I lend this blog this evening to the students in Hong Kong.

The Chinese government is very, very wrong. They have broken a treaty, violated the trust of the people of Hong Kong, committed human rights violations and alienated some of the best minds of this generation. China has been able to accomplish what no one else could, driving wonderful young people to the brink of the hazard of their youthful ideology. 

Messages supporting (click here) Hong Kong protesters hang on a wall at a university in Seoul, South Korea, November 15, 2019.

THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS WRONG. THEY ARE VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS. THE WORLD SHOULD NOT STAND FOR THE MISTREATMENT OF INNOCENT PEOPLE.

THE STUDENTS ARE DEFENDING THEMSELVES FROM A BRUTAL TOTALITARIAN REGIME THAT NOW IS BLANKETING HONG KONG WITH FEAR AND DEVASTATION. THE CHINESE STARTED THE VIOLENCE WHEN THEY BROKE THE TREATY. THE CHINESE STARTED THE KILLING WHEN THEY JUSTIFIED THEIR ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF HONG KONG.

The Chinese need to end the siege of Hong Kong, return peace to the people, allow the students to go free without any record of revolt and resume the treaty.

I demand the world stand against China! How many broken treaties are civilized people to tolerate?

The Flag of Hong Kong (click here)

September 3, 2019

At midnight on July 1, 1997, (click here) Hong Kong returned to Chinese control after a century and a half of British colonial rule. The handover was meant to establish a “one country, two systems” relationship between China and Hong Kong that would last until 2047, with Hong Kong existing as a special administrative region.

Since the handover, Hong Kong residents have accused Beijing of overstepping its authority. The Umbrella Movement was a series of protests in 2014 that called for more transparent elections for the city’s chief executive. In early 2016, Hong Kong booksellers disappeared and later showed up in police custody in China. And in 2019 protests erupted in Hong Kong over a proposed bill to allow extradition to mainland China....

Mayor Pete Buttigieg has a lot of explaining to do about his proposal to have every American provide a year of service to the country. What is the cost? The entire high school graduating class is going to have to be clothed, housed, given food and I am assuming some kind of salary for their personal needs, so what is the annual cost?

Additionally, there is no doubt the military will receive a larger number of people interested in a career in the military. Statistically, it will happen. That isn't a bad thing, but, when they retire they expect pensions. Where is the money coming from?

I want to know the cost this enormous idea is going to impact the country. Will the monies come out of hardware from defense contractors or Medicare and Medicaid? I am tired of having Seniors robbed blind by Medicare Advantage premiums, Part D premiums and Medi-Gap coverage. They are on a fixed income, but, the monies they pay for their health insurance besides what they already pay for Part B and medication out of pocket costs is ridiculous and getting more so. The costs of out of pocket expenses has increased since Trump took office. Now, Mayor Pete is going to be looking for money to pay for room and board for every graduating class.

Finally, what is the restriction on military activity in the world so that more wars don't break out where the USA is the most responsible party for an outcome that benefits USA National Security? He can start by defining USA national security.

My contribution to the dialogue of sovereignty begins with this; the wall between church and state is based in a church's sovereign right to exist.

Can a religion lose itself to a democracy when the wall does not exist and vice versa? And what happens when the sovereignty of either is dissolved?

Sovereignty as a Religious Concept (click here and page down for article - thank you)

Siegfried Van Duffel

The Monist

Vol. 90, No. 1, Sovereignty (January 2007), pp. 126-143

Published by: Oxford University Press

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27904018

Page Count: 18

...Contemporary scholars writing on sovereignty can be roughly divided between those that believe we should get rid of the concept (because it is inherently confusing, or essentially contested) and those who grant many of the criticisms of the first group, but add that we nevertheless cannot do without the concept, since much of the thinking about politics in general, and the state in particular, seems to be structured by this notion....

The Constitution of the United States of America sets up clear divisions between federal and state sovereignty. Religion is not addressed by the US Constitution except in the First Amendment (click here), however, the Supreme Court has played with it at times. That is still not direct words in the US Constitution. 

Most often religion's sovereign is God. How can a country kneel to God? When considering that question one of the points the framers of the constitution demanded is that there would be no king to answer to because of the hardship imposed upon them by the King of England. In England, there is a national religion of the hierarchy. When the "Church of the State" didn't make Henry VIII happy, he instilled the "Church of England."

I sincerely believe the purpose of the founders of the USA Constitution was to separate the sovereignty of the country from that of all others. They also recognized that people can harbor their own faiths in other beliefs such as God, hence the first amendment.

So, in recognizing the separation of powers in the US Constitution of the federal government and states, one also has to recognize other sovereigns can exist IN PEACE as well. I think some decisions by the Supreme Court have crossed those barriers of each's sovereign state, especially the courts of the past two decades.

Otherwise, the sovereignty of the USA is under attack. There is an absolute violation of the USA's sovereignty when other countries either of their own accord (spying and intelligence operations) or invited as with Donald J. Trump seeking emails via Russia is exercised. There can be no mistake that the Special Counsel's report was vital to the sovereign authority of the USA. It is also completely wrong for the Republican Party to dismiss every such issue because NOW IT IS KNOWN. Knowing is not a reason to dismiss the threat.

end

Louisiana Secretary of State (click here) 

Campaign site (click here)

1. State Budget

2. Healthcare

3. Economy

4. Criminal Justice Reform

5. Education

6. Taxes

7. Veterans

8. Coastal Protection and Restoration

November 16, 2019

Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards (click here) will win a second term as Louisiana governor, defeating his Republican opponent Eddie Rispone.

Going into Saturday’s runoff election, surveys conducted by pollsters showed the two virtually tied, with few undecideds and neither candidate making significant inroads into the other’s base.

Analysts had predicted the race would come down to who got their supporters to the polls.

Urban ministers, organized labor and African-American politicians worked for the 53-year-old Edwards, who is the only Democratic governor in the Deep South....

Money as a citizen.

"Citizens' United" is defeated when the sovereignty of the United States of America is defended. We have learned through the lavish spending in elections that money can be exploited by "entities, both foreign and domestic" to influence the outcomes.

Sovereignty demands elections are one person one vote, but, it also demands equality in the representation of the persons running (ie:Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF) (click here)) . In the media, a person can come forward to demand equal time under the law. However, when issue groups, superPACS and candidates display ads backed by enormous amounts of money the EQUALITY OF THE CANDIDATES in their access to every voter is vastly diminished.

We know through the application of "Citizens' United" that money should never have the equality of a citizen because of the potential for it to attack sovereignty.

In my opinion, candidates interested in understanding the people and knowing the issues should be measured by the shoe leather they have spent or in the case of the handicapped citizen, the number of miles traveled and meetings held.

'History Is Watching': Dan Rather On Stakes Of Trump Impeachment | (Britannica defines sovereinty - thank you)

There are many points made in this interview that has never been discussed before and are very important. This level of disrespect by a president for sovereignty has not been an issue before.