Tag Archives: power
Craves Power and Access
≈ Comments Off on Craves Power and Access
Big Club, Epstein, evil, power
Jeff Epstein was the lawn jockey in front of the Big Club. He fell over but the clubhouse still stands.
The butler who managed Jeffrey Epstein's posh Paris pad claims he waited on a rotation of famous faces including Prince Andrew, Bill and Melinda Gates, as well as Steve Bannon, according to a report.
The butler, who only identified himself as Gabriel, has come forward about the convicted pedophile's celebrity guests during his 18-year career working at the $8 million pied-à-terre, FranceInfo reported.
"I served crowned heads, diplomats, businessmen and politicians," he told the outlet.
Among the powerful guests he listed were former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Prince Andrew, who would crash several nights at the apartment while Epstein was out of town, according to FranceInfo. The royal has since admitted he "regretted" his friendship with Epstein.
How many dens did the poor billionaire have?! Paris, NYC, Palm Beach, USVI, and where?, Arizona? Probably more. Each formerly filled with the most despicable trash on the planet. One wonders where they've all slunk off to now. The answer is probably wherever that "access" lies.
All About (((H. Res. 183))) – From TPC
America, Congress, influence, jews, politics, power, TPC
Here. We. Go. This is what could be my most controversial issue yet, especially if you're not into facts. I'm proud MB published this one, even with a disclaimer (not the first time). But, this TPC column (and this blog post) does represent the first time I've ever used (((ECHOES))), that Alt-Right touch of rhetoric. It's probably not going to be a usual thing here or in the CFF annals but, this time, it fit in well.
I make some observations herein. I observe some text and history. I make some predictions and I give my opinions. If you think I'm wrong, then, by all means, point out where and how. Be specific. Maybe I've missed some other version of the Constitution, some other Roll Call votes, some other Bills and Resolutions, and some other political statements.
*ed.note – as is always the case, just a quick reminder that the views expressed by author P. Lovett do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of The Piedmont Chronicles, nor its staff or Editor, M.McCart. This piece is…heavy, and could very well be construed by some to come across a certain way; however, as a fierce, fierce defender of the 1st amendment, I never had any doubt I wouldn't publish it. Or, if you will, I may not agree with what you say, "but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." As always, we appreciate you reading The Chronicles. – MBM
The Most Special Resolution in the World:
House Resolution 183 (2019), The Craven Admission of Total Failure Act
Not too long ago, freshman Congress Critter Ilhan Omar (D-Somalia) tweeted something about "AIPAC," or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It was something about the inordinate amount of influence the group and its constituents wield in the United States Empire. The lovely little lady from Mogadishu (really) has since deleted the tweet, but not before it caused a considerable stir amongst the perpetually perturbed – a stir replete with 10,001 cries of "anti-Semitism." You might have heard something about all of this.
What better way to refute claims that Jews in America hold too much power and influence than to have the entire American House of Representatives [SIC] vote to condemn one woman for daring to suggest that Jews in America hold too much power and influence.
That's just what they did. Find ye HERE the Roll Call vote, number 108, 407 – 23 in favor of House Res. 183, the waaaay-too-long-entitled Condemning anti-Semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values and aspirations that define the people of the United States and condemning anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against minorities as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contrary to the values and aspirations of the United States [Act].
The 23 rodents who voted against the Resolution did so because they felt the measure should have concentrated solely upon "anti-Semitism," rather than on the laundry list of grievance groups actually included. The 407 rodents who voted in favor – including Omar (to her credit?) – did so only after adding a laundry list of offended minority groups. (More on that in a moment).
Not to suggest, in any way, that Jews really do wield ridiculously outsized power in America, this is the second time, this year, Congress has entertained legislation to affirm Jewish supremacy. The first was S. 1 (2019), which passed the Senate 77-23 which, should it become law, could conceivably outlaw columns like this one. (Your author quakes with fear). Yes, as the numbering insinuates, this was the first Bill brought in the Senate this year – a Bill dedicated to the authority, the supremacy of a foreign power. America first?
Now, for the laundry list:
Whereas the first amendment to the Constitution established the United States as a country committed to the principles of tolerance and religious freedom, and the 14th amendment to the Constitution established equal protection of the laws as the heart of justice in the United States;
Whereas adherence to these principles is vital to the progress of the American people and the diverse communities and religious groups of the United States;
Whereas whether from the political right, center, or left, bigotry, discrimination, oppression, racism, and imputations of dual loyalty threaten American democracy and have no place in American political discourse;
Whereas white supremacists in the United States have exploited and continue to exploit bigotry and weaponize hate for political gain, targeting traditionally persecuted peoples, including African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, the LGBTQ community, immigrants, and others with verbal attacks, incitement, and violence;
… blah, blah, blah, more bullshit …
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) rejects the perpetuation of anti-Semitic stereotypes in the United States and around the world, including the pernicious myth of dual loyalty and foreign allegiance, especially in the context of support for the United States-Israel alliance;
Tolerance and the heart of justice. Principles vital to the progress of the American people and the diverse communities and religious groups of the United States. African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, the LGBTQ community, immigrants, and others. Hmmm. White supremacist exploitation the culprit behind black Muslim Tweets.
Before one comes to the Fourteenth Amendment or even the First Amendment, one necessarily reads the Preamble of the Constitution, which tells one exactly who these "Americans" are. They are the POSTERITY of the Founders. This is confirmed by Preamble, The Declaration of Independence, the unanimous composition of the Founders, and by the original Naturalization Act of 1790. "Americans" are – or were – white Christian Europeans of good character, of English origin if at all possible.
