Congress more popular than Kardashians, Lohan, gonorrhea

Good news, Congress! You’re more popular than telemarketers, the deadly ebola virus, gonorrhea, the Kardashians, Lindsay Lohan, communism, disgraced Democratic former Sen. John Edwards, playground bullies and meth labs.

Bad news, Congress! Americans still have a higher opinion of head lice, colonoscopies, cockroaches, Nickelback, the NFL replacement refs, and Donald Trump.

Those are the findings of the latest they-have-way-too-much-fun-over-there survey by Public Policy Polling, which found that the legislative branch’s approval rating is mired at 9 percent. A whopping 85 percent of respondents said they disapproved. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

Public Policy Polling pitted Congress against a series of unpleasant things or unpopular people, and the results were not flattering for lawmakers. This will come as no surprise to some of the legislative branch’s critics, including Republican Sen. John McCain, who has said that only blood relatives and paid staffers think Congress is doing a good job.

So: Did respondents have a higher opinion of Congress or root canals? Congress gets drilled, 32 percent to 56 percent. NFL replacement refs? Easy call: Congress loses 29 to 56 percent. Head lice? Congress loses 19 to 67 percent (head-scratcher: the 15 percent who said they weren’t sure). Nickelback? Congress gets rocked 32 to 39 percent. Colonoscopies? Up yours, Congress, 31 to 58 percent. Inside-the-Beltway pundits? Here the Sabbath gasbags and their ilk eke it out 37 to Congress’s 34 percent. Donald Trump? You’re (barely) fired, Congress, you get 42 percent, versus the pundits’ 44 percent. And cockroaches scurry away with a 45 to 43 percent win.

It’s not all bad news for Congress. Americans rate lawmakers higher than telemarketers (45 to 35 percent); Edwards (45 to 29 percent); the Kardashian clan (49 to 36 percent, with 16 percent not sure); lobbyists (48 to 30 percent), North Korea (61 to 26 percent), ebola (53 to 25 percent with 21 percent apparently not sure whether they prefer their elected representatives over death after bleeding from various bodily orifices); Lindsay Lohan (though the 45 to 41 percent ratio falls well within the margin of error); Fidel Castro (54 to 32 percent); communism (57 to 23 percent); and gonorrhea (53 to 28 percent).

Of course, even though the survey was conducted Jan. 3-6, those ratings most likely reflect views about the 112th Congress, which ended last week. Onward, 113th Congress!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/congress-more-popular-kardashians-lohan-gonorrhea-173457190–politics.html

Can the president rewrite federal law?

Published June 21, 2012

Here we go again. Is the Constitution merely a guideline to be consulted by those it purports to regulate, or is it really the supreme law of the land? If it is just a guideline, then it is meaningless, as it only will be followed by those in government when it is not an obstacle to their purposes. If it is the supreme law of the land, what do we do when one branch of government seizes power from another and the branch that had its power stolen does nothing about it?

Late last week, President Obama, fresh from a series of revelations that he kills whomever he pleases in foreign lands, that the US military is actually fighting undeclared wars in Somalia and Yemen, and that the CIA is using cyber warfare — computers — to destabilize innocents in Iran, announced that he has rewritten a small portion of federal immigration law so as to accommodate the needs of young immigrants who came to the US as children and remained here. By establishing new rules governing deportation, rules that Congress declined to enact, the president has usurped the power to write federal law from Congress and commandeered it for himself.

Immigrants should not be used as political pawns by the government. When government does that, it violates the natural law. Our rights come from our humanity, and our humanity comes from God. Our rights are natural and integral to us, and they do not vary by virtue of, and cannot be conditioned upon, the place where our mothers were physically located at the time of our births. Federal law violates the natural law when it interferes with whom you invite to your home or employ in your business or to whom you rent your property or with whom you walk the public sidewalks.

When the government restricts freedom of association based on immutable characteristics — like race, gender or the place of birth — it is engaging in the same type of decision-making that brought us slavery, Jim Crow and other invidious government discrimination. Regrettably, the feds think they can limit human freedom by quota and by geography. And they have done this for base political reasons.

Along comes the president, and he has decided that he can fix some of our immigration woes by rewriting the laws to his liking. Never mind that the Constitution provides that his job is “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and that “all legislative power” in the federal government has been granted to Congress. He has chosen to bypass Congress and disregard the Constitution. Can he do this?

There is a valid and constitutional argument to be made that the president may refrain from defending and enforcing laws that he believes are palpably and demonstrably unconstitutional. These arguments go back to Thomas Jefferson, who refused to defend or enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts because, by punishing speech, they directly contradicted the First Amendment. Jefferson argued that when a law contradicts the Constitution, the law must give way because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other laws are inferior and must conform to it.This argument is itself now universally accepted jurisprudence — except by President Obama, who recently and inexplicably questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Health Care Act on the basis that it is unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, there is no intellectually honest argument to be made that the president can pick and choose which laws to enforce based on his personal preferences. And it is a profound violation of the Constitution for the president to engage in rewriting the laws. That’s what he has done here. He has rewritten federal law.

Only Congress can lay down specifics such as in order to avoid deportation and qualify for a two-year work visa, one must have entered the U.S. prior to age 16 and possess a valid American high school diploma or be a military veteran, as the president now requires. By altering the law in this manner — by constructing the requirements the government will impose — the president has violated his oath to enforce the laws as they are written. His second responsibility in the Constitution (the first is to defend the Constitution) is to enforce federal laws as Congress has written them — hence the employment of the word “faithfully” in the Constitution — not as he wishes them to be.

