Growing Supercitizens

The positive repercussions for our democratic process in the future will be enormous as more and more Americans individuate, live as lawful-anarchists and supercitizens running and protecting our constitutional republic.

I am interested in how to educated and aid voters into becoming supercitizens, so this memo to Senator Carlson that may introduce anti-gun, anti-free speech SF214 during the 2015 legislative session is a small step in so alerting and developing such a core group of Minnesota voters. Here is my memo to the Senator's staff:

-->

Dear Michael: 

I read the draft of SF214, especially noting the language changes, which I will comment on. I also wish to inform you that a copy of this reply email will appear on my blog site, tonight www.philosophyfromaworkingman.blogspot.com.

Minnesota Gun Rights, whom I support, sent out a 7 page memo highlighting in detail why Senator Carlson's original Gag Act to suppress free speech directly and gun rights indirectly, is now characterized by MGR as the "Gag Act on Steroids", really suppressing free speech and gun rights.

They do not want government intruding, controlling, micromanaging, gathering lists of donors giving over or under $5,000. It is free speech, period, and none of the government's business. When government benignly offers to regulate speech, it will decline into government suppressing free speech, the basis of a free people sharing and exchanging ideas. A dictator regulates free speech: for that reason alone, SF 214 need to be discarded. And MGR disputes that those sitting on some "nonpartisan" finance reform committe are really independent and neutral. To use government and law to regulate anything is a liberal, a DFL ploy. It suppresses liberty and individual rights.

MGR does issue-advocacy but your bill will redefine that to be express-advocacy, and that is unacceptable. MGR does not express or tell people who to vote for or against. They issue reports on candidates' questionnaire answers, where they stand on issues, or how they voted in the past. That is not telling people whom to vote for.

Your bill, by redefining them as express-advocates, would force them to be labeled as for or against a candidate per se, and that limits their free speech expression, and gives you access to financial donor lists, which is no one's business. I will address this more below.

SF214 restricts many methods of communication as electioneering communications. These restrictions start us down the slippery slope to repressing free speech and that we cannot allow.

Bill Line 4.22 would prohibit MGR from sending out emails or text messages to tell voters where the candidates stand during election season. That is suppression of free speech, and is anti-transparency. We want to know early and often how each candidate voted. The informed voter knows how to vote, and no candidate should be able run from his record, or keep it hidden. This is a sick and hideous language change.

Lines 4.18 through 9.29 create a mountain of bureaucratic hoops for groups like MGR to waste precious resources complying and reporting to intrusive, judgmental, hostile government bureaucrats. The group cannot advocate when its resources have been so poorly misapplied. This whole section needs to be removed.

Line 5.3 creates new regulations for how MGR and other groups write questionnaires sent to candidates. We need government out of issue-advocacy communications, period. This shaping of the questionnaire is deeply undemocratic and unconstitutional, Do we need government snooping into what is mailed out, No! Strike this Line.

How we send out yes/no questions is not the business of government regulators.

The "explanation opportunity" language is forcing MGR to issue-advocate the opponents issue-advocacy. Such draconian manipulation of how candidates are vetted is dictatorial and ham-foisted. SF214 is freedom-suppressing all the way around.

MGR informs me that SF214 creates clear financial threshold disclosure limits, that, if passed, would be easy for future legislatures to lower. As a conservative, I am not for disclosing how much money was spent, or from what source, it is not the government's business to scrutinize and manage free speech, for Liberals love to push this agenda to bring about gun-control and quelling free speech to bring about one-party, Democratic rule. We need government not touching free speech in any way, and that is good for democracy. SF214 needs defeating, and soundly.

Senator Carlson may be a gun owner and has a carry permit, but his SF214 will be used to attack the 2nd Amendment, so it must be shot down.

MGR notes that the Senator has some very troubling interest in data-base programs (gun registration?) and Bloomberg information on his newsletter and Facebook publications. Bloomberg is fanatically anti-gun, so why is Senator Carlson associated with him, and pushing unwarratned MGR financial disclosures, while claiming to advocate for free speech and the 2nd Amendment. There is an inconsistency here that troubles me deeply, I would like to see the Star Tribune query this and interview the Senator and his staff to explain these inconsistencies.

SF214 discriminates against the Rights of those that disagree with the DFL anti-gun rights, anti-free speech philosophy. Please pull this bill, and leave alone and not try to silence citizen-organizations that issue-advocate for their members.

I believe that passing a regulating law grows government, and restricts the sphere of personal liberty, personal rights, constitutional protections against government intrusion and tyranizing the private individual as he expresses his 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.

Passing laws grows liberalism, and this poor reform solution is usually worse than the problem it is seeking to solve. For this reason SF214 must be defeated.

Liberals want to regulate the donors of money, but that limits free speech, and SF214 does the same.

We need to better educate the voters so that they can become high-information, sophisticated, logical participants in the political process. As smarter, tougher, skeptical and yet idealistic voters, they will have politically evolved into what I refer to as supercitizens.

Supercitizens will form their political allegiances and coalitions based on their political philosophy. They will not be unduly influenced, mind-controlled or swayed by millionaires and billionaires on the Right or on the Left, like Bloomberg, seeking to order voters how to vote. The supercitizens of future America will be almost impervious to money spent for or against, because they are logical and principled. If a candidate is revealed in terms of her voting record by Conservative Review, a Liberal Review, or an Independent Review, then the sueprcitizen will vote in accordance with voting record, not much pushed by ads on TV bought with money.

For this reason Republicans, Democrats and Independents need to help help their followers grow into supercitizen voters; then money spent will decline, because those seeking to buy elections and push certain favorite policies will back off, for the billions squandered will not make much sense. This is the only effective way to curb money excesses in political campaigns, and it can be done without bureaucrats suppressing free speech and gun rights.