The one group not included in that laundry list of sorrows is the very same group who constitute the actual, intended citizenry of this Nation. Interesting, and an admission. Despite Omar's words, were We really the target? Are we the "white supremacists" they mentioned? Projection much?
READ THE WHOLE THING AT TPC
Feel free to comment here or there. The level or kind of comment will be met accordingly.
It's Not That Bad Being Julian Assange
≈ Comments Off on It's Not That Bad Being Julian Assange
Julian Assange, Pamela Anderson, power, Wikileaks
The Wikileaker-in-Chief has a groupie.
"Baywatch" star Pamela Anderson has gone from slow motion runs on the beach to mysterious late night visits to the embassy where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is holed up.
Anderson was most recently spotted entering the Ecuadorian safe space in London Thursday night wearing a camel overcoat, snug black top — and either a really short skirt, or no pants at all.
Anderson, 49, is a regular at the facility, coyly smiling for photographers as she struts inside to see Assange, 45, whose rogue outfit has dumped some of the US government's most closely guarded secrets.
She refused to deny the dating rumors — saying he intellectually stimulates her more than all her "ex-husbands and lovers combined."
"I think he's quite sexy," she wrote in a blog post on Thursday. "He has tremendous strength and stamina — though vulnerable. Hard to imagine him that way — as capable as he is. But, he is up against the biggest super powers in the world."
NY Post.
I could handle a mysterious late night visit from Pam. Truth to power is dangerous. Seems it has a few perks too.
Cashing Out: The Banksters Wage War On You
banksters, cash, economy, freedom, government, money, power, privacy, theft
Power. Unlimited power!
Such was the battle cry of Darth Sidious in one of those Star Wars movies, one of the new ones that didn't stink too bad. It's the real cry of Darth Citious, a.k.a. Citibank. Theirs is a quest for unlimited power through total control of the economy, your finances included.
Cash money is one of the very last safety measures for privacy in a world gone mad. Citi wants to eliminate cash.
Less than a week after India's surprise move to scrap its highest denomination cash notes, another front in the War on Cash has intensified down under in Australia.
Yesterday, banking giant UBS proposed that eliminating Australia's $100 and $50 bills would be "good for the economy and good for the banks."
(How convenient that a bank would propose something that's good for banks!)
This isn't the first time that the financial establishment has pushed for a cashless society in Australia (or anywhere else).
In September 2015, Australian bank Westpac published its "Cash Free Report", suggesting that the country would become cashless by 2022.
In July 2016, Australian payments firm Tyro published an enormously self-serving blog post touting the benefits of a cashless society and saying, "it's only a matter of time."
Most notably, two days ago, Citibank (yes, THAT Citibank) announced that it was going cashless at some of its Australian branches.
Bank deposits would rise as a result, and consequently, so would bank profits.
Governments would benefit from a cashless society because all savings would be in the banking system, and they have full regulatory control over the banks.
This means that your politicians would have more control over your savings and fewer obstacles to impose capital controls or engage in Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Even policy wonk academics would have a rare opportunity to take their lousy theories and PhD dissertations for a test drive.
Everyone benefits from a cashless society… except for you.
For individuals, cash still has plenty of important advantages.
Cash is one of the few remaining options for financial privacy that doesn't create a permanent record of every purchase or transaction you make.
It's also an easy way to reduce your exposure to risks in the broader financial system.
Think about it– the banking system is full of institutions that never miss an opportunity to demonstrate they cannot be trusted with our money.
Hardly a month goes by without some major banking scandal; they're caught colluding on exchange rates, manipulating interest rates, fraudulently establishing fake accounts without customer consent (and then charging us fees on top of that).
It's disgraceful.
That it is. Good for the banks, good for the government, bad for you. Decrease your security and privacy so banks can make higher profits and government can do what they do worst.
Quickmeme / Lucas / Fox.
Bankster pirates and government highwaymen in the U.S. and in Europe are itching to get rid of cash. I'm sure Citi's Australian experiment is a trial run for global implementation.
What to do about it? For now, if your bank goes cashless, close your accounts there. Tell them why in no uncertain terms. If you hit them where it hurts, they'll stop. That or other, more honest banks will fill the void. And vote out any political rat who backs cashless totalitarianism or who supports the banking cartel. For every rodent, a trap.
This issue doesn't get the coverage it should. Digital money in a bank's computer is just that. Whatever it is, it is theirs. They'll have total control over everything you "own" and they'll be more than willing to share it with the state. The state will be more than willing to take it. This is to be the biggest reverse bank robbery in history. Treat it as such.
The Time I Met Reagan
Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, Other Columns
America, Barbara Olson, Federalist Society, power, Reagan the Shepherd, Ronald Reagan, Ted Olson, Washington
Memories of an increasingly distant past occasionally flutter through my mind. Some end up here: shotguns at football games, floods and rugs, Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter, etc. I think I once mentioned my meeting with President Carter and his wife outside the Governor's entrance to the Georgia Capitol. Sweeter people were not to be found in Atlanta that afternoon.
As it happened I had, just the year before, met Reagan outside of D.C.
It was the warm summer of 2002. My then wife and I attended a Federalist Society leadership conference in Washington. I, despite my constant shunning of leadership, prepared to enter my second term as president of a Fed-Soc chapter.
