Showing posts with label college. Show all posts
Showing posts with label college. Show all posts

Thursday, December 28, 2023

Why Political Science Students at the University of Wisconsin at Madison Should Consider Dropping Out

 Author’s Note / Introduction


     The full title of this article is “Why Political Science Students at the University of Wisconsin at Madison Should Consider Dropping Out (Or at Least Changing Their Major)”.


     The following letter was written for the University of Wisconsin at Madison’s “Political Science at Work” event.

     That event took place at Great Hall at Memorial Union, and was organized by SuccessWorks Alumni Relations Team (at the College of Letters and Science Center for Personal and Professional Development), on October 23rd, 2023.

     The purpose of the event was to introduce students to alumni working in professions which theoretically might be available to contemporary students, when they complete their studies, graduate, and enter the work-force.

 

     This letter was provided – before editing was complete – to students who were in attendance.

     This article has been edited and expanded since it was delivered to the two students who chose to speak to me at that event.





The Letter


Dear Students:


     I suppose that I am here to tell you how to use your degree to help yourselves get a job. But the truth is that I have never used my degree to help myself get a job.
     In fact, I told my parents repeatedly that I suspected that I would never use my degree for that purpose, and that I had no intention of doing so.

     While I changed my mind about my intentions at times – working for the Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution (a lobbying organization founded by former Jill Stein presidential campaign manager Ben Manski), and by running for the U.S. House of Representatives four times – I am still struggling to use my degree in order to get a job.

     It has been thirteen years since I graduated. I currently drive the cheapest car I can afford, live in the cheapest apartment I can afford, and still have to work 48 hours per week, at fifteen dollars an hour. I even struggled with drug addiction and homelessness after leaving college.

 

     For one thing, this is because the economy (by which I mean the job market) was terrible when I enrolled at U.W. (in 2005). I spent years thinking, “I won’t have a good job until these Baby Boomers start retiring, and some spaces for me open up, and they’re too greedy to do that until decades from now.” And I was right.

      For another thing, I chose Political Science as my major, after at least five years of knowing that our government is so irredeemably corrupt, that a person like me would never belong as part of it. Granted, my home state (Illinois) is more corrupt than Wisconsin is. But neither state truly embraces freedom.

     Additionally, I have difficulty getting a high-paying job – and using my degree to do so – because I ended up with a 2.3 G.P.A.. [Notes: 1) G.P.A. stands for "Grade Point Average". 2) A 2.3 G.P.A. is the equivalent of a D+.]


     You might assume, from this fact, that my low grades were entirely my own fault. But the truth is that my grades had been steadily slipping since early-on in high school.

     And the reason why my grades had been slipping, was because I was depressed. And the reason why I was depressed, was because of my father (whose controlling nature and failure to help me plan, caused me to miss an opportunity to graduate high school a full year early).

     My father also sexually abused and assaulted me as a child. Not that I was aware of this fact; you see, I suffered from repressed memories of sexual abuse between the ages of 13 and 28 (2000 to 2015).


     For most of you, this will (hopefully) be a difficult thing to relate to. But it needs to be brought up; even if only one person can be helped by it.

     Who among you can honestly say that you are here at college solely due to your own choices? Now, maybe none of you were forced to go to college by your abusive parents in order to help cover-up and distract from the fact that they abused you as children (in fact, Jeffrey Epstein paid for the college tuition of several of his own victims, in order to assuage them, and to legitimize his own abuses). And I hope that none of you were.

     But who among you can say, additionally, that you are not here at college simply because you were expected to do so? That you were told, and expected, to go to some college, because your high school had high rates of students who went on to college, and because not going to college would make you “the odd man out”?

     Is that really a good-enough reason to go to college? Does that reflect the kind of independent thinking that this university thinks can be taught? You should at least understand what you’re getting yourself into, and you should consent to it, right?

 

     The fact is, I was never asked, even once – during my entire four years at U.W.-Madison – whether I was here of my own volition. Not in freshman orientation, not by my guidance counselors (who were more focused on helping me navigate the frustratingly slow course registration programs, which would often require a commitment of days and days waiting to register for a simple set of four or five classes).

     If you are not here of your own volition, then it logically follows that you are here as a hostage (most likely, of your parents).

     In my opinion, it seems that this happened because U.W.-Madison does not value consent; or if it does, then it is only for sexual purposes, and not for economic, social, political, nor contractual purposes.

     You see, when I first enrolled at U.W.-Madison, it was 2005. This was a full six years before almost anybody had ever read headlines indicating that Jeffrey Epstein was friends with Prince Andrew (which was only in British tabloids at the time), six years before it became acceptable to question whether governments could be complicit in child trafficking, and fourteen years before Epstein was finally caught (and the full corruption of the system began to be revealed).

     In 2011 – while in a haze, having forgotten the abuse I suffered at the hands of my father, due to being repeatedly re-traumatized, and forced to depend on my abuser for survival – I knew, somewhere deep within myself, that there were people associated with the government (even people not directly employed by it, such as my attorney father, whose clients include people accused of rape) who abused children. Therefore, I was nearly afraid to discuss the possibility that people who seek political power often do so because they want to abuse children.

 

     One major fact demonstrating that U.W.-Madison does not value consent, is that it preys upon impressionable young 18-year-olds, who are either making decisions using their parents’ money, or else are dependent and nearly helpless due to having to depend on the university and its career advice while working their way through college at low wages.

     Another fact – although I was scarcely aware of it at the time - is that U.W.’s Sociology Department employed a professor named John DeLaMater. This man, who has since passed away, after my time here, served as the instructor of the university’s Human Sexuality courses in sociology.

     Once, while offering interested students an extra-credit opportunity, Professor DeLaMater held up a prize to students who won a contest related to researching human sexuality. That prize was a red T-shirt that read, “Teach your children about sex, or I will”.

     We snickered when we saw that shirt, and heard what it said on it. But I only understood the problematic nature of this prize, and this statement, years later, when I put some things together. You see, another optional assignment that we were afforded in that course, was to view the film Kinsey, starring Kevin Kline. That film depicts sex researcher Alfred Kinsey interviewing a man who had confessed to raping children and animals.

