Why have Juneteenth when you can have Odunde?

https://www.odundefestival.org/ 

Once again it's time for the "woke" holiday that was adopted after the BLM riots.

And it seems that a majority of people are ignoring it, which makes sense since it really isn't that much of an event.

It's way more hype tied with a desire to appease the people who went wild in 2020.

On the other hand, Philadelphia's Odunde actually gathers a crowd. Toss in that it has a lot of community support.

"Jane"

So, maybe we should have gone with Odunde which is a thing as opposed to Juneteenth which was pretty much a non-event along the line of the Plymouth Plantation crowd and thanksgiving. 

Who hears about Jamestown's starving time?

Jane needs to be recognised for her struggle in the creation of America!

She needs to be an "American Girl" doll!

We need to know the story of Jane! Who was she? Did she have a say in her ultimate fate?

So, I propose that we need a holiday to remember Jane while we're doing away with Juneteenth and Thanksgiving.

Let's study America's REAL history!

250th anniversary of the United States? Not at all.

Americans love to take quotes out of context rather than look at the whole picture.

Also, the period between 1775 (and maybe earlier) to 1790 is not much of anything since the Articles of Confederation were what was running the show. It also means that the "United States" didn't really exist until the Constitution was ratified. That's another section of ignorance in US history which needs much greater study. 

In fact, thinking about it the early republic wasn't in too hot a condition with a low level civil war that finally broke out into a full scale one in the 1860s.

Perhaps, rather than pretend that the war for independence created a country, we should look at what it was actually created by war. The US should look at how its bellicose nature has put it into the current mess it is in.

This is a real case where war is not the answer and the real one needs to be found. 

Roe v Wade was overturned? Quoi c'est bordel?

 I say that because there has always been a simple solution if we use the concept of Separation of Church and state under the First Amendment. It's what's being pointed out here in France's making Abortion a constitutional right and why it is a constitutional right.

Big hint, if the Judges who overturned Roe are Catholic, then you have a glaringly obvious example of how this simple way to make it a constitutional right also works in the United States. It's one I've thought about writing about for a while, but this post is now truly necessary.

The first amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" 

And can't forget Article IV, Clause 3:

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." 

Laîcité is how France keeps religion and government separate to effectuate those principles. Here's an explanation of the concept.

 As she points out that "faith is a private matter for each individual citizen, and when it comes to the state: it's a no god zone."

Which is where laïcité, or secularism, comes into play when one sees a group of Catholic judges banning abortion, or any other religious person for that matter, then one can safely infer that religion is involved.

So, if the reasoning is based upon any metaphysical belief rather than an actual scientific one, then it's probably unconstitutional under secularism.

And given the amount of miscarriages and the high cost of malpractice insurance for obstetricians, we can add that it's wrong anyway.

So, given that I believe that if there is a god, he also believes that abortion is no biggie and should be a right. After all, he's more than willing to end a pregnancy.

That makes the choice to terminate a pregnancy one that belongs to the woman and her health care provider and no one else. 

The founders created the United States as a secular because they didn't want religion to mix with public life for pretty much the same reasons that the French did. They knew that religion and politics don't mix.

Unfortunately, the influence of religion is far too pervasive in US society. It's time to look to Laïcité. 

And join France in making abortion a constitutional right. 

The Virginia "Gun Rights" crowd go where angels fear to tread.

The Spotsylvania Commonwealth's Attorney is showing his ignorance of Virginia history and law in a way that is quite pleasurable for those of us who want to preserve the Constitution. Especially since, as I like to point out, the Virginia Constitution's analogue to the Second Amendment makes it pretty clear that the right is tied to enabling a militia, as opposed to a standing army.

Article I. Bill of Rights Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Wow, that couldn't be any clearer.

Could it?

And you can see it for yourself at:
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article1/section13/

I know it's been changed to add the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but the original version written by Thomas Jefferson gives us a great idea of what the founder's intent happened to be:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 
Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 §13 which was written by Thomas Jefferson. 

The issue for the founders wasn't personal uses, but the preservation of the militia system. That's a military establishment like what Switzerland HAD where the professional, full-time, force is mainly for training and administration. The fighting force are the part-timers that is formed by pretty much every able bodied male.

 Pulling in Virginia's declaration of rights is a godsend because it can get the issue back to the actual debates at the drafting of the Constitution. This is because pretty much all the texts used to justify gun rights are misquotations or taken out of context.

The real issue was that the Federal government had an army. The militias were state run organisations. And the militias weren't just anybody with a gun since any real discussion of this period needs to address Shays' Rebellion and the reaction to it. 

The founders were concerned that since Congress had the power over the budget, they would favour the professional army, and possibly create a large standing army. As opposed to funding the militia. You will see the founders actually citing article 1, section 8, clause 16 in the debates in reference to this issue.

Hence the term "infringed". 

Also, as the Virginia Constitution points out, the military, whether army or militia, needs to be under civilian control.

And as the US Constitution points out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: the militia is "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." 

But the bottom line is that rights come with responsibilities: and the right to keep and bear arms comes with the responsibility of serving in the active militia. 

And following the law.

 See also:
    US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16

History Never Repeats?

 It's funny that a draft dodger during the Vietnam War has me thinking about that war. People would be surprised how similar Vietnam was to what is happening now. 

There's a lot to say about this: one is that I think the people who protested Vietnam have turned into total hypocrites: e.g., John "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Kerry. Well, you voted for the war in Iraq, John: so, now you know the answer.

Anyway, part of this Vietnam revisited on my part is listening to the music of the time, which is where this song comes in:

 It was written 61 years ago and went to number one. 

And it's relevant to the current situation.