Whatever else the Society may be or may have turned into, they hold pretty good conventions and even better parties. After a day of not-too-boring presentations, workshops, and speeches, the gathering removed from the urban center unto the genteel suburbs of Great Falls, Virginia.
The setting was the estate of then U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson. I had met Ted the previous fall and I genuinely liked him. His has been a distinguished career, fighting for causes important and sometimes improbable.
Life and the greater world are not always so kind. Ted's wife, Barbara, was murdered less than a year before on September eleventh. Still, he stoically (and in good humor) hosted a gracious affair. I've described these get togethers before. Elegant and sophisticated, with a who's who list of conservative political celebrities. And a few surprises from the opposition. Power subdued by manners and wine.
This event was more laid back than most – a backyard barbecue, in a palatial backyard. I drifted from group to group. A sub-feature of the conference was the grooming of third-year law students for prominence in the Society and the greater legal community. I assume it worked with some.
I really did have a marvelous time. The company was pleasant (though the Ivy Leaguers incessantly talked in circles of immaterial pondering), the food was excellent, beer was free, the grounds Masters-esque.
At some point I found myself in a conversation out back. If I remember rightly it was with Ken and Alice Starr and Ted himself. Suddenly, and without pretense, up swaggered Reagan. All attention immediately turned to him. Ted made the obligatory introduction.
Now, if you're searching your historical memory, you are on to something. At the time President Ronald Reagan was convalescing at home in California (departing only two years later). A few years ago Olson recounted his time working for the former President. Mine was a slightly different Reagan, a namesake.
Not Reagan, per se, though a good approximation. Pet Breeds.
This Reagan was one of Barbara Olson's two Australian Shepherds (the other being named after Lady Thatcher). You see, while I did not meet THE Ronald Reagan, I did meet Reagan the dog. And he essentially stole the whole party.
Extraordinarily intelligent breeds, like the Shepherds, when not working will automatically seek out the best available companions. Thus, he came to me.
He was by far the most interesting member present. I remember him as a slightly larger than normal Ozzy, slightly shaggy but well-groomed. He exuded the charm and thoughtful contemplation for which the breed is famous. We talked, uninterrupted, for several minutes. He was the last person I thanked before leaving that evening.
I never did meet Barbara. Reading one of her books and watching her on television was the closest I ever came. Her taste in canine friends was impeccable. Through Reagan, Ted maintained a happy link to the past. Dogs are wonderful in that regard.
So it is that I recall my last substantive visit to fallen D.C. The failed chief city of the Old Republic held, at the time, an eerie sense of foreboding. It all makes sense now. And it is all okay, I suppose, all because I at least met Reagan.
Weaponized Taxation
≈ Comments Off on Weaponized Taxation
America, bill of attainder, Constitution, crime, ex post facto, freedom, government, IRS, law, power, taxes
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy." John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).
Last week Apple felt that power from abroad. The EU decreed Apple owes $15 Billion in back taxes. The imposition is seen as retaliation for Apple's sales success in Europe. Economic success warrants retaliation in the twisted mind of government.
Here in America, Congress is desperately seeking similar retaliation. It has been suggested that American tax power may be weaponized to strike hard at European companies. While they're at it, they may want to strike at you as well.
The past decade has seen a massive increase (1,000% or so) in Americans attempting to flee the ruins of the old Republic in efforts to preserve what they have created (and to preserve their own freedom). Fleeing the Land of the Free for freedom. Odd.
Mark Nestmann explains:
But just to make sure expatriates know "who's the boss," in 2012, Senators Schumer and Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced legislation to retroactively punish them. The "Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy Act," or Ex-PATRIOT Act, would punish wealthy expatriates by forbidding them from ever reentering the US. The proposal would apply to anyone with a net worth of $2 million or more at the time of expatriation. It would also be retroactive for the 10-year period prior to enactment of the statute.
The Ex-PATRIOT Act didn't pass in 2012, or in 2013 when Schumer reintroduced it as an amendment to another act. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if it reappears in 2017. It's hard to see how someone like Donald Trump, who bashes everything non-US, could oppose this bill. And Hillary Clinton has long slammed corporations that move their base of operations from the US to save on corporate taxes. It's not a huge jump to conclude that if elected, she'd sign the Schumer-Casey proposal into law.
A retroactive law is known legally as ex post facto (after the fact). Such laws were viewed for centuries, rightly, as unfair. They are forbidden not once but twice in the Constitution: Art 1, § 9 and § 10. Such a deliberate targeting of the successful is known as a Bill of Attainder – also prohibited by the Constitution, again in Article I, Section 9.
The U.S. abandoned the ancient abstention of retroactive prosecution in 1945 and has not looked back. The Constitution is abandoned. "Constitutionalists" may say what they like but saying doesn't stop the doing. And it's all done anyway.
Anyone who deals with the IRS knows Washington wages an everyday war for power. It is more about showing the commoners "who's the boss" than the money.
Remember Jim Bakker the 1980's televangelist? His affairs left him with a $500,000 tax bill. Thirty years later the debt has grown (with interest and penalties) to around $6,000,000. Bakker will never pay that off. The government doesn't expect him to. They are most happy lording over him for life; the money is a side issue. His freedom, otherwise redeemed by the passage of time, is destroyed by taxation. Marshall was on to something.
Everyone makes mistakes. Many pay for them. Some have to pay and pay and pay … forever. God forgives. The IRS does not.
