classical “progressivism” but instead is an attempt at a huge power grab by the Democrat party, notwithstanding failed Democrat presidential contender, political sell-out and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders calling it “by far, the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party” and Sally Kohn, an essayist, community organizer by training and temperament, and CNN political commentator, calling it in the pages of the Washington Post “the most progressive platform in American political history,” it is necessary to understand that classical progressivism in the United States of America began as a social movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and grew into a political movement, in what was known as the Progressive Era.
As to the “Progressive Era,” according to WIKIPEDIA, the Progressive Era was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States, from the 1890s to 1920s.
So, with respect to classical progressivism, versus the faux “progressivism of Bernie Sanders, Sally Kohn and the Democrat party today, the Progressive Era ended roughly one hundred (100) years ago now.
Could this 2016 Democrat Manifesto then be “neo-progressivism?”
Let’s look and see.
According to WIKIPEDIA, the main objective of the Progressive movement was eliminating corruption in government.
Does the 2016 Democrat Manifesto have as its objective eliminating corruption in our government at any level, from the federal on down?
In a word – no.
The 2016 Democrat Manifesto is a propaganda document that engages in the typical partisan blame-casting that has now characterized and paralyzed our national politics for far too long, as can be seen from this opening statement in its preface:
Under President Obama’s leadership, and thanks to the hard work and determination of the American people, we have come a long way from the Great Recession and the Republican policies that triggered it.
end quote
Every single thing wrong in the United States of America today, if you drink the Democrat Kool-Aid in the 2016 Democrat Manifesto, is the fault of the Republicans, and because ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, order and progress can only come now when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign like Hillary Clinton.
But that is not progressivism.
True progressivism targeted political machines and their bosses.
Thus, we can see that true progressivism today would be targeting the Democrat party as a political machine, along with its bosses, just as was the case during the Progressive Era.
During the Progressive Era, Progressives drew support from the middle class, and supporters included many lawyers, teachers, physicians, ministers and business people, and because of that, some Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family.
In the 2016 Democrat Manifesto, however, we don’t see the application of the scientific method.
To the contrary, we see the adoption and application of crack-pot or lunatic science in the form of some voodoo called “implicit bias” which then forms the basis for the claims therein that:
* Democrats will fight to end institutional and systemic racism in our society.
* We will challenge and dismantle the structures that define lasting racial, economic, political, and social inequity.
* We will push for a societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter and that there is no place for racism in our country.
end quote
And all of that is based on this highly prejudicial and discriminatory statement by Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on April 7th of this year, to wit:
“If someone has white skin, they are a racist because of Implicit Bias, and we need community programs here in America to cure them.”
end quote
As was stated previously, however, forced “societal transformation” based on crack-pot science is not “progressivism.”
Returning to the 2016 Democrat Manifesto, and based on that crack-pot science of “Implicit Bias” which Hillary Clinton is a proponent of, at page 15, under the heading “Reforming our Criminal Justice System,” we find as follows:
We (the Democrat party) will require the Department of Justice to investigate all questionable or suspicious police-involved shootings, and we will support states and localities who help make those investigations and prosecutions more transparent, including through reforming the grand jury process.
end quote
The Department of Justice is a political entity.
The Attorney General is picked by the president of the United States and serves at the pleasure of the president of the United States, which means the president sets the agenda, and the Attorney General, if he or she wants to keep their job, follows that agenda, which means the Department of Justice follows that agenda, as well.
Thus, besides being a massive power grab, by requiring the Department of Justice to investigate all questionable or suspicious police-involved shootings, the 2016 Democrat Manifesto is going to politicize that process, with the findings of the supposed investigations being determined beforehand by the policy set by the president, for partisan political reasons, and ideological reasons, as well, as can be seen in this statement from the 2016 Democrat Manifesto under that same heading:
We have been inspired by the movements for criminal justice that directly address the discriminatory treatment of African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and American Indians to rebuild trust in the criminal justice system.
end quote
When the a priori or operative assumption of this supposed “progressive” document called the 2016 Democrat Manifesto is that the criminal justice system in the United States of America treats African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and American Indians in a discriminatory manner, that premise being based on nothing more than the crack-pot science-based statement of Democrat flag bearer Hillary Clinton that “If someone has white skin, they are a racist because of Implicit Bias, and we need community programs here in America to cure them,” it can readily be seen that these Attorney General investigations will start with the premise that the police are guilty because they are racists in need of a cure.
