How are we to understand the Democratic Partys view of what validates a majority view." For the DP the votes of the American people do not themselves legitimize the existence of a majority. All majority views are viable and to be tolerated as long as the majority is the majority. But under the right conditions the majority can be superseded either by the courts by executive orders by interfering in elections by giving illegals voting rights by propaganda by boycotts sanctions and divestments and by lies. A majority view can be corrected by a new refraction of the political process. This refraction claims to represent the new majority" against the false majority.
One issue that reflects this view of majority vs. majority is that of same sex marriage. For a long time the majority of heterosexuals were intolerant or at least very disparaging of homosexuals; now the tables are turned. One is considered phobic or even hateful by some persons for having a traditional view of heterosexual prerogatives in the marital realm. Justice Kennedy in his June 2013 opinion described laws against same sex marriage as attempting to disparage and injure" homosexual persons. Although heterosexual marriage was passed by Congress and signed into law by Pres. Clinton (Defense of Marriage Act) the Court has repudiated that majority vote. Additionally state referenda declaring same sex marriage illegal are rapidly being overturned. Democrats hate popular sovereignty when they lose. Apparently the majority can be wrong and better learn to live with rejection or else. The Supreme Court clearly only a minority (nine persons) claims to represent the majority truth against the majority vote.
Another issue where we see majority vs. majority at work is treatment of Jews and Israel. The Nazis disparaged Jews gypsies and Slavs and sought to eliminate as many as possible from the face of the Earth. They were defeated so said viewpoint was eradicated as legitimate. Nevertheless strangely or not so strangely there are many alive today who are not Nazis and not Germans who continue to want to wipe every Jew off the face of the Earth. And even though that point of view was defeated in WWII as the legitimate majority expression of free people it is now tolerated by England France and to some degree the U.S. via politically correct attitudes towards Muslims. Thus the PC mindset pits the majority against the majority.
Nowadays European governments and to some degree the Obama administration believe Jew hatred should be understood in context. However the German view from 1933 to 1945 was not viewed in context by the Allies. A majority of the U.S. and the world despised Nazism. In 1947 when the State of Israel was voted into existence by the United Nations wasnt its existence as a Jewish state ratified by a majority of the U.S. and the world? In May 1945 when Admiral Doenitz surrendered for the Third Reich and elected Allied governments accepted his surrender was that not a victory of the committed majority of the U.S. and the world? Yet now the majority view is taken by many Democrats to be wrongheaded. Its being turned on its head and rejected. Jewish state" is increasingly portrayed as undemocratic. Call for extermination of the Jews may be wrongheaded yet Islamic vehemence expresses legitimate grievances" or a supposed deep unmet need for justice compassion and political dignity.
This writer is for Hilary because she is a consistent leader of the majority against the majority. She has always welcomed differences of opinion. She loves the refractions of the political process. While Bill was enjoying oral sex and groping in motels mansions and the Oval Office she was busy in adjacent rooms encouraging political refractions expressing the will of the majority against the majority. She pitted the majority need for single payer health care against the majority vote not to have it. She became ideological spokeswoman for the majority against the majority. She is potentially queen of the global village. The global village itself is a view of a majority that is more than the majority. It has a reach beyond the mere 50 1. Bills triangulation developed majorities than are mere shadows of the majoritarianism of the village." She will welcome all supplicants to her queenly nurturing breast.
The same applies in a more manly sense to Secy. Kerry a paragon of virtue. His virtue lies in consistently speaking as if for the majority even when he is not the majority. He was for the Iraq War majority before he was against it majority. His risked his life on the Swift Boat in Vietnam and won a medal pro-war majority before he appeared in Congress denouncing the War anti-war majority. He drew a red line for Syria and then erased the red line to negotiate with Syrias puppet master Iran. The new majority (in the name of Obama and Kerry) was for expediency even though a majority had already signed off on international treaties against the use of chemical weapons.
But the real paragon of virtue in the Democratic Party is Elizabeth Warren. If anyone is right it is she. She spent a lifetime building her career to be a professor at Harvard. Writing in those law journals certainly qualifies a person as being of the people by the people and for the people. She is part Cherokee. This is important to know because some ignorant people might consider her to be an elitist who is all about feathering her own nest. Instead we now know that victimization is part of her DNA. Her Cherokee ancestors were forced to march from Georgia to Oklahoma by the notorious racist Pres. Andrew Jackson (also a Democrat by the way) and many of them died. That morsel of victimization far outweighs the appearance of arrogance in her every spoken word and in her every step. A vote for her is thus a vote in favor of victimized persons whom she represents as her DNA birthright. By birth she is with the majority who are the victims of U.S. racism and injustice but by hard work and smarts she is with the majority that are running things century after century. She is a member of both majorities.
The virtues of these three Democratic leaders prove the axiom that the majority can be overthrown and should be overthrown if the right people nay the most smart and virtuous people the real majority whether in the literal majority or not -- are on top. Israel? A mere blip on the radar of history deserving to be disregarded and dismantled…if not as a sovereign state then as a Jewish state. Same sex marriage: an idea whose time has come. No matter if a majority of the people in a majority of the states reject it. Put leaders in charge who realize that the majority needs only to be challenged properly by the majority. Pack the courts with judges who discern the meaning of love and family and are authorized to say the words By the authority vested in me by the Supreme Court of the United States I do thee wed and pronounce you husband and husband."