     Since leaving college, I have discovered several disturbing things about Kinsey. First, that he thought it was normal and healthy and beneficial for children to engage in sexual activity. Second, that his inordinate focus on sex criminals, in his research, has been described as unethical, and skewed the results of his research in favor of the perverted and the criminal. Third, that he has been accused by his biographers of attempting to solicit a former Nazi for photographic evidence of sex crimes against children. Fourth, that a statue of Mr. Kinsey has been erected in his home state of Indiana, at its university.

 

     The University of Wisconsin is not telling you this, however; because they want your money. According to financialaid.wisc.edu, the cost of a four-year degree, for in-state students, is currently about $45,000 for tuition for in-state students, plus $54,000 for meals and housing; amounting to a whopping $99,000. And for out-of-state students, this figure rises to a total of $214,000.

     The university is teaching students to choose a major, and then to become graduate students and then professors of that major, in order to set up what basically amounts to an Amway-style, “divide-and-conquer”-oriented Ponzi scheme, to teach people to teach how to teach useless subjects which students could not possibly help the world, or themselves, by learning. The objective of this is to burden students with more and more student debt (through F.A.F.S.A.), and trick students into thinking that – if they vote for the right control-freak for president – he will forgive all the student debt. But this, too, is a scam; as Joe Biden’s debt forgiveness plan only amounts to a total debt forgiveness for students who attended college at particular times, had less than a certain amount of debt, and have no criminal records whatsoever. Another objective of this cycle is to grow the government, and its cost, until the public sector eats-up the entire economy, eventually swallowing the private sector whole, until there are no unlicensed or lightly-regulated businesses left in this country.

 

     Speaking of the problem of high expenses of attending college: One of the things that we were sold in 2005, as part of our required purchases in order to attend classes, was an expensive digital surveying device, which allowed us to remotely submit answers to questions asked in class. Strangely, I don’t remember any class, aside from Human Sexuality, in which I used this expensive device. And one of the things I was asked – at age 18 or 19 – was how often I was engaging in sexual activity. I was asked this, without any hint of caution as to how or why it may be unethical for professors to ask such questions.

     I repeat: this university does not care about your consent, in economic, social, political, or contractual contexts. It only wants you to consent to sex enthusiastically, so it can normalize the fraternity and sorority systems (and the sometimes sexual hazing which they practice), and so that they can take thousands upon thousands of dollars of your (or your parents’) hard-earned money.

     What is the point of spending between $100,000 and $214,000 on a Big Ten University education, when the internet exists; that is, when most books are already in PDF form, which you can download for free online? Why would they need to take so much of your money, when they can simply teach you how to use a library, a card catalog, and the internet? I don’t know what things are like now, but far too little emphasis was placed on these skills when I was attending.


     When I told a friend that I was about to attend this SuccessWorks event today, he told me that I was supposed to use my degree - and the fact that I had chosen a Legal Studies or Political Science major – to get an internship with a local politician. I was supposed to volunteer my time; which, for students who were strapped for cash, simply amounted to unpaid labor, free for those politicians, which is not much different from pressuring a person into involuntary servitude.

     But then, of course, these opportunities supposedly offered us “exposure”. But the university never told us this, and they certainly never told us that you can die of exposure.

     This university wants you to be utterly reliant on its guidance counselors (whom, in my time here, were rarely available) for career advice.


     But alas, here you are at college. But have you ever stopped to ask yourself “What is the purpose of education”? I bet you haven’t.

     If you must know, the purpose of higher education is supposed to be to equip students with the skills and knowledge necessary to get high-paying jobs, so they can compete in a modern, interconnected, global economy.

     The problem is, however; we never stop to ask ourselves, “Why is competition necessary?” Couldn’t we be cooperating instead? Competition is only justifiable in lifeboat scenarios involving scarcity, but even then, competition is only tolerable; it is still not preferable, nor equitable.

     Additionally: “Why aren’t they teaching us to help other students learn the material?” Just as fifth-grade students are not expected to be able to teach everything they learned last year to the fourth-grade students, you will not be expected to teach younger students unless and until you become a graduate student. But why should things be that way?


     Nevermind the issue of “What do you do if you can’t find a politician to volunteer for, who shares your values and morality”, and what to do if you are disillusioned by that politician’s lack of scruples, or by their commitment to towing the party line to the detriment of the freedom and equality of the people. Nevermind the issue of which politician to volunteer for, if you are a libertarian, a progressive, or a communist.

     As a matter of fact, during my time, a teacher’s assistant told us, point-blank, that “communism doesn’t work”. He said this without supplying evidence, without disclosing that there are literally dozens of formulations of communism which have never been tried, and without entertaining the possibility that the actions of the U.S. military are among the chief reasons why regimes that attempt communism are forced into collapse.

     Nevermind the issue of why your professors won’t tell you that what’s “necessary and proper” (see McCulloch v. Marlyand) for the government to do, is largely a matter of opinion, until it occurs to you that you need to ask them that question, ten or fifteen years after graduating.

     Put all that to the side.

     Instead of “How am I going to use my degree to get a job”, you should be saying to yourself “I don’t even know what I don’t know”, and asking “What do I need to find out about, that I need to find out about?"


     Do you really think that your professors are going to tell you that there were fourteen people who held the post of “president” before George Washington and before the Constitution was signed?

     Do you really think your professors are going to tell you that there are two asteroid belts in our solar system instead of one? Or that the debate about how many planets we have, is not between eight vs. nine (because of Pluto), but rather, eight vs. thirteen (because other dwarf planet exist)? Of course not. Why would they offer you free information up-front, when they could, instead, simply take your money, and teach you nothing?


     Most people enter politics for one reason: because they want power. And sadly, it seems that many people are entering education for the same reason.

     Have you realized yet that the state wields legitimate violence, and, in so doing, legitimizes violence (the use of which is always unethical)?

     Have you realized yet that a government is nothing more than a criminal gang – a mafia – which has legalized the use of violence when it is exercised by itself, but which criminalizes the use of defensive force when it is used by the people without begging and paying their government for the right to do so beforehand?

     Have you realized yet that the public employees who police our street are only obligated to protect and serve people who have private property and private contracts with said police (due to the decision in Warren v. District of Columbia, 1981), while so-called private security guards (which happens to be my profession) are, bizarrely, trained to believe that their purpose is to protect individual members of the public, instead of the private properties which they patrol?

     The world is upside-down. That is why you need people like me, asking you the difficult questions; to shake things up, to get the world right-side up again.