Congress should have enacted years ago what the president is now doing on his own, because it is unjust to punish children for the behavior of their parents, and it is unjust to restrict freedom based on the place of birth. But this can be remedied only by Congress. If the president can rewrite federal laws that he doesn’t like, there is no limit to his power. Then, he will not be a president. He will be a king.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/21/can-president-rewrite-federal-law/#ixzz1yQzXCDjw

Obama, Holder executive privilege unconstitutional

President Obama, Attorney General Holder and executive privilege

By
Published June 20, 2012

The claim of executive privilege, made by the president to keep testimony or documents from compelled revelation, is not an absolute one. Thus, the claim must state the basis for its invocation. In US v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court decision that came just two weeks before, and arguably precipitated, President Nixon’s resignation from the presidency, the Court articulated the only three constitutionally permissible bases for the presidential claim of executive privilege.

The only bases for the invocation of the privilege are the need to protect secret deliberations and communications intended ultimately for the president that pertain to (a) military, or (b) diplomatic, or (c) sensitive national security matters. Just because two or more people in the White House discussed a matter or reviewed documents does not clothe their discussion or their document review with executive privilege. The conversation or document review must be integral to advising the president on his official duties, and it must fit into one or more of (a) or (b) or (c) above.

The invocation of the privilege can only be made by the president himself. Thus, President Obama will need to articulate and explain into which category–(a) or (b) or (c) above–his claim of privilege falls, and he will need to do so personally, either in person or in writing. The mere request by the attorney general for the president to invoke the privilege does not lawfully invoke it. As of this writing, the president has not yet done this.

When the president invokes the privilege, it is to prevent himself or others in the White House from being compelled to testify or to produce documents before a court or before the Congress. Since only the president can invoke the privilege, he must be aware of the subject matter addressed in the subpoenaed documents and he must know that the subject matter was discussed or the subpoenaed documents were reviewed as part of the process of advising him on running the Executive Branch.

It is unheard of for Department of Justice (DoJ) officials to bring documents in an on-going criminal investigation to the White House, and discuss them there. It is equally unheard of for White House advisors to go to the DoJ and discuss documents pertaining to an on-going criminal investigation there. We know that the documents in question pertain to an on-going criminal investigation because Attorney General Holder has repeatedly so stated in sworn testimony.

Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, DoJ documents involved in an on-going criminal investigation can only lawfully be discussed or reviewed–at the White House or at the DoJ or anywhere else–with persons lawfully involved in the criminal investigation or the administration of the criminal justice system. That leaves very few human beings outside the DoJ and inside the White House with whom Attorney General Holder or his DoJ colleagues may have lawfully discussed these documents. Certainly the president himself would be in this category.

 

Does the gay agenda supersede the human agenda?

Gays and lesbians are human beings. Obama's politics strip their humanity and put them in a box. Photo: Associated Press
Kevin Jackson

WASHINGTON, May 13, 2012 — A president’s singular agendum should be the betterment of the entire nation, not various segments. President Obama’s agenda on gay issues is not evolving, it’s evolved. Most conservatives don’t care about a president’s sexual past, present, or future. But we do care when the gay agenda supersedes the human agenda.

My discovery of “gay” was fairly benign. I was around 12 years old, and my grandfather had stopped to gas up, before we left Dallas. As my grandfather pumped gas, I saw what I thought to be at the time, “the prettiest man I had ever seen.” He was very well-dressed, but noticeably different from what I had been raised to think of a man. He was perfectly dressed in a tan jumpsuit, and he had a beret to match.  I remember he carried a matching clutch that looped around his neck and was tucked just below his armpit.

As a kid from the country, I had never seen such style in my life. I had to know what I was seeing, so I whispered for my grandmother to look at the man as he walked by. My grandmother took a stealthy glance, then whispered to me, “He’s funny.”

I had no idea what “funny” meant, but would learn over time. Until further revelations, I just knew that I wasn’t “funny.”

Over time, I altered my perception of what a man is. I would further learn of all the variations in how people form that make the idea of gender confusing at times. I developed compassion for people in these areas, and learned to respect the idea that the human body is a complicated creation, which the mind can complicate to unfathomable degrees.

Understanding that everybody doesn’t think as I do or act as I do, I learned not moralize on the conditions of others, to just let them be. I recognized that these “different” people I described were of all races, ethnicities, creeds, and so on.

As a youth, I thought mainly white people were gay. To be gay in the black culture was almost unheard of, or so I was conditioned to think. Prior to my exposure to “pretty man,” I had only heard of gays anecdotally, and I do recall having certain feelings or suspicions about some males and females I had met. I remember that blacks were simply not supposed to be gay, particularly black boys. We were to be tough. Our role was to love women and lots of them.

In early adulthood, I recognized a very different world from what black culture had taught me. Blacks were just as gay as whites, whites were just as poor as blacks, and so on. I learned that these nice neat boxes that the world kept trying to put people in just didn’t fit.

As I traveled, I found that there were all these same “different” people all over the world. I learned that transsexuals were treated much the same almost everywhere I went. Cross-dressers were gawked at almost universally. Being gay was discouraged, to say the least. I got it.

Cross-dresser, gay and transexual are all part of the human condition. We can argue the nature nurture theory; nevertheless it is a bit of both.

You can’t legislate people in issues such as this, which is the problem with Obama. Obama wants to carve out rules that won’t make it better for the LGBT, but will have quite the opposite impact. All the rules that were carved out for blacks essentially remove black people from being part of the human race. The best thing that the LGBT have is their humanity, not some conforming box.

Without creating books like “Billy Has Two Black Parents,” black people managed to overcome all the adversity of slavery and the lack of civil rights. The understanding of black culture didn’t come from books, it came from people realizing the contribution that blacks have made and seeing it with their own eyes. Who knows if some of history’s most famous blacks were gay or wished they were another gender.  If you told me that George Washington Carver had dressed in women’s clothes, that would not diminish his accomplishments to the world in the least. Nor do Carver’s accomplishments have more impact on America because he was black. Peanut butter is delicious, regardless of Carver’s sexuality, ethnicity, and any other proclivities he may have had.

