Political Party Time!

24 Sunday May 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Political Party Time!

Tags

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.

Constitutional Law

13 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

16th Amendment, abortion, activists, America, anarchy, Anti-Federalists, Articles of Confederation, attorneys, Bill of Rights, case-law, Coca-Cola, commerce clause, Congress, Constitution, Constitutional Law, Courts, dissent, Dred Scott v. Sandford, drones, due process, equal protection, Federal Reserve, First Amendment, freedom, General Welfare Clause, Germany, government, Jacobson v. Mass., Japan, John Marshall, judges, law, law school, legal education, Liberty, liberty interests, Max Tucker, McCulloch v. Maryland, Michael Bloomberg, murder, National Security, Natural Law, Necessary and Proper Clause, New York, Ninth Amendment, ObamaCare, patriotism, philosophy, professors, Rand Paul, republic, rights, Roe v. Wade, science, scrutiny, Second Amendment, slavery, States, stict construction, students, Supreme Court, tariffs, taxation, taxes, Tenth Amendment, The People, United States, voting, War Between the States, Washington, wheat, Wickard v. Filburn, World War II

This article is an extension of my recent columns on The Constitution, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/the-united-states-constitution/, and Legal “Education,” https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/legal-education/. One would think that the matter of Constitutional law would have been covered in my article on the Constitution itself – unless one also read my treatise on law schooling.

Oddly, in my experience, the Constitution itself is not required reading for Constitutional law classes. Rather, some imported parts of the document are set forth in the text-book used by the professor. This strikes me as intellectually dishonest and unwise, akin to using a dangerous power tool without first reading the directions. Herein, I briefly cover the usual course material from such as class. The professors, many of whom have never been in a court, let alone argued for or against the Constitution, regurgitate the rulings of different courts regarding a limited number of subjects. While there is an occasional discussion of the reasoning behind the opinions, they are generally viewed as sacred, unswerving law. Rare instances where history has determined the rulings to be invalid (i.e. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)– slavery is okay pre war between the States) are swept under the proverbial rug, written off as mistakes made due to the prevailing thoughts of the cases’ times.

(Prof. Laurence Tribe’s ConLaw Book. Google Images.)

As I have written elsewhere, no reference to Natural Law is made and no critical thought is given to the “why” behind the laws. As Max Tucker wrote recently, any student who dares to pose dissenting views or arguments is detested noticeably by the other students and the faculty. Rarely, student are given the opportunity to delve into the deeper meanings of the cases they study. I was fortunate to be able to write a short essay on the effects of Scott, in which I decried its universal sadness and the role it played in the schism in our nation circa 1861. Part of my essay was read aloud to the class by our professor – another rarity, a former practicing attorney. My points were well accepted. Of course, I had the benefit of over a century of progress on my side. Other topics, which require hypothetical deconstruction, are roundly ignored.

As with all other areas of the law, Constitutional law has degenerated into a study of the constantly shifting case-law which arises under the Constitution. By the way, I always capitalize the “C” in Constitution out of reverence for the document and its place in our Republic (I do the same for “Republic” too). I have explained my philosophical troubles and doubts about the Constitution but, due to my sworn allegiance to it, I am honor-bound to defend its ideals.

Case-law study is important and has a valid place in the legal practice. After all, most attorneys make a living pushing various issues in courts through individual cases. Each provision of any law is subject to some interpretation as part of its application to the circumstances of the real world. The trick of “strict construction” application of the Constitution is to adhere as closely as possible to the text and plain meaning of the old parchment. I follow strict construction as my approach to most laws, in and under the Constitution. The first fork of any analysis is to determine if the issue scrutinized is compatible with the underlying law. If the two are compatible, then the analysis shifts to application of your set of facts to the law. If there is an incongruity, then it is necessary to decide whether the law is improper or if the facts are insufficient for action.

Here’s a brief, over-generalized example, ripped from the recent headlines!: Mary lives in New York City; she is an avid consumer of Coca-Cola beverages, particularly in large volumes. Mary went to the corner store in Hell’s Kitchen and ordered a 40-ounce frozen Coke treat. She was informed by the clerk that a drink of such heft was just outlawed by the wise and magnanimous mayor of NYC, Michael “Soda Jerk” Bloomberg. Mary, offended and hurt, contacts an attorney in order to take action against the mayor and the city. Her attorney files a lawsuit seeking an injunction or some other remedy to force the city to curb its policing of soft drink size. Upon reviewing the case, a judge decides that NYC’s ordinance is too vague to be enforceable and strikes it down accordingly. Mary happily continues on her guest for obesity. This represents proper application and analysis of the law and the facts – in this case Mary’s freedom to drink liquid sugar in peace.

