…what courts do is substitute labels for principles and then decide cases based on whatever label seems to apply. And while it certainly makes life easier for judges, the result is that government gets to do some pretty awful things to people without much of a reason.
The USA Needs Another Revolution
Richard Dreyfuss provides a summary of the facts.
Are his ideas needed?
The nation’s coinage and monetary system, which bears no resemblance to what the constitution calls for, is so bizarre that it mocks common sense. Many local police agencies are (or are becoming) more like occupying military forces and less like protective services. The federal government seems utterly intent on conducting wholesale surveillance of the populace, using all manner of sophisticated technology. The Internal Revenue Service conducts its affairs as if it were a partisan political enforcer, not a tax collector — and, when questioned about its illegal persecution of voters’ organizations, it defies Congress with pugnacious intensity. It knows what The One Leader wants.
The misbehavior of the government has inspired paranoia in many “wingnut” groups. Obama and “progressives” in general have convinced some of their opponents that society itself is under attack from a position to the left of Lenin. Militias are preparing for battle, survivalists are finding more reasons to stockpile freeze-dried oatmeal, and Jade Helm is widely regarded as the imposition of martial law that will keep The One Leader in office for the next two decades.
The nation is sliding backward, adopting more fascist controls, prohibitions, restrictions, tactics — and excuses to have things as the Ruling Elite wants them.
Dreyfuss believes that if the educational system actually taught the history of the federal constitution, the citizenry would be better off. How would that help? A decent civics program in high school would help the electorate realize that it has inherited power. The benefits: first, an increase in pressure on the news media to inform the public more accurately and completely; second, more voters organizing to participate directly in politics. Those developments could correct laws, turn some politicians and civil servants out of office, and set new standards for governance.
Until that happier day, here are some things to consider.
Why, exactly, does the nation have a federal reserve bank, and why should it be retained? Is Prof. Hamburger correct when he says administrative law is all wrong from the first? What law tells the federal security agencies they must record and archive all electronic communications in the USA, as well as many outside the nation? Aren’t there simpler and more cost-effective ways of increasing the affordability of health care than the Obamoid plan? Why do cops dress more like soldiers these days? What should the courts say about thecommerce clause of the federal constitution, and how can the precedent set by Kelo be overturned? Does the nation really need those “immigration” inspection stations? Should the FBI, CIA, NSA be examined and redesigned? How reasonable and well-enforced are the campaign finance laws? Doesn’t the nation need to reconsider how constitutional law can be imposed and enforced? Should restrictions on whistle-blowers prevent them from exposing the evil deeds of government agencies? Who can classify some information as secret, and are those people being properly managed? How should protesters be policed? Why must education be predominantly a function of government…is the public’s faith in government education’s value so scanty that it must be supported, even in part, by involuntary contributions?
Everyone knows that getting today’s Congress to deal with even a few of those concerns is impossible. Accordingly, bureaus and agencies and boards and commissions step in, and the result is autocratic policy. The bureaucrats do not fear being removed from office; that very efficiently takes control of most of government out of the hands of the public.
Must government be as subject as it is to the wishes of people like The One Leader? Does the constitution allow him to change the law by executive order? Since we differ on definitions of “best”, why not allow more individual control of people’s lives?
This newsletter frets that too much is being done in obedience to (1) arcane and unwise regulations that are unconstitutional — read Hamburger’s book, (2) bureaucratic perceptions of what the party in power wants, and (3) what makes life easier for the ethically insensitive network of business and government.
There was a time when people who asked the above questions were called reformers. Today, given the stubborn, unresponsive, and oppressive bulk of the government, they should be referred to as revolutionaries.
“Texting” And “Tweeting” Rather Than Tending To Fundamentals
If you have been paying attention, you realize the West is losing.
John Podhoretz, writing in the recent issue of Commentary: “The Obama administration is pursuing policies that effectively serve the purposes of one of America’s (sic) greatest foes and treat one of America’s (sic) dearest friends as though it were an adversary.”