You would think that we would have learned something by now about how to deal with people, and government leaders would lead by example, and not attempt to legislate thought. Despite what people may believe, Civil Rights laws are not the reason Obama is president. Obama is president, because people in America long ago abandoned focusing on color—save the racists who voted for Obama strictly because he was black. For the most part, the people who voted for Obama did so because they felt he was going to be a transformational figure in American politics, not gay politics or black politics.

There has been a lot of money spent on removing people from the human race, and putting them in boxes. Obama wants to do the same for the LGBT, because of his life experiences and his evolution. Seventeen trillion dollars has been spent on the evolution of “helping blacks,” and I don’t see a lot of progress at the Main Street level. How much money is America willing spend on LGBT agenda? How many more manuals and training sessions do we need for Americans to treat people as humans?

For the most part, Americans interact with people based on our needs and their performance. I choose my friends based on common core values, without moralizing about those who values don’t necessarily agree with mine. I don’t have to have gay friends in order to not be homophobic. I don’t need white friends to prove I’m not racist.

All men are created equal. It’s time that Obama stop with the politicizing various agendas, and focus on the human agenda, the American agenda.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/black-tea-black-sphere/2012/may/13/does-gay-agenda-supersede-human-agenda/

Personal Sovereignty

Welcome to the land of the happy slaves! – Phoebe

=============================================================================

I removed the link because it is no longer a valid link. – Phoebe

Sovereignty is inherent in the individual human being,it is the
manifested condition and resulting process that is embodied in the
free will and is the foundation and entirety of Natural Human Rights natural rights.

The self evident truth is that a human
being owns oneself, that the individual can think for oneself, make
choices, take responsibility for those choices and in all ways control
one’s actions in a rational manner. Individual sovereignty is the
right and the ability to govern one’s actions independently and to
govern one’s interactions in concert with others. It is the origin of
government, as a self-governing sovereign must learn to govern one’s
behavior in relation to the external environment and society.

As a sovereign the individual has the right and ability to
control those associations into which one chooses to enter. All free
governments are founded on the consent and authority of the individual
and instituted for the individual’s own peace, safety, happiness and
protection of property. The individual may create or join into any
form of government that one chooses through associations that are
entered into by all persons voluntarily. For the advancement of these
ends, they have at all times an inalienable right to alter, reform or
abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper. It
is, after all, their government, it is not an institution to which
they are subject, it is their own governance in relation to one
another, the terms, laws, contracts, etc. under which they choose to
live and do business.

The idea of individual sovereignty is that the individual is supreme,
that no one may organize any group, government or entity that usurps
the supremacy of the individual to have sovereignty over one’s own
life, body, mind, property and associations. And, when anyone joins
together with you in any association, business, government or other
entity it must be by mutual consent among individual sovereigns. All
rights belong only to individual people, states and governments don’t
have any rights, an institution doesn’t have a free will, it can’t
make independent decisions or control its own actions, it is merely a
structure of offices and technology used by individuals. Institutions
only have authorities or powers given to them by the people.
Sovereignty is an ideal based on the free will of the human being,
since only the individual person has a heart and mind and soul to make
choices by one’s own free will, then only the individual person has
sovereignty.

The political-state is an organization, an institution, a
procedure–tools, institutions and procedures don’t have sovereignty.
In the past only the Monarch claimed to be the sovereign. That was
replaced by nation-states claiming sovereignty over the lives of their
subjects. Then, in the United States arose the idea of popular
sovereignty, which means mob rule, because throughout U.S. history
those in power have oppressed different groups. Popular sovereignty
doesn’t exist, it is a fraud, and impossibility, a mob can’t have
sovereignty, no more than can a political party or a dictator; only
the individuals who belong to the mob have sovereignty. To presume to
give rights to a mob to violate the sovereignty of individuals is the
very definition of criminality. Slavery and segregation of an entire
race was an example of popular sovereignty in the US, the idea that
the majority may do anything it wants against the minority, the
majority creates or amends the Constitution according to their
desires. The Constitution of a democratic state is just a license for
mob tyranny. The only real protection for the individual is in a
government that is entered into consensually, where everyone is
responsible for respecting each others’ sovereign rights.

When the individual has full control over one’s own life and the power
to to make free choices in all that one enters into, including the
form of government one chooses to live in, then the government will
become the servant and not the master.

There are two alternatives to the right of the Individual to own one’s
self. Either (A), a certain group of people (masters) own everyone
else (slaves), or (B), everyone has a right to own an equal share of
everyone else, therefor each person would own some 200 millionth part
of one’s self, possibly a small collection of cells in some undefined
part of one’s own body with the rest of one’s body being a slave to
the other 200 million people. Therefore one would also own a 200
millionth part of every other citizen. So you could in theory take
your piece of flesh out of every other person and trade it for the
pieces of flesh that are part of your own body but owned by society
and assemble your parts together into some theoretical creature which
you would then fully own. The idea that you are entitled to own a
piece of everyone else yet not entitled to own yourself is crazy, but
that is the presumption on which is built the democratic-socialist
state. This communistic ownership in everyone but yourself is just a
fool’s bargain whereby rule over all people is in reality exercised by
the few rulers and their controlling special interest groups, it is
they who claim to own everyone and dispose of everyone else’s minds
and bodies as suits their preferences. That’s the great lie of
communism that seeks to overturn the old world master-slave
relationship with a new communal ownership that in the end returns to
the same master-slave relationship, only with a new set of masters.

No one can represent your rights, rights are by definition an
intrinsic part of the human person, the idea of representative
government deciding what rights people should and shouldn’t have is
idiotic. The fools who accept such a concept deserve the kind of
government they get, but they can’t be allowed to perpetrate their
ignorance on other people.

