IF YOU DO NOT IDENTIFY AS A SOCIAL DEMOCRAT, YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE MY SUPPORT: IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE

Facebook

 

WHEN THE GRANGE GOVERNED TEXAS - TIME TO RETURN TO THE ORIGINS OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT

The Grange understood the value in socialized groups to advance the community.  Today they would be denounced as communists.  But they did not allow big business to control our lives.

They are best known for socialized education.  Without their push for socialized education, Texas would have fallen behind the other states.

History matters.  At UTEP I had a history professor and political science professor who made sure we knew the influence the Grange had on our history.

When I came to Texas there was still no branch banking, something opposed big time by the farmers, and a maximum interest rate of 18%.  It was under the rise of the Republicans both these policies came to an end.  It was also the Republicans who began the process of dissocializing education. 

Now I am the first to say I believe in choice.  BISD is such a failure as a whole.  I know a child on the verge of dropping out because there was no guidance. Endless complaints about the bullying got the parent nowhere.  Now every day is a challenge to get the child to go to school.  She is 16 and giving up.

Look, it is not BISD's job to guide the child.  It is the parents' job. But when you see the parent is not doing their job, the teacher needs to try an intervene.  Also, maybe the parent does not know how to guide the child.  My mom gave me faith I can do it.  But she also went to the school and told them I needed guidance to accomplish my dreams.  Without the social approach, I never would have received the education I received.  But also, it was my desire to actually learn and not merely getting passing grades which made me the educated person I am today. 

So how did we go from the socialist movement of the Grange movement to separatism and individualism?  The capitalist demonized socialism, thereby making it easier for the money makers to take control of the means of production.  

If you know the theory, family businesses are key to the socialist model.  They are not controlled by corporate entities.  They build our economy 

OKAY WHO WERE THE GRANGE?

Half of the membership of the Constitutional Convention of 1875 were patrons dedicated to "retrenchment" in government. Articles providing low salaries for public officers, homestead protection, railway regulation, and restrictions on taxing power show their influence on the convention. 

Laws encouraging immigration, checking land speculative companies, setting maximum interest rates, regulating railways by a commission, and requiring a six-month school term and the election of public weighers originated with the state Grange.

 The Texas Grange supported the national Grange in demanding free trade, an interstate commerce commission, a department of agriculture, a pure food and drug law, inflation, popular election of senators, and reduction of express and postage rates. 

The Grangers' crusade for better education was their most important work. The bimonthly Grange hall meeting was a school for the whole family; there they established libraries, sang songs, read essays, and developed speakers. They worked for free and uniform textbooks, nine-month school terms, consolidation of rural schools, a scholastic age of eighteen, capable teachers, and vocational courses. Granges organized schools under the "school community system."

 

A DEPICTION OF OUR INNOCENCE CELEBRATING THANKSGIVING

Analytically I look from the bottom up.  A sign someone is not an analyst is in their comments they use top-down analysis one day and bottom up the next day.  This means random thoughts not based on any theoretical base.  OMG top to bottom analysis is always wrong.  You cannot judge yesterday based on today.  You must look to the path of yesterday if you want an insightful understanding of today - without judgment.

I AM SO TIRED OF THE SIMPLISTIC MEME COMMENTS WHICH SEEM TO PROMOTE VIOLENCE

It is not that these simplistic meme comments directly promote violence, they just take away the need to understand why things are as they are. I hate the comment looking at Nazi Germany with, "and they said they were just taking orders."  Pure simpleton BS.

Order requires compliance with the command.  I learned that in the military.  If you want to know chaos, tell every soldier to decide if every order they receive is legal.  Our Republic will die.  Having said that I believe as part of our freedom everyone has a right to direct our soldiers to not follow illegal orders.  It is truly an empty statement by simpletons.  It only becomes dangerous when we have enlisted personnel claiming a war is illegal and they will not follow orders.  As if an enlisted person knows international law well enough to know when a war is legal or illegal.