     If you care about getting health care to people who need it, then don’t study political science or try to learn how to write legislation; go to medical school and become a doctor.

     If you are more interested in how to distribute resources to people who sorely need them, then you should be an economist, not a political scientist.

     If you care about expanding the private sector, then don’t get into political science in order to figure out ways to get the government support the private sector. That defeats the purpose, and is antithetical to free-market ideals. Instead, go to business school, or study economics.

     If you are more interested in current events than politics, then you should be a journalist, not a political scientist.

     If you care about other peoples in the world, then don’t study political science. Study languages or linguistics or communication.

     If you are worried about the lack of opportunities which young Americans face (for example, in comparison to people in Germany and China) in acquiring marketable technical skills (rather than simply writing articles that nobody will ever read), then don’t advocate for more student loans, and access to tech courses, through legislation; you should, instead, simply drop out of this college and go to a technical school.

     I never did go to a technical school, and I regret it all the time, because I don’t have any marketable skills. I would have liked to go to school for music production, woodworking, or electrical engineering, but my rapist father said I could only do so after graduating. I did graduate, but he stopped supporting me after that, so I never went back to school. I started educating myself, which was always – and always will be – an option available to you.


     Now, this is all very different from saying that you should drop out of college because young people who are pressured into performing child labor have an edge at getting and staying employed, compared to people who go to college and choose useless majors.

     Not that that isn't true.

     But the result is the same, because your professors are not going to tell you that there are plenty of businesses that post job offers of $12 or $15 an hour, while expecting people to have Masters’ Degrees (which theoretically entitle them to teach college).


     The point that I’m driving at, here, is that - if you stay in college - then you are probably going to get scammed. Do you really want to dedicate four years of your life regurgitating what is said by people who last had to look for a job forty years ago? Do you really value grades and “money” (whatever that is; really, it is Mammon) more than your own integrity? To paraphrase Mark Twain, “Never let your schooling interfere with your education”.

     And why do we need jobs anyway, or money? It’s not like if you run out of money, or stop using money, you die, anyway. Look up a man named Daniel Suelo; he lives without using money. We are being indoctrinated into thinking that man will die if he does not use money, and it is simply not true.

     We are led to assume that it is necessary to pull as much legal tender out of the economy as possible, because there is scarcity. But is there really? We are being led to assume that scarcity, limitedness, fixedness, and finitude are all the same thing, but they aren’t.

     Water falls from the sky for free, and government sometimes makes it illegal for us to collect it. We are told “nothing is free”, yet the air we breathe is free.

     Most of the things that cost money, only cost money because they legally have to cost money. We will not die without money; we will die without resources.

     We are told that we need money to buy food; yet 1/3 of all the food in the world is thrown away. Does this sound like scarcity (a situation in which we have less than we need) to you?

     So if we don’t have scarcity, then we have abundance. Resources which are abundant, rather than scarce, do not need to be distributed. Not through government, nor through competition, nor even through economic science, nor even economizing itself. Such resources are simply not necessary to distribute; people should just be able to come and collect them, because there are enough to go around. So why do we need politics and government, and economics, to distribute resources which are abundant and therefore don’t need to be distributed in the first place? Nobody at this university is asking this question or thinking this way.

     And a university which fails to impel you to ask important questions like these, is only doing one thing: It is committing widespread education fraud, whether passively or actively and intentionally.

     And if you come out of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, with bad grades, finding difficulty getting a job, then it is not necessarily solely your fault. It is the fault of your professors, who indoctrinated you with propaganda, and led you to assume things that are simply not true; contributing to your forced dependence upon whomever tells you lies the most confidently.


     Get out while you still can. RUN. And never look back.

     Get a low-stress job. Start reading whatever you want in your spare time. Learn how to do something productive like building a table, for your own sake.

     Invest in yourself, and in your own ethics and integrity; not in this university. I beg of you. You don’t want to be like me; sad and ignored, and begging for help and attention that I know I will never receive.

     Do you want to be a real person, or do you want to be a piece of paper? Do you want to be so smart that people can’t understand you? Do you want to be so smart, that you’ll end up wishing you weren’t so smart that you can’t relate to ordinary people? Do you want to view everything through the lens of politics, such that you can’t relate to any problem in the world except through how people and resources can be controlled? Do you want to fail to become the well-rounded person that this university falsely promises that you will be, when you get enough “breadth and depth” in various topics, through your coursework? Do you want to be – as Ronald Reagan said about Democrats – so smart that the things you think you know, just aren’t so?

     If the answer to all of these is “yes”, then you do belong here, but you also probably need therapy.

     Speaking of which, the school psychologist (if he or she exists) should probably try harder to make him- or herself better-known. During my first month studying here, a young woman jumped off a parking garage and killed herself; possibly because she was homesick, was pressured to attend college, or both. Perhaps she had been sexually assaulted; I don’t know. Either way, psychologists and grief counselors need to make themselves more available – or available at all – to help counsel students after such sad events.

     Additional complaints that I have about this university are that: 1) it didn’t teach me time-management skills, and I still have a problem leaving everything – including this letter – to the last minute; 2) I had nightmares about missing classes and tests for years after graduating; 3) nobody here ever told me that, if I wanted to get into Harvard or Yale law schools, it would help if I knew Latin, Greek, or Hebrew; and 4) this university has failed to produce any politician capable of defeating Joe Biden (who molested a child live on C-SPAN2 on January 6th, 2015) for president.


     Hopefully that will be enough to make my point: these people do not give a fuck about you, nor the facts, nor your feelings. They want your money.

     Your intellectual freedom begins today. Congratulations.


     I have so much more to say, but so little space; and it would be unfair of me to pressure you to read any more of the things I would like to say, because they are things that I may have wrongly been led to assume. As Bruce Lee once said, "A good teacher protects his pupils from his own influence."

     As I said, independent thinking cannot be taught, it is certainly not taught here, and anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to scam you.

     Please contact me, Joseph W. Kopsick; not if you would like to learn more, but if you would like to challenge yourself to think harder, and think more independently.

 

 

 

 

 

- Joseph W. Kopsick,

University of Wisconsin – Madison,

Graduating Class of 2009


- Private Security Officer with Howe, Security, Inc.