Legitimate government is an organization of individual sovereigns and
is mutually exclusive of the presumed sovereignty of the state which
is completely counterfeit. Any government that exists is a creation
of individuals who have an opinion on how life’s activities should be
organized, the opinion of a large majority is no more superior to the
opinion of one individual; they are both equal in that they are both
merely opinions. The only opinion that counts is the choice that the
individual makes in the exercise of one’s rights, of which one must be
held completely accountable. The purpose of a free government is to
protect individual rights by people joining together by voluntary
consent; whereby each person is a self-governing entity who organizes
one’s activities with other people through a government of consensual
contracts. These contracts are the law that regulates the
interactions among the consenting members and enforces the terms to
which they have agreed. People who belong to different governments
must respect the sovereignties of other persons to different
governments. These governments must keep their jurisdiction strictly
to the individuals who choose to belong to them, and as individuals
must govern their own interactions, the people’s governments must
govern their interactions and disputes through treaties which assign
ways of settling those disputes. People who choose to live as
independent sovereigns must be respected in their rights and presumed
to be innocent and responsible in governing one’s self. They must
respect other’s governments and only if that person should trespass on
the rights of others would government powers be used to defend
innocent people from those transgressions. Among free and responsible
governments, there is no major conflict between political systems, all
legitimate governments which operate justly, do so to defend
individual freedom from the trespasses of others. So that if someone
should form a government that regularly violates anyone’s rights, the
other governments can join together to defend those innocent persons
and liberate them from that tyranny which will allow them to choose
their own government. It is imperative that individuals have
political self determination, because it is precisely the reason why
that individuals who are free to choose the kind of government under
which they will live, will always choose a government that respects
individual freedom.

Sovereigns are free agents who must choose their own government,
nationality, associations, career and way of life to suit their own
values; if no suitable institutions exist, you may create your own.
The form of government a person chooses is not so important as the
sovereign right to make that choice; it’s the respect for the freedom
of an individual to arrange one’s life, activities and interactions
with others according to one’s choice; that is supreme. To govern is
to control and direct the actions and behavior of something.
Political laws are the opinions of people enforced through an entity
who’s jurisdiction comes from the power the collective group of
individuals. Natural or universal law is quite another matter; one in
which each individual is free to govern one’s self and behavior as
long as one doesn’t infringe on the equal right of others to do the
same and the only just use of force is as a purely defensive action to
protect one’s self against the transgressions of others. As far as
any other laws go; people may make other laws to govern that over
which they have jurisdiction; since, in the end, an individual only
has jurisdiction over one’s own life, then the individual is the only
authority that can enact institutional law to govern that of which the
individual has control; specifically a person’s own property,
business, and associations that other people have volunteered to join.
The interpretation and governance of those laws can only be realized
and maintained by each sovereign individual, for who can in actuality
govern you, but you yourself. Governance with other sovereigns must
be accomplished through mutual contractual and treaty agreements.
Sovereign individuals must govern themselves by the authority of
self-ownership, that is, every human being, simply by being human, has
moral jurisdiction over one’s own mind, body and associations. This
jurisdiction, which is called individual sovereignty, is inviolable.
It is beneath personal dignity to beg for those rights which belong
inherently to oneself. I will not beg to some tyrannical bastards to
give me what they don’t have and aren’t capable of giving me, I will
not precipitate in a corrupt political system where I have to beg for
my rights or bribe corrupt politicians into giving me what I already
have. I will use whatever power and resources I have to defend all of
my rights completely, rights which are already mine and I will work to
create a world where I can exercise my rights more fully, and I will
do the same equally for all other people. To do unto others as I
would have them do unto me means that I will serve and support the
same equal rights for all other people to be free to exercise their
rights in their own way, this right is equal for everyone, though
people will choose to define and exercise their rights in different
ways just as I demand to exercise my own rights as I choose. I will
strive to create a world of equal opportunity so that all people may
exercise their freedom and rights fully and to their own satisfaction
defined in their own way and according to their own values which are
unique to each person equally respecting everyone’s right to their own
individual choices. Of course, the right to exercise one’s rights
depends on respecting other people’s rights and allowing them their
ability to exercise them. When someone violates the right of others
to exercise their rights then people through government must restrict
the guilty person’s exercise of rights only to the extent that is
necessary to protect the rights of others. But as people have the
inherent right to exercise one’s rights and are considered innocent
until proved guilty in a court of law, the right to fully exercise
one’s rights without restriction must always be respected, because
having rights means being able to exercise them. When people have
unlimited choices and unrestricted opportunity to exercise their
rights it means that they must implement self-government and take full
responsibility for their actions and be prepared to accept full
accountability for those actions.

Sovereignty means subject to no one.

Natural law is immutable, it never changes, it is based on individual
sovereignty and is therefor inviolable, it has always been true, those
natural rights come from simply being alive and being able to fully
control one’s decisions and actions. Since the creation of life
itself, all living things have been responsible for themselves, they
are what they are, this is the self-evident truth. Because humans are
rational beings with the free will to make independent decisions for
themselves and take responsibility for those choices, humans are self
governing sovereigns. Only among the Homo Sapiens species do
individuals organize political states to control nature and by doing
so pervert its understanding. Natural law has always been the same
and always will be the same, however, the political states are always
changing their definition of rights and their laws. The fact that
people interpret nature and law differently doesn’t change the
underlying truth, people may perceive the truth differently and
because that perception changes, doesn’t change the nature of the
truth. Each person must first secure one’s rights unto oneself and
exercise one’s freedom to fulfill one’s own dreams. Only by taking
total control of one’s own life can one hope to live as a free
sovereign who is solely responsible for one’s own life. And only by
realizing this can a person be responsible to others by not being a
burden on them or putting demands on others. Only by living in this
way can one learn to fully respect the freedom and rights of others
and not seek to take away or interfere in how others choose to
exercise their rights.

Individual sovereignty is above and independent of any fixed
territory.

The state is by definition incapable of extending itself politically
beyond its own borders, while the sovereign person is capable of
extending one’s experience to an unlimited degree. Each person is
free to be anything one wants, while the state is limited to what its
masters can control, a person can create whole new governments and
found new nations and invent new technologies, while the state can
never be anything more than just a mindless, soulless institution
dependent on the labors of its slaves. The sovereign individual then
enjoys infinite possibilities.

