PRESIDENT BIDEN REMEMBERS WHAT "...PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE..." MEANS, EVEN IF THE GOP DOESN'T. PART 1.

 

PRESIDENT BIDEN STANDING UP TO THE ANTI-VACCINATION AND ANTI-MASKER CROWD IS A RESPONSIBILITY THAT OTHER PROGRESSIVES SHOULD BE FOLLOWING.

(OF COURSE, I MEAN THE U.S. SENATE, ESPECIALLY THOSE ELECTED PRIOR TO 2016. IF YOU NEED TO ASK WHY, I SUGGEST YOU READ MY ARTICLES ON BARACK OBAMAS SELECTION FOR THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE 2016 ELECTION RETURNS.)

One thing I have learned about Politicians and Public Figures a long time ago is their ability to pick and choose which parts of a subject to discuss and criticize publicly, (Parts they have knowledge of and agree with), and the parts they attempt to avoid at all cost, (Parts they do not understand or comprehend, and would make them look Ignorant, Intellectually Challenged or Morally Bankrupt if they attempted to justify their opinions.)

This is especially true when it comes to matters of Law, with the U.S. CONSTITUTION BEING A PRIMARY AND OFTEN SHAMEFUL TARGET. Even worse, it seems to be a Tactic used by LAW SCHOOL GRADUATES, AS WELL AS THOSE WITH NO FORMAL LEGAL TRAINING.

I have written and published a number of Articles on the CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ESPECIALLY THE "BILL OF RIGHTS," on this Website. So if this SUBJECT MATTER APPEALS TO YOU, I RECOMMEND BROWSING OTHER AREAS OF THIS SITE FOR MORE INFORMATION.

However, for this article, I will be referencing THE PREAMBLE.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

As you can see, the PREAMBLE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GO INTO SPECIFICS, BUT INSTEAD POINTS TO UNIVERSAL "GOODS" OR "NECESSITIES" THAT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED.

IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION.

- ESTABLISH JUSTICE.

- INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

- PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE.

- PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE.

- SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY FOR

OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY.

What is most important. however, is what is said at the very beginning:

"WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES..."

Contrary to the Fascist Rhetoric we are often confronted with,

The CONSTITUTION is not just a collection of  Rules and Responsibilities

that protects the Individual from Abusive Government, BUT IS ALSO A SET

OF GUIDELINES THAT PROTECTS SOCIETY ITSELF FROM BEHAVIOR

BY AN INDIVIDUAL(S) THAT IS DESTRUCTIVE AND DETRIMENTAL TO

THE WELL-BEING AND BEST INTERESTS OF THE U.S. CITIZENRY AS A WHOLE.

TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY: WHAT AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN MAY WANT OR DESIRE,

HAS TO BE WEIGHED AGAINST HOW THAT AFFECTS THE POPULACE AS A COLLECTION

OF HUMAN BEINGS LIVING UNDER THE SAME RULES AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

TO BE CONTINUED...

So, allowing Putin to Dictate Foreign Policy to NATO members is the Better Choice? Caving in to Despots always ends well.

 LET'S LAY THIS ONE OUT:

NATO is a Treaty Organization created to protect its members from possible Foreign Invasion. (Which, at its creation, WAS THE U.S.S.R AND ITS SATELLITE PUPPET GOVERNMENTS.)

So, with the breakdown of the U.S.S.R, former IRON CURTAIN COUNTRIES SUCH AS POLAND, THE CZECH REPUBLIC, AND GERMANY join NATO. Given the recent history of THESE COUNTRIES BEING SUBJECT TO THE TYRANNIES OF STALIN AND HITLER, allying yourself with other DEMOCRACIES for mutual protection would seem to be a NO-BRAINER.

With the recent invasion of UKRAINE BY PUTIN, it would seem to be a pretty smart move, considering the fact that the rest of the world has apparently forgotten the LESSONS LEARNED BY THE CONFLICTS OF THE 20TH CENTURY.  LESSONS SUCH AS:

APPEASING OR BACKING DOWN TO SOCIOPATHIC HEADS OF STATE, WILL NOT MAKE THEM:

- MORE REASONABLE IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION.

- WILLING TO IMPLEMENT "HUMANITARIAN POLICIES."

-  PURSUE LESS AGGRESSIVE FOREIGN POLICIES THAT WILL 

ENSURE NO FURTHER DIRECT PHYSICAL INTERVENTION

INTO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OTHER NATIONS.

