Separation of Church and State …


United States

John Locke, English political philosopher argued for individual conscience, free from state control

The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of English John Locke.[1] philosopher According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution.[21]Thomas Jefferson stated: “Bacon, Locke and Newton..I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the physical and moral sciences”[22][23] Indeed such was Locke’s influence,

The concept was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious oppression in Massachusetts to found what became Rhode Island on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith.[24][25]

Reflecting a concept often credited in its original form to the English political philosopher John Locke,[1] the phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a “wall of separation” between church and state.[2]United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept. The phrase was quoted by the

The concept has since been adopted in a number of countries, to varying degrees depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society. A similar principle of laïcité has been applied in France and Turkey, while some socially secularized countries such as Norway have maintained constitutional recognition of an official state religion. The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, and religious pluralism.

source: internet

Kakistocracy … could these be templates for the 2019 govt?


See the source image

Abstract

Independent political analyst, Vienna, Yerevan, Austria
Received 29 December 2009, Accepted 2 March 2010, Available online 15 May 2010.

The article ‘Kakistocracy or The true story of what happened in the post-Soviet area’ argues that the countries, emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Empire, chose three distinct models of development: the Baltic model, when Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania joined the Euro-Atlantic security structures; the Belarusian model, when the country opted for an authoritarian rule with a possible transition from the communist totalitarianism to an open society; and the Russian model, when under the slogans of democracy and market economy a new type of regime was established in Russia and a number of post-Soviet countries.

To characterize this new type of regime the definition of ‘kakistocracy’ has been introduced, which means a merger between the state structures and the oligarchic elements as a result of the systematic plunder of national assets and establishment of a rule of lawlessness and illegal usurpation of power under the slogans of democracy and market economy.

Furthermore, the split of the CiS and the formation of two groups of countries, respectively the GUAM and the CSTO, have been considered from the viewpoint of their different strategic goals and orientations.

A section is devoted to the cardinal differences between the strategic visions of Yeltsin and Putin. The latter’s policy can be formulated as the Putin’s doctrine aimed at restoring Russia’s influence through centralization of power, internally, and demonstration of military force and energetic blackmail, externally. The kakistocratic regimes lead to a political and socio-economic collapse, triggering popular unrest. This exactly was the reason of the ‘orange’ revolutions, which in most of the cases are the only way to topple kakistocratcy.

In conclusion, it is suggested that the other way of getting rid of kakistocracy would be a cardinal change in Russia’s policy. While the strategic goal of the country should remain restoring its international influence and authority, the means should shift from heavily relying on military power and energetic resources toward focusing on the Russian spiritual values and potential for facing new threats and challenges to international peace and security.

Independent political analyst, Vienna, Yerevan, Austria
Received 29 December 2009, Accepted 2 March 2010, Available online 15 May 2010.

******************************

Kakistocracy N. Government by the worst citizens (Peter Bowler, 2002)

1. Introduction
After almost two decades of the Soviet Union’s disintegration a lot remains to be clarified on what in reality took place in the former Soviet republics, what kind of transformation did they undergo and what are their development trends. This subject seems to be important for a number of reasons, which have both internal and external implications. To put it succinctly, it is crucial that a considerable part of the planet’s population could develop its political, socio-economic and cultural potential, internally, and contribute to the progress of mankind and international peace and security, externally.

The difficulty of in-depth understanding of the processes and trends in the post-Soviet area stems from the abundance of misinterpretations and false targets due to the euphoria after the collapse of the Soviet empire which, at first sight, heralded the end of the Cold War and the beginning of a new era. It was exactly in the late 1980s and the early 1990s that Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History and the Last Men”, predicting that history should definitely choose liberal democracy as humanity’s ultimate achievement thus precluding any qualitatively new historic development, became and still remains a bestseller (Francis Fukuyama, 1992). It is exactly in 1990 that the Conference (at present – Organization) on Security and Co-operation in Europe adopted the Charter of Paris for a New Europe (1990), where the Heads of State or Government of the Conference solemnly proclaimed a ‘new era of Democracy, Peace and Unity’.

Indeed, in early 1990s the ex-Soviet countries were admitted to the United Nations1, became OSCE participating States and nowadays all of them, save Belarus and the Central Asian countries, are members of the Council of Europe, which per se could have been a clear indicator of their commitment to observe human rights and fundamental freedoms.

This accession to the international organizations and acceptance of the international instruments and laws went in parallel with internal changes, which seemed to bring about the establishment of democratic structures and market economy, thus ostensibly materializing the authoritative predictions of political scientists and the enthusiastic statements of politicians.