- Highest wages I have ever earned:

$15 per hour, working legally and taxably;

$20 per hour working a “side hustle” doing personal home organizing


 

- Only political job I have ever worked:

$9 an hour, walking door to door asking hard-working people to hand me their money,

for the Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution (headed by Ben Manski),

in Madison, Wisconsin,

for one month



-          Based in Waukegan, Illinois

- E-Mail Address: jwkopsick@gmail.com

- Phone Number: 618-751-3229




Originally written on October 23rd, 2023

Edited and Expanded on November 6th and December 28, 2023

Published on December 28th, 2023

Friday, January 22, 2021

Letter to Political Science Professor David T. Canon on Constitutional Law

Table of Contents



1. Introduction

2. First and Second E-Mail, Part 1: On the First and Fourth Amendments, Technology, Security, and the Air Force

3. First and Second E-Mail, Part 2: Elastic Clause and Commerce Clause Interpreted Overly Broadly

4. First and Second E-Mail, Part 3: Advice for Democrats

5. Third E-Mail: McCulloch v. Maryland and Congressional Banking Powers

6. Post-Script



Content



1. Introduction



      The following is an edited version comprised of excerpts from three e-mails which I sent to Professor David T. Canon, who teaches political science at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and taught me some time between 2005 and 2009.
     The e-mails were sent on January 21st, 2021.


     My conversation with Professor Canon began when I sent him the following infographic, which I published several weeks ago, on January 3rd, 2021.
     I suggested that the infographic could serve as a valuable teaching tool for his political science students, when it comes to learning different viewpoints regarding Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution for the United States. This is the section of the Constitution which outlines the powers of Congress.


     Professor Canon told me that if my interpretation of the Constitution were taken seriously, then the U.S. Air Force, laws allowing police to tap terrorists' phones or track them on the internet, and First Amendment protections for broadcast media and internet publications, would not be allowed to exist.
     Canon also said that the U.S. would be unable to compete and deal with the modern world, if the Constitution were not written in order to be interpreted broadly - and evolve with time - instead of narrowly.
     Canon also made reference to the Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland - which established the constitutionality of the First National Bank - as a precedent recognizing the legitimacy of applying the Necessary and Proper Clause to create new departments which may not have been specifically authorized in Article I Section 8.

     I wrote the following responses, to explain my own view of how the Constitution should be interpreted with regard to the duly delegated powers of Congress. In these three e-mails to Professor Canon, I aimed to articulate a view of constitutional interpretation which combines left-wing and right-wing views.
     I believe that the best way forward, to achieve needed reforms to the body of federal law (the U.S. Code), is to pursue constitutional amendments that will achieve reforms by enshrining them in the Constitution permanently.
     This strategy would be used in place of: 1) temporary measures, 2) Band-Aid solutions, 3) executive orders, 4) presidential signing statements, 5) parliamentary procedures which eliminate the need for supermajorities unfairly, 6) overuse of presidential authority to reorganize the executive branch, 7) inappropriate congressional delegation of powers to the president or to independent or private agencies, and 8) other questionably constitutional ways to pass laws.
     I support adopting the structure and rhetoric of the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and using it to advance the legal goals which are held by the progressives and the Left. That is, only those which do not conflict with a libertarian interpretation of the traditional originalist viewpoint; i.e., one which strongly values individual civil liberties, freedom of expression, and due process.


     The first segment of text below, consists of the text from the first two e-mails. Excerpts from the second e-mail have been attached to the first e-mail, and are seen in [brackets].


     The second segment of text consists of the third e-mail. That e-mail was written after reviewing the facts of McCulloch v. Maryland.


     The section headings were not included in the original e-mails.




2. First and Second E-Mail, Part 1: On the First and Fourth Amendments, Technology, Security, and the Air Force



     I do not believe that Congress's powers preclude an air force. Nor do I believe that changing technology necessitates new laws or new powers, or means that old powers need to be updated or expanded.

     It is easily justifiable to have an Air Force, or even a Space Force, because Article I Section 8 specifically calls for providing for the common defense.

     My view is that the Necessary and Proper Clause do not give Congress its current powers. The mainstream view today is that Congress can basically give itself whichever powers it deems necessary and proper for promoting the public welfare. My view is that Congress has only those powers which the people grant it, which are necessary and proper in regards to pursuing the ends specifically enumerated in Article I Section 8.

     The fact that an Air Force isn't mentioned there, doesn't mean that the common defense clause doesn't cover airborne military operations.

     The fact that terrorists use the internet or the phone, doesn't mean that the Constitution prevents police from getting a warrant from a judge which specifically allows them to get phone records or internet records. [Parts of the Patriot Act may have been appropriate, due to new technologies, but only if they did not violate due process protections. And the Department of Homeland Security could have been much more easily justifiable as Constitutional if its powers had been exercised by the Department of Defense, or the Department of Justice, which existed since the 1790s.]

     The fact that terrorism laws needed to be updated, justified a small percentage of what the Patriot Act accomplished. But by and large, the need to update those laws, was used to [justify] overturn[ing] Habeas Corpus [and ignoring the due process rights of people accused of terrorism].

     You're correct that the Constitution doesn't allow police to tap phones. But that's a good thing, and the limitations imposed by the Constitution should have prevented wiretapping. The fact that technology is changing, doesn't mean we should validate the Patriot Act, and give up struggling against the treasonous Alien and Sedition Act, which has more or less created a free speech chilling effect upon the expression of political speech, and upon activism and protect.




3. First and Second E-Mail, Part 2: Elastic Clause and Commerce Clause Interpreted Overly Broadly

     I understand the view that our society would be held back, in some sense, but I don't buy it. The voting booth is not a time machine. I do believe that several constitutional amendments are needed, but based on my reading of history, constitutional amendments have not been the major reason why the federal government has expanded.

     You're correct that the Commerce Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause – and also the General Welfare Clause – have been broadly interpreted, and that that's one of the causes. Another is Congress handing its constitutional powers over to the president without cause (as in the power to make war). Another is the reorganization authority of the president. This power to reorganize executive departments, has been interpreted to allow the president to “reorganize” entire sectors of the economy into-under his control, after Congress has assumed it has powers it doesn't have, and hands it over to the president. [The presidential power to reorganize cabinets is not supposed to extend to powers which he did not already have. But it has been used that way.] And as long as the Supreme Court doesn't stop them, this keeps going.