The future looks to hold much of the same. Schumer is still trying to ram his pet (illegal) law through Congress. The IRS terrorizes millions. Do not look for help from either presidential candidate.
Trump has already announced an intention to use selective confiscation for his benefit. He wants to seize drug cartel funds and use them to construct his wall. Remember that such programs grow over time, usually to encompass more targets than originally stated. Remember too any wall that can keep Mexicans out can also keep Americans in.
God help you if Clinton is elected. She views all of you as servants and the government as a giant tool for her personal gain. IRS persecution of anyone deemed even slightly anti-Clinton is a given. Worse, she may use tax records (And she didn't know they were classified! Honest.) to compile a hit list. You know, for more of those "suicides".
Tomorrow is Labor Day – the day for celebrating productivity in the workforce. Ponder for just a moment, between the burgers, beer and football, that you have a silent partner at work. Whatever you do, your partner takes 20%, 40% (honestly much more – maybe 60-70% in totality) of every dollar you earn and produce while contributing absolutely nothing. Your silent partner uses taxes as a weapon to keep you in line or, at the least, to rob you.
Jim Bakker. Tammy Faye? The makeup??
A Dichotomy Of Arms
Amercia, anarchy, arms, army, Athens, authority, firearms, freedom, God, government, guns, history, Iraq, law, Melian Dialouge, Melos, military, murder, Natural Law, Paul, police, police state, power, Romans 13, Second Amendment, self-defense, self-preservation, state worship, The People, War
A man in Wyoming was out riding his bicycle. According to him he was attacked by a vicious German Shepherd (Belgian Malinois). Fearing for his life he shot the dog to death with his trusty revolver. It's a story you may have missed. It only made the news because the dog in question was a former military service dog, a Bronze Star recipient, no less. I find the story interesting because it sheds light on a schism amongst the American people.
Mike was a nine year old dog who previously served two combat tours in Iraq. Upon his retirement Mike was adopted by Matthew Bessler, a retired Army Ranger. Both veterans suffered from PTSD; they provided each other with beneficial companionship.
Bessler went hunting. He left Mike in the care of a friend. Mike wandered off and encountered the cyclist – with deadly results. There, the news story ends.
The cyclist was not charged, his use of deadly force deemed by police to be justifiable self-defense. A GoFundMe page has been set up in order to provide Mike with a military burial.
A sub-controversey surrounds the fact the lethal shot hit Mike in the rear or back. I discount this factor. Attacking dogs move very fast. Shooting scenarios move fast too. A shot in the back does not, by itself, disqualify self-defense, especially concerning an animal. The old, false adage that retreat is better if possible is dangerous when one crosses a predatory animal. Withdrawal might trigger a chase or hunt instinct which could be worse than the initial confrontation. Like everyone else, I was not present and I can only go by the shooter's account, tempered by reasoned thinking.
On the surface I find this story sad all the way around. I regret Mike's death. I regret the cyclist felt his life was endangered to the point of resorting to shooting. I'm sorry Mike and Bessler suffered PTSD. I'm sorry their conditions were the results of the government's inexplicable and indefensible war in Iraq. It's terrible some think we need that government.
Mike, another victim of the State. Daily Mail, UK.
Based on the bare facts reported by the (British) press, I support the cyclist's account of the incident and his use of force. I can see a dog with PTSD (even if usually docile) becoming aggressive around a stranger. It happens.
I also hold Mike blameless. Even a vicious, dangerous animal is still just that, an animal. Mike was utterly blameless, too, regarding his military service and resulting illness. A human soldier with a conscious can object to illegal wars of aggression. A dog can't.
Any blame here rests with the friend who was supposed to watch Mike. Large dogs should be leashed or fenced. Maybe there is no one to blame. Mike could have escaped a reasonable containment. Dogs do things like that. Maybe this was just a bad thing that happened – like a tornado or a freak accident.
At any rate, all of this is merely supporting background for my story. I noticed themes in the comments which accompanied the news which, upon further consideration, formed my titular dichotomy.
There were hundreds of comments which roughly divided into two camps. The first was supportive of the cyclist. They found the shooting justified. Most of these also held a pro Second Amendment bias. The other group was mortally offended at the death of a military hero, albeit a dog.
The former group fully supported the individual right of self preservation even if they found Mike's death lamentable as I do. The latter hold the shooting of a military veteran indefensible under any circumstance.
There were a few other reactions. Some found the existence of the subject firearm the problem. I suppose some might hate bicycles or hate dogs. These opinions are outliers and safely factor out of my analysis.
Some pro-shooter comments:
Should have been on a leash.
Too bad for the dog but most communities have leash laws for a reason…and yes, many joggers and bicyclists are bitten by uncontrolled dogs, that's why pepper spray is a good idea.
"Park County Sheriff Scott Steward said: 'Essentially, if you feel your life is in danger or threatened by an animal, you can act against it.' Exactly
Pro military, no matter what:
Sounds like another Democrat got there hand's on a gun !!
this cyclist had no business killing this dog. Charges should be brought against him immediately.
I would not blame or feel bad at all and I would even back the dog owner if he wanted to take fatal retaliation against the cyclist. It is just. What the hell is wrong with people that want to kill a dog like that…This soldier has one more mission to accomplish! …huh rah!
I hope the shooter gets hit by a car and suffers a long painful death
These views show a division between otherwise aligned interests. Most of the folks are likely "conservative" by political philosophy, perhaps a few libertarian. "Liberals" would abhor the gun itself.
