Diane Labrosse’s Post

We’re the 3/4, center-majority, and we’re done with propaganda, lawfare, extremists and the horseshoe circus 🎪 of another controversial election 2020 — Censored for ‘saying what everyone is thinking’ 2024 — Censored for ‘saying what everyone is saying’ 2024 is likely to be the most controversial election in US history as a result of ‘lawfare. That’s not helping Americans on the center that have stable and grounded understanding of history and policy. 11 of the most bizarre elections in American history — https://lnkd.in/gpE8tX7H DNC —— obviously aiming to bring in Michelle Obama and Gavin Newsom. Top political experts on both sides of the aisle accept that over 3/4 of the population doesn’t want a ‘rematch. Everyone knows how Trump is being set aside — with what amounts to grotesque ‘#lawfare without standing, in American history or jurisprudence. — It’s become a circus 🎪 of clowns 🤡: Remember the infamous 1920 Presidential campaign from Prison? —— A Million Americans Once Voted for an Incarcerated Socialist, Eugene Debs campaigned for both president and prison reform from a federal penitentiary. — https://lnkd.in/gtKEww7C The #extrememists on both sides of the aisle are nuts 🥜 because of the rhetoric and propaganda ‘selling them into this circus. The silent center ‘majority is – now — fully aware of the extremists #inculcated by ‘UN driven global policies that do not favor US. Vast majority of Americans don’t buy off on the Biden / Trump ‘identity politics’ —— #propaganda. —• RFK Jr. ‘Rulers always face the temptation to maintain social control by denying the people their sovereignty and their voice’ — Robert F Kennedy, Jr. “Unfortunately, in recent years our party leaders have succumbed to the siren of control. They have compromised the defining democratic principle of one person, one vote through repeated interference in the primary elections. They have hijacked the party machinery and, in recent years, directed the power of #censorship onto their political opponents, raising political victory onto the altar in place of honest democracy.” — RFK Jr. — https://lnkd.in/gwGyqevR [Extremists ‘pawned to create broad division in both Europe and North America?: ‘#Horseshoetheory’ asserts that the far-left and the far-right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear continuum of the political spectrum, closely resemble each other, analogous to the way that the opposite ends of a horseshoe are close together. The theory is attributed to the French philosopher and writer of fiction and poetry Jean-Pierre Faye in his 2002 book, Le Siècle des idéologies ("The Century of Ideologies").” — https://lnkd.in/gvmccEB4.]

💥 The Bureaucracy in Exile: Explore the insightful essay by Iain McKay on the repercussions of bureaucratic systems. An eye-opening read for those questioning hierarchy and authority. Dive in: https://lnkd.in/gTCZ2RPy 💥 #Anarchy #Bureaucracy #Authority #Hierarchy

Fragmenty artykułu podpiętego poniżej w oryginale: (September 12) was H.L. Mencken’s birthday. The “Sage of Baltimore” (pictured above) was born on September 12 in 1880 and is regarded by many as one of the most influential American journalists, essayists, and writers of the early 20th century. To recognize the great political writer on the 140th anniversary of his birthday, here are 17 of my favorite Mencken quotes: 1. Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods. 2. A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar. 3. A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground. 4. Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. 5. Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses. 6. Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage. 7. Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. 8. Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. 9. If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner. 10. For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. 11. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. 12. As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. 13. The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve. 14. No democratic delusion is more fatuous than that all men are capable of reason, and hence susceptible to conversion by evidence. 15. Communism, like any other revealed religion, is largely made up of prophecies. 16. The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear – fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety. 17. When a new source of taxation is found it never means, in practice, that the old source is abandoned. It merely means that the politicians have two ways of milking the taxpayer where they had one before. https://lnkd.in/eSZ-tHT4