Had Mary had a more pressing cause – say a desire to legally and permanently rid herself of a troublesome in-law and she requested her attorney file a similar action to invalidate New York’s statute against murder, her attorney would have likely declined the case. If he was a fool, and filed an action anyway, the attorney would lose as any court would side with the law irregardless of Mary’s malicious desires. While it is proper to allow peaceful people to purchase and consume products of their desire, it would be improper and an affront to Natural Law, to allow someone to kill another person without good cause (i.e. self-defence).

These examples are extremely simple, but they demonstrate my core points. The problem in the law has arisen from the over deference to certain laws as applied to the real world. Today, the Constitution is not interpreted as strictly dictated by its own terms or by my previous explanation of the powers it grants. As I noted before, a few select clauses have been given immortal omnipresence to the extent the entire document has been rendered a nearly lost cause. All of these clauses give extra, unintended authority to the government to regulate and control everything. Through various cases over the years, the courts have essentially made up the law or, at least by their interpretation of the laws, have allowed over-reaching actions of the government to stand as legitimate.

Popular of late is the criticism of “activist judges” who take on the role of a legislator in their quests to rewrite the laws of Congress. Some courts have gone so far as to divine new rights and powers mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a poster case for such activism. In Roe, the Supreme Court opined that abortion of unborn children is a right of pregnant women. This right stems, allegedly, from the women’s “liberty interest” in their own bodies. While not found in the text of the Bill of Rights (or elsewhere), this right does exist and should be protected. However, the right, like all rights, has limits. The high Court did not adequately consider the rights of the unborn children to be secure in the integrity of their own bodies during its decision. Instead, the Court issued an incomprehensible psuedo-scienticifc approach to determined when a life becomes a life. Medical science has definitely answered any related questions in favor of the unborn. However, as is, about 1 Million children are murdered every year thanks to the Roe decision. This was a case of improper balancing of competing interests under the umbrella of the law.

I do not roundly condemn “activists.” Sometimes it is advantageous for a jurist to heavily scrutinize the law if the law actually impinges on protected rights. The New York soda decision is a good, if oddly worded, example. Problems happen when judges do not universally review the impact of a law, standing or undone. It is also impermissible in a Republic for a court to institute new law – the domain of the legislature only.

I will herein briefly explain a few of those key clauses and ideas of the Constitution which have given the federal government unlimited power over your lives. These are the basis for Constitutional study in law schools. In summary it suffices to say that they can and do anything they please, without hinderance.

The General Welfare Clause

This clause purportedly allowed Congress to use its defined powers for the betterment of all people. It has been held it “has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). However, in conjunction with other provisions, the clause has been used to justify countless spending sprees directed towards the profit of a select few, often at the expense of the People.

The Commerce Clause

Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.” Constitution, Art. I, Section 8, Clause 3. Rather than regulating commerce between the listed entities, this clause has been egregiously abused to empower Congress to regulate anything which can conceivably occur wishing any of the stated territories. The poster case of the clause is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) in which the Supreme Court declared that wheat grown by a farmer may not necessarily be used privately by the farmer because such use (bread baking) might negatively affect interstate commerce, the ability of bread companies to sell the farmer bread. While defying belief, this case and its ilk are recited as if dictated by Jesus by law professors coast to coast. The Commerce Clause saw minor setbacks in the 1990s but it remains as the basis for most criminal and civil statutes enacted by Congress. Arguing against commerce connections in court is as successful as herding alley cats. I know this from personal experience.

The Necessary and Proper Clause

This clause, known also as the “elastic clause,” appears in Article I, Section 8, Clasue 18. It provides that Congress can authorize the steps required to implement their other enumerated powers. The Anti-Federlists argued against this provision, fearing it would allow the central government to assume endless power in the name of affecting those valid programs instituted under the named authorities. Turns out they were right. In conjunction with the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause has been used to justify federal intrusion into everything. It was necessary and proper to prohibit farmers from utilizing their own crops to preserve commerce, and so forth.