He is correct. ISIS is winning in Iraq, and Iran is building both atomic bombs and the intercontinental missiles to deliver them; what suicidally lunatic nation would not use those weapons against “The Great Satan”?
Hitler never led chants of “Death to Poland, death to France….” Why, exactly, should the West assume that Iran’s fervent, sacred hope — to leave Earth a cinder and enjoy eternity in heaven — is somehow insincere?
Perhaps due to a fading of the impact of religion in US politics, many voters treat the Islamist fantasy as if it were mere rhetorical posturing. Some observers think, “They can’t honestly believe that nonsense”. Others, along with doctrinaire Obamites, insist that “… even if they did believe that rubbish, they have more important concerns to distract them from holy war.”
Oh, good grief. The Iranian ruling class means it! Believe the old men’s ravings, for in fact many of their countrymen do. Worse, the mad mullahs intend to condemn the less-than-fanatical members of Iranian society to death as martyrs in a divine cause. To ignore that plan as too horrendous to be true is to deny the power of faith.
The unconvinced should read Dr. Peter Vincent Pry’s impassioned plea for an effective defense against the threat. Pry is an authority on the technical aspects of nuclear-powered electromagnetic pulse weapons.
All that remains is Iran’s decision to proceed, and many millions of the USA’s inhabitants will die. Deterrence? Iran’s ruling faithful fear no reprisal, including complete annihilation.
The president and his people speak with barely disguised disgust about the policies of a friendly government…. They talk of revisiting the relationship with Israel, reevaluating it — all of which is code-speak for withdrawing American (sic) protection from Israel in the international bodies that wish to do it injury. …. (Netanyahu is) the only democratically elected leader on earth who might find it necessary to act drastically to save his country in a way that would scuttle Obama’s vision for the future of the Middle East.
How, the thoughtful US voter might well ask, did The One Leader become both knowledgeable enough and wise enough to craft a private vision of how the Middle East should cope with its problems? Did Obama learn what he knows when he was organizing communities in Chicago, or studying US law, or voting present as a novice legislator? What are his credentials as a seer? Dare one ask what his prejudices might be?
Podhoretz is correct to note that “Netanyahu has made it clear that he cannot stand by while a course is charted to a future in which Iran can build and deploy a nuclear weapon, given that its millenarian leaders have vowed to wipe Israel off the map.” Yet Obama did what he could to see to Netanyahu’s defeat in the recent Israeli election; the “Anyone but Bibi” push backfired, with Bibi’s party going from 18 seats in Parliament to 30. This in spite of the activities of Obama aide Jeremy Bird, who was dispatched to Israel to work with V15, an organization encouraging voters to dump Bibi. (This newsletter wonders whether that interference in another nation’s electoral process was ethical, or even legal. Who else is asking?)
US voters will eventually have to face the consequences of not having posed some very hard questions regarding Obama’s prejudices and assumptions. One can only hope that when those questions are finally raised — and accepted as relevant — the USA will not be struggling to survive without electronics and electricity.
Reminder: it’s not just Jews that the mad mullahs want to kill.
The Tramp Abroad On Turkey And The Right To Speak One’s Mind
Well, maybe there is freedom of speech in Turkey. Or is this just a ploy to make everyone think so? On the other hand, perhaps there really are some critical voices in the upper echelons of the AK Party. Here is some useful background from Wikipedia:
“AK PARTİ” (in all capital letters) is the self-declared abbreviation of the name of the party, as stated in Article 3 of the party charter, while “AKP” is mostly preferred by its opponents; the supporters prefer “AK PARTİ” since the word “ak” in Turkish means “white”, “clean”, or “unblemished,” lending a positive impression. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals initially used “AKP”, but after an objection from the party, “AKP” was replaced with “Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi” (without abbreviation) in documents.
I wonder whether Bülent Arınç just might be practicing a form of political Taqqiya.
Links Courtesy Of The Tramp Abroad
Hero Rats: it’s amazing what these little critters can do; here’s more. Next, a day in the life of a Hero Rat in training. Then there is a songfor the kids; more here. Adults have to settle for a Wikipedia article. Finally, here is the APOPO website.