I see this as a difference of opinion between "red staters." I suspect the majority of both sides generally support the carrying of individual arms. Both likely support justifiable self-defense. Here's the division: the first group seems to support self-defense regardless of the aggressors status. They find a man free to act when illegally threatened. Period. I'll call these the people "freedom lovers." The others support self-defense unless the aggressor is a member of the hallowed legions of the state. I'll call them "government lovers."
The government lovers are more extreme. Not only do they want the cyclist prosecuted, they want him dead – by a "long painful death" – for a situation they did not witness. But, to them, the facts do not matter. They are more worshipers than mere lovers of the state. The government and its uniformed agents (even dog agents) must not be challenged – ever.
The worship of the state may be increasingly seen in American churches, particularly Evangelical protestant churches. Government has seemingly replaced God for many. Much of this stems from an overzealous but false interpretation of Romans 13. Paul was only speaking to legitimate state authority – authority not acting against God's Natural Law.
The Nazis, acting under Hitler's "legal" orders, carried out the murder of dissidents and other war crimes. Were these too God-sanctioned acts of official authority? I think not.
The statists see it otherwise – at least concerning the American government.
If American soldiers kill innocents overseas, regardless of conditions, it's acceptable collateral damage. If the police shoot a dog it's okay, even if the police are breaking their own laws during the shooting. The same standard applies to police shootings of innocent civilians. No matter the cause, no matter the circumstance, the government is never at fault.
In the odd event the government is at odds with one of its servants the lovers will throw the individual under the bus without thought or hesitation. The false god of the almighty state suffers NO challenge.
This highlights both a disdain for individuality and a lack of logic among the parishioners of official authority.
For those of us who value freedom over safety this dichotomy and this particular example illustrates both a dire problem and a hazardous solution for liberty. It reminds me, for some reason, of the Melian Dialogue (with a twist).
A bit of archaic history: In 416 B.C. Athens was perhaps the most powerful military force in the known ancient world. The Athenians sought to subjugate the small, peaceful island state of Melos. The Athenian navy arrived at Melos. The dialogue went something like this:
Athens: "Surrender and join us."
Melos: "No."
The Athenians then proceeded to exterminate the Melians and seize their island.
Ruins of Melos. Google.
Many in the freedom camp rightfully seek to resist the evil of the modern state. However, as to outright martial confrontation, they see no hope. Maybe they are right. The American military and police state is almost powerful beyond measure. Outright rebellion would be almost impossible.
It may though be possible to indirectly oppose state oppression. An individual might be able to resist a single agent of the state and legally get away with it. Such resistance is still fraught with gravest danger. After such an incident the individual will be faced with resentment and hatred of the government's unthinking masses. Hatred to the point of murder in revenge.
A safer if slower strategy might be to seek out those of the opposing camp and convert them to the truth of freedom. If they can think and reason this may be possible. They can be armed without an army. They can be safe and secure absent official structure. They can act as individuals. They can regard God as God and alone the Supreme source of authority.
All of this is open for consideration. What say you?
Political Party Time!
≈ Comments Off on Political Party Time!
America, anarchy, bankers, Bush, CAFTA, Christian, Christie, Clinton, Congress, crime, democracy, Democrats, elections, fraud, freedom, George Washington, God, GOP, government, hate, immigrants, Israel, jobs, libertarians, Mencken, NAFTA, Obama, people, politicians, politics, power, President, Rand Paul, republic, Republicans, robots, Romney, Ron Paul, secret, Senate, stupid, trade, Washington
I hate politicians. In Christian terms it is wrong to hate any man. Politicians are less men than rodents. Thus, I feel exonerated in my feelings. Elections are exercises in stupidity and herd-think. Presidential elections are the worst.
H. L. Mencken summed it up best: "All of the great patriots now engaged in edging and squirming their way toward the Presidency of the Republic run true to form. That is to say, they are all extremely wary, and all more or less palpable frauds. What they want, primarily, is the job; the necessary equipment of inescapable issues, immutable principles and soaring ideals can wait until it becomes more certain which way the mob will be whooping." Mencken, 1920.
The difference between 1920 and 2015 is that, back then, there were people pretending to be true patriots. At some point they dropped the pretense and proceeded from a desire for pure, unadulterated power. The mob of the American people conveniently ignore this fact. The television is just too entertaining to disagree with. The country sinks lower into the sewer of politics.
A political "party" sounds like a fun time until one realizes the term refers not so much to an event as to a lowest, dumbest degenerates ever assembled under the sun (in truth, like all roaches, they prefer the darkness). Washington warned against them. Mencken ridiculed them. The people, ever plumbing the depths of stupidity, embrace them with jealous fervor. It's "us" Democrats against "them" Republicans and visa versa. Spare the sane the idiocy of it all.
America is dominated by two predominate political parties. They are nominally referred to as conservatives and liberals. As I see it they both liberally dispense what may be conservatively described as bullshit. The people seem to like it.
Third parties exist, apparently to provide comic relief for the big two. I experimented with what I thought the most honest of these alternatives, the Libertarians. Given the choice I would gladly be ruled by Libertarian politicians than those which currently plague us. However, given power, I am sure they would be corrupted by the mainstream of political discourse. Anarchy is the only happy solution. The people do not like happy solutions. Thus, we are suck with the rats and the roaches.
These parties care nothing about you. They're priorities are: bankers, Israel (Likudniks), and anyone else. Not you. Not me.
