• About
  • Books
  • Contact

PERRIN LOVETT

~ Fiction, Freedom, and The West

PERRIN LOVETT

Tag Archives: enemy combatants

Mr. President,

07 Tuesday May 2019

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Cory Booker, deport his ass, enemy combatants, gun control

Please deport this enemy combatant before he has the chance to act.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), who recently promised to “bring a fight to the NRA like they have never ever seen before,” on Monday morning introduced a sweeping gun-violence prevention plan that centers around a national gun-licensing program, the most comprehensive and far-reaching of any candidate in the Democratic presidential field.

“My plan to address gun violence is simple—we will make it harder for people who should not have a gun to get one,” Booker said in a statement, pledging to take executive action on the first day of his desired presidency.

“As president, we will make commonsense changes to our gun laws such as requiring a license to purchase a gun that includes universal background checks, banning assault weapons, and closing the loopholes that allow domestic abusers and people on terrorist watch lists to get their hands on a gun,” he continued. “I am sick and tired of hearing thoughts and prayers for the communities that have been shattered by gun violence—it is time for bold action.”

It is time for bold action. Mr. Trump, get his ass outta here. He’s fired. It’s bold but there is a precedent. Use it. I hear Canada is a good dumping ground.

Quote

The Obama Use of FISA-702 as a Domestic Political Surveillance Program…. — The Last Refuge

23 Tuesday Apr 2019

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

deep state, enemy combatants, treason

A tale of the enemy combatants…

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/349542716/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-72P5FzpI44KMOuOPZrt1

Now that we have significant research files on the 2015 and 2016 political surveillance program; which includes the trail evident within the Weissmann/Mueller report; in combination with the Obama-era DOJ “secret research project” (their words, not mine); we are able to overlay the entire objective and gain a full understanding of how political surveillance was […]

via The Obama Use of FISA-702 as a Domestic Political Surveillance Program…. — The Last Refuge

The Fireproof Fed

11 Monday Mar 2019

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

enemy combatants, Federal Reserve

Chairman Powell may be correct:

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said in an interview aired Sunday that he does not think he can be fired by President Donald Trump.

While continuing to avoid direct comment on the president’s withering criticism of central bank interest rate policy, Powell told CBS’ “60 Minutes” that Trump can’t remove him from office.

“The law is clear that I have a four-year term, and I fully intend to serve it,” Powell told the news magazine show. Asked directly if he thought Trump could fire him, he said, “no.”

GITMO it is, Mr. Enemy Combatant!

Speedy Delivery!

23 Tuesday Oct 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in News and Notes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bomb, enemy combatants, George Soros

You’ve got mail!

The explosive device found in a mailbox at the home of George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist, on Monday afternoon was relatively small, a senior law enforcement official said on Tuesday.

The device was “proactively denotated” by bomb squad technicians from the Westchester County Police Department.

The bomber’s motive remained unclear. Mr. Soros is a favorite target of right-wing groups. He was not home at the time.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LOL!

No, seriously – DO NOT ATTEMPT this sort of justice on your own. It’s the President’s job to blast the enemy combatants.

 

What Happens if Trump Refuses Arrest?

09 Monday Apr 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

decline, enemy combatants, habeas corpus, ignorance, law, Lincoln, Merryman, MSNBC, Roger Taney, Trump, warrant

Nothing, to Trump. Much, perhaps, to others. Highly speculative answers to highly speculative questions. The shallow, historically uniformed intellectualism of the popular press never ceases to disappoint. In furtherance of the “Russia, Russia, Russia” mania, Joy Reid and the panel of “experts” at MSNBC ponder the ridiculously improbable:

Sunday on her weekend morning program, MSNBC’s Joy Reid seriously discussed a situation where President Trump refused a subpoena and would have to be arrested and put in jail until he testified before a grand jury. Reid envisioned a scenario of a White House besieged by federal marshals who would wait for Trump to give the Secret Service a stand down order so he could be taken into custody.

“Let’s say that Donald Trump decides he doesn’t want to give an interview with Mueller, but Mueller says ‘Oh, but you will.’ And he’s subpoenaed to [be] interview[ed] [by] Robert Mueller. And Donald Trump simply says, ‘I don’t recognize that subpoena.’ This is a president whose behavior is different as president of the United States. He doesn’t follow convention. Who would force him to comply with the subpoena ordering him to do an interview with Robert Mueller?” Reid asked.

“It would be a federal court judge,” former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman said.

“How would they enforce it?” she asked.