No one can give you your freedom or your rights. For, who can
exercise your rights for you? What entity can govern your behavior
but your own conscience? Who can realize your dreams but yourself?
Each Individual is absolutely and solely responsible for one’s own
thoughts and actions regarding one’s personal welfare and one’s
relations with others.

Individual sovereignty is not a license for all individuals to do
anything they want, it is not moral relativism and it is not anarchy
where each individual decides subjectively which rights of other
people one will respect and which laws one will obey and which will be
ignored, individual sovereignty is universal sovereignty of the
individual to live freely and not infringe upon the right of other
individuals to enjoy the same freedom, that is the law, that is what
is enforced and that is what all individuals are obligated to respect.
Individual sovereignty is the basis from which all rights are derived
and upon which all legitimate government is founded and it is the only
way that a truly good and just society may emerge.
- Gregory Flanagan

The New Fascists

The New Fascists

My dear brothers, never forget, when you hear the progress of enlightenment vaunted, that the devil’s best trick is to persuade you that he doesn’t exist!”
Charles Baudelaire, Le Joueur généreux, February 7, 1864

Forget everything you think you know about politics. It’s probably wrong.

There is no left or right. Communist, Socialist, Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, Democrat, Republican, those are all meaningless terms. They are used to confuse people so they miss the point. The most important point about politics there is. That there are only two schools of political thought and they have predictable results. All the names and labels for them are just smoke and mirrors.

Political ideology is designed by elites to trick the masses into doing what they want. Each side tells you something designed to get your emotions going so they can play you. They get you to agree to give them more power, money and control over your lives by telling you some kind of story.

We need to put that vicious cycle to an end. It’s time to understand what their real goals are. But to free your mind, you need to be educated first. Only by seeing the road ahead can you avoid tripping on stones or falling off cliffs.

There are only two real political choices to make. And it has nothing to do with parties. It has to do with core beliefs. You are for one side or another. These sides are diametrically opposed. The best way I can describe the two choices is, freedom or slavery. That is what it boils down to. And the slave in question is you.

Do you want to be a slave or a free person? It’s your choice.

I’m sure some of you reading this have your guard up now. So take a deep breath and walk with me for a second. I am going to open your eyes.
There are only two forms of government. Every kind of government is a branch or variation of one of the two forms. All the side issues, are just window dressing because the root form of government determines a lot of crucial matters that affect everything else.

The first form has many branches and is called by many names. It is common. It is the oldest form. It is, in fact, ancient. It has many names because so many of those names have fallen into disrepute. So they keep re-branding it and try to sell it in a different package. But no matter what name it takes, it still leads to the same end result.

The second form has very few branches and is rarer than any precious stone. It is something many people want but few have had. The believers in the first form are always trying to destroy this second form. They lie about it. Try to corrupt and subvert it. Because they know it will always be more popular with the people if they knew they had a choice. So the second form must always be defended from the predators of the first, because it is precious. I like to refer to each system as the minus and plus system. But we’ll call them BG or LG here. Big Government or Limited Government.

Those who believe in BG go by many names, and many of these believers don’t even know that they’re supporting the same goals as people they think are bad. But they have been tricked into selling out their own freedoms to enrich someone else’s. All BG systems lead to the same result. I classify this as a minus system because it’s negative. The end result of a BG system is bad for most involved.

The BG system is designed to feed all resources to a few at the top. All else are diminished in power and wealth. But the citizens are told that they must support the government and its rules in order to receive some kind of “benefits.” In order to get the treats the government doles out, you have to give up your freedoms and your property. It sells the idea of some glorious future that is never attained and only gets worse over time. But it always maintains that it will lead to some kind of paradise.
It never does. It usually leads to some kind of hell. But it always finds people to subscribe to its ideas who become fanatical in defense of it, no matter how much the system abuses them. And it deludes many others into wanting it because it preys on their human nature, the very thing that destroys it in the end.

The LG or Limited Government system is the best system for human freedom. As a result it has been very rare in human history. Where it has been allowed to flourish, human beings have flourished. But those who believe in BG are always trying to corrupt and destroy LG societies. This is because LG denies ultimate power to those who seek it. An LG system is more fair because you get what you put in. You have the ability to advance to any level as long as you don’t abuse the success that you have made or use it against others.

Before we explore how each system works, we need to understand the mindset of the people who believe in either system. I once did a cartoon illustrating the philosophies in the form of two Greek Philosophers, Aristotle and Plato. Each philosopher created the groundwork for understanding these schools of thought.
LG (Plus) believers are Aristotlian. They are like engineers. If something is proven to work, then they believe in it. They are not opposed to experimentation, but only if it involves proven principles. Ideas that are demonstrated to fail are rejected. They understand that human beings are flawed creatures. Humans are born hungry and spend their lives seeking to fulfill those hungers. In scientific terms, humans are driven by genetic hard wiring. It is part of their nature. In religious terms, humans are born with “original sin”. We can’t radically change who we are and remain human. We can only seek to improve ourselves through discipline, education, reason and morality.
LG believers understand that humans are often given to a lust for power because we all want some kind of control. LG societies are designed to limit governance so the state can never become tyrannical. It realizes that human nature is a constant so you have to develop a system that works within its framework, and keeps its basic problems in check. That way a politician’s greed is limited by what they are allowed to do by laws. The less interference a government has in human affairs, the more free the people are to progress on their own and flourish. LG believers are for individual rights. They believe a perfect society may not be possible, but it can be best achieved by respect for others rights and liberties. They believe in a social contract and the rule of law. They want people to be free in order to live their life without interference, as long as they respect others rights. The LG is there to enable the society to function and keep the peace, but it is not there to dominate or dictate how one should live.