I am sick of this G*****ned nonsense and what it to f**king stop. Okay? There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans! They respect and represent neither democracy nor any republic.
(Different approach, same results. Google.)
An illustrative story from the popular news presses:
If the God-fearing Republicans exist to save us from the Godless, communist Democrats, then why are Republicans Rallying to Save Obama's Secret Trade Deal? You can read more about this phenomenon here and here and here.
I'm not entirely sure what this new "secret" trade deal means for America. But, first, it's secret. That means bad when it comes from Washington. Second, it's a trade deal. NAFTA and CAFTA, etc. have given American the SHAFTA. I remember being lied to about NAFTA. The dirty manufacturing jobs of old, they said, would give way to a new world of high-paying service jobs which would benefit everyone.
In truth, we have lost the industrial work, pay and all. In exchange we have gained menial minimum wage employment serving hamburgers and such. Robots and immigrants and Indians now do the productive work for real pay. What a change.
I'm sure the new law – sure to happen – will be more of the same. It supposedly grants the President new powers concerning foreign trade. I understand Obama caught wind of a few, final high-paying jobs left in American and is determined to stamp them out. The displaced workers will receive healthcare and cell phones for the bargain – at a cost.
A few Democrats and Rand Paul (son of the mighty Ron Paul), realizing the potential liabilities of robbing the people of their last shot at the American Dream, have stood in the way. Paul filibustered against the deal in the Senate. His speech fell of deaf and stupid ears. The President will get his way, supported by the "conservative" opposition. Trade will be geared ever towards non-American interests. Americans will lose jobs. Reality TV will continue to be popular among the uneducated rabble.
Just remember this when the election rolls around and the Bush/Romney/Christie machine makes the usual patriotic rumblings. Remember it when Hitlary bashes the GOP for being unsupportive of freedom. Blah, blah. Sounds like the same old BS to me.
Remember, if you can, how the various Democratic Congresses and Bill Clinton ran up the national debt, creating new and useless government programs along the way. George Bush, the dimmer, was elected to change all that. He promptly created new agencies and doubled the debt while commencing new wars everywhere. His Excellency, Barack Hussein Osama, was elected to reverse course. Dutifully, he doubled the debt again while continuing and adding to the wars. Now he wants to finish off the trade work began by Clinton and Bush the Vomiter. I see a conspiracy.
The people, bloated by beer and television see nothing. They hear nothing. They say nothing. One of the new fools (or an old fool) foisted upon us by the elite will be the next President. Business will continue as usual.
Spare me your partisan rhetoric this year and next.
Ten More Things You Can Do Today
Posted by perrinlovett in Other Columns
blogging, books, cigars, Congress, encourage, God, hiking, James Altucherthanks, letters, Marcus Aurelius, news, people, positive, power, relax, slow, stress, Thessalonians, Thomas Jefferson
Building on my last happy advice column, I'd like to offer another ten easy things you can do today to make your life a little happier.
1. Smoke a Cigar.
This probably is more appealing to the male audience though quiet a few women enjoy the leaf as well. Use my recent Cigar Guide as a starting point and see if you like the hobby. You only need one, it won't cost that much and it will only take an hour or so to enjoy. I've researched the health risks associated with occasional cigar smoking – it's negligent. In fact, I think the relaxation benefits far outweigh the .002% increase in the risk of problems.
2. Lose the News.
The commercial news in America is boring at best, toxic at worst. You will not miss anything important if you take a break for a day or so. Murders, wars, theft, depression, scandal, etc. will go on in your absence – only you won't be dragged down by it. Consider ignorance bliss and disconnect. This advice, of course, does not extent to your favorite blog.
3. Slow Down Some More.
Last time I recommended slowing your pace in life in order to de-stress and feel better. Do it some more. Remember, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat. Who likes rats? Check the emails tomorrow. There's enough food at the house, lay off the super-market today. Let the little old lady merge into your lane. Be happy. Be free.
(This guy won the race. Google.)
4. Let Someone Tell You, "You Can't" and Prove Them Wrong.
So many people are afraid of things – everything. If they can't conceive of a way to do some particular thing, they assume nobody can do it. In psychology this is called transference or projection or something. They'll say you can't lose the weight. They'll say your business won't make it. They'll say such a hot blonde will never go out with you. Don't listen. If you really want to do something and it's meant to be, you can't fail – unless you fail to try. A young man at Yale was told his presented idea in an economics class would never be feasible; years later, the man put his plan into action and founded Federal Express. When you succeed, take comfort in your accomplishment. Remember to be gracious to your detractors, maybe you will inspire them to rise above their own roadblocks.
5. Encourage Someone.
The pre-emptive strike against worldly negativity is to place faith in someone else's ideas. When someone runs by a plan for something new by you, tell them what you think, but make sure you end it positively. A little encouragement goes a long way and may be just the boost a person needs to get over their fears and societal conditioning of failure and make "it" happen. Praise is contagious too. Start a fire!
6. Write a Letter to the Editor.
I used to do this with very limited success. Now, I'm the editor and everything I write gets published – and read. Pick a topic you're passionate about and tell the world your opinions. Everyone is an expert at something, share your insights. Like encouragement, it might spark somebody to positive action. A common tactic is to write an "open" letter to a CongressCritter or some other prominent person or organization and forward a copy to the local fish-wrapper. Knowing your views will be viewed by a wide audience may give a politician or other figure more reason to act than your letter alone would. Try it and see.