Unfortunately, over the past twenty years the historic reality proved to be a different one. The bypassing of the UN Security Council in some critical decision-making instances, the deep crisis of the OSCE, the transformation of the Council of Europe from an exclusive into an inclusive organization, where the behaviour of certain newly admitted members has become subject to periodic discussions and permanent concern – all these facts reflect the deeper tendencies of a new divide and discord between the West and the East and the international community’s obvious failure to unite its resources and political will vis-à-vis the new threats and challenges to international peace and security.

While discussing the causes of this divide and considering the possible ways out of such a situation should become subject to a comprehensive and detailed analysis, this article aims at concentrating on the real situation in the post-Soviet countries and its impact on the international developments. In order to achieve this objective the article will consider the different groups of states that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in particular, the CIS countries and the fault lines between them. Furthermore, an attempt will be done to formulate a definition meant to reveal the genuine nature of the ruling regimes in the bulk of the post-Soviet countries. It is all the more important since the nature of power in those countries triggered the so controversial ‘orange revolutions’, and will most probably trigger new ones jeopardizing the security environment not only internally, but regionally and even at a larger scale.

Understanding the real nature of the regimes that dominate in most of the post-Soviet countries is necessary for the politicians and the civil society both in those countries and internationally, because it is not possible to find a remedy without knowing the root causes of a threat, which is covered with the veil of good intentions but has an enormous potential to spread over stealthily and imperceptibly.

for the complete article … go to: sciencedirect.com

Is your member of Congress a Climate Denier?


