• About
  • Books
  • Contact
  • Education Resources

PERRIN LOVETT

~ Deo Vindice

PERRIN LOVETT

Tag Archives: republic

Strange but True, Barring MAGA, All Bets are Off

12 Wednesday Sep 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

America, Constitution, Empire, Ken Starr, law, missiles, republic, Trump

The Fake News “Resistance” now, after decades of atrophy, seeks to protect the Constitution. Or something. Whatever it is, they’re aiming to protect against The Trump. Oddly, said Trump is the last vestige of hope for possibly restoring any semblance of Constitutional order. If he fails, then it’s over and we might as well let it go. “It” being the old Republic, now more of memory than an institution.

Trump. Trump. Trump. Russia. Russia. Russia. Fake news, impeachment, and indictment.

My old friend, Ken Starr says a sitting President can, in fact, be indicted for crimes.

“I think the president can be indicted,” said Starr, who led the investigation into former President Bill Clinton‘s sexual misconduct with Monica Lewinsky. “But that is not the position of the Justice Department traditionally.”

“The basic point is we do not have an authoritative resolution on the issue,” he said, noting it “cannot happen, as I see it, under Justice Department policy that’s enforceable on [Special Counsel] Bob Mueller.”

“No one is above the law,” he said. “And so in my judgment the president can in fact be indicted.”

I respect my friend’s learned judgment – as to his theory. But he seems a little caught up in the past. We are in a new and different place, legally. He’s probably correct – in theory – the president could be indicted.

However, a sitting president could now use (“legally”) something like the following to preempt any criminal proceeding:

pic_giant_050914_SM_Hellfire-Boko-Haram-3

Paper indictments do not stop AGM-114’s. NRO.

Do you like the new legal/political landscape? You know, if we’re honest, you voted yourselves into this imperial place. Pleased? If not, then say five “Hail Constitutions,” go forth, and vote no more, my children.

That, or hope Trump has a cool head and an iron constitution (not one of paper). Trust the plan?

Robot Road Warriors

09 Friday Sep 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Robot Road Warriors

Tags

America, cars, Constitution, Donald Trump, election, freedom, government, idiots, republic, robots, Ron Paul, The People

Every week I read about some dude dying because his Tesla or other “self-driving” car ran into a tree or under a truck. Right now, you get what you pay for (and foolishly accept). Tomorrow will be different. Tesla, Mercedes and Google are working out the bugs. The robot car is here to stay.

I predict in ten years they will have a significant portion of the motoring market. In twenty years they will be the majority of the vehicles out there. Some are worried about a decline in road etiquette.

I certainly agree though I can see a distinct benefit. I drive a lot and estimate 75-90% of American motorists are utterly incompetent. Proof of a benevolent God is in the fact that there are not 30 million traffic fatalities every year.

What is there to possibly lose? Right now the robots aren’t much better. But they are a little better. I know I could out drive any computer on the road today. Most people can’t. And they know it deep down inside.

Thus, in a few years they will welcome the car that drives for them. In fact, they may have no alternative.

Tesla is flooding the markets with their dealerships. Traditional “knock their heads off” dealers are not happy. Too bad. The traditional car market is about to start dying the death of the old publishing industry.

The problem for dealers is that not only will people in the future not drive, they won’t even own the self-driving cars. Uber is about to go driverless. (So are buses, trains, and ships. Planes won’t be far behind.) The idiot of the future who wants to go somewhere will think about it. The computer in his head will call for a car. The car will drive itself up and off they go. The trip will be debited, via computer, to the passenger’s account.

The Uber fleet companies of the future will all buy from the manufacturers. Bye, bye, dealers. Insurance companies are going to have to figure out a new way to rob people too.

For me personally, I look forward to trading vast swarms of slow, erratic clovers for slow, erratic robots. I’m already in the market for a new battering ram.

14224702_1312768835400218_7860521209569139133_n

“Move Over” painted in reverse on the grill, eh?