7. Question Authority.
People in power frequently use their power to limit the powerless. Challenge them. Thomas Jefferson once said, "I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." One can't have a better role model than old T.J. When the cop asks you if you knew how fast you were going, don't answer; this denies them your assistance in your prosecution and takes a little of the bully out of them. If a teacher tells you heat rises, ask why, then, does the TOP of the pond freeze. Make her explain thermodynamics in full. Be polite and don't do anything so outrageous as to risk arrest. By speaking truth to power or denying the power altogether, you can preserve liberty and concurrently increase understanding – both admirable ends. This, again, does not apply to your favorite blog (wink, wink).
8. Take a Hike!
Last time I relayed the benefits of a simple walk around the block. Hiking through God's country increases the benefits, both in terms of exercise exertion and scenery. Hikes need not be limited to the woods or the mountains. Stalk away through the dunes or a country road. Explore your local park or the land along the river-side levee. Make sure you have good shoes for this one. I once reached in the closet, without looking, for boots to take to the Smokey Mountains. A mile or so in I realized duck-hunting boots were not made for trudging up-hill…
9. Write a Book.
I recommended reading a book. That's always good advice. Take it to the next level and make your own literary contribution to the world. If it's not a full-length book, then write a pamphlet or start a blog! By the way, books are easier than ever to publish these days. Check out www.createspace.com, there's a link here on the left. This service will not only turn your ideas into print but will make them commercially available to the masses – all for free. Your book can be about anything. There are no rules and no constraints anymore. Read James Altucher's excellent column on the subject – http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/05/why-and-how-i-self-published-a-book/. This was my inspiration to start blogging and ram through my first book (soon, I promise…).
(Create! Google.)
10. Give Thanks for Something.
Anything. Good or bad. "In everything give thanks." 1 Thessalonians 5:18. God does everything for a reason. Thank Him. Too smart for God, then thank Mother Earth, or Father Time, the Tooth Fairy or whoever. Believe in something bigger than you. As for the good and the bad, even non-Christian philosophers speak of accepting both with the same stoic resolve. See Marcus Aurelius on that point. Spread the word. Accept, give thanks, take action, be happy.
BONUS! 11. Forward this advice to people you know. Come up with some more things people can do!
18th Amendment, 21st Amendment, Act of Congress, administration, agencies, amendment, America, aristocracy, Articles of Confederation, Attila and the Witch Doctor, attorneys, Ayn Rand, Bill of Rights, branches, CFR, commerce clause, Congress, Constitution, Courts, cycle of the state, democracy, emergency, English, Executive Orders, Federal government, For the New Inellectual, Founders, general welfare, history, James Clyburn, jurisdiction, King George III, law, leviathan, libertarians, Liberty, Lysander Spooner, Nancy Pelosi, national defense, necessary and proper, ochlocracy, oligarchy, Plato, power, President, Quiotic, republic, Revolutionary War, Romans, Speaker of the House, States, Supreme Court, taxation, Tenth Amendment, timocracy, truth, tyranny, wars
The United State Constitution is a historical anomaly. The Constitutions of the several States are as well. Our English predecessors had a Constitution of sorts as did the Romans long before. These are however, rarities. Many nations today have "constitutions" or charters which allege the rule of law, but which in reality are no different from the dictatorships and dominions of old.
Traditionally, most people have lived under one regime or another which ruled by the whims of men and the force they could exert. Ayn Rand discussed this phenomenon, labelling it "Attila and the Witch Doctor." For the New Intellectual (1961). Attila is representative of the ruling big man, a brute whose law" extends from the barrel of a gun or the tip of a spear. The Witch Doctor is the "holy" man who finds some "divine" reason to justify Attila's power and also placated the people to avert their suspicion or anger.
In 1775 the American colonists were under the rule of a gentler Attila, King George, III, who was constrained by Parliament and the English Constitution. He even had a state-chartered church to serve as the Witch Doctor. The next year the colonists declared their independence from England and instituted on earth thirteen new nations. During the Revolutionary War these nations were united in Congress due to their dire predicament. In 1781 the 13 states adopted the Articles of Confederation (the ratification process began in 1777) which tied them loosely together for mutual benefit.
Not being satisfied with loose ties, in 1789 the early Americans drafted a stronger document to commence a stronger central government – the Constitution. The first ten amendments to the document, the Bill of Rights, came along in 1791.
(The Constitution. Federal Archives.)
People like me are always rallying to the Constitution, its limits on government power, and it's protection of individual rights. When comparing the reality of modern American government to the government set forth in the original text of the Constitution, the two things seem polar opposites. Thus, the constant call for a return to Constitutional government. There is no doubt, from a libertarian perspective, the latter would be far easier to accept than the former.
However, the problem I have finally come to terms with is that the two opposites are really the same thing – separated only by time. Again, I quote Lysander Spooner: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." "Unfit" is a harsh assessment, but it is probably the most intellectually honest view.
I have personally sworn (affirmed) several oaths to support and defend the Constitution as an attorney. Then, immediately, I have been told to look the other way as nearly every provision of the document is rendered moot. The government these days does what it wants, end of discussion. Its power is always on display. If one or two of your rights happen to be respected, be happy. The government will tell you it gave you those rights! There is no respect for the letter of the Supreme Law.
In 2009, then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was asked by a reporter, "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Mrs. Pelosi responded with indignation, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" She then put on the record that the question was not serious. http://www.aim.org/guest-column/yes-nancy-pelosi-we-are-serious/. The question was dead serious and the true answer is "nowhere." Truth gets in the way.