Current NATO Countries and the Years They Joined:

Note: * indicates a founding member

Country	Joined		Country	Joined
Albania	2009		Lithuania	2004
Belgium	1949*		Luxembourg	1949*
Bulgaria	2004		Montenegro	2017
Canada	1949*		Netherlands	1949*
Croatia	2009		North Macedonia	2020
Czech Republic	1999		Norway	1949*
Denmark	1949*		Poland	1999
Estonia	2004		Portugal	1949*
France	1949*		Romania	2004
Germany	1955		Slovakia	2004
Greece	1952		Slovenia	2004
Hungary	1999		Spain	1982
Iceland	1949*		Turkey	1952
Italy	1949*		United Kingdom	1949*
Latvia	2004		United States	1949*

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ABOVE LIST, ASK YOURSELF THESE QUESTIONS:

- HOW MANY WERE FORCED BY MILITARY INVASION OR PHYSICAL INTIMIDATION

TO JOIN NATO? 

- SO NATO IS A THREAT TO RUSSIA? PERHAPS YOU CAN LIST FOR ME THE NUMBER OF

MEMBER  NATIONS THAT INVADED ANOTHER SOVEREIGN COUNTRY, AND SEIZED 

CONTROL OF ITS GOVERNMENT?

- HOW MANY OF THESE NATIONS SUFFERED THE TYRANNIES OF THE U.S.S.R,  NAZI

GERMANY, OR OTHER FASCIST REGIMES BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER WW2, AND WILL

CLAIM THAT THEY WERE COERCED INTO JOINING?

AT THE SAME TIME, THINK OF HOW OFTEN THESE COUNTRIES SUFFERED BECAUSE OF POLICIES AND AN AGENDA DIRECTED BY A HEAD OF STATE SITUATED IN MOSCOW?

...WHAT WILL THE EXCUSE BE WHEN PUTIN DECIDES TO PUT ANOTHER COUNTRY ON HIS SHOPPING LIST, AND LIES THROUGH HIS TEETH ABOUT HOW IT WAS NECESSARY TO INVADE, TO PROTECT RUSSIA?

I REALLY SUGGEST THAT PICKING UP A HISTORY BOOK MIGHT "ENLIGHTEN" SOME WORLD LEADERS AS TO WHAT COULD BE LOST, IF WE CHOOSE TO THINK THAT THE PUTINS AND TRUMPS OF THIS WORLD CAN BE TRUSTED.

FAIR FIGHT ENDORSEMENT.

 

David,

Local and statewide elections are underway across the country! 

And these races make a big difference in people’s daily lives. Voters have the opportunity to elect and re-elect candidates who will move our communities forward — on issues ranging from access to healthcare, to tackling the climate crisis, to funding for our public schools, to ensuring equal access to the ballot box.

So to that end, Fair Fight is proud to announce two new endorsements of voting rights champions in Louisiana and South Carolina. We’re equipping them with resources to fundraise, organize, and advocate to protect the freedom to vote for years to come.

CAN YOU SAY "SMOKING GUN" IN TERMS OF INTENT?

 

JUST "ONE" EXAMPLE OF DONALD TRUMPS DETERMINATION TO STAY IN POWER, NO MATTER WHAT. (UPDATE)

The following exchange occurred during a White House Press conference on Wednesday, Sept 24, 2020.

 “Win, lose, or draw in this election, will you commit here today for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?” reporter Brian Karem asked Donald Trump, who didn’t even attempt to give the impression he cares whatsoever about preserving democracy. “Well, we’re going to have to see what happens,” Trump said. “You know that. I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster.” Pressed again to “commit to making sure that there’s a peaceful transferal of power,” Trump responded, “Get rid of the ballots and...we’ll have a very peaceful—there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it. You know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know better than anybody else.”

''...Pressed again to “commit to making sure that there’s a peaceful transferal of power,” Trump responded, “Get rid of the ballots and...we’ll have a very peaceful—there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation."

IN OTHER WORDS, DO WHAT I TELL YOU AND WE WON'T NEED A TRANSFER OF POWER, JUST A PEACEFUL CONTINUATION.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, OR EVEN MINIMAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PHRASE:

"The ballots are out of control. You know it. You know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know better than anybody else.” 

PERHAPS YOU REMEMBER THE FOLLOWING FROM AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED ON THIS WEBSITE:

"EMPTY" ASSERTION-  ANY STATEMENT, (WRITTEN OR ORAL), THAT CLAIMS TO BE FACTUAL, BUT HAS LITTLE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OR DATA THAT CAN WITHSTAND PROPER SCRUTINY.  In many cases, the act of criticizing the Assertion is discouraged, AND IT MUST BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT QUALIFICATION.

DO YOU THINK THAT APPLIES HERE?