Posted on by Nathan Riley

Immigration Crisis

In case you missed it, the growing number of immigrants in this country is a major political issue. Whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump becomes the new President, they and their political party must deal with the political fallout.

The arrival of hundreds of thousand of Venezuelans will move the nation to the right. They and most U.S. journalists have an easy explanation for their plight: socialism. Venezula used to be a wealthy Latin American nation until it took control away from the U.S. oil companies pumping black gold from the nation’s large reserves. This political act forced Venezuela into poverty. According to the U.S. version of events, President Nicolas Maduro led a reign of political oppression, stifling Venezuelans who supported the privileged position of the big oil companies.

It wasn’t U.S. wealth and prosperity that brought the Venezuelans to the U.S. border. It was the turmoil and economic downturn in their country that persuaded Venezuelans to make the long journey.  

A U.S. embargo against the “authoritarian” regime of President Maduro prevents the country from using U.S. dollars in its trade. Like most countries, Venezuela depends on imports for vital supplies; no dollars meant no supplies. Venezuelan doctors have complained about severe shortages of medicine. In any case, the political turmoil from the U.S. blockade has led to the emigration of seven million Venezuelans.

In Haiti, the breakdown of the government led to severe lawlessness. Gangs took over the country. Thousands fled, many reaching the United States border. These are the people Trump claimed ate the pets of Ohio residents. In Texas, the flood of Haitians has created grave tensions among Mexican Americans, many of whom have families and friends in Mexico. Border crossings that used to take a matter of minutes can now take hours.

Immigration will be a central issue in the United States, no matter who wins the election. The arrival of Venezuelans who believe their nation was ruined by socialism means they will be a conservative force. If either Democrats or Republicans make a plausible case that a new policy is socialist, we can expect the Venezuelans in the United States to oppose it. Most likely these new immigrants, like the Cubans who fled Fidel Castro, will become stalwart Republicans. Democrats will no longer assume that immigrant voters are supporters.

The point of this article is that a world government, in all likelihood, would prevent these mass migrations. The collapse of the Haitian government would automatically lead the United Nations, assuming it had become the global sovereign, to send armed forces to restore order in Haiti and provide assistance to this beleaguered nation.

The complaints of the United States about Venezuela could then be adjudicated by a world court, which could use soldiers to enforce its decisions. In this way, world government prevents crises that force thousands, if not millions, of people to leave their homes searching for safety. For example, migrations, from North Africa especially, shattered German political coalitions and forced Angela Merkel, surely one of the great leaders of this century, to resign.

It is easy to understand that Americans would be skittish about giving up sovereignty and placing it in the hands of the United Nations, whose authority would increase drastically if it became the sovereign responsible for making the Earth’s people cooperate and stop crises from developing.

Crises in far away countries are causing political turmoil in the wealthy nations. A world government can moderate, perhaps even prevent, the turmoil that convinces families to leave their native land in the hopes of finding a better future.

This is hardly the only benefit of world government. Indeed, a chief objective is preventing wars that plague the world. But by forcing nations to justify their actions and consider the impacts on other countries there would be a substantial increase in world cooperation. One obvious benefit is international cooperation to deal with climate change and reclaim desert lands. As these arid regions acquire water, transported across national boundaries, they will help feed the world’s growing population.

We live in a global economy and the advent of new information technologies like computers means that one institution, the U.N., can keep track of the world’s problems and offer assistance.

Such assistance will not always be welcome. Israel recently banned U.N. relief workers from their nation. The United States’s 62-year blockade of Cuba was recently rejected by 187 nations in the General Assembly. Only the United States and Israel supported the continued isolation of Cuba, which has found itself so short of petroleum that there have been electrical blackouts.

A major reason for the U.S. blockade are the Cuban-American votes in Florida, which are hardly a majority but are sufficiently large to make candidates lose if they support reform of U.S. Cuban policy. World government removes this obstacle.

World government is no panacea. Undoubtedly, nations will have conflicts and political groups will demand governmental reforms. But what world government promises when these conflicts occur is that the nations or their dissident citizens resolve their arguments with lawyers, not bullets. This is surely such a great benefit that the United States and other nations in the world should consider giving up their sovereignty in favor of making the United Nations the chief government in the world.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Welcome to Freedom Democrats

This blog is about creating a new wing of Democrats, pointing the party in a new direction.

Freedom Democrats support people who party, be they drug users, sex workers, porn watchers, or porn performers. Regardless of their pleasures, everybody should be respected and have their voice heard. We are not alone. DecrimNY and other groups across the United States are working to decriminalize sex work. Freedom Democrats should have an obligation to listen and understand the proposals these specialized groups are making. They have not only the respect of Freedom Democrats, but, more significantly, they have worked on rules to help sex workers do their job with dignity. Working in a brothel is only justified if the sex worker preserves their right to stop work or reject a trick. A person’s right to autonomy over their own body means that they mustn’t be forced to accept every customer.