     As I explained in the infographic, the military powers justify occupying lands essential to defense. Occupying land justifies managing it, and farming on it. Farming on land justifies regulating food and agriculture, establishing an F.D.A., and regulating environment and energy at the federal level.

     So I'm actually saying that there is a constitutional rationale for federal departments not originally prescribed by the Constitution. I'm just saying that Democrats aren't currently using the best argument for growing the government. That's why the E.P.A. is toothless.

     That's why I'm suggesting that people study Article I Section 8, and the views I've expressed in this letter. I think we should be expanding the Unenumerated Rights protected by the 9th Amendment, instead of the Unenumerated Powers of Congress (which arguably don't exist). I think this will lead to more successful, and more permanent, legislation, as opposed to the temporary fixes and Band-Aid half-solutions.

     Teaching people how to interpret the Constitution for themselves, would be a lot more effective than teaching people that the Constitution is an outdated document. It's true that the Constitution does leave slavery in place, because of the 13th Amendment, but that amendment can itself be amended. There hasn't been a new amendment in 29 years. It's time we not only amend the Constitution, but also teach people how to amend it (a process which has historically taken as short as 6 months). If people had been less afraid of the Constitution, maybe the 13th Amendment would have been fixed by now.

     Until Article I Section 8 is amended - in a way that specifically authorizes the Congress to exercise sole authority on the issues of environment, energy, health, retirement, welfare, and education; and in a way that the states cannot intervene with federal regulations – I predict that the E.P.A. and H.H.S. will remain largely powerless whenever there is a Republican president, and that Social Security will remain unstable.



4. First and Second E-Mail, Part 3: Advice for Democrats


     These programs and departments are financially unstable because they are founded on ground which is not constitutionally firm. It is not the Republicans which have prevented Democrats from having the federal government do what they want, but rather, it is the Constitution which has established these limitations.

     Until Democrats learn to be proficient in constitutional interpretation, I predict that the E.P.A. will remain toothless, environmental laws and health insurance programs will be easy to overturn, the Democrats will continue to waste years and trillions of dollars on programs that presidents can easily ignore, and governors and the Supreme Court will continue to veto and reject unconstitutional new uses of power by the Congress.

     The time for Democrats to scream like babies in the congressional chamber, demanding that a vote be taken which they are not allowed to take (i.e., regulating gun control, therein violating the limits set by the Second Amendment) is over.

     Democrats need to understand how Congress's powers are granted – and understand different views about where its authority comes from - and they need to use better justifications for empowering the Congress to take action. I assure you, there is a way to do that.

     Until that happens, the Democratic Party will be giving the impression, to young legislators and activists, that if they want the federal government to have a new power, all they need to do is beg really, really hard for the Congress to start doing it. Instead of citing, in the bill, specifically, where in Article I Section 8 the authority comes from, for Congress to do it.

     The Necessary and Proper Clause / Elastic Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and the Commerce Clause, are not sufficient to justify the current set of powers currently wielded by the federal government. They have all been interpreted in too broad a manner, while the definitions of the terms “regulate” and “welfare” have been widely debated.

     If Congress has these powers, then what are the powers of the state governments? Solely to hire police, in order to enforce the uniform federal law which Congress hands down? Are there no issues, or sectors of the economy, which the states have sole or exclusive authority to regulate?

     I was under the impression that all powers not expressly delegated to the Congress are reserved to the states or to the people (10th Amendment), and that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage the rights retained by the people (9th Amendment). The idea that the federal government can legislate upon any and all things that are mentioned - or even barely referenced in passing - in the Constitution, then we destroy what the 9th Amendment was supposed to protect.

      The fact that the federal government has the authority to "establish Post Roads" does not mean that it has the authority to build and maintain a National Highway System. Establishing post roads is different from building them. Just like the exclusive federal authority to establish a uniform set of rules regarding naturalization, does not mean that the federal government has to enforce those rules. Or establish I.C.E. for those purposes. And it doesn't mean that the federal government gets to regulate immigration however it pleases. The states still retain some authority. If liberals weren't afraid of the Constitution, one of them would have thought of this by now. By now, sanctuary states and sanctuary cities could have been obviously constitutional, and independent so that the federal government doesn't fund them. But we don't have that because we insist on preserving monarchical, tyrannical levels of executive power in the presidency, and corrupt misinterpretations of the Constitution by Congress.

     If we go on thinking that the federal government can do whatever it wants, then we should expect someone to be elected every 4 or 8 years who promises to either dismantle these unconstitutional programs, or else use them for evil. Perhaps it is best that they be dismantled peacefully, before they can be used for evil, or left powerless, by a future administration.

     If you disagree with me, then I will run into the congressional chamber - like a progressive legislator, or a right-wing gun nut - and scream to the federal government, until they grant themselves a new power to take away your coffee mug, and give it to me. With the rationale that it vaguely (generally) promotes my well-being, so it qualifies as general welfare. That was a joke, but this is what liberals think the General Welfare Clause actually means. They don't care that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, and Due Process, would stop me from taking your coffee mug, for doing nothing but disagreeing with me. They only know that those limitations were imposed by slave owners, therefore government should be able to steal from anyone it pleases and give it to anyone else! And that is why we have both social welfare and corporate welfare.

     This shit has got to stop. If you don't want people running into Congress screaming with guns, then we will have idiot Democratic legislators screaming for new authorities to take the people's rights away. We need a more robust and comprehensive teaching and debate concerning Article I Section 8.

     I hope I have expressed at least one thought here, which is not typical of the "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution. I believe that natural rights, human rights, and civil liberties would be viewed as one and the same, if we fully understood and adopted the sentiment contained within the 9th Amendment.




5. Third E-Mail: McCulloch v. Maryland and Congressional Banking Powers


     The Supreme Court was correct to establish that agencies which are necessary and proper to create, because of the powers enumerated in Article I Section 8, are constitutional. I do not dispute that.

     But it could be argued that the First National Bank was not authorized by Article I Section 8 in the first place, because a central bank would not have been necessary to exercise all the banking powers listed therein.


     The banking powers delegated to Congress consist of:

     - the authority to coin and issue currency (done by mints)
     - the authority to regulate bankruptcies (done by Congress)
     - the authority to lay and collect taxes, (done by Congress & the I.R.S.)
     - the authority to borrow money "on the credit of the United States".