They wouldn’t. It’s as simple as that. It’s settled “legal” territory. See: Ex parte Merryman (1861) and associated proceedings.

President Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus during the questionable American “civil” war. Said suspension was challenged in federal court. Following a conclusion Lincoln’s suspension was unconstitutional, Lincoln and his army refused to comply with the ruling and with the orders of the judiciary.

A federal marshal informed Chief Justice Roger Taney of the row and requested instruction. Little was decided by the high court other than Taney’s resignment to the fact his marshal and associated posse comitatus were woefully outgunned by Lincoln’s standing army. At the White House it was decided Taney was interfering with the war efforts. Lincoln wrote up an executive warrant for Taney’s arrest. Cooler heads prevailed upon the President and the warrant was never executed.

But, unlike the court’s paper, Lincoln’s could have been, would have been easily affected. Taney narrowly escaped a fate well-known to more a few of his contemporaries. Lincoln arrested plenty of people on similar specious charges, including at least one federal judge and a member of Congress.

Couple this “precedent” with the modern interpretation of “enemy combatant” and one prays cooler heads are still on call around DC.

One could also pray for the grace of knowledge among the popular talking heads. That might be asking a bit much, even from the Almighty.

Out to Pasture: The Man and the Idea: Stevens on the Second Amendment

28 Wednesday Mar 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

America, communism, Constitution, crazy, enemy combatants, firearms, First Amendment, Founders, freedom, gun control, John Paul Stevens, law, New York Times, NRA, repeal the Second Amendment, Second Amendment, statutory interpretation, Supreme Court, tyranny

John Paul Stevens is a different man than John Paul Jones. Both were born around the same time. But Stevens has hung in there longer. His faculties may not have lasted so well however.

Repeal the Second Amendment

– so Stevens penned in the New York Times yesterday.

HERE also in case something happens to Slim’s site.

Let’s see what the old bow tie had to say (entirety):

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

Come on, Stevens! In your lifetime? The man has seen a lot. He surely remembers the Civil Rights Movement, the Civil War, and the Children’s Crusade of 1212. Like that latter episode, the current hubbub is as misguided, nefarious, and sure to be as ill-fated.

I’ve covered gun control previously and the kids’ march especially. While not backing off the issue I’ve urged restraint towards the young, uninformed, and naive children. However, I’ve said that those behind the mania should be held to account. Stevens falls into that category. I actually welcomed his editorial position as I figured, aged or not, he is among the very best the grabbers could offer.

I am sorely disappointed.

There’s nothing there. At all.

A sufficient counter argument to this tripe is: BULLSHIT!

Now we have that all settled…

It’s funny, almost. First, Stevens ran his editorial on a digital system – see that above link. This is 21st Century news. It’s different from older newspapers, say, from the 18th century. It’s kind of like the difference highlighted by the Times’s feature picture:

28Stevens-jumbo

NYT. Yes, as corrected, that’s a musket up top….

Their point, his idiotic point, is that the one weapon was available when the 2A was enacted. The other, being a modern creation, was not and, thus, is not protected. Funny.

By the same illogic, the Times’s website, to say nothing of what you’re reading here and now, is not protected by the First Amendment. It’s not free speech nor free press. The only real, legal newsprint is print. If you don’t get news on low quality paper with blotchy ink from some young boy on the street corner, then you’re as bad as the NRA killing all those kids they never kill.

It’s also almost funny that the left wants to repeal something that, for an age, they denied existed. I appreciate their newfound honesty but it’s a little late in coming. They literally used to say the 2A wasn’t really part of the Constitution – despite it’s being right there in black and white. Conversely, they had no problem seeing Abortion floating in some nebulous prenumbra. Maybe one needs a bow tie to see it all clearly.

Prior to 2010 or so most Con Law textbooks were utterly devoid of any mention of the 2A. A few, like Lawrence Friedman’s, may scant mention, usually with a bare citation to Miller v. US (1939).

Why repeal something that’s not even real? My guess is a case of bad losering.

Stevens rests much of his “argument” on Miller. Liberals love to pretend that was the only court decision on the 2A prior to the 21st century. It was not. But it was perhaps the worst decided and most misinterpreted. So the Nine said civilians had no right to non-military quality arms. What does that mean? They didn’t say but one could easily extrapolate that, under their reasoning, only military-grade weapons qualify for legal protection against infringement. Probably not what the left had in mind. Of course, what the Court had in mind in 1939 later fell apart factually. In Vietnam soldiers made copious use of short-barreled shotguns. Hmmm.