I believe Freedom Democrats support the right to decide if a person want to practice monogamy. Such arrangements should be made honestly and explicitly between couples. Life would be smoother if a person’s sexual escapades don’t become a source of pain and surprise to another partner. Again, like with sex work, people have understood this, and couples routinely work this out. This is not a radical idea to many Democrats and Republicans.

But life isn’t a free-for-all. The right to say no has received positive attention from the #MeToo movement. It’s one thing to ask; it’s quite another to pursue a person after they have said no. For Freedom Democrats to work well with others, they should be willing to quickly and easily accept refusals. At the same time, people who party, should have spaces where the sexually adventurous can meet, and it is not offensive for a person to make a pass or sneak into a corner for some private time.

None of these issues are new to the Democratic Party, but Freedom Democrats propose to organize by having weekly parties of persons who are comfortable around drugs and sexual activity. This special feature of a Freedom Democrats’ weekly parties holds out hopes that like-minded people can organize and become a new wing of the Democratic party.

At the same time, Freedom Democrats should oppose war because war is about the powerful imposing their will, even if it’s against the wishes of the loser; it is the opposite of freedom. International affairs exist in a state of anarchy; disagreements are all too often settled by violence.

Ending this violence has been the fond hope of thoughtful people for centuries. War is scattered all over the globe and causes sorrow on continent after continent. As President John F. Kennedy said in 1963, “peace—based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions” should be the ambitious goal. Freedom Democrats, I believe, should make it a primary objective.

I believe they should seek to turn the United Nations into a world government. Any nation that has a grievance should be able to appear before the United Nations. Lawyers and diplomats should replace soldiers and weapons. As a world government, the decisions of the United Nations would be enforced. Nations would lose the dubious ability to reject a proposal because the powerful think they can impose their plan using violence and the assets that the richer have against poorer nations.

Freedom Democrats are just taking baby steps. It is our objective to have specialists devise plans for world government. The object is to get the discussion started. World government should be debated on college campuses. It should be the subject of scholarly study. There is no reason to expect that Freedom Democrats will start a world government, but there is a hope that Freedom Democrats will start the debate.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Overdose Deaths Are Proof That the U.S. Fails To Provide Healthcare to Drug Users

With a drug overdose, a person gradually stops breathing and while it is not true for marijuana, opioid use can be dangerous.

Crossing the street is dangerous—vehicles kill. That is why we have traffic lights and look both ways before crossing. For the illegal drugs we also have “traffic lights:” Don’t do drugs alone. Be sure there is someone there who can help if the user becomes helpless and could die. Have naloxone nearby to interrupt an overdose.

In cities all over the world, drug users inject, inhale, and snort in facilities where a healthcare specialist is on duty and able to interrupt the overdose, or some other health crisis that threatens the user’s well-being.

But not in the United States.

Such facilities are rare and subject to legal sanction because U.S. law can’t distinguish between a crackhouse and a healthcare facility. It’s not just stupid; it’s cruel and all too often murderous.

New York City should have dozens of these programs. Almost every needle exchange program would like to become a healthcare facility where drug users ingest drugs while a healthcare specialist oversees, ready to protect the user if things go wrong. Even with severe limitation the two facilities in New York City have interrupted 1,000 overdoses.

Needle exchange programs set up to stop the spread of H.I.V. faced opposition. “This neighborhood already has too many programs.” Or providing sterile needles and stopping the spread of disease, “Encourages drug use. There is only one message, and that is ‘Just say no.’” Drug use is wrong, accepting the conclusion that illegal drugs must be demonized. Thanks to the public health community and ACT UP’s demonstrations that delivered pithy messages supporting them, needle exchange programs can be found in metropolitan areas all over the United States. Safer consumption facilities should also become widespread.

The neighborhoods survived needle exchange, and the lives of the general public stayed the same. By and large, only drug users and local officials paid attention to the programs. Adding Supervised Injection Facilities would also neighborhood health.

Drug users should have a place to inject drugs away from public view. Many members of the public are disgusted when users take their drugs on street corners or under bridges. A city with drug consumption rooms protects the neighborhood and the privacy of drug users.

The arguments in favor of safer injection facilities are overwhelming. All over Europe, cities have adopted these programs for decades. But not here. A federal judge in Philadelphia has actually found that U.S. law prohibits these programs. Laws intended to close drug dens also stopped health programs.

This situation is more than stupid. It’s deadly. In New York City, on the average, there are about eight deaths every day from overdoses. In 2014, the state comptroller’s researchers reported 2,300 deaths. In 2021, 5,841 New Yorkers died.

Unless something positive is done, 58,000 New Yorkers will die every ten years. The number of deaths in the United States is equally startling. In 2021, 106,719 died in the U.S. That’s a million deaths every ten years.

Nothing, it seems, will persuade U.S. officials to give drug users “traffic lights” to improve their safety. During this time, fentanyl use spread and increased the risk of an overdose.

Fentanyl is easier to smuggle because just a little bit provides a powerful high. If, as Freedom Democrats advocate, these drugs were manufactured by drug companies and prescribed by doctors, only rarely would the prescription authorize fentanyl. There would have been few, if any, overdose deaths from fentanyl-laced drugs.