BG (Minus) believers are Platonic. They posit that there’s an ideal form of society somewhere in the future, a utopia populated by an idealized form of humanity. This can only be achieved by forcing people to change through rules, laws and governance. It wraps itself in good intentions, but it ignores human nature, believing people can be changed by rules. Making the public follow orders will correct their bad behavior as the state sees it. It does not believe it can be tyrannical because BG systems are always sure they’re correct, not matter what happens. Dissenters are ridiculed or punished. No matter how many mistakes a BG society makes or disasters it causes, it does not admit its fault. BG believers preach dependence on the state. It denies individual empowerment or freedom and instead promotes group think. It pushes the group over the individual to keep people in check. It does not want leaders so much as followers. Its leaders are usually the hungriest for power that make their way to the top by gaming the system.

BG societies are constantly creating diversions to keep the public focused on policies it wants to sell. So it often creates “crises” of some kind that the people are supposed to rally around. In order to get them to give up more freedom or personal wealth, it often uses scare tactics, such as threats of invasion, threats of nature, etc. The elites in a BG system always live vastly better than those at the bottom, but it always promises some kind of “equality” that never exists in reality. And because the BG system is large and complex it relies on bureaucracies to manage them. But because bureaucracies are made of humans, human nature always corrupts these systems. A bureaucracy becomes inefficient and corrupt in direct proportion to its size. The larger, the less effective, the more corrupt.
BG systems usually lead to economic collapse and stagnation. Usually with dire consequences for millions of people. That is why citizens in BG societies often yearn to go to LG societies. Many of them risk their lives to escape from BG societies that hold them captive. Because in worst case scenarios, BG systems imprison their citizens.

They are all, to some extent, anti-freedom. It’s a matter of degree.


To read the rest of the article  http://thehud.com/essays/the-new-fascists/


South Carolina Primary voters still waiting for Mr. Right (Or at least to the right of Romney)

By Mark Sanford
Published January 21, 2012

Buses are warming up their engines, planes are headed this way and within a few hours the traveling caravan of operatives and volunteers that have made up the campaigns of the South Carolina Republican Presidential primary will be headed south to Florida.

I’m no more clairvoyant than the next guy, and so wouldn’t presume to pick who will win tonight, but South Carolinians for the last 30 years have indeed picked the eventual GOP nominee.

Iowa and New Hampshire might winnow the field, but in every election over these 30 years South Carolinians picked the winner.

In that light the fireworks in this race over the last two weeks here in the Palmetto state show a few trends that I think will be with us through the primary and well beyond in shaping the direction of the Republican party.

Here are a few thoughts:

1. Ron Paul is on to something. One of the most important bell-weathers in political efforts is whether or not you are adding new voters, and more than in any other campaign he has.

It’s anything but his slice of standard republican voters, it’s a different crowd. I have spent a lot of time with GOP voters in this state over the last 16 years and as a consequence know a lot of faces, at Ron Paul rallies I am sure I would recognize few of them – and that is a good thing.

Growing parties and political movements do just that – they grow. They should be anything but a fraternity of the familiar, and in this regard people are always ahead of their parties. Think of George McGovern in the 1972 democratic primary or Pat Robertson in the 1988 republican primary.

Neither won their nomination contests, but both tapped into political movements that were much bigger than their individual candidacies – McGovern with the anti-war movement within the Democratic Party and Robertson in what would become the Christian Coalition. Both movements grew to be dominant forces within their respective parties with impacts that eclipsed these initial campaign starts. Regardless of how Ron Paul does tonight, his movements focus on debt, deficits, governments spending and liberty are going to be a significant part of reshaping the Republican Party going forward.

2. “It’s the economy stupid.” That was James Carville’s mantra during the Clinton-Bush race, and it proved to be their winning formula. History does repeat itself, and it looks like we are in “one of those economic times” again.

Nothing else explains Rick Santorum’s inability to ignite in South Carolina. Given the momentum he carried coming out of Iowa, along with South Carolina’s socially conservative leanings, he seemed perfectly positioned to rise to challenge Romney in South Carolina.

I believe his headwind was the economy.

The number of self identified social conservatives and born-again Christians in this state hasn’t changed, nor has their concern for issues like the life of the unborn.

What has changed is their focus.

It’s been said that a recession exists when a neighbor loses their job; a depression exists when you lose yours. In a state with 9.9 percent unemployment many families have experienced both, and as a consequence their most immediate concern has been a job and the economy.

Expect that trend to continue to play out in high unemployment states across this country between now and the nomination.

Finally, I’d say primary voters are still looking for Mr. Right. Not as in the right guy, but as in to the right of Romney. For months we had a seeming flavor of the week with Cain, Bachmann, Perry and more — while Romney’s numbers stayed amazingly fixed at around one third of the primary’s voters. Two thirds of them were still looking for something else, and here in the 11th hour in South Carolina they seem to be coalescing around Gingrich.

It will be a jump ball tonight, and I don’t know if the late surge is enough to take Newt up and over the top. But what I do believe is that his rise in South Carolina has less to do with two strong debate performances than it does with conservatives in this state still wanting a more conservative standard bearer.

Things that might normally be lethal in a state as conservative as this one are looked over because of the desperation conservatives feel about wanting someone to carry their cause to Washington.

Whether Romney moves right in the primaries to come or is beaten by someone like Gingrich who is already perceived to be there we will see…but make no mistake South Carolina has already set the tone for more “right” to come.

So hang on and remember it’s: Mr. Right, the economy, and Ron Paul’s army and still lots more to come as these three trends ripple out from South Carolina’s primary.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/21/south-carolina-primary-voters-still-waiting-for-mr-right-or-at-least-to-right/#ixzz1k89ogc6L

Are you ignorant? Please don’t vote!!!

I agree, if you don’t understand the issues, PLEASE don’t vote.    That may sound rude but c’mon, aren’t stupid voters the reason we’ve been stuck with Obama?  Be honest!!  I’ve said for years that there should be an IQ test required before voting, maybe it should be required for anyone running for President too.