The Deniers

DENIER

Sen. Mitch McConnell
KY

DENIER

Rep. Paul Ryan
WI-1

DENIER

Sen. Joni Ernst
IA

DENIER

Sen. Ron Johnson
WI

DENIER

Sen. Marco Rubio
FL

DENIER

Sen. Jim Inhofe
OK

DENIER

Sen. Cory Gardner
CO

DENIER

Sen. Ted Cruz
TX

DENIER

Gov. Rick Scott
FL

DENIER

Rep. Louie Gohmert
TX-1

DENIER

Rep. Todd Rokita
IN-4

DENIER

Rep. Peter Roskam
IL-6

DENIER

Sen. Thom Tillis
NC

DENIER

Rep. Mike Coffman
CO-6

DENIER

Rep. Lamar Smith
TX-21

DENIER

Rep. Jeff Denham
CA-10

DENIER

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
CA-48

DENIER

Rep. Steve Scalise
LA-1

DENIER

Rep. Marsha Blackburn
TN-7

DENIER

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
WA-5

DENIER

Rep. Ted Yoho
FL-3

DENIER

Rep. Ann Wagner
MO-2

DENIER

Rep. Steve King
IA-4

DENIER

Rep. Bob Gibbs
OH-7

DENIER

Rep. Pat Tiberi
OH-12

DENIER

Rep. Larry Bucshon
IN-8

DENIER

Gov. Mike Pence
IN

DENIER

Rep. Lynn Jenkins
KS-2

DENIER

Rep. Bruce Poliquin
ME-2

DENIER

Rep. Bill Huizenga
MI-2

DENIER

Rep. Fred Upton
MI-6

DENIER

Rep. Vicky Hartzler
MO-4

DENIER

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer
MO-3

DENIER

Rep. Jim Bridenstine
OK-1

DENIER

Rep. Markwayne Mullin
OK-2

DENIER

Rep. Lou Barletta
PA-11

DENIER

Rep. Scott Perry
PA-4

DENIER

Rep. Joe Wilson
SC-2

DENIER

Rep. Mick Mulvaney
SC-5

DENIER

Rep. Trey Gowdy
SC-4

DENIER

Rep. Phil Roe
TN-1

DENIER

Rep. John Duncan
TN-2

DENIER

Rep. John Carter
TX-31

DENIER

Rep. Michael Burgess
TX-26

DENIER

Rep. Michael Conaway
TX-11

DENIER

Rep. Pete Olson
TX-22

DENIER

Rep. Randy Neugebauer
TX-19

DENIER

Rep. Ted Poe
TX-2

DENIER

Rep. Morgan Griffith
VA-9

DENIER

Rep. Randy Forbes
VA-4

DENIER

Rep. Robert Hurt
VA-5

DENIER

Rep. James Sensenbrenner
WI-5

DENIER

Rep. Alex Mooney
WV-2

DENIER

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito
WV

DENIER

Rep. David McKinley
WV-1

DENIER

Sen. Richard Shelby
AL

DENIER

Gov. Matthew Mead
WY

DENIER

Sen. John Boozman
AR

DENIER

Sen. Michael Crapo
ID

DENIER

Sen. Rand Paul
KY

DENIER

Rep. Bill Flores
TX-17

DENIER

Rep. Tom McClintock
CA-4

DENIER

Rep. John Fleming
LA-4

DENIER

Rep. Ken Buck
CO-4

DENIER

Rep. Rodney Davis
IL-13

DENIER

Rep. Todd Young
IN-9

DENIER

Rep. Thomas Massie
KY-4

DENIER

Rep. Ed Whitfield
KY-1

DENIER

Rep. Andy Harris
MD-1

DENIER

Rep. Dan Benishek
MI-1

DENIER

Rep. Tim Walberg
MI-7

DENIER

Rep. Erik Paulsen
MN-3

DENIER

Rep. Tom Emmer
MN-6

DENIER

Rep. Gregg Harper
MS-3

DENIER

Rep. Ryan Zinke
MT

DENIER

Rep. David Rouzer
NC-7

DENIER

Rep. Mark Walker
NC-6

DENIER

Rep. Richard Hudson
NC-8

DENIER

Rep. Virginia Foxx
NC-5

DENIER

Rep. Walter Jones
NC-3

DENIER

Rep. Kevin Cramer
ND

DENIER

Rep. Lee Terry
NE-2

DENIER

Rep. Frank Guinta
NH-1

DENIER

Rep. Lee Zeldin
NY-1

DENIER

Rep. Steve Stivers
OH-15

DENIER

Rep. Steve Chabot
OH-1

DENIER

Rep. Glenn Thompson
PA-5

DENIER

Rep. Keith Rothfus
PA-12

DENIER

Rep. Kristi Noem
SD

DENIER

Gov. Dennis Daugaard
SD

DENIER

Rep. Blake Farenthold
TX-27

DENIER

Rep. Joe Barton
TX-6

DENIER

Gov. Greg Abbott
TX

DENIER

Rep. John Culberson
TX-7

DENIER

Rep. Kevin Brady
TX-8

DENIER

Rep. Mac Thornberry
TX-13

DENIER

Rep. Chris Stewart
UT-2

DENIER

Rep. Jason Chaffetz
UT-3

DENIER

Gov. Gary Herbert
UT

DENIER

Rep. Dave Brat
VA-7

DENIER

Rep. Scott Rigell
VA-2

DENIER

Rep. Robert Wittman
VA-1

DENIER

Rep. Cynthia Lummis
WY

DENIER

Sen. Chuck Grassley
IA

DENIER

Sen. Pat Roberts
KS

DENIER

Gov. Paul LePage
ME

DENIER

Rep. Jeff Duncan
SC-3

DENIER

Sen. Rob Portman
OH

DENIER

Rep. Gary Palmer
AL-6

DENIER

Rep. Don Young
AK

DENIER

Sen. Dan Sullivan
AK

DENIER

Rep. Robert Aderholt
AL-4

DENIER

Rep. David Schweikert
AZ-6

DENIER

Rep. Trent Franks
AZ-8

DENIER

Rep. Doug LaMalfa
CA-1

DENIER

Rep. Doug Lamborn
CO-5

DENIER

Rep. Dennis Ross
FL-15

DENIER

Rep. Jeff Miller
FL-1

DENIER

Rep. Jody Hice
GA-10

DENIER

Rep. Rod Blum
IA-1

DENIER

Rep. Tom Price
GA-6

DENIER

Rep. Rick Allen
GA-12

DENIER

Sen. Roy Blunt
MO

DENIER

Sen. Steve Daines
MT

DENIER

Sen. Deb Fischer
NE

DENIER

Sen. John Cornyn
TX

DENIER

Gov. Pat McCrory
NC

DENIER

Rep. Mo Brooks
AL-5

DENIER

Rep. Rick Crawford
AR-1

DENIER

Rep. Paul Gosar
AZ-4

DENIER

Rep. Devin Nunes
CA-22

DENIER

Rep. Darrell Issa
CA-49

DENIER

Rep. Candice Miller
MI-10

DENIER

Sen. Bill Cassidy
LA

DENIER

Sen. Roger Wicker
MS

DENIER

Rep. Robert Pittenger
NC-9

DENIER

Rep. Duncan Hunter
CA-50

DENIER

Sen. John Barrasso
WY

DENIER

Gov. Doug Ducey
AZ

DENIER

Gov. Matt Bevin
KY

DENIER

Rep. Buddy Carter
GA-1

DENIER

Rep. Scott Tipton
CO-3

DENIER

Sen. David Perdue
GA

DENIER

Rep. Doug Collins
GA-9

DENIER

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland
GA-3

DENIER

Rep. David Young
IA-3

DENIER

Rep. John Shimkus
IL-15

DENIER

Rep. Mike Bost
IL-12

DENIER

Rep. Randy Hultgren
IL-14

DENIER

Sen. David Vitter
LA

DENIER

Sen. John Hoeven
ND

DENIER

Sen. James Lankford
OK

DENIER

Sen. Pat Toomey
PA

DENIER

Sen. Orrin Hatch
UT

DENIER

Gov. Bobby Jindal
LA

DENIER

Gov. Brian Sandoval
NV

DENIER

Gov. Nathan Deal
GA

DENIER

Gov. Pete Ricketts
NE

DENIER

Rep. Scott Garrett
NJ-5

DENIER

Rep. Stevan Pearce
NM-2

DENIER

Gov. Susana Martinez
NM

DENIER

Rep. Bill Johnson
OH-6

HATCH ACT/ AN ACT TO PREVENT PERNICIOUS POLITICAL ACTIVITIES [AUGUST 2, 1939]