But because the United States gives illegal operators a monopoly, they are able to add fentanyl. But facts are facts; in the United States people were using opioids when George Washington’s troops were fighting the British, when the Union was battling the Confederacy, and when the United States entered World War I. Opioid use has a long history and will not go away. Policy makers must recognize this reality.

Opioid use is here. And if Freedom Democrats get their way, it will be a safe drug to use. Obviously, some users will want the drug every day; that has always been true, but so what.

Anybody who knows drug users knows that there are depressed people who depend on it. Others want their high right after they’ve been released from prison, forcing them to go “cold turkey” didn’t stop the memories. Indeed, one group who suffer overdose deaths are recently released persons.

Some drug users live disorganized lives, but there are others who support positive change.

Recent news reports describe such a person. Cecilia Gentili founded Trans Equity Consulting, served as director of policy at GMHC, and was board co-chair of the New Pride Agenda. The details of her death are silent on whether she was by herself when the overdose occurred, or whether she was only an occasional user and unused to the potency of fentanyl-laced heroin.

She was in the news in late September 2024 because the two dealers who sold the drugs pleaded guilty in federal court. They face prison sentences well in excess of ten years, an outcome that would probably sadden Cecilia Gentili, who spent her life helping sex workers and transgender persons live with pride. She fought laws that punished persons for their life choices.

We don’t know anything about a person if all we know is that they get high. The U.S. hostility to drug use rests on witchcraft, not science. The United States attributes magic powers to drugs like opioids, but in fact some users have no problems with their drugs, while a smaller group experience fatal consequences.

Freedom Democrats, I believe, should recognize the dangers of many illegal drugs, like heroin and methamphetamine, but society should recognize, with medical care, these drugs are and can be used safely. It makes no more sense to interfere with the doctor patient relationship by prohibiting the medical profession from prescribing drugs that help a person get high than it does to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship surrounding pregnancy.

In fact, the number of deaths from illegal abortions plummeted once government allowed women to consult and work with doctors during the difficult decision about abortion. The same positive results would happen if society allowed doctors the freedom to work with patients who use drugs, leaving it up to the doctor whether the patient will have access to pharmaceutical drugs whose purity has been verified.

It is critical to end the stigma attached to drug use that often forces users to take their drugs secretly and alone. There is no more chance of the United States becoming a nation of drugs users than lifting the stigma attached to homosexuality made everyone gay.

In fact, working with public health specialists it is possible to control drug use and prevent dangerous outcomes. Sixty years ago, on a hot summer day millions of Americans drank beer to quench their thirst. Today they drink water. That is a positive public health result, achieved with a minimum of criminal sanctions. Making drug use a crime causes deadly results. It’s time for us to welcome drug users into society rather than punish them for their habit. The law also ruins the lives of drug sellers with long prison sentences. The only reason they have a market is because the law makes drugs illegal. If drugs were legal, doctors and patients could make their problems manageable.

 Overdoses are proof that society is failing to provide healthcare.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

World Government Could Prevent Palestinian Crisis

No matter what happens. Freedom Democrats will grapple with the U.S./Israel invasion of Palestine.

As I write this, police across the nation are arresting protestors angered by the displacement of the Palestinians in Gaza. As you read this, it is clear I am no friend of the Israeli counterattack following the mysterious October 7th massacre by Hamas. I am no expert on the Middle East, and the U.N., which possesses such skills, is being ignored. My gut feeling is that when Israel has moved the Palestinian population Israel will move and rebuild the destroyed neighborhoods in Gaza. With this big difference, Israelis will replace the Palestinians.

My conclusion sees this conflict as a real estate deal. The Palestinians are being replaced, just as settlers replaced the American Indians.

This affects Freedom Democrats because although it is still early in this conflict, it appears that the Democratic coalition could split. The Vietnam War tore apart the Democratic Party and ended the Roosevelt coalition that started during the Great Depression in 1932. The split over Vietnam followed a split between Segregation Democrats and the progressive forces demanding that racial distinctions end and that the U.S. integrate everybody regardless of skin color. In the long aftermath following the Warren Court striking down school segregation and the passage of Civil Rights legislation, the Democrats lost the South. It became Republican, and the Democratic party gained support in the Black and Hispanic communities. Democratic hawks and peaceniks learned how to work together.

Right now, it appears that the Democrats will split over Palestine just before the election in November. Freedom Democrats, like all voters, will have to decide whether to stay loyal to President Joseph Biden, with Donald Trump as the alternative. Their other choices are staying home or hoping that Cornel West will get on the ballot. None of this is good news for Democrats.

The point is that Freedom Democrats would have serious decisions to make and be able to enter into conversations with thoughtful people. It would be a way to expand contacts and win converts.

My perspective is radical. The 250th anniversary of the American Revolution is two years away, and founders like Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the dozens of other people who created the first European style government without a hereditary ruler are still celebrated. The American colonists who created first the Confederacy and then drafted the Constitution of 1787 devised a system of term limits. Members of the House of Representatives would need majority approval every two years, Senators every six years, and the President every four years. In Europe, many of these positions were inherited, but the U.S. rejected this approach. The leaders of the new nation would be selected by majority rule.

