Politically correct politics since 1992 has involved a lot of show business and handshaking with community leaders and celebrities to communicate some message of fairness and equanimity. But, there is a lot that has transpired since then that is politically and legally wrong. The attempt at passing secret health policy in the United States is one example. The 2000 election that gave the Democrats the win in the electoral college and the popular vote is another example except for Florida that had to be recounted but the political rules demand that such a recount, if it remains uncertain, should be referred to a final vote in the House of Representatives; not the Supreme Court of the United States. The Pre-emptive strike on Afghanistan and Iraq is another example. The failure to implement s.11 of the OHCHR or s.25 of the UDHR is another example of this politically incorrect politics that dates back to Nixon and Carter; especially on this UDHR universal minimum income support issue. The failure to implement the universal minimum income support that would satisfy these constitutional obligations with a responsible sales tax rate to ameliorate in the automation age lost traditional sources of government revenue dilutes the Anglo nations' global legitimacy. The current generation of politicians have followed the show business as politics has become an attention grabbing dance around the legal and constitutional may pole or an attempt to entertainingly and dramatically duck under the legislative limbo stick where the emotion of a hypnotic calypso tune replaces the more submissive choruses of the traditional anthems. Don't get me wrong. I love calypso and I look forward to journeying to every West Indian and Caribbean Island; jump up jump up..Everybody jump up..jump up!! You are a doctor(in economics); no? We don't need any more entertainment though. There is a new TV network available on your android phone every three months. Politics will always be entertaining. But you need the right starting point. As such, the politician seems to begin at what will not be enforced and what will not be maintained within a current and legal obligation so that his government shall grab the headlines, get attention and keep people riveted as he or she fulfills his role in a drama of successive scandals. The audience asks, "...will he or won't he do what the law stipulates?" The truth is that grabbing attention is not a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with putting your emotive stamp on the political spectrum to feel powerful. You are now certainly the boss; the sinner who has received grace before a congregation of voters who will forgive your sin since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; right? We pay gas tax to see this tale of unconditional love. But, the politicians seem to have the wrong starting point. You are loved unconditionally but you dont have to drill holes in the road or poison the pipe water to say you are the new boss in town. You like this version of writing with the short sentences; eh? Anyway, you begin by committing to enforce the laws and improve enforcement. Maybe you throw in enhancements to existing programs and do things more efficiently. Use the newest technologies. Maybe you figure out if there is anything left undone under international treaty obligations that the Federal government should have implemented and do what you can to fulfil the obligation for your people in your locale while the Federal minister responsible, government after government, denies the Federal obligation with the argument that a minimum income support is a shared responsibility under s.91/92 powers but it begins with a national Federal obligation that is delegated partially to provinces only if the Federal government chooses to do so. The Federal government could fulfil part of the mandate and provide half the expected amount of universal minimum income support for each citizen in our country; instantly and efficiently. Maybe, simply put, you start by looking at the legal and political mandates under the constitution and find your own unique formula to put your stamp on the landscape while fulfilling the laws. You will still get attention. You will still feel powerful and maybe you can go fishing all on your own more often. You will have more time on your hands with less scandal. If you don't fix the water though and put in a minimum $20000.00 unconditional universal income support for the entire population why should we tolerate you and your limbo under the law for another day? We love you though like a Jurassic slam dunk! Thank you brother! By Angel Ronan Lex Scripta(TM)

Politically correct politics since 1992 has involved a lot of show business and handshaking with community leaders and celebrities to communicate some message of fairness and equanimity. But, there is a lot that has transpired since then that is politically and legally wrong.  The attempt at passing secret health policy in the United States is one example. The 2000 election that gave the Democrats the win in the electoral college and the popular vote is another example except for Florida that had to be recounted but the political rules demand that such a recount, if it remains uncertain, should be referred to a final vote in the House of Representatives; not the Supreme Court of the United States. The Pre-emptive strike on Afghanistan and Iraq is another example.  The failure to implement s.11 of the OHCHR or s.25 of the UDHR  is another example of this politically incorrect politics that dates back to Nixon and Carter; especially on this UDHR universal minimum income support  issue.  The failure to implement the  universal minimum income support that would satisfy these constitutional obligations with a responsible sales tax rate to ameliorate in the automation age  lost traditional sources of government revenue dilutes the Anglo nations'  global legitimacy.  The current generation of politicians have followed the show business as politics has become an attention grabbing dance around the legal and constitutional may pole or an attempt to entertainingly and dramatically  duck under the legislative limbo stick where the emotion of a hypnotic  calypso tune  replaces the more submissive choruses of the traditional anthems.  Don't get me wrong. I love calypso and I look forward to journeying to every West Indian and Caribbean Island; jump up jump up..Everybody jump up..jump up!!  You are a doctor(in economics); no?    We don't  need any more entertainment though. There is a new TV  network available on your android phone every three months. Politics will always be entertaining. But you need the right starting point.    As such, the politician seems to begin at what will not be enforced and what will not be maintained within a current and legal obligation so that his government shall grab the headlines, get attention and keep people riveted as he or she fulfills his role in a drama of successive scandals. The audience asks, "...will he or won't he do what the law stipulates?" The truth is that grabbing attention is not a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with putting your emotive stamp on the political spectrum to feel powerful. You are now certainly the boss; the sinner who has received grace before a congregation of voters who will forgive your sin since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; right? We pay gas tax to see this tale of unconditional love.  But, the politicians seem to have the wrong starting point.  You are loved unconditionally but you dont have to drill holes in the road or poison the pipe water to say you are the new boss in town. You like this version of writing with the short sentences; eh? Anyway, you begin by committing to enforce the laws and improve enforcement. Maybe you throw in enhancements to existing programs and do things more efficiently. Use the newest technologies. Maybe you figure out if there is anything left undone under international treaty obligations that the Federal government should have implemented and do what you can to fulfil the obligation for your people in your locale while the Federal minister responsible, government after government, denies the Federal obligation with the argument that a minimum income support is a shared responsibility under s.91/92 powers but it begins with a national Federal obligation that is delegated partially to provinces only if the Federal government chooses to do so. The Federal government could fulfil part of the mandate and provide half the expected amount of universal minimum income support for each citizen in  our country; instantly and efficiently.  Maybe, simply put, you start by looking at the legal and political mandates under the constitution and find your own unique formula to put your stamp on the landscape while fulfilling the laws. You will still get attention. You will still feel powerful and maybe you can go fishing all on your own more often. You will have more time on your hands with less scandal. If you don't fix the water though and put in a minimum $20000.00 unconditional universal income support for the entire population   why should we tolerate you and your  limbo under the law for another day?  We love you  though like a Jurassic slam dunk! Thank you brother!


By Angel Ronan Lex Scripta(TM)