Day: October 3, 2025

The Evil We Embrace

Note:  This was draft I was saving for when the country gets into the meat of the next election but my blogging buddy, Judy Thompson, over at https://sayitnow.wordpress.com/ asked a question about political parties whether there should be a 3rd or maybe none at all….so I decide to answer her with this post (it will be back during the next election).

College of Political Knowledge

American Politics And The Process

Paper #1

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

― George Washington

George was a sharp person and foresaw the problems these ‘parties’ will cause and yet the people flock to these unprincipled ‘people’ en masse.
“Evil’….yep the party system is evil look what it has done and continues to do this country.
I have been write against the whole two party system for decades….I feel that this country as long as it embraces this stupidity is doomed to failure.
Look what these monstrosities have done to the political system of this nation…they have made the divide deeper and more dangerous….they seldom deliver the needed programs and policies to keep this country moving forward….the candidates promise the world and deliver crumbs

Like many Americans, I have been increasingly disappointed by the candidates promoted by political parties because they tend to back candidates who are ultimately focused on personal gain and/or only advancing issues predetermined by party priorities while moving further away from responding to the needs of their constituents. According to The Guardian, in the 2024 election, the number of eligible voters who did not cast their ballot is more than the total of those who voted for either of the party candidates. So, maybe the real issue is that our political party system just isn’t working for most Americans anymore. Assuming this is even partially true, what if, instead of just complaining about the parties or holding our noses and voting for the “lesser evil” every November, we actually fired the parties—took away their grip on our democracy and built something better.

For decades, we’ve been told we only have two choices. But more and more Americans don’t feel truly represented by either major party. We’re exhausted by the noise, the blame games, the endless culture wars that solve nothing and only serve to increasingly marginalize portions of our citizenry. Americans want real solutions on housing, healthcare, education, wages, and the future we’re leaving for the next generation. And we’re not getting them. So, maybe it’s time to ask a radical but necessary question: What if the problem isn’t just the candidates but the political party system that keeps producing them?

The Case for Firing the Parties

A. They Were Never Supposed to Be Permanent

Political parties aren’t mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. The Founders didn’t design a system based on organized political factions. In fact, they explicitly warned against it. George Washington, in his 1796 farewell address, foretold that political parties would eventually “become potent engines” for individuals to seize and abuse power, dividing citizens and distracting the government from serving the public good. In a letter written by John Adams in 1780, he regarded the division of the republic into two great parties as “to be dreaded as the greatest political evil.” In a 1789 letter from Thomas Jefferson, he wrote: “If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”

Yet political parties arose almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified. These early versions of political parties formed largely out of necessity to organize debates and mobilize voters. Political parties were tools for winning elections. But over time, the tool began to control the system itself. Today, parties aren’t just optional organizers of ideas, they have become gatekeepers of power, often more loyal to themselves than to the people they claim to serve.

https://thefulcrum.us/bipartisanship/dangers-of-two-party-system

Our political system without these beasts would be more open and would promote collaboration between the politicians without the restraints of some silly party mechanism.

Gerrymandering would not be an issue….

I say the sooner we get rid of these thugs the sooner this country will return to its place as the trend setter for democracy.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Ourobourean Age

But first what the Hell is ouroboro?

Ouroboro is one of the oldest and most mysterious symbols in the history of humanity. We find it in different civilizations, from Egyptian to Greek, from Nordic to Indian. But what is Uroboro and why has it fascinated so many cultures?

Its representation of a snake biting its tail, without a beginning and without an end, suggests an eternal cycle: apparently motionless, but in eternal movement. Its symbolic meaning has had many interpretations, but in particular it represents the concept of eternity, cyclicity and rebirth. This cyclicity can be reviewed in the seasons, in life and death, and even in the cycle of the universe itself: a universal energy that is continually consumed and renewed.

Now that is out of the way….where am I going with this?

It is a deeper look at what is happening to the American society….

The ancient symbol of the ouroboros—a serpent devouring its own tail—has long represented the cyclical nature of life, destruction feeding creation, and the possibility of rebirth. In this sense, America today has entered what might be called the Ouroborean Age, an era in which society consumes its own institutions, norms, and public trust under the pressures of end-stage capitalism, political extremism, and ideological weaponization, yet with the potential for renewal if the cycle is recognized and interrupted. The assassination of Charlie Kirk, shocking in its violence and political symbolism, exemplifies this collapse of civility and law. America is not just polarized—it is tearing itself apart. The Constitution, once the ultimate safeguard, is under relentless assault. Citizens inhabit incompatible realities, each convinced that the other’s very existence endangers the nation. Leadership is catastrophically incompetent, and globally, autocracy is on the march. Never before has the republic faced such a convergence of recursive, mutually reinforcing dangers.