Over the decades, the system has changed dramatically, but the founders of the United States are still prominent figures.

I believe it is time we find new heroes that will make the United Nations a global government. This is a daunting task. If the U.N. is the world sovereign, then the United States government becomes subordinate to this world government. A prospect guaranteed to generate hostility in the United States.

The advantage of making the U.N. sovereign is that member nations would have to hire lawyers to settle their disputes. If Vladimir Putin feels threatened by the changes in Ukraine, he can start a legal action. The United States and Ukraine would, under international law, be compelled to respond.

This is only possible if the U.N. has the troops to enforce its orders. Russia, the United States, and Ukraine lose their ability to ignore U.N. decisions. Member nations, including the U.S., must agree that their troops will be commanded by the U.N.

This is a huge step. But it holds out the promise that missiles and bullets will stop being a way to settle international disputes.

A major and immediate task of the U.N. is to protect people from being removed from their homes. Whether it’s drought, tribal hostilities, or the hope of living better in a rich country, people should not be forced to leave their homes.

The U.N. must have the funds and expertise to create stability in nations all over the world.

The people who do this will become as famous as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. The reward for the creators of this new world will be that their fame lasts generation after generation.

If the U.N. were running the show, the Israelis would not be able to invade Palestine, and Hamas would be hunted by U.N. police. Their object wouldn’t be to kill Hamas or eliminate it as the Israelis wish. They would have a more reasonable goal: arrest and trial.

In short, giving the U.N. sovereign power would allow lawyers and diplomats, rather than soldiers and drones, to solve problems.  

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Compromise and the Right to Choose

Freedom Democrats received a demonstration of their power and, what’s equally important, its limits in Florida.

The top court accepted a ban on abortion after six weeks; this law is an outrage for many reasons, including that many women don’t even know they’re pregnant in such a short period.

At the same time, the court offered voters a way out. They authorized two referendums where voters can allow abortion and legalize marijuana.

Full access to reproductive rights and pot are core issues for Freedom Democrats, and these referendums allow the voters to bypass politicians and write into the constitution the rights of all Floridians to legally access pot and pregnancy care.

Writing reproductive rights into the Florida Constitution is a compromise measure. Child-bearing women would lose their right to privacy if it was determined that the child could live separately from the mother. By including viability, the Florida referendum accurately reflects public opinion. Unhappily it will mean that judges will be forced to make decisions on the thorny question of viability.

For many Freedom Democrats, women should have an absolute right to privacy. Expectant mothers should be able to consult a doctor, and the final decision is exclusively up to the woman who is expected to raise a child.

The proposed constitutional amendment breaches the right to privacy and allows strangers to give the go, no go decision about ending the pregnancy.

This is why Freedom Democrats should get organized, because the Florida compromise reflects a common political dilemma. If you can’t get everything you want, do you accept less? The Florida compromise is indeed better than the virtual ban imposed by the politicians in Florida law.

The Florida compromise infringes on a woman’s right to privacy, but it offers women many weeks to make up their minds about continuing their pregnancy. This is a far better result than the law offers.

If Freedom Democrats were a powerful member of the groups supporting a woman’s right to choose, they would have a say in the actual language of the constitutional amendment. But once you participate in these negotiations you become obligated to accept the group’s decision, even if you don’t like the language of the amendment and its focus on the viability of the fetus. Under existing American practice you become obligated to accept the compromise. This emphasis on compromise in the American political process is often painful, but it falls into the category of playing well with others.

By joining other groups seeking to protect a woman’s right to choose, Freedom Democrats also agree to accept the group’s decision, almost all the time. A breakup of the coalition can lead to anger, even hatred. That is a high price to pay.

Further complicating the decision for Freedom Democrats is divisions within the group. Many Freedom Democrat members will like the idea of protecting the fetus once it is viable. Managing the disagreements between the members of Freedom Democrats may be difficult.

In previous articles I have emphasized the role of weekly parties as the way to recruit new members. Making the decision about an absolute right to privacy or a compromise that improves life without solving the problem is a task of politics. Freedom Democrats cannot exist on parties alone. They must think, choose, and confront the compromises that drive American politics.

Making choices doesn’t require a college degree, but it does require common sense. Freedom Democrats should be on the lookout for people blessed with this quality.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Freedom Democrats Are for Everybody

The Freedom Democrats’ biggest attraction will be its weekly parties, a chance to dance, make friends, even dates.

But Democrats also need non-fun skills. It’s an opportunity for those who had bad experiences with school and people who use their education to be successful to work together. All too often these groups live separate lives. The parties should try to make these groups have fun together.

Not everything in politics is fun. For example, politically active people should identify the districts in their community. Almost every community has multiple districts. One way elected officials stay in power is by understanding or even changing their districts so they get the biggest vote.

In state government, the state senators will have one district; in the other house, be it called the assembly or house of delegates, each member will have a different district.