I AM VERY THANKFUL FOR ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AT ANY LEVEL WHO PUT THEIR LIFE ON THE LINE TO PROTECT US

I know firsthand what a spouse feels like when they night after night wait for their spouse to come home after their shift on the NYPD.  They never get used to it.  They suffer not knowing if their spouse will come home after the shift.

What happened yesterday in DC with the national guardspersons was terrible.  I have no use for Trump's national guard policy, but that does not mean I do not support our national guard.  They were given orders to be in DC, and they were keeping the oath.

I wish Thanksgiving could be as innocent as Charlie Brown sees it.  But it is not.  If we believe in Ordered Liberty, Thanksgiving becomes complex.  Law enforcement may not make sense to us at times, but we must be thankful every day they do their best to keep us safe.   It is for this I am thankful. 

 

ONCE AGAIN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR PROVES SHE BRINGS NO VALUE TO THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAW

The Feres Doctrine is perhaps one of the worst doctrines of judicial activism in the history of the Supreme Court.  The original decision was dead wrong, but its reasoning would have made sense had it been the actual law.

In a very short opinion, the Supreme Court found because the VA effectively had a workers compensation system in place, such as in regular work-related injuries, the active-duty personnel could not sue the military for work related injuries.  We begin with how simple the decision was.  It was very short.

It had two flaws; Congress did not provide for this result.  It was judicial activism.  But it held because the reasoning made sense.  But even in worker compensation cases there are two options.  If you are self-insured the worker can still sue you for actual negligence and not mere work-related injury.  The second option is, regardless of whether you suffered a work-related injury, you were covered.  The latter is no longer true.  If you suffer a heart attack while in the military, you are not assured VA coverage when you leave the military unless you can show the heart attack was work related. 

First Sotomayor agrees Feres is hard to justify, then decides it must hold because of Stare Decisis."

"As my colleague rightly explains, Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135 (1950), is a difficult decision to justify.  ... .  Since it was decided 75 years ago, Feres’s atextual expansion of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U. S. C. §2671 et seq., has garnered near-universal criticism; has caused significant confusion; and has deprived servicemembers and their families of redress for serious harms they have suffered during service to this country."

Atextual means not in the written law but put there by the Supreme Court. 

"Even so, out of respect for the Court’s rules of stare decisis, and in recognition of the reliance interests that Feres has generated, I vote to deny this petition for a writ of certiorari. "

Sotomayor runs from the truth behind her decision to not hear the case.  She is really attacking the Dobbs Majority [reversing Roe v. Wade -abortion] She is doing it at the expense of our military.

Sotomayor could have written a very powerful dissent in Dobb's. showing the Dobb's Court could have gotten to the same result using Roe v. Wade, but it would have meant the truth.  Sotomayor hates the truth.  She plays the law to her own political agenda.

What you see here is, I do not give a pass to a so-called liberal justice.  I call it as I see it.  Also, Sotomayor is a Plantation Democrat, not a Social Democrat. 

Roe had two key components.  First, the court found a woman "does not have an unqualified right to an abortion."  This means the right to an abortion is not absolute but qualified.  The Roe Court went on endlessly about then known medical evidence about life.  The limitation being quickening, when you can feel the baby move, was based on then known medical evidence. 

Based on new medical evidence the Court could have used Roe to pull back when a women's qualified right to an abortion is cut off. 

It was inconceivable Sotomayor would concede Roe had a model which could result in further limiting a woman's right to an abortion.

WHAT WOULD SOTOMAYOR SAY ABOUT "PLESSY V. FERGUSON?"

Plessy v. Ferguson stood for the principle "Separate but Equal is Constitutional. But somehow 50+ years of courts relying on Plessy allowed the Supreme Court to toss Plessy and replace it with Brown v. the Board of Education. "Separate but Equal is Inherently Unconstitutional." 

Sotomayor desperation in her denial of the latest Feres case shows she has no loyalty to any constitutional principle. 

By her own words she could have reaffirmed the so-called liberal idea the law fluctuates with time and interpretation.  She did not.  She used the decision to create a quote for a future opinion we should not mess with Stare Decisis. 