     A bank is arguably not "necessary and proper" to put into effect those four powers. Borrowing money on the credit of "the United States" might even refer to Congress itself.

     That might not make sense. But there are only a few entities which could be saddled with public debt: 1) Congress, 2) the Treasury Dep[artmen]t, or 3) the people. And it is popularly said and taught that the people do not directly own the public debt.

     But then again, Congress may not own the debt, because congressional oaths of office are not taken in writing, which calls into question whether congressmen have any financial obligation to support the Constitution or represent their constituents.

     Additionally, the fact that the Congress has the power to do something, does not necessarily mean that it should. We have a national bank, not to pay our bills, but to manage being in debt. The fact that Congress has authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States, does not necessarily mean that the Congress should exercise that authority. Can does not equal should.



6. Post-Script


     Please see the following articles, which I wrote, to learn more about how I believe Article I Section 8 of the Constitution should be interpreted:

     - "How to Easily and Permanently Memorize the Enumerated Powers of Congress" (February 2020)
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/02/how-to-easily-and-permanently-memorize.html

     - "What is Congress Allowed to Do and What is it Not Allowed to Do (Without an Amendment)?" (January 2021)
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/what-is-congress-allowed-to-do-and-what.html




E-Mails Written on January 21st, 2021

Introduction Written on January 22nd, 2021

Published on January 22nd, 2021

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Questions About Race Relations and Racial Politics in America (and a Few Answers)

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Definitions of Racism, Prejudice, Discrimination, Stereotypes (etc.)
III. Hispanic-American Issues, Immigration, and "Where Are You From?"
IV. Political Correctness (incl. P.C. Language on College Campuses)
V. Racial Politics: Trump vs. the Democratic Party
VI. Reparations, Affirmative Action, and "Reverse Discrimination"
VII. Native American Issues
VIII. Busing and Black Incarceration




I. Introduction

     The following 28 sets of questions were written as part of the planning stages of my appearance on  an episode of a public access television show based in Highland Park, Illinois. The topics of that episode are race in America and political correctness.
     I believe that these questions are the most important and relevant questions that need to be asked, in order to produce a thorough discussion of race relations.

     I did not answer all of the questions that follow (I refrained from answering questions #7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14-19, 22-26, and 28). However, my readers should be able to discern my opinion from the way I worded most of those questions.
     In case it's necessary to explain my positions any further, I support political correctness and safe spaces, but only when they don't interfere with the right to free expression and the right to debate what the truth is. And I do believe that Donald Trump is a white supremacist and a racist, and I have criticized (and will continue to criticize) the Trump Administration's immigration policies as reminiscent of the Nazi regime that governed Germany during World War II and the Holocaust.

     Along with many of these sets of questions, I have included links to news articles, so that the reader can learn more about the original context of the news about American racial politics to which I am referring.



II. Definitions of Racism, Prejudice, Discrimination, Stereotypes (etc.)

     1. What is the definition of “racism”? What is the definition of “racial supremacy”?

     Answer: Racism is “Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race, based on the belief that one's own race is superior.” Additionally, the term “racism” is often used as shorthand (or a synonym) for “racial supremacy” and “the belief in, or promotion of, racial stereotypes”.
     Racial supremacy, in particular, is “the racist belief that one's race is superior to others, and that therefore that race should dominate, subjugate, or control other races, or the belief that the superior race is entitled to do so.”

     2. Is the term “racist” being overused? Does calling everything “racist” diminish the seriousness of racial hatred? Why has this term become so popular recently?

     Answer: Because many people lump racial prejudice, racial supremacy / racial superiority, racial stereotyping, and racial discrimination in with racism, and refer to all of those things (as well as making insensitive jokes about race) as “racist” actions.
     The term “racism” has thus become a convenient descriptor for any and all actions which could be described as racially insensitive. The popularity of the word's use in recent years, could owe in part to the fact that the word now refers to a wider and less specific set of arguably racist actions and statements than it used to.
     On the other hand, those who feel that it is appropriate to call a lot of people and things “racist”, do so because they believe that racism is now practiced mostly covertly, as opposed to overtly. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s-60s featured obvious, public, out-in-the-open discrimination against, and segregation of, African-Americans; not just in private and on business properties, but by the government itself. Some of those who consider racism a serious problem, believe that racism has become harder to detect, and some even believe that we are being subconsciously programmed to support white supremacy, by sectors of our society such as government and advertising.

     3. What is the definition of “racial prejudices”?

     Answer: “Preconceived opinions about race, which are not based on reason or actual experience.”

     4. What is the definition of “racial discrimination”?

     Answer: “Preferential treatment on the basis of race.”

     5. What is the definition of a “racial stereotype”?

     Answer: “A widely held, but fixed and oversimplified, image or idea, of a particular race of people.”

     6. What is the difference between a positive stereotype and a negative stereotype?

     Answer: A negative stereotype is deliberately intended to be hurtful, while a positive stereotype is usually intended as a joke and is usually not intended to offend anyone.
     However, positive stereotypes can still be hurtful, such as the positive stereotypes that “Jewish people are good with money” and “all Asians are good at math”. These ideas are stereotypes about positive traits, but they are still generalizations, so they are still harmful because they contribute to the belief that all members of a certain group are the same.


III. Hispanic-American Issues, Immigration, and "Where Are You From?"

     7. Is it insensitive to refer to Hispanics as “Mexicans”, or as “Spanish people”? Should we be careful about using the term “Mexican” and “Spanish” to describe Latino, Hispanic, or Chicano people who might not even be from Mexico or Spain to begin with?

     8. Former Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway was recently criticized for asking reporter Andrew Feinberg “What's your ethnicity?” in response to his asking her to explain Trump's tweet telling four congresswomen to “go back” to their districts. The reporter replied that he was American, but Conway kept asking, because she wanted to know where the reporter's parents were from.
     Was it racially insensitive of Donald Trump to suggest that his critics in Congress “originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe”, when three out of the four people he was criticizing were born in the United States, rather than abroad?
     Is it racially insensitive to suggest that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is “from Puerto Rico” just because her parents are Puerto Rican; and that Rashida Tlaib is “from Palestine” just because her parents are Palestinian? Wouldn't that imply that Ayanna Pressly is every bit as much “from Africa” as Ilhan Omar is? What about a Jewish-American person who was born in America, but has never been to Israel? Where is that person “from”, if not America or Israel?
     Is it racially insensitive to ask someone where their family is from; to keep asking where someone is “from” until they tell you about an ancestor that wasn't born in America? Is it reasonable for someone to be upset or offended by being asked such a question?