At the local level, the members of the town council in larger cities may also have separate districts. It’s complicated and must be learned, but you don’t have to have done well in school to know the names of streets and the people who live on them. This task can be done by people with an education working with people who wish to keep learning.

In small towns, there may be no districts, but usually at the county level there are officials who are elected by district. In every state, there are officials who are elected statewide, meaning their district is the entire state. For example, the state attorney general and governor.

Like I said, it’s complicated, but learning how it works may help Freedom Democrats change laws and create new policies. And that, after all, is the goal of the Freedom Democrats. People who know these things may find decent jobs and become activists in their state.

Politics offers the chance for those who graduated from college to work with people who never finished school.

The basic goal is to protect the lifestyles of people who like to party. Not everyone will have a family and stay at home. Not everyone is happy with only one lover; some people like the thrill of the hunt. The Freedom Democrats exist to protect the lifestyle of people who watch porn, date sex workers, go out drinking—in a word, party.

Learning about the politics in your community will help you and your friends find space to live the life you choose.

Freedom Democrats exist to resist those who say their lives, based on love and monogamy, is superior. It will resist those who believe their life is so virtuous that everyone should live like they do.

Freedom Democrats are not trying to take over, are not trying to force people to live a certain way. Rather, the group exists to protect the lives of people who are often criticized and quite likely chased by police enforcing bad laws.

Sometimes the cause is straightforward. Adults should have the right pay for sex without having to commit to a relationship. Living in a legal environment is a good thing. It offers space for people to learn why their choices are legitimate and escape the sense of shame imposed by those who believe they have made superior choices.

In other words, making activities legal can increase confidence and self-knowledge. It allows people to meet, talk, and learn new ways of looking at their lives. It encourages pride. For example, sixty years ago gay guys were often called “faggots,” and women were ridiculed as “dykes.” To fight these demeaning attitudes, people who enjoyed same sex fun insisted on gay pride. They fought back against the terrors of AIDS and became politically influential.

The fight against AIDS led many people to become puritanical, to label people who had multiple sex partners as “promiscuous,” and become suspicious of people who used medications rather than condoms to stop the spread of AIDS.

Freedom Democrats will find that many LGBTQ+ people oppose their program. The group will also find that many straight people are friendlier.

Part of the fun of becoming a Freedom Democrat is engaging with many different viewpoints. It helps a person find happiness and make sense of their lives.

So what are you waiting for? Call your friends and start throwing a Freedom Democratic party.  

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Fentanyl Doesn’t Kill, Bad Laws Do

Fentanyl keeps cropping up on the edge of the presidential election campaigns. Some Republicans claim Biden’s permissiveness has flooded the nation by allowing immigrants to bring this deadly drug across our borders.

This is nonsense peppered with half-truths. Each year over a hundred thousand drug users die an accidental death from a drug overdose. A major cause of these fatal events is tied to fentanyl. One reason people keep using it is that they don’t drop dead after getting high. This is always true. The deadly drugs that newscasters and politicians use to justify authoritarian laws kill some people while others survive.

The law and law enforcement give users a small choice of drugs. Then, in an extraordinarily vicious act of social ostracism, the drug users get damned for using the drugs. They are dangerous because they are potent, in other words, a little bit goes a long way. When trying to avoid the cops, a drug that gets many people high but is easily hidden becomes advantageous. This is the exact opposite of what doctors and public health officials would want from a drug.  The notion that illegal immigrants supply U.S. drug users would be silly if people weren’t dying. There are thousands and thousands of people who don’t want to get high from alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine and therefore are pushed into the illegal market. Americans were using opium during our revolution. And guess what? They are still using it.

Fentanyl is an extremely potent form of opium that is manufactured, whereas opium and heroin are plant based. As the newspapers have reported, the fentanyl epidemic started when the United States cut off legal supplies of oxycontin.

Drug companies and pharmacies, responding to new laws, vastly reduced the supply of this relatively safe pharmaceutical painkiller. These companies are law abiding, and when the law restricts supply they comply. Their business is legal, and they want to keep it that way.

It will come as no surprise to students of U.S. drug enforcement that no provision was made for the thousands who made oxy part of their lives. Some bit the bullet, obeyed the law, and stopped using. Others, as always happens, went to the illegal market. Evading the law makes potent drugs like fentanyl a good idea.

The notion that illegal immigrants victimized innocent Americans by supplying them with fentanyl is absurd. Drug users were looking for an alternative to oxy. Fentanyl could be purchased by mail from China. Drug syndicates in Latin America avoiding U.S. law enforcement by smuggling fentanyl into the United States. Immigrants crossing the border are no significant suppliers.

Congress and state legislators could have simply accepted the fact that some users didn’t feel able to give up oxy. It would take longer but would put fewer people in jail and drastically reduce the number of overdose deaths if the law showed some patience and worked with users, even those who kept using oxy.

It requires no special act of genius. This is what we do with people who want to give up drinking or become dangerous when they drink. The problems are similar. Drunk driving laws give law enforcement an entry point without authorizing the harsh and intrusive drug laws.