Rep. James Clyburn clarified the issue: "There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html. Jimmy was brutally honest. Over the long-span of our Republic, a few pet phrases and ideas in the old parchment have been used to systematically justify the awesome growth of the federal government – the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, the general welfare clause, national defense, and taxation. Today, when most of what the government does is illegal, they don't even try to justify their actions.
This was hard for me to accept as an attorney. Actually, I never did accept it. In many (most) cases there absolutely nothing I could do for the interests of true justice and Constitutional fidelity. However, I remain one of the few who will stand on principle to the point of Quixotic excess. I do not fear being labeled wrong when I am right.
Here's how the Constitution was supposed to work. It was quite simply compared to today's leviathan.
First, please read the Constitution. Here's a link: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html. This is the official site of the Constitution, complete with pictures of the original text. Make it a "Favorites" link on your browser.
The Constitution created the federal government, divided into three branches. The branches were listed in order of importance. Article One defines and empowers the legislative branch, Congress. The powers of Congress or the legislative authority it has are mainly derived from Section Eight though a few powers reside elsewhere (some have been added by subsequent Amendments). The powers enumerated in the text are the only powers which Congress may legally exercise. The Tenth Amendment says so. The number of these powers is the subject of some speculation among libertarians. Some count the individual sub-sections only. Some delineate each power from the subsections – I follow this approach. Some extrapolate reasonable relations between the individual powers. However you calculate them, the powers are few in number. Let's say there are about 30. That's it! Those are the only things the government is supposed to do.
Today we are trapped under tens of thousands of laws and countless regulations which cover literally everything imaginable. The regulations are issued by various agencies, supposedly to implement the laws Congress passes. You can find this mind-boggling collection of verbosity at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR. Don't make too close of a study; the regulations change constantly. In my view none of these rules are valid as they are not the expressly permitted work of Congress. However, the agencies that make them have armies of men with guns to ensure compliance.
Article Two concerns the executive, The President. The President's authority is even more minimal than Congress's. He is supposed to only attempt to enforce the valid laws Congress passes, run the day-to-day operations of the government, and prosecute wars as declared by Congress. That's about it.
Of course, today the President is a virtual government unto himself. The executive's ability to take "emergency" action and the constant acquiescence to these actions by the other branches, have made the President the most dangerous part of the central government. He issues Executive Orders, which were originally only supposed to concern policy implementation within his administration, but today are taken as Acts of Congress (without Acts of Congress). My view is that almost all of these Orders are invalid. There again, the President is in charge of all those armies of armed men and the regular military too. He usually gets his way.
Article Three concerns the federal Judiciary. This article only established the Supreme Court. It left another power to Congress to create and empower inferior courts of different kinds. Originally, legal matters were supposed to be handled by State Courts for the most part, with the Supreme Court deciding differing outcomes from different States when a controversy arose. Many libertarians think the judiciary has become too powerful. Perhaps it has. Most attorneys take the opinions of the courts to be divine. I do not, for the most part, agree. Congress has the ultimate authority over law in this nation and has the power to override a contrary court decision. Congress also has the express authority to limit the jurisdiction of the courts, meaning Congress can prohibit a court from reviewing certain matters. Congress rarely uses this power.
The rest of the original articles explain various concepts, procedures, and guarantees. Perhaps the most important feature of the remaining articles is in Article Five – the procedure for adding Amendments to the Constitution. This has been done 27 times since the original charter was enacted.
The Bill of Rights, those first 10 amendments, was added as a cautious afterthought. The rights therein were acknowledged as Natural Law in origin and eternal. In 1789 all ten were taken as a given. The Founders assured everyone, including each other, that due to its explicitly limited nature, the new government would never be a threat to individual liberties. There was no point in adding statements of protection. But, in 1791, suspicion gave way to action, and several core rights were definitely stated and protected. They have been poorly defended of late.
The remaining seventeen amendments were added over the course of years. Most granted the government more power. Only one of those has ever been repealed – the 21st Amendment, the only one ratified following State Convention origination, repealed the 18th Amendment, which outlawed alcohol. In my estimation, of all the Acts of the federal government in its entire history, none were more cruel than the 18th Amendment. During a period of dramatically increasing federal power and erosion of individual liberty, the government decided to take away the People's ability to legally drink their serfdom away. Thank God it was erased after only 14 years. True to form though, the government could not simply end prohibition, rather, the ability to regulate alcohol was passed on the States. The ATF and your State's revenue department bear witness to the enduring character of legislative folly.
In conclusion, while the Constitution may be revered as creating a government of limited powers, it still created a government. That government has vastly exceeded its authorized power to the detriment of our Liberty. I would like to see a return to The Articles of Confederation or some other less powerful central state. This is not likely to happen. The best alternative would be to simply adhere to the Constitution as written, no more. This is equally unlikely to occur. As is, we will have to wait until time takes its toll on the remains of the Republic. This process may not be pleasant for us. Plato described the cycle of the theoretical state about 2500 years ago – we would appear to be somewhere near the end. Aristocracy gives way to timocracy (rule of land owners). Timocracy becomes oligarchy (the rule of an elite). Oligarchy degenerates into democracy. Democracy can also be called "ochlocracy" or mob rule. Ultimately this paves the way for a despot to seize power. The cycle then repeats.
We can really only hope that someday, a future generation will learn from our mistakes and correct them. History says that correction won't last long.