Be it enacted, That it shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or to attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives at any election….

SEC. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department, independent agency, or other agency of the United States (including any corporation controlled by the United States or any agency thereof, and any corporation all of the capital stock of which is owned by the United States or any agency thereof ), to use his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting the election or the nomination of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential electors Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories and insular possessions.

SEC. 3. It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to promise any employment, position, work, compensation, or other benefit, provided for or made possible ill whole or in part by any Act of Congress, to give consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in any election.

SEC. 4. Except as may be required by the provisions of subsection (b), section 9 of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any persons to deprive, attempt to deprive, or threaten to deprive, by any means, any person of any employment, position, work, compensation, or other benefit provided for or made possible by any Act of Congress appropriating funds for work relief or relief purposes, on account of race, creed, color, or any political activity, support of, or opposition to any candidate or any political party in any election.

SEC. 5. It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive or be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving any assessment, subscription, or contribution for any political purpose whatever from any person known by him to be entitled to or receiving compensation, employment, or other benefit provided for or made possible by any Act of Congress appropriating funds for work relief or relief purposes.

SEC. 6. It shall be unlawful for any person I for political purposes to furnish or to disclose, or to aid or assist in furnishing or disclosing, any list or names of persons receiving compensation, employment, or benefits provided for or made possible by any Act of Congress appropriating, or authorizing the appropriation of, funds for work relief or relief purposes, to a political candidate, committee, campaign manager, or to any person for delivery to a political candidate, committee, or campaign manager, and it shall be unlawful for any person to receive any such list or names for political purposes.

SEC. 7. No part of any appropriation made by any Act, heretofore or hereafter enacted making appropriations for work relief, relief, or otherwise to increase employment by providing loans and grants for public-works projects, shall be used for the purpose of, and no authority conferred by any such Act upon any person shall be exercised or administered for the purpose of, interfering with, restraining, or coercing any individual in the exercise of his right to vote at any election.

SEC. 8. Any person who violates any of the foregoing provisions of this Act upon convict; on thereof shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

SEC. 9. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person employed in the executive branch of the Federal Government, or any agency or department thereof, to use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering; with an election or affecting the result thereof. No officer or employee in the executive branch of the Federal Government, or any agency or department thereof, shall take any active part in political management or in political campaigns. All such persons shall retain the right to vote as they may choose and to express their opinions on all political subjects. For the purposes of this section the term “officer” or “employee” shall not be construe to include (1) the President and the Vice Presdent of the United States; (2) persons whose compensation is paid from the appropriation for the office of the President;

(l) heads and assistant heads of executive departments; (4) officers who are appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and who determine policies to be pursued by the United States in its relations with foreign powers or in the Nation-wide administration of Federal laws.

(b) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be immediately removed from the position or office held by him, and thereafter no part of the funds appropriated by any Act of Congress for such position or office shall be used to pay the compensation of such person.

SEC. 9A. (1) It shall be unlawful for any person employed in any capacity by any agency of the Federal Government, whose compensation, or any part thereof, is paid from funds authorized or appropriated by any Act of Congress, to have membership in any political party or organization which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government in the United States.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be immediately removed from the position or office held by him, and thereafter no part of the funds appropriated by any Act of Congress for such position or office shall be used to pay the compensation of such person.

SEC. 10. All provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, not in substitution for, of existing law.

SEC. 11. If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

resource: historycentral.com