Drinking is controlled. Younger people have developed the habit of drinking water. At parties, they and their friends who do drink can hang out together without a problem. The same thing can happen with drugs that we label dangerous. What makes them dangerous is the bad laws governing their use. The control is exercised voluntarily, which is the way it should be in a democracy that is governed by the consent of the governed.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Freedom Democrats: Medical Care for All

It must be repeated over and over again that the way voting works small groups can have big impacts on elections.

The United States has 330 million people, but as few as thousands can change election results. That is because elections divide the nation into districts. The largest are the 50 states, the smallest are election districts, which pool voters from a neighborhood or a small town.

Only a few thousand voters can decide who wins.  Freedom Democrats are not trying to take over the country they are trying to be heard and persuade.

Getting started requires no special skill; people who party should throw a party. Weekly parties allow people who share common interests to get to know each other. The objective is to get a group with different skills and backgrounds working together. Most political groups are only for serious people; the kind who debate if a proposed law is a good or bad thing.

The weekly party allows such people to attend but the main event is a party—dancing, chatting, having a good time. A specific attraction is no cover charge; the group pays for soft drinks or, if they choose, beers. Obviously a party that only has soft drinks can attract a younger crowd. If beer is served the group should consult a lawyer to learn how to throw a hassle-free get-together.

Small steps like this are called “organizing.” It gives everybody a chance to see who is helpful and finds things to do even for people who promise to do something and then don’t deliver. Excluding people for their weaknesses makes no sense when it comes to political organizing.

The object is to attract the maximum number of people who support full rights for people who party. Once the group gains momentum, it can decide what steps to take. It could be simple, like asking the police to change their enforcement policy, or it could be a big deal, like asking the state legislature to legalize drugs or sex work.

The proposal I have made stresses that drug users are denied medical care and this is a violation of their rights. In most places in the United States, the facts will be on your side.

According to the latest U.S. data, more than 109,000 drug users died in 2022, “a new record.”  Many of these deaths were associated with the use of fentanyl, but the law interferes with the doctor patient relationship when it comes to individuals who get high. Freedom Democrats believe that drug using patients should enjoy the same right to privacy as any individual who visits a doctor. Regulating patient-doctor relationships with people who get high makes no more sense than using the law to interfere with women seeking abortions.

In fact, women exercising their right to choose are more likely to find a doctor than patients who use mood-altering drugs. The law used to forbid women from getting medical advice on difficult pregnancies. When the law stopped doctors from providing treatment, women died. Today, drug users have limited choices in the kind of assistance they can receive from doctors. Many doctors don’t trust the intense supervision exercised by agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration and simply don’t treat these patients.

This is a grievous violation of the rights of drug users. Doctors should have every right to work with users on a course of treatment. That right might include helping drug users get high in a controlled environment. Getting high is a basic human freedom and claiming that this behavior negates a person’s right to medical care is foolish. Thousands who would live are dying. Allow doctors to treat drug users like any other patient.

Freedom Democrat parties are for people who support the right of everyone to get medical care.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Trump DEFIES THE CONSTITUTION BY SAYING THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN.

I have previously taken the Republicans to task for their constant opposition to taxes. A government with funds is clearly stronger than a poor government. There is a second serious problem with Republicans. The Republicans are not listening.

Every ten years, as required by the Constitution, a census is taken that determines how many members of Congress each state has. In January 2010, as the new census was started, the Supreme Court issued a decision called Citizens United, which permitted unlimited secret donations by corporations and wealthy individuals. The census determines how many members of the House of Representatives each state should have and how many Electoral College votes each state will have to elect the President of the United States. The total number of Electoral votes for a state is the two Senators plus the number of members of the House of Representatives, so if a state has 10 members [n the House of Representatives then it has 12 electoral votes. The census has always been a big deal in determining the relative strength of the political parties and who has the advantage when running for President. The process is considered fair because the census counts the number of individuals in the United States.

So when the conservative judges on the Supreme Court handed down the Citizens United decision in 2010, they knew full well that the money they were permitting would go to help conservatives get positive results from the census from 2010.

Boston College professor Heather Cox Richardson, in a crisp book for the interested reader states that by 2012 there were over 300 million dollars in dark money political donations. The 2012 election was a presidential election for Barack Obama’s second term and the election of a new Congress. Democrats received 1.4 million more votes for members of the House of Representatives, but the Republicans won a 33-seat majority. The Republican’s big victory enabled them to “hamstring” Obama’s agenda in his second term. This is political hardball and offends millions of fair-minded Americans, but it is far-removed from the sins committed by Donald Trump.

Professor Richardson’s “Democracy Awakening” is one of the books that damns Republicans and is written by a historian with Democratic leanings. It is thoughtful and persuasive. But a second book is written by a member of Republican royalty, whose family have been leaders in the Republican party since the Civil War.