National Security

“Patriotism” is regarded as the last refuge of a scoundrel. Frequently, it is the first. There exists an idea that an allegation that a legal measure is warranted in order to preserve security or defeat some enemy regardless of any other factors. Frequently, the government will assert this as a defense in a court case in order to avoid any discussion of the underlying subject matter (torture, internment of citizens, etc.). This tactic usually stops the case dead in its tracks. In a true emergency such a policy might serve a valid purpose. However, as we now are told we live under perpetual threat of all sorts of impropriety, the argument is used as a universal repeal of our rights. History indicates that “emergencies” never go away. For instance, 68 years after winning World War II, we still station troops in Japan and Germany. We also have a portion of our incomes withheld prematurely for taxation purposes – this was supposed to be a temporary war-time measure of WWII. History also shows that a government will do anything to maximize its power under a security “threat,” including the manufacture of threats from nothing.

Taxation

“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create….” Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). Governments have proven themselves able to destroy just about anything, they create next to nothing. Originally, our government was funded by tariffs and import fees and simple requests to the States for assistance. The advent of the 16th Amendment gave Washington awesome power to take as much money as the need from the people’s labors. The illegal Federal Reserve scheme allows them to create additional monies at will. The courts have constantly upheld the power of taxation even when Congress didn’t know they were implementing a tax. See: The Obamacare decision, Slip Opinion 11-393, June 28, 2012. Taxation gets its own law school class – where it is worshipped like a god. Dissenters are frowned upon as heretics (I know…).

A Few Rights

Over the years, several levels of scrutiny have been assigned to several pet rights. I am suspicious of each of these levels and will not bore you with their application. For the most part they apply rights based on classification of persons and against the backdrop of government “interests.” It is interesting that usually deference is given to a particular law; the law is presumed Constitutional absence some showing that it is an abuse impermissible under one of the abstractly devised levels of scrutiny. I would prefer deference to the Liberty of the People, with the government left to prove conclusively their law does not infringe that right or that any infringement is necessary in order to secure greater liberties for all.

Most Constitutional law teaching about “rights” center on the First Amendment. There is usually a class devoted singularly to the subject. The First is worthy of great attention. However, too often the cases studied thereunder tend to regard outrageous acts. Rather than securing rights to fundamental speech for example, such as protesting abortion, educating potential jurors, and protecting free speech during an election, the courts have wasted much time protecting things like naked dancing and wearing offensive sloganed t-shirts.

Voting rights, due process, and equal protection in general have also received great review. However, given the steady deterioration of fundamental due process and equal protection, it is obvious there is a systemic bias towards the government over the free people. For example, Rand Paul’s protests aside, next to nothing has been done in response to the President’s plan to murder Americans in America using drones and no legal process. The scheme is likely to survive (hopefully unused) due to deference to vague assertions of “national security.”

The rest of the Constitution is left in the dark void of undecided law. It is either taken for granted that such matters will be resolved in due course by the courts or simply that the provisions have no effect. In law school I was bluntly told that the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments didn’t exist. I found this hard to believe. Now, with several positive court cases to lean on, the Second has been given some legitimacy though many “scholars” still remain grounded in the ancient, misdirected past. On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 I will attend a symposium on the Second Amendment, replete with reference to these lost interpretations. I have several questions sure to generate discussion and maybe laughter among the gathering. Join me if you will.

If you teach Constitutional law, incorporate the actual text into your class. It could be a prerequisite, covered at the beginning of the semester and then referred to during the subsequent discussion of cases. Attorneys need to familiarize themselves with the text of the Constitution, everyone else should too.

Together, each of us acting as we may, we may be able to slowly restore a rational teaching and application of the Constitution. Perhaps someday we will return to the looser confines of the Articles of Confederation, allowing the member States of the Union (closer to their respective citizens) to affect policies towards the People. With an eye towards ultimate freedom, I can envision an even less restrictive society. I am reminded that “anarchy is better than no government at all.” I’m not sure society is ready for that level of responsibility yet. Someday…

Don’t Drone Me, Bro!