Those interested in the case law on the 'right to truth', transparency and accountability for past human rights atrocities, check last week's decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case against Russia. In the decision Suprun and Others vs. Russia (which contains several cases), the Court affirmed the right of victims and their relatives to access information about past human rights abuses, even decades after the events occurred. This validates the ongoing importance of uncovering historical truths. The Court found that Russia violated the right to freedom of expression when it failed to provide applicants with access to archival information regarding Soviet political repression. This is an important decision for several reasons. First, the Court reaffirmed that states must be transparent about historical human rights violations. Access to information about past abuses is crucial for personal healing, historical understanding, and societal reconciliation. Second, the decision is important for researchers and historians. The Court affirmed that gathering of information was a relevant preparatory step for research and publications and contributed to public debate on Soviet political repression. It found that in this case, restriction on acquiring copies of archival documents did not pursue a legitimate aim and was not “necessary in a democratic society” I am glad that the Court also recognised arguments put forward by ARTICLE 19 in the third-party intervention in one of the cases included in this decision. I also think that although the case focused on Stalinist-era repressions in Russia, the arguments can be applied to other contexts where states have been reluctant to provide information about past abuses. It also strengthens the position of researchers and families of victims of repression in seeking justice and closure, while also promoting greater transparency and accountability for historical human rights violations in Europe and beyond. #Russia #humanrights #freedomofexpression #accesstoinformation #freespeech #transparency #righttotruth #Sovietera #repression #victims #justice https://lnkd.in/ejg_REqE

And they're called the 'conservative' party... “Sheer vandalism” and “insane”. This is how leading historians on Monday described government plans to destroy millions of historical wills to save on storage costs. The Ministry of Justice is consulting on digitising and then throwing away about 100m paper originals of the last wills and testaments of British people dating back more than 150 years in an effort to save £4.5m a year." #costcutting #costreduction #storagesolutions #storagesolution #storagesystem #wills #willsandtrusts #probate #probatelawyer #vandalism #probateattorney #testament #birmingham #westmidlands #midlander #country #midlands #london #TLS #thelawsociety #birminghamlawsociety #eastmidlands #blackcountry #legalprofession #legalprofession #solicitors #solicitor #lawyers #lawyerlife #law #government #conservativeparty #borisjohnson #politics #conservative #history #historymatters #historyfacts #historylovers #historymakers #historylesson #change #taxpayers #taxplanning #tax #money #taxes #debt #societyandculture #heritagetreasures #heritagebuilding #heritage #heritageconservation #birminghamlibrary #libraryofbirmingham

SHARE AMERICA Sons of the American Revolution History America 250 Daily Minute to America's Saviors the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War #MOLLUS #DOLLUS #AlliedOrders 1/2 First of the Federalist Papers is published On this day in history, October 27, 1787, the first of the Federalist Papers is published. The Federalist, as it was originally called, was a series of articles written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, to explain and justify the need for the newly proposed United States Constitution. The United States Constitution was written by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to replace the failing Articles of Confederation, America's first governing document. The Confederation Congress sent a copy of the new Constitution to each state at the end of September, 1787, for each state to debate and make its own vote for or against ratification. Within days of its arrival, the first criticisms of the document began to appear in newspapers. In New York, one of the states whose ratification of the Constitution was deemed critical to its success because of its large population, a very strong anti-Constitution coalition arose. Articles published under pseudonyms such as Brutus, Cato and the Federal Farmer began to appear, by people such as George Clinton, Robert Yates and Melancton Smith. To counter these arguments, Alexander Hamilton masterminded a plan to write a series of articles to refute the arguments and provide solid reasons why the Constitution should be adopted. The first of the articles, which was written by Hamilton, appeared on October 27, 1787. Hamilton recruited fellow Federalist John Jay to write more articles, but after writing only 4 articles, Jay became ill and James Madison was recruited to the effort. Hamilton and Madison wrote the remainder of the 85 articles with the exception of one more written by Jay. In all, Hamilton wrote 51 articles, Madison 26 and Jay 5, all of which were written using the pseudonym, Publius. According to The Federalist No. 1, the purpose of the articles was to explain how the Constitution would benefit the individual American citizen; why the current Confederation was not working; and the benefits of each provision in the Constitution. For example, Federalist Nos. 6-9 explain the benefits of a federal union; Federalist Nos. 24-29 discuss the need for common defense; Federalist No. 45 discusses alleged dangers to the authority of the states from the federal government; and Federalist Nos. 52-56 discuss the proposed House of Representatives. The articles were published from October, 1787, to August, 1788, in several New York papers. Some of the articles were printed elsewhere, but they were primarily read in New York. America250 Daughters of the American Revolution American Battlefield Trust National Parks Conservation Association