Soon gunpowder will be a thing of the past; see this, as well. Well, maybe you would like to build one of the new weapons for yourself: gohere and here for help. Next, these weapons are for the “professional hobbyist” only! They could be very dangerous, so they are not something to just “play around with”. If this is what a “hobbyist” can build, I cannot even imagine what the “big boys” have already come up with…!
States’ rights are important, but perhaps this is carrying it a bit too far. My guess: the US federal supreme court will be addressing this issue.
In Nature, everything is connected (Ed.: Haven’t we heard this called “Bell’s Theorem”?)
Did you know about this program that started in 1980?
This can’t be right…can it?
George Stephanopoulos, former White House commuications director for president Clinton, works today for ABC (TV) News (more here). After breaking with the Clinton family, he gave their charity a total of $75,000 (over a few years) — and then tried to keep the donationssecret. So — what? Well, was there ever any doubt about how those sums would be interpreted? Not really, but there once was some doubt about George’s intelligence. No longer.
That Patriot Act does not look like the law Congress enacted in 2001, now does it?
A lullaby…to help the Little One sleep…lovely.
Are you worried about sea levels? Are you fretting because you are burning carbon, and thereby sealing Florida’s doom? If so, have a look at this.
Before Clinton Cash was published, eleven of the book’s major contentions were confirmed by a varied collection of news media. The New York Times reports that the Clinton presidential campaign “…is planning a full-court press to diminish the book as yet another conservative hit job”. The book is selling well.
The US government assumes that if land is privately owned, its owners will necessarily abuse it. Think that through….
The Anthropogenic Global Warming cult is fussing about ice at the south pole again. You might have encountered their “news” items in various media, and, if you responded with concern, do take a look at this. The point is not about ice: it’s that the alarmists will lie to you. And: Debunking the Warmers’ arguments can make for complex and time-consuming reading. For example, consider a recent list of twenty-two holes in the reasoning of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Like most properly detailed science, the list is rather arcane in spots. Accordingly, the Warmers feel little need to correct the faith-based pseudoscience of AGW; they often ignore the points made by the hated “Deniers”. The alarmists get more done by preaching guilt, cursing alleged entrepreneurial misbehavior, and imploring the righteous to mend their ways.
All this Hillary stuff is tiresome, isn’t it? Really, do you care about any of it? This newsletter is just plain tired of Hillary stuff. If she isn’t reprising “Kentucky Fried Hillary“, she’s boring, dull, soporific. Maybe it’s her insincerity; whatever it is about her that reminds of listening to a lecture on the glandular problems of neurotic sufferers of chronic fatigue syndrome, she has to be one of the least interesting people on earth. Have a look; you will be terminally uninvolved and traumatically disaffected. — Oh, there are two new Hillary stories,One and Two. Boy, what excitement….
Reforming and civilizing Islamofascists in the US state of Minnesota: a federal judge leads the way. Given his, er, unique sentencing, shouldn’t the public be asking a lot of questions about how he was appointed to the bench, and who vetted him?
Some political activists have made a film you should see. It’s too long, poorly organized, confusingly edited, and so on — but in the final analysis, it’s scary as can be. Though amateurishly patched together, it clearly warns that the USA is becoming an authoritarian surveillance state. Note, please: this turn to fascism is proceeding under the “progressive” leadership of Obama and Company, though the film blames it on “wingnuts”. If you have not yet read Goldberg’s excellent Liberal Fascism (reviewed here), by all means do so — for it explains that the threat proceeds from the authoritarian “left”, not the “right”.
All right, now we have Seymour Hersch’s version of how the USA got to Usama (or Osama, if you prefer) bin Laden and killed him. His claims are certainly not new: what he describes has been available for some time. Why did Hershch’s commentary make a huge splash when the first publication of this scenario was almost totally ignored? Hersch’s status/notoriety. To this newsletter, that suggests a flaw in the news media.
This Link is only for folks in the USA.
Attempts to make the 9/11 attacks comprehensible continue. Who knows whether the effort is necessary?