07 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

14th Amendment, 9/11/2001. 12/7/1941, Americans, army, Austin Rhodes, banksters, Big Club, capitalism, children, Clay Whittle, Constitution, Cornfield County, corporatism, Daivd Koresh, drones, due process, Eric Holder, feds, Fifth Amendment, filibuster, GA, government, guilt, idiots, innocence, JAG, Jesus Christ, King John, law, law enforcement, lies, Magna Carta, murder, Natural Law, poor bird, Posse Comitatus Act, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Scott Dean, Senate, sheriff, tanks, taxes, Texas, the Devil, The Empire, Thomas More, Waco massacre

This post rambles from subject to subject. Be forewarned.

Drones…

Just last night I thrilled you, my dear readers, with a few news stories concerning the law. While Attorney General Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder refuses to prosecute super-rich banksters for criminal wrong-doing, he has no problem using drones to murder “ordinary” Americans for any reason or no reason. Well, in his defense, He said the drones would only be used to thwart catastrophic events like the 9/11/2001 or Pearl Harbor attacks. I don’t believe him. It doesn’t matter since he’s not in charge of when the triggers are squeezed.

This morning I was listening to the radio and had the privilege of hearing my friend Austin Rhodes (WGAC, 580 AM, Augusta) give his morning commentary. He initially praised Senator Rand Paul (Ron’s son) for his filibuster yesterday which targeted the administration’s dystopian law enforcement policies. Then he surprised me. He, playing devil’s advocate, asked if a drone strike on David Koresh (remember him?) in 1993 would have prevented the later bloodshed at Koresh’s Seventh Day Adventist Church in Waco, Texas. At first I was indignant but then I realized the value of his question. The ultimate answer is “who knows?” No-one does for certain.

It is my opinion that the government was out to get Koresh and his senior worshippers and would have slaughtered them all anyway. Austin and I disagree on the nature of the events that unfolded in Waco twenty years ago. That’s the beauty of America, we can agree to disagree.

There was much disagreement in early 1993, regarding the pre-assualt on the church. For instance, the warrant obtained by the Imperial stormtroopers was defective. Perhaps they could not decide on what, if anything, was wrong with Koresh and Co. That might explain the defects in the law sited to obtain the warrant. The local Sheriff and the State of Texas disagreed with the feds that crimes were being committed in the church. A JAG officer (military attorney), when asked about the legality of deploying military assets for this domestic law enforcement “operation,” disagreed with his inquirers. He reported the scheme was illegal, a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, etc. The first Stormtroopers on the scene must have disagreed about the wisdom of carrying communication devices in case something went wrong, whether to open fire immediately upon exiting their horse trailer (official police version), and whether the church members would return fire.

In the end, the dissenters were silenced. The rest is history. As I recall the Empire had several grounds for the War in Waco: 1) income tax evasion; 2) illegal drugs; 3) illegal firearms; and 4) the abuse of children. I think they eventually proved the tax count as they can prove that against almost anyone due to the psychotic nature of our tax laws and regulations. I think there was no evidence of the guns or drugs – any existing specimens would have been destroyed in the government’s fire. As for the children, while I recall some survivors insisted there had been some sort of impropriety, most (all?) of the children were killed in the fire or crushed to death beneath the Army’s 70-ton tank. Some may have been shot by snipers. Anyway, there wasn’t a lot of evidence after the fact.

Still, none of this answers Austin’s question. I’ll pose a question which is easy to answer definitively: Would a drone strike on Rev. Koresh been legal? Two questions, really – Would the drone strike have been ethical? The answer to both questions is a certain “NO!”

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is clear – “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (Emphasis added). The Fourteenth Amendment backs up the Fifth’s Due Process provision. These concepts date back the Magna Carta in 1215. The truth is eternal, it remains the same in 1215, 1791, 1993, or 2013. The theory is that if the government wants to kill someone, they must adhere to a certain process. We generally refer to the key part of the process as a trial (Jury, evidence, and stuff). The theory jives with what that crazy carpenter, Jesus Christ, talked about twelve centuries before King John admitted his authority was not arbitrary.

For those of you who might have heard Austin and taken his question as a simple endorsement by mistake, how about this: Would Sheriff Whittle’s use of a drone against Scott Dean saved us the trouble and expense of a trial? He was convicted, after all, by twelve wise citizens. The fact of his innocence and his accuser’s later recantation are irrelevant for this discussion. For those of you fortunate enough not to live in Cornfield County, Scott Dean was a County Commissioner. He adopted some girls. One of the girls, a teenager with a history of lying in court, accused him of a heinous crime. He denied any guilt but was convicted none the less. He went to prison. Then, his lying adopted daughter, safely out of the country, admitted she made the story up and Dean was in fact innocent.