Sources:
Kellyanne Conway asks reporter “What is your ethnicity?”:




IV. Political Correctness (incl. P.C. Language on College Campuses)

      9. What is the definition of “politically correct”?

     Answer: “Conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities, should be eliminated.”


     10. Some Americans feel that the culture of political correctness has gone too far. Critics of “P.C. language” (politically correct language) say that it causes people to be too cautious about the words they use. They say that worrying about avoiding offending people could make us afraid to speak the truth, and might even cause a “free speech chilling effect”.
     Do you believe that using “politically correct language” is a good way to help promote respectful dialogue about race in America? Or do you believe that P.C. language has gone too far? (And if you think it has gone too far, what are some examples of it going too far, that you object to?)

     11. The conversation about political correctness extends to not only race and ethnicity and nationality, but also to religion, biological sex, and gender identity. Thus, the treatment of transgender individuals, as well as of non-whites, has become an important and controversial issue on college campuses.
     Several years ago, in Toronto, Canada, psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson became notorious for refusing to refer to his students by their preferred pronoun, saying “I am not going to be a mouthpiece for language that I detest.” This came at a time when Canada was considering Bill C-16, a proposed bill by the Canadian parliament that would have prohibited gender discrimination on campuses, but also would have required people to use the gender pronouns which others prefer.
     Given that anti-discrimination could potentially threaten the freedom of speech in Canada – and maybe even result in “compelled speech” or “government mandated speech” - is there a realistic chance that the same kinds of laws limiting the freedom of speech on campus, could be implemented at universities here in America?


Source:

Dr. Jordan Peterson on why he won't use people's preferred pronouns:


12. What are “safe spaces”?

     Answer: “Places, including some college campuses, which are intended to be free from bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening or upsetting actions, ideas, or conversations.”
     Practices common in “safe spaces” are “trigger warnings” and protections from “micro-aggressions”. Trigger warnings are warnings that information may upset listeners, while “micro-aggressions” are uses of offensive, “aggressive” language, which cause others to feel attacked.


     13. In 2016, the University of Chicago received praise for defending academic freedom and freedom of speech, for announcing that it would not be creating “safe spaces” for students. The university announced that it would not disinvite speakers, invited to speak on controversial topics, if students protested and demanded disinvitation.
     As a reminder, riots broke out in Berkeley in 2017, after the University of California at Berkeley decided not to disinvite controversial “alt-right” speakers, including Milo Yiannopoulos and Lauren Southern.
     Do you believe that the need for political correctness – and so-called “safe spaces” on campus - help college students learn about race in America, history, etc.? Or are you worried that these things shelter students from reality, and from an educational experience that's meant to expose them to ideas that conflict with and challenge their own ideas? What kinds of protections do students need on campus, if any?


Sources:

Riots occur after University of California Berkeley cancels Milo Yiannopoulos event:




V. Racial Politics: Trump vs. the Democratic Party

     14. Do you believe that President Trump a racist? Why or why not?
Why do people think he's racist? What has he said, or done, that indicates that he is a white supremacist?


     15. Is the Trump Administration's immigration policy racist? Is it intrinsically racist to exclude immigrants on the basis of national origin, or is just an issue of the president stressing the need to enforce existing law?


     16. Many defenders of the president have pointed out that some immigration policies - such as separation of children from families, and knocking-over water left for migrants – were started under the Obama Administration. The Trump Administration says it's just enforcing existing laws.
     The Obama Administration has been criticized for setting deportation records. But Obama and Hillary Clinton also supported D.A.C.A. (Deferred Action for Child Arrivals).
     Did the Obama Administration help immigrants? Was Obama's immigration policy good for America? Should Hillary Clinton have done something more to help immigrants, besides just support D.A.C.A., if she expected to prove herself more pro-immigrant than Trump, and win the presidency?


Sources:



     17. “The Squad” - the quartet of four progressive Democratic legislators whom are all women of color – have become well-known for their outspoken criticism of Donald Trump, and his administration's policy towards immigration, the B.D.S. movement, and other issues. They have even called for his impeachment.
     Trump and the Squad have called each other “racist” back and forth several times, over several issues, especially the issue of whether the treatment of undocumented immigrants at the border is comparable to the conditions seen in Nazi concentration camps. The Squad accuses Trump of racial antipathy against people of Hispanic or African origin; while Trump accuses the Squad of racism for supposedly always making his statements about race, and for their arguably anti-Semitic criticism of the State of Israel.
     Whose statements are “less politically correct”; the president's, or the Squad's? Is it always racially insensitive to compare the treatment of undocumented immigrants to the treatment of victims of the Holocaust, or is it possible to warn people against repeating another potential Holocaust-like situation without diminishing the seriousness of that crime against humanity?
     What could be done to improve U.S.-Jewish and U.S.-Islamic relations, without offending the political, religious, and racial sensibilities of any of those groups?


     18. Statistics show that black home ownership rates did not go up or down from the beginning to the end of the Obama Administration. Unemployment among blacks is down, but that could be due to decreased enrollment in unemployment benefits, and the way unemployment is measured.
     That, and the fact that black homeownership rates are not currently at an all-time high (as Trump has claimed) point to the possibility that the Trump Administration is being “irrationally exuberant” about how much it has improved the financial situation of black Americans. In fact, black homeownership is now at an all-time low.
     Did Obama help African-Americans? Why did the majority of blacks vote for Trump instead of Hillary in 2016? Have African-Americans been doing better economically and financially under Trump than under Obama, or is it still too early to tell?


