FEATURE ARTICLES. WHAT PROGRESSIVES MUST LEARN. PT 12. LESSONS FROM KENTUCKY.

As Kim Davis returns to Work as a County Clerk in Kentucky, still insisting that she will not Issue Marriage Licenses to Same Sex Couples, it appears her Moment in the Spotlight may be Fading. 

Deputy Clerks, who are willing to do the Job They're being Paid For, are picking up the Slack.  It seems Licenses will still be Valid even without her Signature, at least for the Time Being.

However, the Real Message to Take from this, is the Knowledge that Some Americans care nothing for the Constitution, and the FREEDOMS IT GUARANTEES. Kim Davis is probably a Simple Pawn who is being used

by Ultra- Conservatives to Create Controversy, and Distract Voters from REAL ISSUES, SO HOPEFULLY THEY WILL FORGET THE PROGRESS THAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.

Unfortunately, for them, YOU CAN IGNORE THE BODY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, BUT ERASING IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

Consider This, FROM ARTICLE 6:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

In what has to be one of the Most Unique Pieces of HYPOCRISY IN U.S. HISTORY, WE ARE LEFT WITH THE FOLLOWING;

ARTICLE 6 CLEARLY ASSERTS THIS MAXIM: THAT NO PERSON CAN BE DISQUALIFIED OR PREVENTED FROM HOLDING OFFICE BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.  A VOW TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, AND SUPPORT IT,  IS REQUIRED TO BE AN OFFICE HOLDER.

KIM DAVIS CAN HATE HOMOSEXUALITY, CALL IT IMMORAL AND SO ON....THAT CANNOT BE USED AGAINST HER, FOR IT WOULD BE A "RELIGIOUS TEST."  PERSONAL FAITH CANNOT BE USED TO BARR ANYONE FROM HOLDING OFFICE.

SO WHAT HAS SHE, AND THOSE WHO THINK LIKE HER DONE?  THEY HAVE CREATED A REQUIREMENT OF THEIR OWN.

THAT SHE WILL PERFORM HER DUTIES, AND UPHOLD THE DOCUMENT SHE VOWED TO SUPPORT, ONLY IF IT PASSES HER "RELIGIOUS TEST."

IN OTHER WORDS, CONSTITUTIONALLY SHE CANNOT 

BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR HER BELIEFS,

HOWEVER, SHE CLAIMS IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO IGNORE AND DISREGARD CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS, IF IT VIOLATES THOSE SAME BELIEFS.

Date- 9/16/2015.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE POLITICS OF PREJUDICE. PT 2.

The POLITICS OF PREJUDICE Works because it Allows REASON AND

LOGIC TO BE DISCARDED, IN FAVOR OF INNUENDO, RUMOR AND STEREOTYPES.

In Many Cases, it is a FORM OF TRUTH BY ASSOCIATION, A LOGICAL 

FALLACY THAT IS SO PREVALENT IN SOCIETY TODAY, THAT EVEN 

WHEN CONFRONTED WITH ITS USE AGAINST SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS 

AND GROUPS, SOME PEOPLE WILL STILL BELIEVE THAT ANY 

CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THIS IRRATIONAL MINDSET SHOULD BE

CONSIDERED FACTUAL OR TRUE.

We are not Talking About Profiling By Studying BEHAVIOR PATTERNS, EDUCATION, EARLY HOME LIFE AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS etc,. that may be able to give us an UNDERSTANDING OF A SINGLE INDIVIDUALS ACTIONS OR MOTIVATIONS, BUT THE:

ATTRIBUTION OF NEGATIVE TRAITS TO AN ENTIRE RACIAL, ETHNIC, NATIONALITY, OR EVEN GENDER GROUP BY FOCUSING ON, AND SENSATIONALIZING, THE ACTIONS OF A FEW, AND USING THESE INCIDENTS TO DISCRIMINATE, OR DENY EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND FAIR TREATMENT, TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE CONSIDERED MEMBERS OF THIS PARTICULAR GROUP.

Perhaps the Most Effective Use of this Fallacy, by INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS WITH A SPECIFIC AGENDA WHO CARE LITTLE ABOUT HOW IT IS ACHIEVED, IS TO TARGET MEMBERS OF SOCIETY WHO HARBOR PREJUDICIAL ATTITUDES, BUT CANNOT FIND A COHERENT REASON TO CONVINCE OTHERS THAT THESE BELIEFS SHOULD BE LEGISLATED INTO LAW.  IT IS THE:

                               JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE DEFENSE.

We will look at this in an Upcoming Post.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE POLITICS OF PREJUDICE. PT 1.

If There is one thing we can Take from Recent National Political Campaigns, it is that PREJUDICE, IN ALL ITS FORMS, STILL SHOWS US WHY THE REAL STUMBLING BLOCK TO CAMPAIGN REFORM IS THE VOTER, NOT THE POLITICIAN.

It is still Amazing how Supporters of a Candidate, WILL STILL USE THE SAME TIRED EXCUSES TO JUSTIFY THEIR SUPPORT FOR A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL OR PARTY, EVEN WHEN IGNORANT OR IRRATIONAL COMMENTS ARE MADE PUBLIC.

For Example:

 "(HE OR SHE) IS JUST SAYING WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK."

-  Really, and this ASSERTION IS ARRIVED AT BY....WHAT?

Maybe we should just take Their Word for it.

"(HE OR SHE) IS NOT SCARED TO TELL THE TRUTH.  OTHER

POLITICIANS ARE AFRAID TO."

-  So this Politician and Supporters are MIND READERS, and can

Ascribe MOTIVATIONS TO RIVALS who do not Voice Similar 

Opinions.

"THEY GIVE A VOICE TO THE DISENFRANCHISED VOTER, WHO

BELIEVE THEIR CONCERNS ARE BEING IGNORED."

Please Give me an Example of any Important and\or Divisive Issue

that does not have any Politicians or Pacs Championing One Side

or the Other, Deliberately Ignoring a Specific Segment of the Population.

END PT 1.

QUICK HITTERS. STATISTICS AND POLLS; PAY NO ATTENTION. PT 1.

Perhaps the two most misleading and least understood campaign tactics, used by candidates to win an election, are numbers reported through surveys, and conclusions drawn from statistical analysis of previous outcomes regarding certain subjects.

Both of these are easy to manipulate

as the following examples indicate;

WORD THE SURVEY QUESTION IN SUCH A WAY TO ENCOURAGE A CERTAIN RESPONSE;

Example- "Given the poor state of the economy, do you think Incumbent Candidate X can be trusted to fix the problem?"

See the real problems(s)?

#1-  The question does not in any way show justification for concluding that the economy is in "Poor" condition.

2) That there is a question of the "Trust Worthiness"  of Candidate X, yet there is no evidence given that there has been dishonesty in the past.

It is clear, that in cases such as this, that the wording of the question presumes a negative view of Candidate X.  Even answering the question could be construed as agreeing with its assertions.  LOOK FOR PT 2.