At any rate, Heller and MacDonald cured the question of “does the Second Amendment really say what it plainly says?” It does.

Stevens dissented in Heller … and lost. They say, “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.” He says, now, “if we can’t beat it, repeal it.” Good luck with that.

And, again maybe it’s the age thing – dunno, but here Stevens violates his own canons of legal interpretation. His approach, as detailed in The Shakespeare Canon of Statutory Interpretation, J. P. Stevens, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, April, 1992:

  1. Read the Statute
  2. Read the Whole Statute
  3. Read the Text in Contemporary Context
  4. Look into Legislative History
  5. Use Some Common Sense

Taking the 2A as what it is, a Super Statute, and applying those rules, one reaches an incontrovertible conclusion: the thing is what it is and means what it says. 1) the language is unambiguous. That should be the end of it. But: 2) it fits with the rest of the Bill of Rights. 3) Temporizing the thought, either then or now, it fits with the idea of individual liberty. 4) the Founders demanded an armed citizenry as deterrent of tyranny. 5) What do the various facts tell us?

No question should remain after the first four steps are utilized. If, however, one needs more proof to affirm the meaning and intent by number five, then one should analyze what’s going on with guns in America. Here, as with most logic, the left fails completely.

The facts tell us: armed citizens still stand in the way of tyrants; guns save lives; the innocent lives lost to guns are: few, offset by the many saved, only part of the greater number of regrettable homicides annually, tiny in comparison to lives lost to other means/things, etc.; having the highest number and percentage of private guns in the world, the US still has one of the lowest gun murder rates on the planet, and; even with all those guns, and with all the hideous social, economic, and legal changes in the country, there has been no great or noticeable change in gun usage of late.

But why look at the law and the facts? Heck, that’s what judges do. Maybe it’s better to listen to young know-nothings scream about anecdotes. Maybe it’s better to blame the NRA for things it had nothing to do with. Promote a little fear. A little hysteria. Some lies.

And, for what? The Second Amendment will not be repealed any time soon. Good luck assembling a Convention of the States. Better luck getting super majorities in Congress and the State Houses. They can’t even get more “meaningful” gun control through in regular statutory form – though they try.

What would the Stevens’s Amendment say? A plain repeal? How would that work or be worded? “The rights of the people are hereby infringed.” That’s what he’s suggesting. The natural right to arms is independent of any amendment or law. It’s just that in some places it is infringed upon, violated. Simply repealing the 2A would not necessarily ban guns from private hands.

Maybe he means to include that ban explicitly in the new language. “The right is infringed and the people are barred from keeping and bearing arms.” Perhaps there could be a specific exemption for 18th century antiques or the swords and slings of Stevens’s youth…

I’m glad Stevens spoke up. It’s good to know what the enemy is thinking, what they want. They want to disarm you and leave you utterly helpless before their other plans and actions. Once more, see the thoughts, words, and acts of [pick your favorite murderous dictator from history].

In his final decade on the Court Stevens voted to extend at least some basic rights to Americans declared and held as enemy combatants, enemies of the government and the people. That might work out well for him. Some, like Vox Day, suggest Stevens has, via his First-Amendment-unprotected speech, committed treason and should be arrested for it. Debbie Gun Control-Schultz (and any co-signers) too. It’s a strange new world we’ve entered. I’ll leave that alone except to say: 1) enemy combatants do not have to be arrested..., and; 2) hey, Stevens is old, 97 going on 1,000; why bother?

If this was their best, then their best won’t do. A rock group told me so. However, now that they’re being honest about the thoughts and desires, we had best keep an eye on these anti-freedom types. Freedom: defend it or lose it.

*This subject shall be the focus of a video retort for FP tomorrow, likely to be linked and reposted here. Stay tuned.

Neocon Carousel

22 Thursday Mar 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

corporations, enemy combatants, neocons, Trump

It’s not just for the amusement park anymore. Not-so-amusingly, it again takes a spin at the White House. H.R. “War with Russia” McMaster is out as NSA and John “War with Anyone” Bolton is in. I’m sure your confidence is as inspired as mine. Not even going to attempt devil’s advocacy here and now.

On a very tangential note, I watched a moment or two of Tucker Carlson tonight. He lamented the new fascism coming from places like the socials and the banks. That is real if limited. So, what’s to be done? Plenty. There are personal and legal routes, sure to be tried by a few.