Serious business, people.
That is taking us back to the days of the king’s star chamber proceedings, where the king would determine someone to be guilty, and then have his star chamber proclaim their guilt for him.
De we want politicized star chamber proceedings here in the United States of America in the name of alleged “progressivism?”
The choice is yours, people, make it well, for once made, your children and grandchildren will own the results.
To close, progressivism means moving forward based on science and education.
Moving in any direction based on crack-pot science is not progress, it is lunacy.
Paul Plante has way too much time on his hands.
Who died and left you in charge?
With respect to this massive power grab intended by the Democrat party in its 2016 Manifesto, where the Democrat party will abolish rule of law as it presently exists in the United States of America and instead take the law into its own hands by requiring the Department of Justice to investigate all questionable or suspicious police-involved shootings, as opposed to citizen grand juries within the 50 states, in a thoughtful, well-researched, well-reasoned and scholarly essay from the UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND LAW REVIEW entitled “A VANISHING VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION?” by The Honorable Stephen R. McCullough, Judge, Court of Appeals of Virginia, which anticipates this massive power grab, and warns of its consequences to Constitutional government in the USA, we are informed as follows in the INTRODUCTION, to wit:
The Constitution is the fundamental law of Virginia.
It is the charter by which our people have consented to be governed; it sets forth the basic rights and principles sought to be maintained and preserved in a free society.
end quote
Think about those words for a moment, people of Virginia: basic rights and principles sought to be maintained and preserved in a free society.
Focus on “free society” and work backwards towards the words “basic rights and principles” and “maintained” and “preserved.”
What will happen to those basic rights and principles if the Democrat party is able to impose its 2016 Manifesto on all of the people of the United States, including the people of Virginia?
Will you gain, or will you lose?
Returning to Judge McCullough, we are further informed that Virginia‘s constitution was first established in 1776, when the rift with the mother country thrust upon Virginia colonists the obligation to establish their own government.
Consider that at this time, there was no “federal” government, per se, and there wouldn’t be a United States Constitution for roughly another thirteen (13) years or so.
Judge McCullough, who prior to his appointment to the Court of Appeals of Virginia served as State Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia with a J.D., 1997, University of Richmond School of Law and B.A., 1994, University of Virginia, then informs us that Virginia‘s initial charter of government consisted of two documents: a Declaration of Rights and a constitution proper that set forth the more mechanical aspects of operating a government.
Chiefly the handiwork of George Mason, the Declaration of Rights called for, among other protections, the separation of powers, religious liberty, freedom of the press, and protections for persons accused of crimes.
end quotes
Protections for persons accused of crimes would of necessity have to include police officers involved in all questionable or suspicious police-involved shootings.
Under the 2016 Democrat Party Manifesto, however, those rights under the Virginia Constitution will simply disappear.
Getting back to the Virginia Constitution, according to Judge McCullough, one writer noted that the Virginia Declaration of Rights is, indeed, a remarkable production, and that as an intellectual effort, it possesses exalted merit, being the quintessence of all the great principles and doctrines of freedom which had been wrought out by the people of England from the earliest times.
With that said, here comes the warning:
In recent decades, however, the most fundamental rights protected for Virginians by the Virginia Constitution have been, for all practical purposes, steadily vanishing.
end quotes
Implementation of the 2016 Democrat Manifesto will seal that deal and guarantee irrelevancy for the Bill of Rights of the Virginia Constitution.
Judge McCullough’s essay endeavors to take a closer look at that trend, and the suggestion of his essay is that, as the fundamental law of Virginia, the Virginia Constitution should retain independent significance, because the alternative—sweeping declarations that the various clauses of the Virginia Constitution are co-extensive, followed by irrelevance and obscurity for those clauses—diminishes Virginia‘s role as a sovereign and risks giving short shrift to rights that Virginians have enjoyed for over two centuries.