As Lincoln warned in 1858, “A house divided cannot stand.” Alexis de Tocqueville observed that “the health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens.” Those functions are eroding under division, disinformation, and civic disengagement. Plato, in The Republic, cautioned that when citizens are guided by fear and desire over reason, the state begins to consume itself from within. John Locke reminds us that government exists by the consent of the governed to protect life, liberty, and property; when that consent is undermined, the social contract unravels. And James Madison warned of the dangers: “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity.” What Madison could not have foreseen was the absolute rigidity of today’s partisan divides, which leave no room for compromise and transform political opponents into enemies of the state itself.

https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/the-ourobourean-age-america-at-the-precipice-of-self-destruction/

The destruction of society is almost complete….how far will we go to see the destruction of this once proud experiment?

Will the destruction be complete by the end of term for Donny?

What say you?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

“Unlawful Combatant”?

That sorta sounds like an oxymoron…..

Just yesterday Donny made his policy unknown on these attacks on boats and such…..

President Trump has declared drug cartels to be unlawful combatants and says the United States is now in a “non-international armed conflict” after recent US strikes on boats in the Caribbean, according to a Trump administration memo obtained by outlets including the AP and the New York Times.

  • A source tells the AP that Congress was notified about the designation by Pentagon officials on Wednesday. Pentagon officials could not provide a list of the designated terrorist organizations at the center of the conflict, a matter that was a major source of frustration for some of the lawmakers who were briefed, the source says.
  • The move comes after the US military last month carried out three deadly strikes against alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean. At least two of those operations were carried out on vessels that originated from Venezuela. Democrats have been pressing Trump to go to Congress and seek war powers authority for such operations.
  • The notice to lawmakers said Trump has determined that drug cartels are “nonstate armed groups” and that their actions “constitute an armed attack against the United States,” the Times reports. “Based upon the cumulative effects of these hostile acts against the citizens and interests of the United States and friendly foreign nations, the president determined that the United States is in a non-international armed conflict with these designated terrorist organizations.” The Times notes that in international law, “non-international armed conflict” normally refers to civil wars.
  • Several senators, Democrats and some Republicans, as well as human rights groups, questioned the legality of Trump’s action. They called it potential overreach of executive authority in part because the military was used for law enforcement purposes, the AP reports. By claiming his campaign against drug cartels is an active armed conflict, Trump appears to be claiming extraordinary wartime powers to justify his action.
  • In a statement to CNN, Democratic Sen. Jack Reed said the administration “has offered no credible legal justification, evidence, or intelligence for these strikes.” Reed, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, added: “Drug cartels are despicable and must be dealt with by law enforcement. But now, by the President’s own words, the US military is engaged in armed conflict with undefined enemies he has unilaterally labeled ‘unlawful combatants,’ and he has deployed thousands of troops, ships, and aircraft against them. Yet he has refused to inform Congress or the public. Every American should be alarmed that their President has decided he can wage secret wars against anyone he calls an enemy.”

Where the Hell did this sort of doublespeak originate?

In 2001, President George W. Bush declared certain fighters for Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan to be “unlawful enemy combatants.” This designation, made by a presidential order, was intended by the Bush administration to effectively remove prisoners so designated from protection under the Geneva Conventions. The designation led to prisoners being held without access to lawyers or judicial reviews to determine whether they should have been kept prisoner. It also led to a string of Supreme Court decisions and efforts by Congress to overcome those decisions. The concept of unlawful enemy combatants is not new, dating back at least to the nineteenth century.

…

The designation “unlawful enemy combatant” impacted two legal areas: the rights of foreign citizens captured outside the United States and the rights of individuals (including American citizens) captured inside the United States. Unlike traditional “prisoners of war,” the treatment of whom is covered by the Geneva Conventions and whose release depends on the cessation of hostilities between states, “unlawful enemy combatants” do not belong to a recognized government entity engaged in a formal state of war with the United States.

Civil libertarians challenged this policy as a violation of the Constitution. In the case of prisoners held abroad, the Supreme Court eventually ruled that such prisoners must be brought before military tribunals conducted according to ordinary standards of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In June 2008, the Supreme Court expanded on this opinion, ruling in the case of Boumediene v. Bush that the military tribunals did not provide an adequate substitute for a hearing in a federal court. The Boumediene decision effectively gave designated unlawful enemy combatants the same status as any civilian arrested and held in the United States. Leading up to the Boumediene decision, details of military tribunals hearing the cases of unlawful enemy combatants had been the source of a prolonged tug-of-war involving the administration, Congress, and the Supreme Court.

https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/unlawful-enemy-combatants

I understand the concept but without more details it is just chest thumping to get on camera.

Another slippery slope waiting to happen.

Any thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”