Source:

Black homeownership at 50-year low:




VI. Reparations, Affirmative Action, and "Reverse Discrimination"

     19. Some Americans still feel that the history of slavery, segregation, discrimination, and poverty that have plagued African-Americans, still has too much of an effect on their ability to get ahead in the economy. Many Americans who feel this way, believe that reparations for slavery are an appropriate and necessary response to the financial struggles of black descendants of formerly enslaved people.
     Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson is running on a platform that includes reparations, with an amount of money to be negotiated at a later date ($200-$500 billion), be disbursed over a period of 20 years, for the purposes of reconciliation with the black community, and, as she says, as “payment for the debt that is owed”. The money would be paid to a reparations commission, made up of a panel of black leaders.
     Presidential candidate Andrew Yang has proposed a somewhat similar plan. Yang's “Freedom Dividend” is a universal basic income plan, which will be payable to all Americans who want to participate in it, not just African-Americans. However, Yang says that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. supported the basic income idea, and the Freedom Dividend could become sort of a surrogate for reparations if Yang became president.
     Will reparations help African-Americans recover from slavery, or help them get ahead financially? Or are reparations hurtful to African-Americans' independence and self-esteem because they assume that all black people need this assistance?
     What are some potential obstacles to getting a reparations bill passed in Congress?


Sources:


Andrew Yang supports basic income, and so did MLK:
http://twitter.com/andrewyang/status/1135578919195877376?lang=en



     20. In 2016, white Texas student Abigail Fisher lost the second of her two U.S. Supreme Court lawsuits (after winning the first) against the University of Texas at Austin, which she alleged did not admit her because of its affirmative action program and its preference for non-white students.
     Affirmative action is a college admission policy which intends to “tip the playing field in the other direction” in order to account for the advantages whites have had in getting opportunities to go to college. Some consider college affirmative action policies “reverse discrimination” or “reverse racism”. Perhaps the same could be said about reparations.
What is the definition of “reverse discrimination”?

     Answer: “”The practice or policy of favoring individuals belonging to groups known to have been discriminated against previously.”
     To put it another way, “reverse discrimination” is discrimination against members of a social group or class which believes itself to be superior, practiced by members of the supposedly inferior class which usually finds itself discriminated against.”
In modern America, the term “reverse racism” usually refers to alleged discrimination against whites by non-whites.


Source:


Abigail Fisher's affirmative action lawsuit:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36928990


     21. What are some other practices – aside from reparations and affirmative action - that could be described as “reverse discrimination” or “reverse racism”?

     Answer: One example is the assumption that all white people are racists or white supremacists. Another example is the increasingly popular practice in the Democratic Party of openly and intentionally giving more speaking time to women and non-whites, than to white men.


     22. Are reparations and affirmative action necessary to make up for America's history of unequal treatment of non-whites? Or do these policies themselves perpetuate racism, just in the opposite direction (that is, against whites)?



VII. Native American Issues

     23. In May, Democrats including Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren pulled a bill that would have affirmed the federal reservation designation of tribal lands in Massachusetts, after Trump called the bill “unfair”. Proponents of the bill conjectured that Trump's casino deals in the state, may present a conflict of interest, which could explain Trump's opposition to designating the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe reservation as trust land.
     What do you think would help Native Americans more; giving them more (or possibly better) land, or giving them casinos? Or will it be necessary to enact some sort of reparations -type bill, to improve relations between the U.S. federal Government and the Indian tribes?


Source:

Trump calls Warren bill on Indian lands “unfair”, Trump's casino deal may present conflict of interest:


     24. In October 2018, Elizabeth Warren's DNA results were released, revealing that her ethnic background is between 0.09% and 1.5% Native American. Warren has since apologized to the Cherokee Nation for trying to use the DNA test to justify her claim that she has Native American heritage.
     However, prior to that apology, Warren's critics accused her of exaggerating the extent of her Native American heritage, in order to get special treatment such as a minority college scholarship and political clout.
     Are Warren's critics right? Does Warren have a right to recognize her Native American heritage (as little as it is), or is it racially and politically insensitive of her to move forward with her campaign, given that she has offended the very community she claims to come from?


Source:





VIII. Busing and Black Incarceration

     25. In July, during the first round of debates for the Democratic nomination for president, California Senator Kamala Harris confronted Joe Biden over his opposition to busing of black and white students to public schools. Biden was against school busing in the early 1970s, at a time when President Richard Nixon was urging the desegregation of public schools “with all deliberate speed”.
     Biden has also been criticized for having authored the Clinton omnibus crime bill (The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994), which put one or two million non-violent offenders in jail, most of them black and brown.
     Do these positions on busing and crime control, suggest that Joe Biden is a racist? Can Biden win the presidency, or even the Democratic nomination, if he continues to be dogged by the same sorts of rumors of racism which have followed President Trump?

Sources:

Kamala Harris criticizes Joe Biden over 1970s busing position:


     26. Members of the so-called “Alt-Right” - such as Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos - have gained notoriety for using statistics to dispute claims that blacks are subject to harsh arrests and sentences more often than whites are.
     What are the statistics anyway? Do African-Americans really serve longer sentences than whites, and are they more likely to be killed by police during arrests than white people are? How do these facts compare with statistics about the rates at which blacks commit violent crimes?
     Is it “racist” to point out that violent crimes are disproportionately committed by African-Americans? Or is it more “racist” to fail to consider that the history of racial discrimination and poverty, may have contributed to the current high black crime rates which we are seeing today?

Sources:
Data showing that law enforcement is tougher on blacks:



     27. Many people wishing to be “politically correct” refer to the imprisonment of black people as “modern-day slavery” and “The new Jim Crow”? Why is that? Why do some people think that slavery never ended, and was never abolished?

     Answer: Considering the high number of African-Americans whom are incarcerated – many of them unable to vote – it's arguable that prisons are continuing the legacy of slavery, albeit under a different guise.
     The facts that most prisoners are forced to work, and unable to vote, mean that they have no freedom but must work (like slaves), while they are counted under the census but their voting power is given to legislators whom they cannot choose (also like slaves).
     The 13th Amendment prohibited slavery, but permitted “involuntary servitude” as a punishment for committing a crime. But if we consider that many people are in prison for victimless crimes, locking them up – and taking away their freedoms, their vote, and their rights to own property - could hardly be considered a just punishment.


Sources:

Black incarceration and prison labor are “modern-day slavery”:



     28. What do you think are the most important things that the American people, and/or the U.S. Government, can do, to help promote reconciliation and justice, in a way that heals racial, ethnic, and religious antipathies and divisions?




Written on July 30th and 31st, 2019
Published on July 31st, 2019

Waukegan Mayor Sam Cunningham Normalized the Same Type of Political Violence He Claims to Oppose When it is Practiced by I.C.E. (800th Post!)

I. Introduction      The following speech is an address, regarding immigration, which I delivered to the Waukegan City Council on October 20...