My biggest concern about all of this is that sooner or later the government will mandate robot cars. My love of V8 power, speed, and simplicity, coupled with my hatred of lights, beeps, buzzers, and talking computers already has me out of the existing new car market. All I’m left with is old trucks. I imagine those will be illegal in a decade or so.

So, my whole point of this is … does anyone know of a good, reliable, used Baron G58 or similar small twin-prop at a good price? A few more best sellers and I may be in the market. Y’all have fun with the robots on the road.

kingair_bb-1156_mg_4815banner

Textron. That’s a 200, I know.

***

In slightly related news, dealing with the death of the way things were:

Donald Trump says he is the last chance to elect a Republican. He’s right about that. It is now or never for my conservative friends.

What he really means is he is the last chance to have another four – eight years of talking about getting America back. At the same time he would probably hold the line slightly against the third-world slide.

I’ve said again and again that the only way to get back to the “good old days” of a responsible Constitutional Republic is to elect Ron Paul in 2008 (not in 2012 – too late). You missed that chance. Now, Trump offers a chance for an extension of the bitching about going back.

After that, after this presidential cycle is over (maybe once it begins), the party is over. It’s been over for a few years now but some of the guests are still reluctant to leave. Maybe when they finally go home they can ride in a robot car!

 

 

Powers Vs. Rights

16 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Powers Vs. Rights

Tags

America, anarchy, Articles of Confederation, Bill of Rights, Congress, Constitution, Courts, fantasy, freedom, God, government, law, law school, Liberty, Lysander Spooner, monarchy, Natural Law, politics, republic, rights, States, The People

This post concerns the force and effect of the United States Constitution and similar documents. I’ll stick with the U.S. version for simplicity and because most state and many foreign constitutions are based on the federal version.

The old parchment is divided into several articles and subsequent amendments. Each of these deals with different legal concepts. Article One grants certain powers to Congress. Article Two does the same for the executive. Amendment Three prohibits the government from sheltering soldiers in your house during peacetime. There are seven primary articles and twenty-seven amendments.

Aside from formal division the Constitution may be properly divided into two parts. Good Constitutional Law professors cover this in first year law school. The notice is generally lost amid a mad scramble to interpret Byzantine case-law and make a living as an attorney. The lesson is almost completely unknown outside of law and political theory education.

The first effective feature of the Constitution is that is allows powers for the government. In fact the Constitution created the federal government. In 1789 those seeking strong central political control replaced the Articles of Confederation which had loosely united the several (and wholly independent) states for a very few mutually beneficial purposes. The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, came along two years later as almost an afterthought.

The anti-federalists were concerned that certain fundamental rights needed official recognition and legal protection. Their theory was that a strong government, even of republican nature, could run roughshod over the freedoms of the people – like a dictatorial monarch. The amendments were added without much fuss as it was then concerned the new government, its keepers, and their successors would never seek to abridge such rights as freedom of speech, bearing arms, or freedom from illegal arrest and punishment. No one saw any harm in the additions.

The inclusion of those additional protections proved both prophetic and pointless. Those ten amendments and a few others comprise the other practical function of the Constitution – protection of individual rights.

In an ideal world government would only exist to protect people from those things they would be otherwise vulnerable to. The proper function of law and politics would be a careful balancing of the power of the government and the rights of the people. Powers versus rights. Some legal scholars still wax elegantly about the concept. Their conceptualization is largely just conceptual.

The new federal government lost little time in enacting various laws which curtailed individual liberty. The trend continues to this day in addition to the habit of constantly expanding the realm of federal authority light years beyond what the Constitution allows. The courts, allegedly the arbiters of the balancing test, have largely consented to this gross shift. They too wasted no time in inventing new authority for themselves – “judicial review” for example.

Any review usually ends up empowering the state. They are on the same team after all. The people, now bereft of representation and appellate avenues, are on the outside looking in. Lawyers gleefully await court decisions to tell them what laws really mean. The public, largely fat and ignorant, continues to support this corrupt system with astounding zealous patriotism.

As a result of all this what we are left with is a central government of unlimited power ruling over a nation of peasants who are happy to receive whatever liberty the rulers confer upon them. Every once in a while one or another branch kindly reaffirms some right. These are usually in trivial matters. However, the march to greater control never ceases. It works well as most do not favor freedom. Under the faux two-party system, most go along so long as their side wins on a somewhat regular basis.

In truth, they lose. We all lose. All except for the corrupt politicians and beaurocrats and their corporate crony enablers. The system is wrecked and bears nearly resemblance to even that central authoritarian regimes of the late seventeen Century let along an ideal state.

In modern reality ignorance abounds. Some speak of the right of the government to do some thing or the other. Governments have no rights as they are artificial constructs. Only human individuals have rights. These rights are natural, God-given. Governments can only protect or (more often) abridge those freedoms.

Others decry freedom outright. They declare the people have too many rights. For them, in their simple lives, they may be right. Argument for order and justice is lost on them and a waste of time.

There are those who indulge in the fantasy that a return to the original text and intent of the Constitution would usher in utopia. If this myth was anything but, I could agree with them. The federal government of 1791 would be infinitely better than what we suffer today. That of the Articles would be better yet.

The myth lovers assert the Constitution established a national government of limited scope. Maybe they are correct in theory. In real life no government worth its salt stays limited for long. Geometric growth of government is an iron law of political science.

bbnhyu66667

So it is with freedom and central authority. Mencken.

Lysander Spooner said it best of the lost war of Rights versus Powers: “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.” He elaborated: “A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government.”

I find my view of anarchy criticized at times as belief in fantasy. It is said that men, by their very nature, cannot be trusted for long to maintain free, peaceful association and mutual respect. This, sadly, may be true. It, then, is also true that an honest man, desiring to remain free, cannot trust a government, any government. Belief in central authority is thus misguided. Tell you what, you have your fantasy and I’ll have mine. The rest of you have a choice to make: support powers or support rights.

An Empire Not A Corporation

29 Thursday Oct 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on An Empire Not A Corporation

Tags

America, Articles of Confederation, Constitution, corporations, District of Corruption, Empire, faith, freedom, law, Pat Buchanan, politics, republic, The People, United States

Pat Buchanan wrote a great book – A Republic Not An Empire, (2002). I wrote this piece to answer something which troubled me from time to time. There is a theory out there in internet-land the United States is a giant corporation. It’s based on the same whimsical thinking that drives lottery sales and horoscopes.

Contrary to what you may read on Facebook the United States is not a corporation. Your birth certificate is not a stock certificate. You will not get rich by cashing in on the national debt. You might go to prison or worse but no money will come of it.

I’ve seen this enough to respond. It’s really a minor issue but I thought I should address it. I see the posts on Facebook from time to time. Posts like this:

The UNITED STATES of AMERICA is a corporation.

“The UNITED STATES of AMERICA is a corporation.Go to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.”

I did look at the law; not what it says or means. The mis-cited law only has to do with the government hiring attorneys for debt collection and similar purposes. See: 28 USC 3002. Boring, yes; Constitution shattering, no.

The theory also revolves around The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, 16 Stat. 419 (1871). Yet, all this law did was regulate the governance of the District of Columbia. Such is one of the very few explicit powers granted Congress by the Constitution, Art. I, Sect. 8, CLS. 17.

Never have I met anyone in person who openly espoused this theory. And, I visit with quite a few conspiracy theorists. Should you meet such a person, humor them – unless they try to involve you in a scheme to collect on your shares or something. That road leads to prison or the poorhouse.

TinFoilHatArea

It’s a scam. Google.

Here’s a more in-depth look at the claim: Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, The Daily Render, 2009. That’s really not worth reading and not worth quoting. It does shed light on the theory though. Why conceive of such fancy?

It seems simple. We do face some major problems today with “our” government. The theorists posit the U.S., in a state of disarray, bankrupted itself out of existence. In the place of the old republic those 19th Century geniuses left us with a national corporation. You, by birth, are a stock holder citizen and entitled to some vast sum of money based on the current national debt.

While the root rests on some disturbing truth, the rest is rubbish.

Some people really believe all of this. Part of the faith comes from a real realization that something is fundamentally wrong with America today. Part is based on tv-induced naivety and ignorance. Part on greed

This does not make sense economically. In order to cash in your “stock” – if everyone did, the only solution would be to print so much more funny money the currency would be worthless. So much for your shares. This fanciful belief makes the real problem even worse.

Let me briefly explain what the U.S. really is. The nation, following the too good success of the loose Confederation, was formed into a Constitutional Republic. Allegedly the rights of the free people were protected and the powers of the new government limited. Somewhere we fell off the wagon and those ideas were reversed. Both the authorities and the people were corrupted.

Today, the Constitution is an ignored artifact stuck away in a museum. Buchanan’s book aside the U.S. has degenerated into Empire, now approaching the late stages thereof. It’s an Empire without an emperor. Specifically, the political power is uneasilly split between ochlocracy (mob rule) and oligarchy (rule by the elite). The elite keeps the mob happy with handouts and spectacles and the mob keeps re-electing the elite. Cozy if crazy.

I’ve said before this country has owners – banks, insurance companies, and other well-connected entities. But their ownership is less like a corporation and more like a plantation. The mob plays the part of the slaves, stupidly trading their sacred freedom for false security and debased entertainment.

What to do? The corporate angle is too good to be true. Don’t believe it. Instead, believe in yourself and put your faith in a Higher Power. Whatever its form, if enough of us ignore the government long enough, it will go away.

We Are Rome

12 Wednesday Aug 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on We Are Rome

Tags

America, citizens, collapse, Edward Gibbons, elections, freedom, goverment, Paul Rosenberg, republic, Rome, Ron Paul, Washington

Paul Rosenberg has penned an excellent article corolating the end times of the Roman Empire with those times upon us current Americans.  He starts off with commentary on the coming federal election next year.  I have friends already excited about the prospects thereof.  Most are gleefully supporting Donald Trump.  Others are leaning intrepidly towards Rand Paul or even Bernie Sanders.

Were a gun to my head and I was forced to participate, I would support Dr. Paul, the younger. However, I still stand by my mantra from 2007-2008: Dr. Paul, Sr. was the final hope (in 2008) to reverse course and “save” the Republic.  That chance we missed. It is done. Over. The Donald can’t save us. Bernie can’t do it. Hillary can’t. Certainly none of the other has-beens trotted out for our inspection can.

Another American election cycle is upon us, and large numbers of people are lining up to pour their time and money into the sewer of politics, to be lost forever.

This system will not be fixed. Period. This is Rome in 460 AD. The rulers, as in Rome, are liars, mad, or drunk (these days, drugged)… or all three.

Rosenberg

Those living few who have consumed Edward Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire understand, in depth, what Rosenberg alludes to here.

Do we really believe that central bankers will just lay down their monopolies?

Can we seriously expect a hundred trillion dollars of debt to be liquidated without any consequences?

Do we actually believe that politicians will walk away from their power and apologize for abusing us?

Do we really think that the corporations who own Congress will just give up the game that is enriching them?

Does anyone seriously believe that the NSA is going to say, “Gee, that Fourth Amendment really is kind of clear, and everything we do violates it… so, everyone here is fired and the last person out will please turn off the lights”?

And does anyone believe that the military-industrial complex will stop encouraging war, or that corporate media will stop worshiping the state, or that your local sheriff will apologize for training his cops to be vicious beasts?

Do we really believe that public school systems will ever stop lauding the state that pays all its bills?

I could go on, but I think my point is made: This system will never allow itself to be seriously reformed. Trying to fix this is like trying to revive a long-dead corpse.

Rosenberg, Id.

The answers to these questions are all “no.” Interestingly, what we Americans have witnessed in the past few decades is more akin to the combined collapse of the Roman Empire and Republic than the Empire alone. What took the Romans 500 years we have accomplished in about 100. Technology? American exceptionalism?

romefalls

History.com.

The good news is vast. After the fall of Rome the world did not end. Ours will not either. By the time the Collapse was realized it had no effect on the average Roman citizen. Odd as it may seem, this will be our experience. The most damaging effects of the next turn will mostly be felt by banks, insurance companies, arms manufacturers and other mega-corpotations – hardly a pitiable crowd. For most people the change will go largely unnoticed. No more D.C.? Well then, just pay taxes to Atlanta or Boston or not at all.

For those who love State control, some government(s) will invariably crawl from the ruins of post modern Amerika. For those like me the lack of overwhelming regulation from Washington will be a much appreciated reprieve.  The future holds something for everyone in the short term. Over the long run bigger and better societies will emerge just as Rome was eventually replaced by the likes of Charlemagne, England and, in turn, us.

As for now, go ahead and vote as you like. It won’t change anything but it also cannot hurt.  As a bonus elections always provide comic (albeit criminal) relief.

St. Benedict approves this message.

 

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.

fiscal-irresponsibility

(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.

 

Far Beyond Control

13 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

America, anarchy, army, Bush, churches, Clinton, Congress, Courts, crazy, crime, Democrats, election, executive, fear, fools, freedom, George Carlin, government, law, law. people, military, Obama, Patriot Act, police, politicians, Posse Comitatus Act, republic, Republicans, Ron Paul, sheep, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, special forces, standing army, students, taxes, terror, Texas, U.S., veterans, voting

“Your” government is officially far past the point where it could be possibly reigned in. Next year must hold in store an election.  I keep hearing and reading that the Republicans and Democrats are preparing their usual assortment of tired psychopaths from which the little people are to select their future “leadership.”  It could be that I have stepped through a worm hole to the past because I keep hearing names like Bush and Clinton.

As George Carlin used to say, “this is the best we can do.”  It will never get better. Incredibly, it gets worse every four years.  I gave up on voting and political participation a long time ago.  I stand by my statement that the last, best chance we had to save the Republic was to elect Ron Paul President in 2008.  We missed it.  Today, I lead a happy life of personal anarchy.  My only involvement with the government is paying taxes and evading the traffic cops.  It works well.  The sheep still don’t see it.

You may have seen or read about the increasing militarization of government forces – the blurring of lines between domestic police and the standing martial army.  I wrote about it previously.

pi052704a1

(USA! USA!  Google.)

Speaking of blurred lines, I, being a recovering attorney, am THE expert on the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA).  The PCA was put into place many, many years ago to halt the use of military forces from providing ordinary law enforcement within the territorial confines of the U.S.  It has not worked.

Law after law and action after action have provided a myriad of exemptions to the PCA. Drugs, terror, riots, training – you name it.  The PCA is moot.

So it is today that most highly trained, deadliest and most feared elements of our armed forces – the special forces – are on the streets training with local police agencies.  It’s like Barney Fife meeting the Seals in Mayberry.  Otis better watch out.

The purpose of elite military forces is to carry out daring missions ABROAD (not at home) in order to disrupt enemy activities with minimal effort or notice.  They are the last force one should want operating amidst the people at home.  This too is lost on the MTV-watching public.

The people are afraid of everything.  Should the government announce pillow cases are tools of terrorism, the people will dutifully burn pillow cases in the town square.  The fools will demand and cheer as the government bombs pillow factories in places like Libya and Iraq.  Imaginary specters are fought with ferocity and pomp.

Meanwhile, real threats go virtually unnoticed.  Recently, the same week that saw the U.S. military engage in various live terror trainings in the Southwest (against fictitious enemies) saw real terrorists attack a cartoon convention in Texas.  Thankfully, for us, the sane, Texas is not Paris.  In the Lone Star State, muslin extremist face summary execution from even lone police officers.  Don’t mess with Texas.  But, no-one else has drawn the corollary (or disconnect) here.  The vaunted military trains for an attack the police can’t handle at the same time the police handle an attack the military can’t.  So it goes.

The sheep graze on.  Fox News, radio talkers and modern “churches” have instilled in the ignorant people a sense of worship for all things military, all things government – so long as it’s the American military and government.  When two groups of drunks meet at the beach, and fight, the sympathy of the nation goes to that group of martial disposition.  No mind is given to reality.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has just tried to put the brakes on the monstrosity known as the USA Patriot Act.  The Act was intended to grant additional unchecked power to the central government.  Some in the Judiciary have noted this and its underlying illegality.  It does not matter, as Ron Paul notes.  The Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/Bush/Clinton/Etc. executive is above the law and will refuse to abide by any Court ruling which limits their authority.  The Courts, truly least of the three branches, are powerless to enforce their rulings.  The Congress, fat, bribed and stoned into complacency, will do nothing.  The sheep graze.

So, pontificate as you will about the coming election.  I may listen but I won’t respond. I’m not rude, it’s just that I don’t believe in fairy tales no matter how entertaining. Next November, you go out and waste your time and energy, saving us from the other side. Afterwards, you may find me at the local bar or cigar shop doing what I do.  Or, you could just join me in freedom land.  Your choice.

Guarding Liberty?

20 Saturday Apr 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

America, CIA, Constitution, FBI, God, government, Liberty, Miranda, New York Times, Patrick Henry, rednecks, republic, Sixth Amendment, terror, The People, Tsarnaev

225 years ago, Patrick Henry remarked in a speech: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

We are hurdling toward our inevitable ruin.  The New York Times reports today that the Obama Administration is delaying both reading Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev his Miranda warnings and granting him an attorney, despite being questioned by the FBI.  I suspect most Americans could care less or, more likely, are happy about the situation.  Today at the gym and beyond I was treated to comments like, “They shoulda killed that thar tarrisss when they found heeem!” 

I understand passions run high in this case but, folks, we still live in a Constitutional Republic (if in name only).  I have sworn an oath to God Almighty to support and defend the Constitution and the rights of the People, even those (especially those) accused of committing crimes.

In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that criminal suspects must be read a short summary of their rights – you know these from TV cop shows – before being questioned.  The right to an attorney is set forth in the Sixth Amendment.  “Public safety” exceptions to the speed at which these rights are exercised have unwisely dripped out of the courts over the years.  In theory, the government can question Tsarnaev immediately concerning imminent threats.  However, once they began asking broader questions, the law should apply.  Concerning terrorism cases, the Justice [SIC] Department has advised the FBI to go as broad as possible from the start.  The courts have, by and large, stood by silently.  If his prosecution goes forward as a criminal case, without application of the law, any conviction or plea could be reversed.

Of course, he may be deemed an enemy combatant and hauled off to Gitmo or some CIA torture facility abroad.  Remember, our Dear Leader has declare himself capable of simply killing Americans at will, with or without evidence.  Perhaps that will be Tsarnaev’s fate.

Whatever happens, it is clear the jewel of our Liberty has been approached.  I suspect the government and its motives here.  The only force I can exert is here, via my writings.  This may enrage the “America.  F**k yeah!” rednecks.  I do not care.  Will you join me or give in to ruin?

The People Appreciate a Benevolent Dictator

18 Monday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Amerikans, beer, Constitution, dictators, dumps, electricity, eminent domain, Fifth Amendment, Freud, Georgia, Georgia Power Co., government, Kelo v. City of New London, Liberty, lobbyists, March Madness, Nascar, profits, public use, republic, Sallust, Savannah, Supreme Court, taking, taxes, The People, theft, ticks, Tom Bordeaux, TV

The title here is a quote from a Georgia Power Company lobbyist, made to the Georgia House Judiciary Committee in session, 2003.  The remark resulted in outrage from the audience and the committee.  I was present and among the most taken-aback members of the peanut gallery.

Eminent Domain is the process by which a government forcible condemns a piece of private property in order to make public use thereof.  The usual reasons for the practice include road, bridge, or other infrastructure projects.  The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states that no such “taking” shall occur without proper compensation.

The subject of the particular committee meeting was a review of Georgia’s unconscionable Constitutional provision allowing for eminent domain actions by private utility companies.  Such companies need not have the government condemn your land for power lines or plants, they can do it directly.  Yes, we actually have that here.  A resolution was before the General Assembly which called for a new Amendment to end the practice.  The hearing was a natural result.