Stossel: Ignorant people, please stay home on Election Day

By John Stossel
Published January 19, 2012 | FoxNews.com
Simple answers are so satisfying: Green jobs will fix the economy. Stimulus will create jobs. Charity helps people more than commerce. Everyone should vote.
Well, all those instinctive solutions are wrong. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out in “The Fatal Conceit,” it’s a problem that in our complex, extended economy, we rely on instincts developed during our ancestors’ existence in small bands. In those old days, everyone knew everyone else, so affairs could be micromanaged. Today, we live in a global economy where strangers deal with each other. The rules need to be different.
Hayek said: “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
You might think people have begun to understand this. Opinion polls show Americans are very dissatisfied with government. Congress has only a 12 percent approval rating. Good. People should be suspicious of what Congress would design. Central planners failed in the Soviet Union and Cuba and America’s public schools and at the post office.
Despite all that failure, however, whenever a crisis hits, the natural instinct is to say, “Government must do something.”
Look at this piece of instinctual wisdom: Everyone should vote. In the last big election, only 90 million people voted out of more than 200 million eligible voters. That’s terrible, we’re told. But it’s not terrible because a lot of people are ignorant. When I asked people to identify pictures of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, almost half couldn’t.
This is one reason I say those “get out the vote” drives are dumb. I take heat for saying that, but Bryan Caplan agrees. He’s a professor of economics at George Mason University and author of “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies” (tinyurl.com/7duw9ct). He was on my Fox Business show last week (tinyurl.com/24pvaop).
“A lot of bad policies … pass by popular demand,” Caplan told me. “In order to do the right thing, you have to know something.”
The “informed citizen” is the ideal of democratic societies, but Caplan points out that average citizens have no incentive to become informed, while special interests do. The rest of us have lives. We are busy with things other than politics. That’s why our democratic government inflates the price of sugar through trade restrictions, even though American sugar consumers far outnumber American sugar producers.
Caplan has a radical proposal for citizens: Be honest. If you know nothing about a subject, don’t have an opinion about it. “And don’t reward or penalize candidates for their position on an issue you don’t understand.”
Political life differs from private life. If you vote for a candidate while ignorant about issues, you’ll pay no more than a tiny fraction of the price of your ignorance. Not so in your private affairs. If you’re dumb when you buy a car, you get stuck with a bad car.
You get punished right away.
“And you may look back and say, ‘I’m not going to do that again.’ … It’s not so much that voters are dumb. Even smart people act dumb when they vote. I know an engineer who is very clever. … But his views on economics (are) ridiculous.”
It’s not what people don’t know that gets them into trouble. It’s what they know that isn’t so.
“A very common view is that foreign aid is actually the largest item in the budget,” Caplan said. “It’s about 1 percent.”
Actually, even less. Medicare, Social Security, the military and interest on the debt make up over half the budget. But surveys show that people believe foreign aid and welfare are the biggest items.
So, you ignorant people, please stay home on Election Day. And those of you who do vote, please resist the instinctive urge to give our tribal elders more power.
If Americans keep voting for politicians who want to pass more laws and spend more money, the result will not be a country with fewer problems, but a country that’s governed by piecemeal socialism. Or corporatism. We can debate the meaning of those words, but there’s no doubt that such central planning leaves us less prosperous and less free.
John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. The show airs Thursdays at 10 p.m. and midnight ET. It re-airs Fridays at 10 p.m., Saturdays at 9 p.m. and 12 midnight, and Sundays at 10 p.m. (all times eastern). He’s also the author of “Give Me a Break” and of “Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/…-election-day/

T’was the Night of Our Gridlock

Shamelessly stolen from That Mr G Guy who shamelessly stole it from http://citizentom.com/2011/12/22/a-bit-of-christmas-cheerlessness/

T’was the Night of Our Gridlock

T’was the night before Christmas and all through DC;
The President and Congress just couldn’t agree;
Once again they are arguing about how to spend bucks;
Leaving no doubt among us that they’re all just nuts

“Extend unemployment!”, Obama demands;
“Pay for it first” is the House’s firm stand;
“More debt’s the way” says Reid in a fit;
“And a two month extension is all that you get”

“But the President wants a full year” says the House
“We all agree so let’s vote this bill out”;
“Well on second thought” Mr. Reid said with glee
“A two month deal is best politically?”

“If we go with a year, we’d end this big mess;
No more to argue, is that really best?
Then how can Obama beat up on your guys;
At the State of the Union when that time arrives?”

Says ol Dirty Harry, “It’s all about power;
If we lose the Senate, the libs will be sour”
Says the House with disgust, “make it a year!”
Give all the people a reason to cheer!”

“Prove to them now that you’re not a big jerk
Delay your vacation, let’s get down to work!”
“Delay our vacation?”, Reid says with surprise
“We’d rather the House be blamed and despised”

“Sure, a year would be best for all in the land;
But not for Obama, with whom we all stand”;
“If we yield to you”, say Reid with a sneer;
Barack’s State of the Union will fall on deaf ears”

“That just will not do with Elections at stake;
To heck with the people, two months you will take!”
So that’s where we stand, in good ol’ DC;
Watching our leaders be all they can be”

Which leaves me to wonder as I look to the sky;
“Hasten November” when I say good-bye
To Obama and Reid, who lead from behind;
While hard working families are left in a bind

Elections do matter, of that I am sure;
And if Obama returns, even more will be poor;
It’s time for real change, and don’t be in doubt;
That change will arrive when we vote this guy out!”

L. Scott Lingamfelter, December 2011

The Future of the Obama Coalition

November 27, 2011, 11:34 pm

The Future of the Obama Coalition

By THOMAS B. EDSALL

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretence of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics.

The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.

“It’s certainly true that if you compare how things were in the early ’90s to the way they are now, there has been a significant shift in the role of the working class. You see it across all advanced industrial countries,” Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said in an interview.