Liz Cheney, whose father was vice-president to George W. Bush, is one in a long line of Republicans. She lives in Wyoming. While Professor Richardson takes the historian’s long view, Liz Cheney’s book puts the microscope on President Trump and his activities after the November 3, 2020 election. In “Oath and Honor,” she relies heavily on fellow Republicans to prove that Donald Trump was told by members of his campaign staff and presidential advisors that Joe Biden had won. This deep dive into Republican leadership gives her bestselling book an intimate view of efforts by Republicans who wanted the truth of Biden’s victory to guide decisions but were stymied by President Trump’s reliance on the big lie that his election was stolen.

Cheney, the third-ranking member of the House Republican leadership, presents a devastating portrait of Kevin McCarthy begging for Trump’s approval when his funding prowess dissipated and his willingness to say one thing one week and the exact opposite the next week. McCarthy resigned from the Congress in December 2023.

Cheney is not settling scores. She describes incidents, many of which were seen by the viewers of Fox television or the readers of the daily press. The power of her book comes from its reliance on Republican sources.

When it became clear that McCarthy and Cheney had irreconcilable differences, Cheney left her position in Republican leadership and became a member of the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack.

At times her book reads like an adventure story, when members of Congress hunker down in a House Committee room while the mob tries to break down doors. At other times, she sounds like a super capable lawyer explaining the evidence collected by the Select Committee on the January 6 Attack—facts pile on facts, almost always from Republicans or members of the Trump administration, demonstrating that a bullheaded President refused to listen to the legal opinions stating that the election results were conclusive.

The dry language in the opening paragraphs of the U.S. Constitution turn into clear directive that the President is elected by the count of the members of the Electoral College, who are selected in the Presidential election. What seems obscure, to this reader, in the Constitution gains clarity as the lawyers explained the process to the President. An argument that gains heft as we learn that this is the way it has always been done since Washington was elected President.

Liz Cheney describes the steady accretion of evidence unearthed by the Select Committee. A desperate Trump of course insisted that the State legislatures could ignore the Electoral College, or he even told elected officials “to find” the votes he needed to win. Trump’s absurdity and corruption of legal procedures comes into full view. It’s a scary portrait she draws of an egotistical man who will listen to nobody but those who will support his wish for a victory despite the evidence of defeat. The conclusion isn’t novel, but the clarity of the evidence and the reasons why Trump is wrong make this a powerful book. Both Professor Richardson and Liz Cheney describe a dangerous situation where Trump would like to be President and rule the USA without opposition.

Liz Cheney argues that despite the knowledge by Republicans that this is dangerous and illegal they are unable to stop Trump. Thus, this year’s election has one party, the Democrats, supporting free elections, and the other major party bowing to Trump and asserting that his election was stolen. Democracy in the United States faces the greatest danger since the Civil War.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Surprise Win for Black Lives Matters

Leave it to the President to draw the battle lines in black and white. Black Lives Matter versus Trump’s frightening twitter promise to “assume control.” He added, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you.”

Stop the police killings, permit the police killings, the President’s choices are simpleminded, even preposterous. Governments promote domestic tranquility and should not satisfy a fantasy about obey or be killed. Fanning the flames of conflict is beyond the pale, but within days, panicked Democratic mayors and governors had put the police in riot gear. Looting mattered more than the deaths of black people. Trump repudiated the protestors chief goal-making black lives matter.

A NY Times columnist with a growing reputation concluded the “militaristic posture” made matters worse. It provoked and increased the likelihood demonstrators would go off the rails and start breaking things. Jamall Borrell reminded us attacking protesters “does more to inflame and agitate, than it does to calm the situation.” Unasked was the question rattling thinking observers did the President see this conflict as a positive feature or a defect? The President was looking for trouble and Democratic political leaders looked trapped.

The reign of error never happened. The provocation failed. The left won a stunning victory with demonstrators winning the battle for public opinion. Mayors threw in the towel cancelling curfews; politicians adopted the Black Lives Matter program. Including the most basic one, demanding the U.S. cut spending on police and prisons so schools, health and social services can expand. A radical change in Democratic party policy is possible.

New York State overturned a 40-year-old policy of secrecy that was dear to police unions. Democrats voted for the public against labor; it’s the kind of change that makes everyone ask is this a new era with new rules? Police officers’ disciplinary records will become public record.

When an incident grabs the public’s attention, we can learn is this a first offense or one of a string. Everyone is betting the police like the Catholic Church kept bad actors on the job long after their faults are apparent.

This result is unexpected and may herald a reformed Democratic Party. When the looting started, politicians feared the protestors message would be stifled. In the media, criminal Blacks would replace outraged Blacks. The misbehavior of a few would overshadow the disciplined protests. In a grievous error, curfews were imposed. During this Presidential election year Democratic leaders declared their voters to be criminals if they were on the streets after 8 PM. An order, that the protestors would disobey, and the resulting conflict could split the Democratic Party making Trump’s reelection possible.

The police like the President were aggressive. They didn’t shoot looters; they shot pepper spray, tear gas and other projectiles justified because the weapons injure but are not lethal. A witless distinction devised by those who enforce a might makes right discipline. Pepper spray is neither reasonable nor an act of mercy when applied to peaceful demonstrators.The police turned into morons for Trump.