But, with all these neocon nuts floating around (like Love Bugs on a windshield, no?), I thought: hey, they all love the enemy combatant approach! Why not declare all the corporate tyrants, who subvert democracy in the name of profit and feels, as enemies of America? In a way, they really are. The answer, from the Cons, is that they love that dreadful idea so long as it gets applied to brown people in the sandier regions. They’re probably not to keen on using it against their wealthy friends.

Anyway, just a few thoughts. Maybe more than was prudent this late. Out.

The Extraordinary Rendition of America

14 Wednesday Mar 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

America, CIA, decline, deep state, due process, enemy combatants, failure, law, politics, terrorism, torture, War

Yesterday, in a headline for FP, I celebrated the departure of Rex Tillerson, former Secretary of State and the man who ushered in the brave new age of the Boy Scouts of America. But it’s really a mixed bag.

Tillerson never belonged anywhere near government power. His firing is a good thing. A liberal friend rightly pointed out that Trump has the highest and fastest rate of administrative turnover in history. It’s does look like disarray. Oddly, by his own list, leaving aside some major points (Obamacare, the wall, locking HER up, etc.), Trump is actually accomplishing his agenda. If it works…

However, with the cabinet positions, aides, and so forth, the turnover is a mixed bag. We seem to lose one deep state, globalist idiot only to have another step right in to take his place. Seems like it spreads.

The newly nominated Sec. State, replacing T-Rex, in the former Director of the CIA. Do we really want the head of secret police/paramilitary force representing us to the world? Might that not send a mixed message?

The new, nominated Director of the CIA is the former Deputy Director, Gina Haspel. If you’ve never heard of her, that’s probably because you watch America’s mainstream, lamestream, report no real facts media. Stop that. Get all your news and entertainment here!

Anyway, Gina is a career employee of the company, a former honcho for NCS, perhaps the most dangerous and unaccountable part of the deep state. The woman is “quite literally a war criminal.”

She ran the notorious CIA “black site” in Thailand. You’ve probably not heard much about that. It was (is) only one of the many places where the USA, beacon of virtue, engages in illegal torture of enemy combatants (defined as whomever the President says is…). This has been standard operating procedure under the current and past two administrations (Duuuuuuh-wa, no hope and no change, MAGA).

This practice and those like would, if conducted by any other government, constitute actionable offenses against humanity. There has been limited legal action already. The international community has little sway over the US with its thousands of operable nukes. And there is NO justice left in America’s courts. So, what sent Nazis to the gallows (on trumped-up, ex post facto charges and no due process at all), the US gets a pass on. Exceptionalism or something.

And, even honest CIA killers admit this hideous treatment of prisoners doesn’t work. Abu Zubaydah, in US “custody” for something like 15 years, with no rights, and no hope, was horribly battered and abused only to have it discovered he knew nothing and was not a threat. Still at Club GitMo though.

“Thems tarr-ists,” the unwashed roar, “who cares?” What part of “whomever the President says” don’t they get. It can be and has been US citizens.

I’ve been asking of late why Trump doesn’t apply such Draconian “justice” to the globalists, deep staters, and treasoners. Why not release the tortured, no threat, know-nothings, and make room for bankers, Congress Critters, judges, and people like Gina? You know, real threats who’ve actually done harm.

Instead Trump does the opposite, continually appointing rather than prosecuting.

And, back to this sh!t not working: the real terror threats are here, not out there in the sandbox or some other exotic locale. ISIS-inspired Corey Johnson comes to mind, if you look through the alternative media:

A 17-year-old named Corey Johnson claimed his Muslim faith commanded him to fatally stab a 13-year-old boy during a sleepover and severely injured another 13-year-old along with his mother who was stabbed more than a dozen times.

Palm Beach Florida authorities said the attacker confessed to the killing, attempted killings, and the motive of Islamic Jihad. After killing one teen and stabbing two more people Johnson barricaded himself in a room when police arrived. He was taken into custody at about 8 a.m. by the city’s SWAT team.

Palm Beach isn’t located in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, nor North Korea. And Johnson looks like a shaggy, disgruntled American everyteen. We don’t have to look that far for our boogeymen.

050214_r13879_rd.jpg

Justice in Amerika. New Yorker.

Platonically speaking, we’re passing rapidly from Democracy to Tyranny. Could we at least get a decent tyrant out of it, someone “cool?”

Strange, Stranger, and Happy

04 Sunday Mar 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bush family, corruption, enemy combatants, government, hysteria, immigration, law, politics

A trio of political stories to rouse the Sunday faithful:

DOJ Looks into Criminal Activities of the Oakland, CA’s Mayor’s Office

“Normally the federal government takes the lead and the state authorities follow in these sorts of things,” he said. Now, “you have essentially an almost guerrilla movement by local authorities to try and undo federal law enforcement efforts.”