20758472_BG1

(Madness under the Gold Dome.  CBS Atlanta.)

The hearing was chaired by the Hon. Tom Bordeaux of Savannah.  Tom is a capable attorney and a good politician though his tenure as chair was short-lived.  I was working as a legal intern at the State Administrative Office of the Courts at the time and covered the issue, one of the biggest of the 2003 session.  Anyway, representatives from various utility companies were on hand to defend the procedure as vitally necessary to the State’s economy and the well-being of the citizens.  Rowdy protesters and opposition speakers voiced other opinions. 

The general mood of the entire committee seemed dead set against the policy.  Tom remarked that if a new Constitution were drafted in 2003, it would certainly not entertain such legalized theft and trespass.  The existing provision dated from the early 20th Century when telephone and electric services were relatively new.  I suppose the ticks of the day deemed it necessary to modernize the Empire State of the South.  The issue in general was receiving major attention nationwide. 

Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Kelo v. The City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), said it was okay for the City to condemn land via eminent domain solely for the purpose of turning the land over to another private party – a developer.  The theory was that the older houses condemned would not generate as much tax revenue for the City as the proposed redevelopment complex would.  Thus, there existed a “public need” sufficient to justify the takings.  The plan went forward.  The homes were taken and leveled.  Then, fate delivered the City an ironic blow.  The developer failed to find financing for the redevelopment and abandoned the project.  The lots sat empty.  The land is now a dump.  I wonder how much revenue that generates, in addition to lovely odors?

Back in Georgia, the lobbyists gave their best explanations for keeping the Constitutional provision the way it was.  Essentially they said the people did not realize that they actually believed having electricity, etc. (not to mention corporate profits) were more valuable to them than the homes they reside in; silly people.  Their final argument was, “The people appreciate a benevolent dictator.”  When the fellow uttered those words the room grew silent.  Based on the dropped jaws and red faces of the committee members one would have suspected the lobbyist had just tried to rationalize child rape.

A hurricane of angry comments followed, a verbal lynching of the lobbyist.  I thought it was great.  He began to back-peddle immediately in stammering, apologetic fashion.  I have come to realize though his Freudian slip was, in fact, completely accurate.  Most (not all, but most) people DO appreciate a benevolent dictator.  I refer once again to my ancient friend, Sallust: “Only a few prefer Liberty, the majority seek nothing more than fair masters.”

People might get upset if a company or the government tells them to move out of their homes.  But, the odds are tremendous a taking will only happen to someone else.  In that case, the people could care less.  They are more than willing to sit by as their neighbors lose their homes so long as the loss results in more creature comforts in their own homes.  Cables and wires and such power televisions which display football, basketball, Nascar, reality shows, and pornos.  They allow for the refrigeration of cheap beer and processed food – staples of the Amerikan diet.  Air conditioning, internet, blabbing on the phone – the benefits are too numerous to list.

It is interesting to note the great debate over this subject has died down recently.  Not enough people care, not enough prefer Liberty.  In the end, the General Assembly did what it does best – nothing.  The provision is still there ten years later.  Poor Aunt Matilda may be very sympathetic when the bulldozers approach her house but she never contributes to political campaigns.  Arrogant utility companies and their lobbyists give away millions of dollars a year to the ticks.  They put their money where their foul mouths are.  They also get their way.

This is just a little something to consider when contemplating representative republicanism.  Okay, you can go watch March madness now.

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.

tribe conlaw

(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…

← Older posts

Perrin Lovett

FREE Ebook!

The Substitute – my first novel

NOTE! Much better, revised edition coming ASAP!

The Happy Little Cigar Book

Buy From Amazon! The perfect coffee table book!

Perrin On Politics

FREE E-book! Download now~

Right-Minded Social Media For Normal People

Freedom Roasters Coffee AND Apparel

Ritin’ @ Reckonin’

Archives

  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • 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

Prepper Post News Podcast by Freedom Prepper (sadly concluded, but still archived!)

Have a Cup!

Perrin’s Articles and Videos at FREEDOM PREPPER (*2016-2022)

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Join 39 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.