Since the recent revelation of Dean’s innocence I’m sure the twelve men and women who sent him to prison have the utmost difficulty sleeping at night. Can you imagine the Sheriff’s guilt and shame had he used a drone instead of the law? Natural Law and its proper extensions in the corporeal world are important. “I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!” Saint Thomas More, A Man For All Seasons, 1966.

Due Process of law is a Natural Right to which every person is entitled when human laws exist. This was obvious to earlier generations of Americans.

Too Big…

In my recent second installment of Slavery In America, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/slavery-in-america-part-ii-of-iii/, I mentioned the Big Club members who are invested in our modern plantation. The giant banks are charter members of the club. I mentioned their immunity from criminal prosecution last night. It seems they are too big to fail, too big to jail, and they are rapidly sucking up all the wealth in this country. See this story: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/corporatism-a-system-of-control-designed-by-the-monopoly-men-of-the-global-elite. It’s about “corporatism,” the fascists’ bastardization of capitalism. It’s an excellent article from an eye-opening site.

It Could Be Worse…

We could all be stuck in a cage and abandoned at the car wash…

(This poor guy was! He was happily adopted though!)

Yeah, ramblin more than normal… 🙂

Politics

27 Wednesday Feb 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Uncategorized

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

academic, Alex P. Keating, America, Amerika, anarchist, budget, bullshit, Congress, conservative, Constitution, coroporations, D.C., debt, Debt Clock, democracy, Democrats, Dennis Kucinich, drones, due process, Emperor Palpatine, entertainment, evil, faction, Family Ties (TV show), Federal Reserve, finance, Founder's Almanac, George Washington, government, Greek, H.L. Mencken, Heritage Foundation, history, illegal, insurance, interest, libertarian, libertarians, Liberty, lies, media, Medicaid, Medicare, military-industrial complex, Minority Report, money, Obama, ObamaCare, office, P.J. O'Rourke, parasites, Parliament of Whores, political parties, political theory, politician, politics, poly, ponzi scheme, Presidency, Rand Paul, Republican, Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Social Security, special interests, States, stupidity, tariffs, taxes, television, terrorists, the children, The People, three branches, ticks, War, Washinton, welfare

“Politics” comes from ancient Greek roots. “Poly,” of course, means “many” and “Ticks” are little blood-sucking parasites. Thus, “politics” means: many little blood-sucking parasites. I really wish I could attribute that definition to my own genius but I feel overly honest today.

(Emperor Palpatine, the ultimate politician. Source: Google Images.)

Wikipedia says “politics” is “the art or science of influencing people on a civic, or individual level…” See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics.

I have studied politics (formally and informally) since around 1980. In those days, everyone in the South tended to be Democrats, party-wise. My parents were proud Democrats at the time and were horrified when Ronald Reagan won the Presidency. I watched on. As the years progressed, I decided I was a “conservative” and, therefore, a Republican, much like Reagan.

I watched Family Ties back then and might have been influenced by the antics of Alex P. Keating. Then came the Rush Limbaugh era; I listened everyday after high school while working as a runner for a local law firm. I knew Rush was right. Well, something in my subconscious had doubts. In college I drifted into libertarian thought and have remained there ever since. As the years pass I become closer and closer to a full-blown anarchist.

During this time, while I descended from a believer in minimal government to a dreamer about no government, reality took a turn for the worse. The whole of my dear country seems to have gone the other way! Whereas we had a big government when I was a child, now we have a GIGANTIC monstrosity of a government that seems to grow geometrically ever second.

Hence my disconnect from the world of practical politics. It is patently obvious that there is no discernible difference between the two major parties in America – they both lead to bigger and more controlling governance. Over the years I supported several politicians in various ways – both Republicans and Libertarians (I have Democrat friends too). My support usually faded away with my short, rambling attention span. I have never been a member of any party. I am proud of that; I hate political parties.

(Politicians soliciting contributions. Google Images.)

In his Farewell Address to the nation, President George Washington devoted nearly two pages to warning the people about party politics. He began: “Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.” Thereupon he listed the many dangers of “faction” at the expense of Public Liberty. He closed with a thought on excessive party politics: “A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.” See: The Founder’s Almanac, pp. 309 – 310, The Heritage Foundation, Washington 2002. Given Washington’s fame and standing you would think more people would have listened; they did not and American “democracy” became an all-consuming conflagration.

H.L. Mencken wrote in the Minority Report (1956): “Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – both commonly succeed, and are right.” Mencken defined “democracy” as “the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” Every election since has proved him right on both counts.

The most excited I ever got about any election(s) was in 2008 and 2012 supporting Ron Paul. I knew then Dr. Paul was an anomaly in American politics. My fellow citizens chose a different path and now Dr. Paul is retired. With him, at the end of 2012, went Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Washington is now devoid of any statesmen whatsoever and the only small impediments to Total Government are gone. I would like to believe Dr. Paul’s son, the other Dr. Paul, will follow in his father’s hallowed footsteps; I don’t think it will happen.

I have decided to waste no more time following the stupidity (which worsens daily) of field level politics. My personal academic concentration is now centered on political theory or philosophy and the history thereof. A good friend of mine says that America is finished, like a $500 car in need of $5000 worth of repairs. For our generation I fear he may be on to something. Still, I hold some hope for the future.

My fledgling professional academic career is and will be focused on educating younger persons about the mistakes of faith in politics and government, the evils resulting from such faith, and alternatives to the status quo.

Perhaps the most honest book ever written about American politics is Parliament of Whores by P.J. O’Rourke (1991). The title says it all. Inside the reader will discover, among many other witty things, a whole section of chapters entitled, The Three Branches of Government: Money, Television and Bullshit. Perfect.

Government and politics in general, particularly in America, really do center on O’Rourke’s three “branches.”

Money in politics is not necessarily the root of all evil, but it certainly is the tool of all evil in politics. It takes a lot of money to get elected to national or state office in the first place. Savy politicians set up campaign funds legally designed to break or sidestep any campaign finance laws in the way. Then the ticks turn around and suck blood from any source to fill their funds. Sometimes they contribute a little of their own money but most of it comes from “donors.” People all over give a little here and there to help some bozo get elected; once elected the bozo ignores the little people. The big bucks come from the special interest groups, they get the politician’s attention post-election.

Money flows into Washington, D.C. and the several State capitals by the dump truck load. Giant corporations and the super rich constantly brib ..er.. give to elected officials in all kinds of ways. Sometimes they support a pet project of the tick’s (charity, etc.), sometimes they provide booze and hookers, they give kickbacks and favors, and sometimes they just give plain old cash in brown- paper grocery bags. The amount of money flowing into the Capital is astounding, but it pales in comparison to the money flowing out.

This year, like last year, the federal government will spend something like 3.5 Trillion dollars per its official “budget.” I just put “budget” between quotation marks because Congress hasn’t put forth an actual budget, as required by the Constitution, in years. Alarmingly, the vast majority of federal spending is on UnConstitutional programs. The government spends a huge percentage of that money out of debt. Fully a third of the budget is borrowed these days. Check out the U.S. Debt Clock for a good fright: http://www.usdebtclock.org/. In fact, I believe the borrowed sum exceeds the amount paid by individual taxpayers. Corporations also pay for a larger portion of the budget than do the individual taxpayers. However, as with any business expense, corporations pass their taxes along to customers via higher prices for their goods and services. So the People ultimately pay those taxes as well. Aaaaand, guess who guarantees the huge debts run up by the ticks? Yes, taxpayers again. So, Ma and Pa America have to pay for all the illegal, unnecessary spending of the government, even when they receive no representation for their money.

Like I said, most government programs are not grounded in the Constitution and are therefore illegal. Of the $3.5 trillion spent, Medicare and Medicaid get about $800 billion. They are not in the Constitution. Social Security, the third rail of tick-dom, gets a similar amount. Not in the Constitution. Our never-ending, foreign, undeclared wars of aggression get a slightly smaller amount. Being undeclared and indefensible, they to are also illegal. The total of interest on the national debt, federal pension costs, and various welfare programs get a similar amount of funding. Like undeclared warfare, specific welfare is also illegal. As none of the programs are needed there is no need for all the federal employees vested in those pensions. If the government didn’t spend so damn much money there would be no debt and, thus, no interest. The “legitimate” functions of the federal government are mostly unnecessary anymore, and those that are should really only cost us a few hundred billion dollars per year at most. That could easily be covered by tariffs and import fees – as the government was supposed to be funded and was funded for years without trouble.