Asked whether it would be possible for charges to be brought against the mayor, Litman said he thought it was not likely.

“That would be extraordinary,” he said.

[Mayor] Schaaf and her supporters say she did the right thing.

“My statement on Saturday was meant to give all residents time to learn their rights and know their legal options,” Schaaf said Tuesday in a statement. “It was my intention that one mother, or one father, would use the information to help keep their family together.

“I do not regret sharing this information. It is Oakland’s legal right to be a sanctuary city and we have not broken any laws. We believe our community is safer when families stay together,” she stated.

She may regret the decisions when she’s indicted for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324. If so, then I’d expect to see associated conspiracy, obstruction, and public corruption charges too. Or maybe not. It would be, as Professor Litman says, “extraordinary.” But it is technically possible.

Also possible is Trump pulling ICE out of California and leaving the State to enjoy the company of the illegals, 81% of whom appear to be convicted criminals. Also possible, if unlikely, would be the declaration that all of these people are engaged in enemy activities against the United States and dealt with, militarily, as enemy combatants. There’s actually more precedent for the latter possibility.

Speaking of enemy combatants:

Former(?) Illegal Arms Dealer Eric Holder Predicts a Trumped-up Charge Against Trump:

President Trump will face an obstruction of justice charge from special counsel Robert Mueller, former Attorney General Eric Holder predicted.

“You technically have an obstruction of justice case that already exists,” Holder, who served under then-President Obama, said on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” “I’ve known Bob Mueller for 20, 30 years; my guess is he’s just trying to make the case as good as he possibly can. So, I think that we have to be patient in that regard.”

Trump’s critics have speculated about an obstruction charge ever since he fired FBI Director James Comey in the midst of an investigation into potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. The president said he was frustrated that Russia-related allegations had become “an excuse for having lost an election,” and he was also apparently annoyed that Comey refused to say publicly that Trump himself was not under investigation, although Comey had made such comments in private.

“I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department,” Trump told the New York Times in December 2017.

Selling, and then giving, illegal arms to known terrorists, actions which led to the murder of at least one American citizen, would seem to also qualify for E.C. treatment. On the fantasy front, an absolute defense against obstruction exists in the President’s absolute authority to terminate any executive official, at any time, for any reason or for no reason. That’s settled precedent, as is black-siting American citizens engaged in hostilities against America – that or just droning them away.

All of this is rancorous, depressing, and more than a little ridiculous and speculative. So … here’s a happy balance piece:

Looms Large the End of the 70-Year Bush Reign of Terror

“It’s quite possible that the Bush political dynasty, at least for this generation, could end in the spring of 2018 because if George P Bush fails to win the GOP nomination for land commissioner it’s tough to see him coming back from that any time soon,” said Mark Jones, a political scientist at Rice University. The dynasty began with Prescott Bush – George P’s great-grandfather – becoming senator for Connecticut in 1952.

Though Democratic turnout for early voting has soared this year compared with last time, no Democrat has won a statewide race in Texas since 1994, making the primaries all-important.

The last stand of Bush’s political career could be the Alamo. His predecessor and main rival, Jerry Patterson – a history buff who used to carry guns in his cowboy boots and cultivated a relationship with the pop star and leading Alamo artefact collector, Phil Collins –has made Bush’s supposed failure as a steward of the historical battlefield site into a key campaign issue. Bush has also drawn criticism for the slow pace of disaster recovery efforts following Hurricane Harvey.

Praise be to God Almighty! Now, after G.P.B. loses, maybe there’s some way to justify deporting the whole Bush Clan back to wherever the hell they came from. Or anywhere else. Germany! I think the Reich still owe Prescott’s descendant’s a little favor for the Union Banking gold deals, no?

This may be all for the weekend. Tomorrow starts a new week. Maybe with some cigars or music or something.

6093_lg

Old Politics.

Perrin Lovett

perrinlovett@gmail.com

The Substitute – my first novel

Buy Now at Amazon. $19.95 Paperback.

Expect the fiction…

TPC COMPENDIUM – TBA

The best of my TPC columns, so far. Available when edited (someday).

The Happy Little Cigar Book

Buy From Amazon! The perfect coffee table book!

Perrin On Politics

FREE E-book! Download now~

Archives

  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • June 2012

Perrin On YouTube

Click HERE

Click HERE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWFFDZemHho

Perrin’s Columns for The Piedmont Chronicles

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy