FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

Joseph F Barber | Create Your Badge
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

To be GOVERNED

Not For Profit - For Global Justice and The Fight to End Violence & Hunger world wide - Since 1999
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801

This is the callout,This is the call to the Patriots,To stand up for all the ones who’ve been thrown away,This is the call to the all citizens ,Stand up!
Stand up and protect those who can not protect themselves our veterans ,the homeless & the forgotten take back our world today


To protect our independence, We take no government funds
Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country,You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.,


DISCOVER THE WORLD

Facebook Badge

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

The Free Thought Project,The Daily Sheeple & FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience are dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable. “Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.”
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” - George Orwell, 1984

"Until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, everywhere is war and until there are no longer first-class and second-class citizens of any nation, until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes. And until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race, there is war. And until that day, the dream of lasting peace, world citizenship, rule of international morality, will remain but a fleeting illusion to be pursued, but never attained... now everywhere is war." - - Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia - Popularized by Bob Marley in the song War

STEALING FROM THE CITIZENRY

The right to tell the Government to kiss my Ass Important Message for All Law Enforcers Freedom; what it is, and what it is not. Unadulterated freedom is an unattainable goal; that is what the founders of America knew and understood, which was their impetus behind the documents that established our great nation. They also knew that one of the primary driving forces in human nature is the unconscious desire to be truly free. This meant to them that mankind if totally left completely unrestricted would pursue all things in life without any awareness or acknowledgement of the consequences of his/her own actions leaving only the individual conscience if they had one as a control on behavior. This would not bode well in the development of a great society. Yet the founders of America chose to allow men/women as much liberty as could be, with minimum impact on the freedom or liberties of others

Thursday, May 5, 2016

CLINTON VS. TRUMP: POLITICS WITHOUT PRINCIPLE

CLINTON VS. TRUMP: POLITICS WITHOUT PRINCIPLE

What does it say about our political process, and the judgment of the American electorate, that the likely nominees of the two major political parties are both facing legal actions involving serious allegations of malfeasance?
Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, is facing three separate class action lawsuits alleging fraud in the operation of Trump University. The lawsuits involve claims that the “university” defrauded as many as 5,000 people out of $35,000 in tuition fees for a series of real estate seminars.
Hillary Clinton, the likely nominee of the Democratic Party, has campaigned under the cloud of a pending FBI criminal investigation into violations of the Espionage Act. She is accused of mishandling classified information during her tenure as secretary of state. The investigation followed allegations that she used a private home-based email server for official business with the purpose of circumventing U.S. transparency laws. Recent news reports have alleged that the FBI probe has now expanded into a public corruption investigation of foreign government donations to the nonprofit Clinton Foundation.
These legal difficulties are not isolated incidents. Nor do they reflect aberrations in the candidates’ characters. Both Clinton and Trump have long, well-documented, scandal-ridden histories. Collectively, they have more baggage than Samsonite.
It’s not as if the voters didn’t have a choice of other, scandal-free candidates who ran campaigns based on core ideological principles. Bernie Sanders continues to win elections as the Democratic Party’s delegate rules keep the nomination just out of reach. Yet the voters appear to have chosen Trump and Clinton, one of whom will be the next president of the United States.
Both candidates, and the voters who elected them, represent an apex in an American political pragmatism that has had Europeans scratching their heads for nearly 200 years. In his 1840 work “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans “tend to results without being bound to means, and to aim at the substance through the form.”
Almost 25 years later, in his 1863 essay “Life Without Principle,” Thoreau wrote that Americans “do not worship truth, but the reflection of truth.”
In the case of both Clinton and Trump, the voters were oblivious to or overlooked the character of each messenger because they either liked the message or believed the candidate had a better chance of winning the general election. The truth of the many allegations of ethical and legal lapses leveled against the candidates didn’t seem to matter.
Trump has pandered to the conservative base of the Republican Party, while Clinton has pandered to the progressive base of the Democratic Party. Yet Hillary Clinton is no more a principled progressive than Donald Trump is a principled conservative.
The majority of principled progressives and conservatives rejected Trump and Clinton during the primary elections. So what do they do now that these two are the only “viable” options? The answer is that any option that requires you to compromise your principles is not a “viable” option.
Voters should not be expected to engage in a gymnastic cost-benefit analysis to determine which candidate is the lesser of two evils. Voting for a candidate is an endorsement of that candidate, and the voter bears some small measure of responsibility for the conduct of the candidates they elect into office.
Citizens should not feel their integrity has been compromised after exiting the voting booth. Which is why principled voters, who don’t find a viable option in either of the two major party candidates, might consider a third option when they enter the voting booth in November.


CLINTON VS. TRUMP: POLITICS WITHOUT PRINCIPLE

What does it say about our political process, and the judgment of the American electorate, that the likely nominees of the two major political parties are both facing legal actions involving serious allegations of malfeasance?
Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, is facing three separate class action lawsuits alleging fraud in the operation of Trump University. The lawsuits involve claims that the “university” defrauded as many as 5,000 people out of $35,000 in tuition fees for a series of real estate seminars.
Hillary Clinton, the likely nominee of the Democratic Party, has campaigned under the cloud of a pending FBI criminal investigation into violations of the Espionage Act. She is accused of mishandling classified information during her tenure as secretary of state. The investigation followed allegations that she used a private home-based email server for official business with the purpose of circumventing U.S. transparency laws. Recent news reports have alleged that the FBI probe has now expanded into a public corruption investigation of foreign government donations to the nonprofit Clinton Foundation.
These legal difficulties are not isolated incidents. Nor do they reflect aberrations in the candidates’ characters. Both Clinton and Trump have long, well-documented, scandal-ridden histories. Collectively, they have more baggage than Samsonite.
It’s not as if the voters didn’t have a choice of other, scandal-free candidates who ran campaigns based on core ideological principles. Bernie Sanders continues to win elections as the Democratic Party’s delegate rules keep the nomination just out of reach. Yet the voters appear to have chosen Trump and Clinton, one of whom will be the next president of the United States.
Both candidates, and the voters who elected them, represent an apex in an American political pragmatism that has had Europeans scratching their heads for nearly 200 years. In his 1840 work “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans “tend to results without being bound to means, and to aim at the substance through the form.”
Almost 25 years later, in his 1863 essay “Life Without Principle,” Thoreau wrote that Americans “do not worship truth, but the reflection of truth.”
In the case of both Clinton and Trump, the voters were oblivious to or overlooked the character of each messenger because they either liked the message or believed the candidate had a better chance of winning the general election. The truth of the many allegations of ethical and legal lapses leveled against the candidates didn’t seem to matter.
Trump has pandered to the conservative base of the Republican Party, while Clinton has pandered to the progressive base of the Democratic Party. Yet Hillary Clinton is no more a principled progressive than Donald Trump is a principled conservative.
The majority of principled progressives and conservatives rejected Trump and Clinton during the primary elections. So what do they do now that these two are the only “viable” options? The answer is that any option that requires you to compromise your principles is not a “viable” option.
Voters should not be expected to engage in a gymnastic cost-benefit analysis to determine which candidate is the lesser of two evils. Voting for a candidate is an endorsement of that candidate, and the voter bears some small measure of responsibility for the conduct of the candidates they elect into office.
Citizens should not feel their integrity has been compromised after exiting the voting booth. Which is why principled voters, who don’t find a viable option in either of the two major party candidates, might consider a third option when they enter the voting booth in November.




No comments :