Not only does the 2016 Democrat Manifesto, in the name of “progressivism,” diminish Virginia’s role as a sovereign, it diminishes the role of every other state as well, and makes all state constitutions irrelevant, along with their protections.
With respect to the Bill of Rights of the Virginia, it begins as follows:
A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the good people of Virginia in the exercise of their sovereign powers, which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.
Section 1. Equality and rights of men, provides “That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
Note that the words “with the means of acquiring and possessing property” appear nowhere in the Constitution of the Unites States of America or its Amendments, so that if the Constitution of Virginia becomes irrelevant, those protections will be lost, a point made by Judge McCullough in his essay as follows:
In other areas of law, the Virginia Constitution may be of significant utility to litigants.
For example, the Virginia Constitution specifically recognizes as fundamental a right to acquire and possess property.
Historically, the protection of property rights lay at the heart of the constitutional design.
As one author notes: To the gentry gathered at Williamsburg [in 1776,] the word constitution was one of the most hallowed terms in their political vocabulary.
A constitution, to these men, had one primary purpose, liberty: to place each person beyond the reach of arbitrary political power.
Then, as a secondary consideration, they believed that a fundamental law had to secure a person‘s rights in property.
end quotes
Note the phrase “to place each person beyond the reach of arbitrary political power.”
“Arbitrary political power” is exactly what the 2016 Democrat Party Manifesto represents, in the name of “progressivism,” except “arbitrary political power” such as is represented by the 2016 Democrat Manifesto is inimical to true progressivism, which had as its the main objective the elimination of corruption in government.
Returning to Judge McCullough’s essay, he informs us that with respect to precedent, Virginia courts have long recognized the importance of property rights, whereas, in contrast, in recent decades, the United States Supreme Court‘s decisions have afforded very little protection to property rights, while it is beyond dispute that the Virginia General Assembly possesses broad police power to regulate and restrict the use and disposition of property, so that property rights constitute one area where text, history, and precedent suggest that the Virginia Constitution, in some situations, would afford greater protections for property rights than would the United States Constitution.
Section 2. of the Virginia Bill of Rights, “People the source of power,” provides “That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.”
Contrary to that, the 2016 Democrat Manifesto declares that all power is vested in, and consequently derived from the Democrat party and that magistrates are their trustees and servants, not those of the people of Virginia.
Section 3 of the Virginia Bill of Rights, “Government instituted for common benefit,” provides “That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.”
end quote
The “danger of maladministration” is exactly what the 2016 Democrat Manifesto represents, not just to the people of Virginia, but to all American citizens, as well.
Beyond that is the question of “concentrated power.”
As Judge McCullough notes in his essay, concentrated power was one of the principal evils the Framers of the United States Constitution sought to avoid, and the horrors of the past century that were inflicted upon the world by totalitarian regimes offer ample evidence of the wisdom of avoiding concentrations of power.
Concentrated power, however, is exactly what the 2016 Democrat Party Manifesto offers us.
That, people, is not progressivism.
It is the institution of tyranny.
The price of freedom, John Read, is eternal vigilance, where eternal is taken to mean “lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning,” and vigilance is taken to mean “the action or state of keeping careful watch for possible danger or difficulties.”
That, John Read, is what citizenship in this nation is really all about, keeping careful watch for possible danger or difficulties, such as the faux “progressivism” of this 2016 Democrat Party Manifesto under discussion in here.
Toward that end, a reasonable, rational person would readily discern that when it comes to citizenship, I don’t have too much time on my hands.
To the contrary, I don’t have nearly enough.
As to speech, Section 12 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, entitled “Freedom of speech and of the press; right peaceably to assemble, and to petition,” provides that the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments and that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right and that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.
Are you seriously suggesting that my right to freely speak, write, and publish my sentiments on all subjects in here should be restrained?
Are you for despotic government, pray tell?
Do you seriously wish to see one of the great bulwarks of liberty swept aside by silencing me so that you don’t have to read commentary that you personally don’t like or don’t agree with?
Is that the “progressivism” you are for, the silencing of dissent, as opposed to the elimination of corruption in our government?