I could go on and on with the money stuff but we still have television and bullshit….

Television is really representative of all major media, both news and entertainment, in this nation. Whether you get your news on TV, from the radio, or from a print medium, it’s all the same. The government puts out a line of crap and the media runs with it. Very seldom in America are we treated to any critical reporting anymore. Remember those special interests? They own the media nearly completely. Towing the line is part of the overall scheme.

This scheme extends into non-news entertainment. Reality shows, pro sports, pop music and other trivial pursuits are the modern bread and circuses of Amerika. While you drunkenly watch 300-pound men decked out in pink play with a ball, the government is stealing you blind and destroying your country. The ticks laugh at you too.

Bullshit. It’s a crude term but it accurately describes everything I’ve been writing about. It’s also all you ever get from the government. Mostly everything you hear, see, or read from the government or its pet media are outright lies. Very little the ticks do is honest or important so they have to concoct wild stories to get you to go along – provided you even pay attention, most people do not. For instance, when Washington goes to war the ticks always say it’s over something noble like “keeping the world safe for democracy” or “fighting the ‘terrorists’.” Saying they want to keep profits high for the military-industrial complex (a special interest) doesn’t sound as good. When President Obama announced ObamaCare, he didn’t say he wanted windfall profits for the insurance and finance companies of America (special interests). He said it was all to help the children, or the less fortunate, or you and me. Bullshit!

And when the government and the ticks tell the truth, it’s truly frightening. The Whitehouse says it will use drones to kill Americans without Due Process. You better believe they will! When Congress authorizes an illegal ponzi scheme like Social Security or an illegal monopoly like the Federal Reserve (the biggest special interest of all), they do so openly and with impunity.

My point is … well, I’ve already made it – I do not like modern, practical politics and for good reason.

The next time you come into contact with a tick, instead of giving it money and voting it into office, get out the tweezers and the alcohol. I’m Perrin Lovett and I approve this message.

Droning On and On

15 Friday Feb 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Uncategorized

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Afghanistan, Americans, Amerika, Ares, Chris Dorner, Congress, Constitution, Courts, crimes, Declaration of War, drones, due process, equal protection, executive order, FAA, freedom, George Bush, Hitler, Iraq, Jacobin, Jimmy Carter, lies, military, murder, neo-cons, New York Times, Obama, polce state, Posse Comitatus, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, terrorism, tyranny, Waco, War, White House, World Trade Center, Yemen

Suddenly, in the midst of the deprivations of the Imperial police state, a controversy has arisen! I imagine it will die down (literally perhaps). The same neo-con nuts who gleefully embraced preemptive war, torture, and summary execution of “fara-ners” with rabid, Ares-worshipping lust have suddenly found a reason to be concerned about similar tactics. Apparently, these Jacobin decepticons were previously unaware of the prolific and deadly use of armed, un-maned drones in the War on Freedo..er..Terror.

Now there is a great uproar over President Sotoro’s claim, cleared legally by the Just-Us department, unopposed by the loyal and useless opposition in Congress, and unaddressed by Federal Courts, to have the unilateral authority to kill any American citizen by drone strike anywhere, at any time, and for any reason or for no reason.

You may recall the Obama’s warning to his daughter’s potential suitors: “I have two words for you — predator drones.” See the Emperor in action here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4. We all laughed. Hahahahuuuuuh…. The man was serious it seems. Now it appears that these flying hunter-killers are intended to quell any Amerikans out of line, not merely stupid teenage boys who hit on the wrong girls.

By Executive Order (an act of Congress without an act of Congress) the President has established a “kill list” of suspects, terrorists, others (political dissenters??), the occupants of which may be targeted for death by Hellfire missile at the President’s individual whim. Hitler is probably kicking himself in hell for not thinking of something similar. Americans are not exempted from the list. No need to trouble a grand jury, the police, or the Courts! No need for antiquated concepts like Due Process or Equal Protection. Just press a button and … BOOM! Problem solved. All of this takes place in secret as to protect us serfs.

The New york Times has warned that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue may be engaging in a “‘Whac-A-Mole’ approach to counterterrorism” (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0). Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, does it not? Silly old Jimmy Carter was laughed at for once stating he sought nuclear policy advice from his daughter. Now we have a deadly serious policy operating on the principles of a carnival game.

(This thing may be coming for you, Amerika. Source – Google Images, fair use.)