In the United States, Teixeira noted, “the Republican Party has become the party of the white working class,” while in Europe, many working-class voters who had been the core of Social Democratic parties have moved over to far right parties, especially those with anti-immigration platforms.

Teixeira, writing with John Halpin, argues in “The Path to 270: Demographics versus Economics in the 2012 Presidential Election,” that in order to be re-elected, President Obama must keep his losses among white college graduates to the 4-point margin of 2008 (47-51). Why? Otherwise he will not be able to survive a repetition of 2010, when white working-class voters supported Republican House candidates by a record-setting margin of 63-33.

Obama’s alternative path to victory, according to Teixeira and Halpin, would be to keep his losses among all white voters at the same level John Kerry did in 2004, when he lost them by 17 points, 58-41. This would be a step backwards for Obama, who lost among all whites in 2008 by only 12 points (55-43). Obama can afford to drop to Kerry’s white margins because, between 2008 and 2012, the pro-Democratic minority share of the electorate is expected to grow by two percentage points and the white share to decline by the same amount, reflecting the changing composition of the national electorate.

The following passage from “The Path to 270” illustrates the degree to which whites without college degrees are currently cast as irrevocably lost to the Republican Party. “Heading into 2012,” Teixeira and Halpin write, one of the primary strategic questions will be:

Will the president hold sufficient support among communities of color, educated whites, Millennials, single women, and seculars and avoid a catastrophic meltdown among white working-class voters?

For his part, Greenberg, a Democratic pollster and strategist and a key adviser to Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, wrote a memorandum earlier this month, together with James Carville, that makes no mention of the white working class. “Seizing the New Progressive Common Ground” describes instead a “new progressive coalition” made up of “young people, Hispanics, unmarried women, and affluent suburbanites.”

In an interview, Greenberg, speaking of white working class voters, said that in the period from the mid-1960s to the early 1990s, “we battled to get them back. They were sizeable in number and central to the base of the Democratic Party.” At the time, he added, “we didn’t know that we would never get them back, that they were alienated and dislodged.”

In his work exploring how to build a viable progressive coalition, Greenberg noted, he has become “much more interested in the affluent suburban voters than the former Reagan Democrats.” At the same time, however, he argues that Republican winning margins among white working-class voters are highly volatile and that Democrats have to push hard to minimize losses, which will not be easy. “Right now,” he cautioned, “I don’t see any signs they are moveable.”

Teixeira’s current analysis stands in sharp contrast to an article that he wrote with Joel Rogers, which appeared in the American Prospect in 1995. In “Who Deserted the Democrats in 1994?,” Teixeira and Rogers warned that between 1992 and 1994 support for Democratic House candidates had fallen by 20 points, from 57 to 37 percent among high-school-educated white men; by 15 points among white men with some college; and by 10 points among white women in both categories. A failure to reverse those numbers, Teixeira warned, would “doom Clinton’s re-election bid” in 1996.

Teixeira was by no means alone in his 1995 assessment; he was in agreement with orthodox Democratic thinking of the time. In a 1995 memo to President Clinton, Greenberg wrote that whites without college degrees were “the principal obstacle” to Clinton’s re-election and that they needed to be brought back into the fold.

In practice, or perhaps out of necessity, the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 chose the upscale white-downscale minority approach that proved highly successful twice, but failed miserably in 2010, and appears to have a 50-50 chance in 2012.

The outline of this strategy for 2012 was captured by Times reporters Jackie Calmes and Mark Landler a few months ago in an article tellingly titled, “Obama Charts a New Route to Re-election.” Calmes and Landler describe how Obama’s re-election campaign plans to deal with the decline in white working class support in Rust Belt states by concentrating on states with high percentages of college educated voters, including Colorado, Virginia and New Hampshire.

There are plenty of critics of the tactical idea of dispensing with low-income whites, both among elected officials and party strategists. But Cliff Zukin, a professor of political science at Rutgers, puts the situation plainly. “My sense is that if the Democrats stopped fishing there, it is because there are no fish.”

“My sense is that if the Democrats stopped fishing there, it is because there are no fish.”

Cliff Zukin

As a practical matter, the Obama campaign and, for the present, the Democratic Party, have laid to rest all consideration of reviving the coalition nurtured and cultivated by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The New Deal Coalition — which included unions, city machines, blue-collar workers, farmers, blacks, people on relief, and generally non-affluent progressive intellectuals — had the advantage of economic coherence. It received support across the board from voters of all races and religions in the bottom half of the income distribution, the very coherence the current Democratic coalition lacks.

A top priority of the less affluent wing of today’s left alliance is the strengthening of the safety net, including health care, food stamps, infant nutrition and unemployment compensation. These voters generally take the brunt of recessions and are most in need of government assistance to survive. According to recent data from the Department of Agriculture, 45.8 million people, nearly 15 percent of the population, depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to meet their needs for food.

The better-off wing, in contrast, puts at the top of its political agenda a cluster of rights related to self-expression, the environment, demilitarization, and, importantly, freedom from repressive norms — governing both sexual behavior and women’s role in society — that are promoted by the conservative movement.

While demographic trends suggest the continued growth of pro-Democratic constituencies and the continued decline of core Republican voters, particularly married white Christians, there is no guarantee that demography is destiny.

The political repercussions of gathering minority strength remain unknown. Calculations based on exit poll and Census data suggest that the Democratic Party will become “majority minority” shortly after 2020.

One outcome could be a stronger party of the left in national and local elections. An alternate outcome could be exacerbated intra-party conflict between whites, blacks and Hispanics — populations frequently marked by diverging material interests. Black versus brown struggles are already emerging in contests over the distribution of political power, especially during a current redistricting of city council, state legislative and congressional seats in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago.

Republican Party operatives are acutely sensitive to such tensions, hoping for opportunities to fracture the Democratic coalition, virtually assuring that neither party can safely rely on a secure path to victory over time.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-future-of-the-obama-coalition/