If so, you will surely be a winner if this 2016 Democrat Manifesto becomes “law of the land” in January of next year when Hillary Clinton, whose mantra is “If someone has white skin, they are a racist because of Implicit Bias, and we need community programs here in America to cure them,” becomes president, and I will surely be the loser, along with everyone else in the country who believes in rule of man, not rule of Hillary and the Democrat party.
“Are you seriously suggesting that my right to freely speak, write, and publish my sentiments on all subjects in here should be restrained?”
Paul, just like to point out that you have no “rights” in here. This is a dictatorship control by the publisher. (not meant as a slight, Wayne) Your rights here are held in his hand. If you wish to stand on the nearest street corner and speak your mind, feel free or if you wish,create a blog, go at it.
What I’m getting at is the misunderstanding of your rights as interpreted by you, under the Constitution. Should you be restrained? I’d like a new rule – an author can’t comment on his/her opinion/article until someone else comments.
tkenny, I am very sure that you would love to have a very thick book of rules that you could use to suppress all kinds of speech that you personally don’t like, a book of rules you could use to bludgeon Wayne Creed with mercilessly, until you drove him to fold this on-line publication, or to finally give in and allow you to function over him as a censor, according to your book of rules, such as this proposed “new rule” of yours that an author can’t comment on his/her opinion/article until someone else comments, which rule you have lifted in its entirety from either the New York Times or a now-closed blog called CommonGroundCommonSense, which was supposed to be a place where political labels did not exist, but which ended up being taken over by speech suppressors like yourself, and destroyed by exactly this same rule that you are proposing be imposed on me in here.
Those people who took that site over to suppress speech counter to their propaganda were Democrats.
And they were suppressing speech in the name of, you guessed it, democracy, because in a democracy, majority rules, and they were the majority.
Now, it is very revealing as to who you are and what your motives would have to be that you are proposing this method of suppressing public speech in an on-line discussion forum based in the Commonwealth of Virginia, with a BILL OF RIGHTS where in section 12 it provides that the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments.
Think on that for a minute, tkenny, and then stop and consider that just like me, you are on candid camera in here.
Who do you think reads all these words in here, tkenny?
Just a handful of people in a rural area of Virginia?
If so, you had better reconsider, because I can assure you that people out in California and elsewhere to the west are following this conversation with great interest.
The Cape Charles Mirror could well be global by this time.
By wishing to suppress my speech in here, you have very publicly put yourself firmly over into the camp of those who despise the great bulwarks of liberty, and who are in favor of despotic governments that restrain speech.
That makes you an enemy of freedom in Virginia, tkenny, and an enemy of its Bill of Rights, which makes you an advocate for tyrants and tyranny, a seditionist, in essence.
Is that how you wish to be remembered by the candid world?
In closing, tkenny, with respect to my “right” to speak in here, most certainly that right is in the hands of Wayne Creed, who you foolishly label a “dictator.”
If you had bothered to actually read the heading of this thread before beginning your rant to me about Wayne Creed being a “dictator,” you would have noticed that it is entitled “Special to the Cape Charles Mirror – Opinion by Paul Plante.”
“Special to the Cape Charles Mirror” means that before my words ever saw the light of day in here, they were given very close editorial scrutiny by Wayne Creed, who I believe sets very high standards for what gets published in here, which is why I bother to post here.
If this thread did not meet Wayne Creed’s high standards, it simply would not exist, and that certainly would be a lesson to me to improve my oration.
So it would seem, tkenny, based on that, that you are being highly critical of Wayne Creed’s judgment itself as to what is appropriate to be printed in the Cape Charles Mirror.
Do you think an apology to Wayne from yourself would be in order?
Wayne, are you punking us?
Mr Plante, I don’t think Wayne is looking for an apology and nor will I give him one. I’m just trying to point out your misconception of your right to free speech. Your, our government provides those rights, and the state upholds those rights. Within the confides of your monitor screen, Wayne provides rights or if you will, ,within my house, for example I provide those rights. If Wayne or myself decided that within our confides you could not use the word “lunatic” or “delusional” or “diatribe” you would have to abide by that rule or be gone. In no way does that interfere with your right to free speech.
Remember this is in response to your “Are you seriously suggesting that my right to freely speak, write, and publish my sentiments on all subjects in here should be restrained?”
Now, if you wish me to explain the difference between writing an article/opinion and the comments section of an article …..
Don’t worry Wayne I’m done. No more comment from me on this.
Editor’s note: No, not punking anyone! This is a good conversation, don’t discontinue it on my account!
The people of the Commonwealth of Virginia gave themselves freedom of speech with the Bill of Rights of the Virginia Constitution, tkenny.
In fact, in section 12 of the Bill of Rights of the Virginia Constitution, the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia made a very strong statement when they said “the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments.”
Thus, your statement that “our government provides those rights” seems off the mark.
Within your house, tkenny, you are entirely free to provide or deny whatever rights you wish, since that is private property.
But I am not in your house, am I?
As to what Wayne Creed decides to allow printed in here or not, that is indeed his prerogative, and I have absolutely no problem with that, at all.
I don’t know about your posts, but mine always await moderation before appearing in print, so at all times, Wayne Creed has editorial control over what I say.
So that isn’t the issue.
The issue is people trying to override Wayne Creed’s judgment, once he has granted me the freedom (yes, that is the word) to exercise my liberty of conscience in here, as I have been doing.
As the Bill of Rights of the Virginia Constitution makes incandescently clear, at least to me, the freedom of the press, which in this case is Wayne Creed and the Cape Charles Mirror, is among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments.
My freedom to post in here derives from the freedom of the press granted to Wayne Creed by the Bill of Rights of the Virginia Constitution.
If or when he decided to revoke that right, then I would be the first to know.
But all that appears in here does so because Wayne Creed has allowed it to be so.
That, of course, is quite a different scenario than readers like yourself proposing rules that would limit my “freedom” to post in here granted to me, not by the Virginia Constitution, but by Wayne Creed himself.
That smacks of political censorship.
You would think that if you people complaining about my “right” to speak in here actually had something of substance to say about what I have posted in here, the words I have used in what is a counterpropaganda effort on my part to counter the blatant propaganda put out by failed Democrat presidential contender, political sell-out and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, who called the 2016 Democrat Manifesto “by far, the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party” and Sally Kohn, an essayist, community organizer by training and temperament, and CNN political commentator, who called it in the pages of the Washington Post “the most progressive platform in American political history,” you would have by now articulated to the readers of the Cape Charles Mirror how or where I am wrong in my counterpropaganda effort.
But you don’t, apparently because you can’t.
Instead, you obfuscate and distract people’s attention away from the issues under discussion by coming up with very silly arguments about whose house I am in, and who can govern what I say, and now, you are going to throw a tantrum because Wayne Creed won’t shut me up, and you are going to take your marbles and go home without saying another word.
How juvenile.
From that, I think we can all discern that I am hitting too close to home for you, by exposing the 2016 Democrat Manifesto for exactly what it is in here, which is a recipe for tyranny to be imposed on us by the Democrat party should they take control of our government in 2017, hence these squeals and cries that I “have too much time on my hands” and the need for a “new rule” that an author can’t comment on his/her opinion/article until someone else comments.
What we are seeing here, people, with these attacks on what can be said in the Cape Charles Mirror, what words can be used, what words can’t be used, who can say them and how often, or not at all, I believe is a glimpse into our collective future as American citizens if this 2016 Democrat Manifesto becomes “law of the land” in 2016.
In the Preamble to the 2016 Democrat Manifesto, it states:
This election is about more than Democrats and Republicans.
It is about who we are as a nation, and who we will be in the future.
end quotes
So, there is what this discussion is really all about.
Who are we as a nation?
Who will we be in the future?
If John Read and tkenny were to have their way, those of us who dare to stand up in public and challenge their MANIFESTO would be without voices with which to dissent.
The Preamble to the 2016 Democrat Manifesto concludes as follows:
We can and we will build a more just economy, a more equal society, and a more perfect union—because we are stronger together.
end quote
The “we” in there, of course, refers to the Democrat party, the very same Democrat party that is going to take it upon itself to abolish rule of law as it presently exists in the United States of America and instead take the law into its own hands by requiring the Department of Justice to investigate all questionable or suspicious police-involved shootings, as opposed to citizen grand juries within the 50 states.
Their way, or the highway, people.
In the Albany, New York Times Union, the newspaper of record of Democrat Andy Cuomo’s capitol city in New York, the newspaper headline said the other day in huge block letters:
CLINTON VOWS TO UNITE NATION!
My question is how is she going to do that, other than by force, given that according to a WASHINGTON POST article by Aaron Blake on July 25, 2016:
1) 68 percent say Clinton isn’t honest and trustworthy;
2) CBS showed just 31 percent have favorable views of Clinton and 56 percent have unfavorable ones; and
3) Just 38 percent would be “proud” to have her as president.
end quotes
Yes, people, a lot to think about, so let us try to do it while we still have a voice with which to do so, before the censors shut us down.
Quite to the contrary, Tkenny, what I am seeing is quite an interesting discourse from our esteemed friend to the north of the fair land of Cape Charles. I, for one, welcome his sage words and his insight. And though, I don’t always agree with everything he says, he has every right to say what is on his mind.
As for the one who thought Mr. Plante has way too much time on his hands, I say this…to truly be free you must take the time to realize that freedom. Those who are possessed by their work and their idle hours will soon find themselves caged by conformity and time lost. As for you, Mr. Plante, write on….write on.
Chas Cornweller
It is good to see you, Charles Cornweller.
And as to you not agreeing with everything I say, not only is that a good thing, but a healthy thing as well for our democracy.
Unlike some, I don’t tell people what to think; rather, I give them things to think about.
Critical thinking is something this nation could use a lot more of, especially at the top of our government structure.
And the reason other people from other states are tuned in to this channel, if you will, is because this dialogue is not happening anywhere else in the nation that we are aware of.
It certainly is not happening in New York state.
It was, but that site, similar to this one, was abruptly shut down just before the 4th of July, and its contents were literally scrubbed from the internet.
The Cape Charles Mirror may well be the common person’s last great bulwark of liberty in this nation.
Let us hope that it is never restrained by despotic government.
Getting back to the seriousness of this 2016 Democrat Party Manifesto which failed Democrat presidential contender, political sell-out and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders called “by far, the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party,” and Sally Kohn, an essayist, community organizer by training and temperament, and CNN political commentator, told us in an article in the Washington Post entitled “Bernie Sanders is right: It’s time to support Hillary Clinton now – Democrats need to unite against Donald Trump this week” was “the most progressive platform in American political history,” and which I call a recipe for the imposition of a tyranny in this nation in the name of “progressivism” should it be enacted, in a partisan political speech at the Democrat National Convention this year on 28 July which received international attention, Khizr Muazzam Khan stated three things of direct relevance to this topic, to wit:
1) We can’t solve our problems by building walls and sowing division.
2) We are stronger together.
3) And we will keep getting stronger when Hillary Clinton becomes our next president.
end quote
Given that Khizr Muazzam Khan was speaking at the Democrat National Convention when he made those statements, the “we” he was referring to as “getting stronger when Hillary Clinton becomes our next president” is the Democrat party, at the expense of the liberty of the American people.
With respect to his statement “We can’t solve our problems by building walls and sowing division,” that must be considered in the context of 2016 Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton telling a BLACK LIVES MATTER political gathering on April 7, 2016 “If someone has white skin, they are a racist because of Implicit Bias, and we need community programs here in America to cure them.”
In the light of that statement, which forms the basis of the claims in the 2016 Democrat Manifesto that the “criminal justice system in the United States of America treats African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and American Indians in a discriminatory manner,” and “Democrats will fight to end institutional and systemic racism in our society,” it is incandescently clear that this supposed “most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party” does nothing but build walls and sow division among the American people, to the great detriment of our peace and harmony as a people in this nation.
That, people, is as far from the goals of true progressivism as it can possibly be.
Think about that between now and November, when it comes time to vote as you consider what your own answer will be to these two important questions which will affect not only your life, but the lives of countless generations yet to come:.
Who are we as a nation?
Who will we be in the future?
The choice is yours, people, so make it a wise one.