And I agree with much of what everybody is saying. But I think one
thing I just want to point out is it looks to me like this -- there
might be a not guilty by reason of insanity defense that they're going
to be thinking about, because the evidence is going to be so
overwhelming that he did what he did.
Your energy would have been better spend trying to change the system through legal means: not violence.
I'm not sure how to characterise this slogan since pretty much all of the current monarchs are constitutional monarchs. The current batch are under significant constraints to ensure that constitutional monarchs serve as symbols of
national unity rather than as active rulers, reflecting a balance
between tradition and democratic governance. And this has been pretty much the case since the 17th and 18th Centuries.
I probably should define "constitutional monarchy" since it seems most people who chant this slogan are ignorant of this system of government where a monarch
serves as the ceremonial head of state, with their powers defined and
limited by a constitution. This allows the monarch to perform
official duties while the legislative body holds the authority to create
and repeal laws. Countries with constitutional monarchies often blend
traditional royal ceremonies with modern democratic practices, providing
a sense of stability amid political changes.
In 2025, there were forty-three monarchies in the world, most of which were categorized as constitutional monarchies; fifteen of those shared King Charles III as their monarch, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and several Caribbean nations.
A defining feature of a constitutional monarchy is that the monarch
respects the limitations set forth by the constitution and rarely seeks
to alter such a document in his or her favor. Even in the United Kingdom
itself, which has no written constitution but rather a series of
foundational documents, the king or queen remains within the bounds set
by customary rules. This characteristic is the important one if one is going to run around ignorantly saying "no kings".
Monarchs don't act like Trump.
On the other hand, the United States is a dysfunctional democracy. Dysfunctional democracy
refers to a political system where democratic processes fail to
effectively represent the will of the people, often leading to
dissatisfaction and instability among citizens. This can occur due to
issues like ineffective governance, lack of accountability, and the
erosion of civil rights.
A dysfunctional democracy can appear to have democratic institutions, but those don't really represent the will of the people. For a democracy to work, the democracy needs to be properly functioning.
This is a good transition to how the current duopoly system doesn't represent the people:
Very few people are talking about how Amazon came into existence during the Clinton administration with its intent of at least cornering the book market. Or to quote what the search came up with "mazon was named after the Amazon River, which is the largest river in the world, reflecting Jeff Bezos's vision of making his store the biggest bookstore." Amazon has made it clear that it aims to dominate the e-commerce market by offering "a wide range of products and services".
Like Walmart, Amazon is good at killing small businesses and preventing the rise of competition.
But, to get us back to the subject of monarchs: which system has universal healthcare, housing, and works for the people: the US's "Democratic-republic" or a constitutional monarchy?
Lina Seiche on El Salvador's Nayib Bukele with a story which sounds a lot like Bernie Sanders.
On thing people neglect to mention is that "Socialist" Bernie represents a historically red state. Bukele's rise reminds me of Sanders since they both started as "leftists" who managed to unify a politically polarised nation. I think Sanders would have done so if he were given a chance.
Unfortunately, Sanders' time was 2016.
I'm of the opinion that the duopoly won't let anyone vaguely like a Sanders or Bukele get anywhere near the American people. Also, the people who truly influence politics don't want someone like a Bukele in power.
I don't agree with Bukele's positions on a few things, but he proves that a polarised political climate can be changed.
I was talking with Doggone and she commented about the ability to change governments in the Westminster system. When a government loses the ability to legislate, it also gets tossed out (vote of no confidence). I've pointed out before that
I like it because the power is where it belongs: in the lesiglature.
Additionally, because of that, there is an absolute necessity for
political cooperation.
One needs to come up with a consensus for a parliamentary system to
work. The government literally falls if there can't be a consensus,
which is why it is necessary. A lower house of parliament with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) supply" (rejecting a budget), passing a motion of no confidence, or defeating a confidence motion.
Loss of supply occurs where a government in a parliamentary democracy using the Westminster System
or a system derived from it is denied a supply of treasury or exchequer
funds, by whichever house or houses of parliament or head of state is
constitutionally entitled to grant and deny supply. A defeat on a
budgetary vote is one way by which supply can be denied. Loss of supply
is typically interpreted as indicating a loss of confidence
in the government. Not all "money bills" are necessarily supply bills.
For instance, in Australia, supply bills are defined as "bills which are
required by the Government to carry on its day-to-day business".[1]
When a loss of supply occurs, a prime minister is generally required either by constitutional convention or by explicit constitutional instruction to either resign immediately or seek a parliamentary dissolution.
Some constitutions, however, do not allow the option of
parliamentary dissolution but rather require the government to be
dissolved or to resign.
Comedian George Hargreaves on the Seven PMs in the last 10 years:
I should say that the changes of government are due more to the mistake called Brexit.
Anyone who knows me will tell you that I was a very staunch remainer, but in the EU, not Britain.