 A MATTER OF (HISTORICAL) INTERPRETATION: ORIGINALISM AND THE USE AND INTERPRETATION OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE BY THE SUPREME COURT - PDF: https://lnkd.in/g8xmGRKh The Supreme Court’s 2022 and 2023 terms have demonstrated that its jurisprudential outlook and methodology is solidly entrenched in the “original public meaning” school of originalism. This method of interpretation, exemplified in Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, has risen rapidly to become a dominant strand of constitutional and statutory interpretation in the United States.  With recent cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and New York Rifle and Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, the Court has given much more weight to historical evidence in deciding cases, almost rising to the level of binding authority. While originalism purports to be a more neutral methodology because it adheres to the so-called “original public meaning” words had to society at the time they were written, major problems arise in attempting to discern a universalizable past meaning to apply to contemporary American society.  This Article argues that there was never a universalizable “original public meaning,” neither at the ratification of the U.S. Constitution nor at the adoption of the postbellum amendments of the 1860s. Originalism, with its heavy emphasis on historical evidence, requires the exclusion of wide swaths of the American people from the historical record and creates an impoverished, incomplete, and inaccurate depiction of the past. Such a methodology is an insufficient basis for a school of jurisprudence and creates potential dangers for the legitimacy of the Court as an apolitical institution. #SCOTUS #Originalism #constitutionalinterpretation #History #historyandtradition #staredecisis #overturningprecedents

The International Journal of Human Rights, Peace, and Politics is an independent publishing house dedicated to promoting free speech and ensuring no censorship for authors who speak out against human rights violations, advocate for peace, and navigate the complex world of politics. Our mission is to provide a global platform where individuals from all walks of life can share their stories, voice their truths, and contribute to the discourse on human rights, peace, and politics. We believe in the power of storytelling to drive change, challenge the status quo, and promote a more just and equitable world. Methods of Publication : Our journal features a wide range of content, including but not limited to: - Personal narratives and testimonies from survivors of human rights abuses and conflicts - Analytical pieces and opinion columns on current political events and policies affecting human rights and peace - Research articles and scholarly papers on human rights law, peace studies, and political science - Creative expressions such as poetry, art, and photography that capture the essence of human rights struggles and aspirations for peace We invite scholars, activists, journalists, and storytellers from around the world to join us in this endeavor. DEADLINE : 25th July 2024 #scholars #activists #journalists #storytellers #nocensorship #freespeech #journals #internationaljournal #publication #papers #researchpapers #articles #art

Saving the Supreme Court? Constitutional Rights and the Inevitability of Politics (with a Discussion of Antisemitism) - https://lnkd.in/grZBdcxq The Supreme Court is at a low point. Commentators have suggested possible fixes, such as term limits for the Justices, but Jamal Greene provocatively proposes something different. The Court should change its conceptualization of constitutional rights, switching from a rightsist to a proportionality approach. Under rightsism, conflicts are binary: An individual has either a protected constitutional right or nothing. Under proportionality, the Court would focus on the government’s justifications for its action rather than on whether an individual has a right. The nation, according to Greene, had once followed proportionality but turned to rightsism in the 1930s and 1940s. He predominantly blames Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and Felix Frankfurter for that mistaken turn. If the current Court were to rectify this error, Greene argues, proportionality would temper rights conflicts, diminish political polarization among Americans, and presumably improve the Court’s public status. Greene’s argument is brilliant but deeply flawed. His recommended paradigm shift for the conceptualization of rights could potentially engender important benefits, particularly a greater judicial focus on substantive justice. Yet, Greene overestimates the power of legal and theoretical arguments, such as his proposal for proportionality, and underestimates the power of politics in shaping Supreme Court decision making (and legal scholarship). If one defines politics capaciously to include not only conservative and progressive outlooks but also religious, cultural, economic, and other background forces, then constitutional interpretation and Supreme Court decision making always arise from a law–politics dynamic. Consequently, if the current Court, with its conservative bloc of six Justices, were to adopt proportionality, it would still reach conservative decisions. Greene himself unwittingly demonstrates the power of politics (capaciously defined) to shape interpretive conclusions in his telling of constitutional history. Specifically, antisemitism mars Greene’s depiction of Justice Frankfurter and skews his historical analysis of twentieth-century developments. Ultimately, then, the current Court would be wise to adopt proportionality, but its potential benefits will not be realized. The flaws in Greene’s argument underscore that the Court, to improve, must change its politics, but political change is unlikely without a change in personnel.