How are we to understand the Democratic Partys view of what validates a majority view." For the DP the votes of the American people do not themselves legitimize the existence of a majority. All majority views are viable and to be tolerated as long as the majority is the majority. But under the right conditions the majority can be superseded either by the courts by executive orders by interfering in elections by giving illegals voting rights by propaganda by boycotts sanctions and divestments and by lies. A majority view can be corrected by a new refraction of the political process. This refraction claims to represent the new majority" against the false majority.
One issue that reflects this view of majority vs. majority is that of same sex marriage. For a long time the majority of heterosexuals were intolerant or at least very disparaging of homosexuals; now the tables are turned. One is considered phobic or even hateful by some persons for having a traditional view of heterosexual prerogatives in the marital realm. Justice Kennedy in his June 2013 opinion described laws against same sex marriage as attempting to disparage and injure" homosexual persons. Although heterosexual marriage was passed by Congress and signed into law by Pres. Clinton (Defense of Marriage Act) the Court has repudiated that majority vote. Additionally state referenda declaring same sex marriage illegal are rapidly being overturned. Democrats hate popular sovereignty when they lose. Apparently the majority can be wrong and better learn to live with rejection or else. The Supreme Court clearly only a minority (nine persons) claims to represent the majority truth against the majority vote.
Another issue where we see majority vs. majority at work is treatment of Jews and Israel. The Nazis disparaged Jews gypsies and Slavs and sought to eliminate as many as possible from the face of the Earth. They were defeated so said viewpoint was eradicated as legitimate. Nevertheless strangely or not so strangely there are many alive today who are not Nazis and not Germans who continue to want to wipe every Jew off the face of the Earth. And even though that point of view was defeated in WWII as the legitimate majority expression of free people it is now tolerated by England France and to some degree the U.S. via politically correct attitudes towards Muslims. Thus the PC mindset pits the majority against the majority.
Nowadays European governments and to some degree the Obama administration believe Jew hatred should be understood in context. However the German view from 1933 to 1945 was not viewed in context by the Allies. A majority of the U.S. and the world despised Nazism. In 1947 when the State of Israel was voted into existence by the United Nations wasnt its existence as a Jewish state ratified by a majority of the U.S. and the world? In May 1945 when Admiral Doenitz surrendered for the Third Reich and elected Allied governments accepted his surrender was that not a victory of the committed majority of the U.S. and the world? Yet now the majority view is taken by many Democrats to be wrongheaded. Its being turned on its head and rejected. Jewish state" is increasingly portrayed as undemocratic. Call for extermination of the Jews may be wrongheaded yet Islamic vehemence expresses legitimate grievances" or a supposed deep unmet need for justice compassion and political dignity.
This writer is for Hilary because she is a consistent leader of the majority against the majority. She has always welcomed differences of opinion. She loves the refractions of the political process. While Bill was enjoying oral sex and groping in motels mansions and the Oval Office she was busy in adjacent rooms encouraging political refractions expressing the will of the majority against the majority. She pitted the majority need for single payer health care against the majority vote not to have it. She became ideological spokeswoman for the majority against the majority. She is potentially queen of the global village. The global village itself is a view of a majority that is more than the majority. It has a reach beyond the mere 50 1. Bills triangulation developed majorities than are mere shadows of the majoritarianism of the village." She will welcome all supplicants to her queenly nurturing breast.
The same applies in a more manly sense to Secy. Kerry a paragon of virtue. His virtue lies in consistently speaking as if for the majority even when he is not the majority. He was for the Iraq War majority before he was against it majority. His risked his life on the Swift Boat in Vietnam and won a medal pro-war majority before he appeared in Congress denouncing the War anti-war majority. He drew a red line for Syria and then erased the red line to negotiate with Syrias puppet master Iran. The new majority (in the name of Obama and Kerry) was for expediency even though a majority had already signed off on international treaties against the use of chemical weapons.
But the real paragon of virtue in the Democratic Party is Elizabeth Warren. If anyone is right it is she. She spent a lifetime building her career to be a professor at Harvard. Writing in those law journals certainly qualifies a person as being of the people by the people and for the people. She is part Cherokee. This is important to know because some ignorant people might consider her to be an elitist who is all about feathering her own nest. Instead we now know that victimization is part of her DNA. Her Cherokee ancestors were forced to march from Georgia to Oklahoma by the notorious racist Pres. Andrew Jackson (also a Democrat by the way) and many of them died. That morsel of victimization far outweighs the appearance of arrogance in her every spoken word and in her every step. A vote for her is thus a vote in favor of victimized persons whom she represents as her DNA birthright. By birth she is with the majority who are the victims of U.S. racism and injustice but by hard work and smarts she is with the majority that are running things century after century. She is a member of both majorities.
The virtues of these three Democratic leaders prove the axiom that the majority can be overthrown and should be overthrown if the right people nay the most smart and virtuous people the real majority whether in the literal majority or not -- are on top. Israel? A mere blip on the radar of history deserving to be disregarded and dismantled…if not as a sovereign state then as a Jewish state. Same sex marriage: an idea whose time has come. No matter if a majority of the people in a majority of the states reject it. Put leaders in charge who realize that the majority needs only to be challenged properly by the majority. Pack the courts with judges who discern the meaning of love and family and are authorized to say the words By the authority vested in me by the Supreme Court of the United States I do thee wed and pronounce you husband and husband."