If Sotomayor believed her words yesterday, which she does not, she would have denied certiorari in Brown v. the Board of Education and let stand "Separate but Equal is Constitutional." Sotomayor manipulates her opinions to get to the result she wants.  It is really that simple, and she remains a danger to our Republic. 

THE ORIGINAL JUSTICE JACKSON SAID IT BEST

" I see no reason why I should be consciously wrong today because I was unconsciously wrong yesterday." Massachusetts v. United States, 333 U.S. 611, 639-40 (1948) (Jackson, J., dissenting).

Liberty fluctuates and is not etched in stone.  These were the words of William Blackstone, who summarized the law at the time of our Revolution.  The stone part I added, but Blackstone used the word fluctuates when describing Liberty.

 

ONE HOUR AFTER TEXAS REQUESTED THE SUPREME COURT PUT A HOLD ON THE RULING WHICH BLOCKED TEXAS REDISTRICTING, JUSTICE ALITO EFFECTIVELY REINSTATED THE TEXAS 2026 REDISTICTING MAP 

This is pure BS.  It is not humanly possible Alito read the lower court opinion, reviewed the evidence and found Texas would prevail on the merits.  

If you do not see this as stealing the 2026 election you are just too corrupt and desperate to deal in facts.  All fair-minded U.S. Americans need to march on the Supreme Court and demand Alito's resignation.  When one justice can steal an election on their own vote, our Democracy has died.

Many in the news media are reporting the order was by the conservative majority.  The LA Times needs to hire someone who can read Orders, because they clearly have the story wrong.

The Order is clear; it was Alito by himself as the Circuit Justice for the 5th Circuit who signed the order.  He did not, as he should have, refer the matter to the entire Court.  I wonder if he knew he did not have the 4 votes.

 THE MANDAMUS AGAINST ART MCDONALD, AND MOTION TO REMAND THE CITY OF BROWNSVILLE SUIT TO STATE COURT REMAIN PENDING

As I have said in the past, Fridays are hard on me while I await the weekly orders from the Texas Supreme Court.  Well, the orders came out at 9 a.m., and my case remains pending.

I have a lot I am working on.  A question I have pondered for over 40 years is, are a public official's oath of office discretionary?  

The immunity doctrine says it is.  So, if the oath of office is discretionary what is the point of the oath?  Last week Congress waived immunity against officials who illegally obtain records from Senators. For this type of immunity there is nothing, and I mean nothing, in the constitution which provides for immunity.

In my mind immunity does not exist.  It is 100% judge made law.  Courts can compel public officials to do their job, but because the Oath of Office is discretionary, they cannot be compelled to uphold their oath of office. 

Just think about that. 

 A HUGE ISSUE, NO RIGHT MINDED PUBLIC OFFICIAL WANTS IS, IS UPHOLDING YOUR OATH OF OFFICE MANDATORY AND NOT DISCRETIONARY?

Trump has threatened several members of congress with sedition for telling our military to not follow illegal orders.  Our troops swear an oath to the Constitution.  The oath is meaningless.  This morning a lot of people learned from the Texas Supreme Court, notwithstanding violation of their constitutional rights, the Texas Supreme Court will not hear their case.  At the Supreme Court level, both state and federal upholding their oath is discretionary.  This is where the nightmare begins. 

This video is all anyone needs to listen to, to know county commissioner Joey Lopez and all other commissioners on the ballot need to be voted out.  Joey Lopez and all other sitting commissions during covid used their power to steal the Covid vaccine, from the people, for their own political ends.

Of course, social media whores are going to defend Joey Lopez because they were illegally given one of the vaccines which left a cancer patient or other high-risk patient without the vaccine. 

Just this week another person was indicted on Covid related fraud.  She is not the first.  All over the country numerous people have been indicted and convicted of misuse of Covid money or vaccines.

We all know unless you get the complaint to Washington nothing will come of it locally.  The local FBI is too entrenched with the local criminal enterprises to do their job.

Latest indicted Congresswoman.