The crowds shouting “no justice, no peace” or walking hands held high chanting “don’t shoot” were on the TV screen and social media. These demonstrations of people from all races were huge and tracked Bernie Sanders supporters. They might not have voted, but they turned up when it mattered after the killing of an unarmed man. 140 cities had them. The local had gone national. George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis could have been a local City story, but thanks to the organizing of Black Lives Matter, the nation recognized police departments murder black people. Eric Garner Sandra Bland, Freddie Gray Breonna Taylor, and Laquan McDonald to name just a few. We know the names, because of Black Lives Matter. The slogan makes the rights and the wrongs of the issue crystal clear. And it persuades people of all races. It is a slogan about identity politics that makes our common humanity most important.

Imposing curfews and putting police into riot gear could have been a catastrophic error especially by Democratic politicians. They were accepting the cynical view right or wrong mattered less than the supposed political truth Democrats must be against looters. The media’s penchant for “if it bleeds, it leads stories” meant disorder would be the story. Burnt vehicles and stolen merchandise must be protected by batons and projectiles. Damn the constitutional rights of a multi-racial coalition calling for a stop to police killings.

A political coalition that wants unity must vigorously support black lives matter. Political allies must protect their partners from assassination; that is asking the barest minimum. Black white and brown must stop their local police departments from battering their citizens. By giving into Donald Trump, Democrats were on the verge of a crisis that could cost them the election.

The popularity of Black Lives Mattered was generally recognized. At the end of May the Sunday Times published an article about Citibank and other giant corporations hitch hiking on the popularity of the Black Lives Matter slogan.

Retired Marine General James Mattis dissed the President. The former Secretary of Defense’s words were measured but their meaning biting. He had the telling advantage of being right. The man, who Donald Trump appointed Secretary of Defense, ignored his old boss the President directing his advice to the American people-don’t be fooled by this looting nonsense.

The unity of “civil society” is not threatened by marauding youth, the General wrote in The Atlantic but by this President who undermines unity. His policies can be squelched if “civil society” unites and uses its resources to tell the truth. This unity will stop Donald Trump who seeks to divide Americans, and the damage to the United States from his actions is way more serious than an outbreak of property damage.

General Mattis’s warning graced the front page of newspaper and was a teaser for TV news casts across the nation. It was saturation coverage and journalism “We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers,” he advised. “The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values.

“When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the constitution,” Mattis wrote. “Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens – much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

The General is crystal clear: if you follow Trump’s advice to exaggerate the dangers of looters in order to justify the claim that an insurrection existed disunity would follow. The popular storm could conceivably paralyze government.

This is high stakes politics. Siding with the President could be disastrous. The armed force would be called upon “to violate the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens.” This would tear a gap in the fabric of society creating conflict with Americans over what is plainly a matter of conscience. “The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values.” The protestors deserve respect.

The path to civic unity, the General insisted, lay with supporting black lives matters. An opinion that gained added weight because the military and the left of the Democratic Party are traditional opponents. The left wants to raid the Military Industrial Complex budget to build schools, hospitals and housing. The General insisted look at the big picture, that’s Donald Trump, first he must go.

The effect was immediate during the day cable tv commentators paid new attention to the lawful protesters. The crackdown wasn’t inflaming the streets, inciting riots or turning the demonstrators into bad guys.

Instead the police brandishing shields and firing pepper spray became the lawless element. They arrested thousands who stood with arms upraised chanting don’t shoot. District attorneys refused to prosecute the cases “in the interests of justice.”

The police are humiliated; their traditional political power sidelined. The crowd control methods from the 1960s became the police riots of 2020. They confronted criticism with violence; their commitment to law and democracy was feeble at best.

It’s a stunning victory for the left. They immediately turned this new strength into hardball demanding police budgets be cut and school budgets improved. A historic demand of the left without advanced warning became a political reality-on everyone’s agenda. This demand was picking up some real political support. Public Health officials were quick to remind their media outlets their budgets have been cut even though police manhandle mental patients daily under conditions that make human rights advocates squirm.

The demand has legs because tax collections by local governments has plummeted during the covid-19 lock down. These governments must cut budgets. The police make a perfect target.

In one of its most public and heated controversies Democratic Party unity was preserved. Fatal conflicts between the Sanders Democrats and those claiming the mantle of pragmatic realists was averted. Events minimized an initial decision to align with the President unleashing get tough policies. In the end the blame fell on the police.

What remains concerning is why the Democratic leadership got stampeded into making a traditional law and order response. Why did it take a disaffected member of the Trump team to remind the media, the public and the Democrats that Donald Trump must go is the problem? The streets were speaking the truth; the protestors were calling on America’s conscience to honor its own ideals.

It is on this basis that General Mattis and presumably the leaders of the Atlantic posted the reminder that unity is the responsibility of everybody in society and only then can we be assured of defeating Trump. Clearly understood was that meant shutdown police killings. Undoubted most thought government should have done that decades ago.

Clearly one wing of the pragmatic Democrats understands that unity means one sides supports the other side on important issues. The next matter deserving discussion is what do we do this revitalized power to demonstrate and set the agenda. That is a subject worth its own discussion.