Of course, as I have also pointed out that the US would probably go through governments faster than Italy or Belgium. In fact, I would guess that it would make Belgium look relatively stable.
My voting third party has nothing to do with a protest vote other than to possibly say the US system is very broken.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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 diefora 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.
I guess one advantage to being a sigma male is that you don't really care about what other people think about you. On the other hand, I have to admit this reel from Instagram by @erikcrackschina, a Chinese businessman, definitely got my attention. It's titled
The Tactical Illusion: Mass-Producing Male Survival Anxiety
The most
profitable brands don't sell products; they sell solutions to emotional
anxiety. Breaking down the industrial reality behind the $200
"military-grade" EDC tactical knife. Discover how massive CNC machines
and kitchen-scissor factories mass-produce "alpha male" survival anxiety
for just $5.
How DTC founders use the heavy hardware matrix of
Yangjiang, Guangdong, to arbitrage Western male "survival anxiety" and
turn stamped steel into massive profits. You are buying the feeling, but
they are selling the steel.
I was stationed in Hong Kong and was able to visit the PRC (and do a little tourism). So, I can confirm this even though I saw the industry in its nascent stages during the 1980s and 1990.
Even more cutting is this comment to the video:
as a man
who has spent 30 years in the gun and tactical industry id like to say
your assessment is so dead on its scary. And being im in firearms were
one of the only industries not completely dominated by China because of
import restrictions. But the firearms accessories market is quickly
becoming dominated by Chinese manufacturing as well. Brands like Holosun
and Vortex are dominating the optics market. American gun companies
should be thankful for those restrictions on firearms import. Ive seen
and shot the Norinco AR15 and its actually a damn fine rifle.
I have to admit amusement because I occasionally cross paths with the US gun community. Toss in that I worked in military procurement (mostly electronic gear), but that didn't stop me from getting addicted to true military surplus.
And not rusty rifles that have sat around in some warehouse since lord knows when.
Anyway, I do have admit that US gun culture is driven by paranoia. Even if sometimes that paranoia can be justified, as happened during the "peaceful protests". Although, some people did go way out of control. But that is a whole other set of posts.
The reality of all this is that paranoia is big money.
"It makes you feel like a navy seal even if you’re not one or want to open an Amazon package in the suburbs."
Tad Stoermer points out something I have been talking about for a while.
In the spirit of Mather Byles: I would rather have an official greeter than a tyrant. The loyalists were the real resistance of the Independence period.
British North America exists--it's called CANADA.
I remember seeing these billboards when I would drive to see my mother and wanting to scream at Sen Camara Bartolotta and Scott Perry for being total morons.
And right now I want to thank them for aiding the Iranians in crippling the United States.
Because of morons like these who cannot understand that energy independence is a necessity to national security and defence they has caused them to aid and abet the enemy in crippling the United States.
No, you morons, "Green Energy" is not an off switch it's a necessity and it's something you should have been supporting for a long time now.
Fortunately, their treasonous ignorance is mitigated by the fact that they are complete and total dumbfucks.
They should have shut the fuck up and listened to more informed people.
It's not a "tree hugger thing".
It's a matter of national security.
But it's your party that has created this mess.
And it's time we took away your position of power.
There are a few reasons that I voted Green in 2016 with the major one being there is no way I would vote for Hillary Clinton: even if ranked choice voting as involved. There would have to be a lot of slots for other options before I would vote for her.
And I have three dogs who I would write in before I would vote for her.
No sexism. Unless the reason you wanted me to vote for her was that she was a woman. Both Kamala and Hillary are pretty bad choices.
I've gotten into them before, but this one needs to be hammered into your head if you think Hillary should have been an option:
There are a lot of myths about gold, which just aren't true.
One is that you can't lose money on it, which isn't true. As Isaid, it's a commodity with all the associated risks and benefits of a commodity investment.
People in the US really don't like the costs associated with wars, yet they keep getting into them. Perhaps it's due to the fact that the war for independence was basically paying for a previous war started by George Washington: La Conquête (or the French and Indian War).
I think I have mentioned that the War for Independence probably could have been nipped in the bud if the British had said: "No, we won't send troops and supplies until you cough up some money."
But, like Trump's Operation Epic Failure, the wars were started and then the bill shows up.
To be paid for by the average person. Here's Maryam again to explain how the fuel cost will hit the US.
Of course, Trump and a lot of right wingers don't like renewable energy, which is a serious error as far as energy security goes. The US Department of Defence was reported to acknowledge Climate Change and Renewable energy as important aspects of US Defence strategy prior to the agency becoming the Department of War Crimes under the Secretary of War Crimes: Pete Hegseth.
Anyway, it would be nice if we had reasonable people running the US, but its current political system precludes that.
Another nice thing would be if the US became the multiparty democracy with free and fair elections on a secret ballot that it spent the last Century saying it was and pushing it to the rest of the world.