Many ordinary citizens, when confronted with such awful reality often retort, “It can’t happen here!” Sadly, while not necessarily occurring on American soil, it has already happened to three Americans overseas. Samir Khan and Anwar al-Awlaki along with Awlaki’s 16-year-old son were blasted by a missile from a drone. (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16856963-american-drone-deaths-highlight-controversy?lite). These individuals were allegedly involved in some sort of terrorist activity in Yemen. Details are scarce in this case, absent altogether really. Per the President’s Order the public (and Congress, etc.) need not know any reasons behind such actions. Tyrants usually do not to explain themselves.

This is the current poster case of drone abuse. Considering the government goes to extraordinary lengths to keep its criminal activities secret, there may be other incidents of extra-legal drone killings (murder). I have friends in and out of the legal community who defend such actions as warranted under the “War” on terror. Can you recall when Congress declared war on terror? They did not. They did authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq and Afghanistan based on numerous lies concocted by the previous administration. I suppose this “War” extends to Yemen and, now, world-wide. The most Honorable Ron Paul objected to this carte blanche authority and urged his lower-IQ colleagues in the House to consider a Declaration of War, as mandated by the Constitution. Remember the Constitution? Congress has not declared war since 1941 and probably never will again. Rules are so hard to follow; sworn oaths be damned.

Reports have been issued that these mechanical terror birds are currently in use over the good old U.S.A. for domestic surveillance purposes. The details, again, are scant at best. A rumour floated around the newsrooms that drones were used to hunt accused criminal Christopher Dorner in California. Is it possible the fire which killed Dorner might have been started by a warhead detonation rather than the (constantly shifting) reasons given by the authorities involved in the case? Dorner was described as a “domestic terrorist” after all by L.A. Police Chief Charlie Beck. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/10/ex-cop-manhunt-continues/1906999/). Perhaps Beck made a phone call to the White House. I speculate wildly and perhaps without cause.

On Wednesday the Federal Aviation Administration assured the shepple that there will never be any armed drones over Amerikan soil. See here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/13/faa-official-no-armed-drones-us/. Some, like Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul, Dr. Ron Paul’s son, fear the President might someday use armed drones to kill more citizens here at home. Now we know we are safe – the government told us so. This would be the same government that told us income tax withholding would cease just as soon as Hitler and Tojo were licked. The same government that told us about the great naval battle in the Gulf of Token, the evil of the Waco TX Seventh Day Adventists, and the collapse of World Trade Center Number 7. We have nothing to worry about! Really!

I can sense, telepathically, that you don’t believe this latest lie. You may recall that on the same day they “pulled” WTC No. 7, the FAA temporarily lost control of the nation’s airspace to the Imperial military. Your flights were cancelled and all. It’s the same military that will dispatch the armed drones to engage all of you “domestic tarr-ists” whether the FAA likes it or not. The FAA answers to Little Barry and when (if) he tells them to step aside, they will without a word of protest.

A long, long time ago, back when America more resembled a free country, Congress took up the subject of lower tech military threats against Americans in America. The result was the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibited the use of military troops or assets in domestic law enforcement. For years this law sat on a shelf in Washington until it was completely covered with dust. By strange chance a night cleaning crew uncovered it while trying to tidy up after Watergate. The law was promptly re-addressed by the Congress and essentially nullified. It’s still on the books though it has never been used – ever. Rarely does a federal law go unused. I am (or was) an expert on this little gem of legal security and you can look for a near future discussion of the same at this site.

There are many potential solutions to this quandary: impeachment, nullification, Congressional oversight, etc. You can (and should) write your representative in Mordor to recommend and demand such action; do not expect results. Reinvigorating and strengthening (and applying) the Posse Comitatus Act might be a way to solve the neo-cons’ worries. Oh, I almost forgot about them. They do tend to be annoyingly forgettable, don’t they? I think their concern stems from the party association of this particular President rather than his policies.

The ever-wafting neo-fascists were enthusiastic, as noted above, when a Republican president used similar heavy handed measures. “D” and “R” convey tremendous power. Last year, as in 2008, the RepunliCONS had a good chance to stand behind a man who would have never allowed such atrocities to befall the American people. At the time, though, the nuts declared Dr. Ron Paul to be an isolationist and a wachco. Would they agree now that a wacho beats a dictator?