Thursday, July 21

Couple questions, Judge

Anyone following this site likely knows of my long-standing professional and personal friendship with FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano. We recently enjoyed a celebratory dinner toasting 4 years of "Judging Freedom", a podcast that has appeared on this and several other web sites. Today (7/21/16), the Judge published one of his popular "Socratic" pieces in which he poses questions that have answers that are - or should be - obvious to anyone paying attention regarding the recent inaction of the FBI and DOJ to indict former SoS Hillary Clinton. According to FBI Director Comey's own testimony, there was ample evidence to do so.

First, read the Judge's piece here.

Then consider this note I wrote to my friend:

Nice piece, Judge. Couple questions.
Where is the vaunted integrity of FBI Director Comey? What possible repercussions other than getting fired would he suffer if he came forward with what he really knows? Similarly, where is the integrity of just two of the 150(alleged) FBI agents who reportedly worked this investigation and could step up with the concealed facts ? Where are the mass resignations of FBI agents you suggested would almost surely occur if Clinton wasn’t indicted – Director Comey’s among them? Where is the integrity of the “dozen members of Congress” who were privy to Clinton’s secret Libyan war plans? Who might be among that “dozen”? You wrote:

"What if Hillary Clinton has engaged in espionage and public corruption and FBI agents know that she has? What if they have evidence to prove it but they could not present anything to a grand jury because President Obama wants Clinton, and not Donald Trump, to succeed him in office?"

Just what is the obligation of an FBI agent to step forward with such evidence? Hasn't he sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution? If his immediate superiors are corrupt and guilty of “blatant political interference”, does the Agent have no alternative course of action? What about the “Grand Jury of Public Opinion”? Wouldn’t a public uproar motivate Congress to act in some decisive manner?

You asked “What do we do about it”? Other than the suggestions above, where do the people go for learned guidance?

Hate the Rich?

"If you're stupid enough to hate "the rich" just for being rich, I have to wonder, do you also hate "the healthy" for being more healthy than you? Do you hate "the creative" for being more creative than you? Do you hate "the good looking," for being better looking than you? Do you hate "the smart" for being smarter than you? In what other ways is covetous resentment and bitterness a virtue? Or do you reserve that for "the rich" because the media and the ruling class say that that kind of envy is okay, even noble?

If someone got rich by way of force or fraud, there is reason to condemn and dislike them. But that's about judging people for being thugs and thieves, not about condemning people just for being financially successful. The ultimate irony is that the people who clamor most about "wealth inequality," and who get poor duped people to jump on that bandwagon, are the richest people in the world, and are forever trying to rob EVERYONE ELSE via "taxation." The fact that political leftists STILL fall for the envy routine, even after their own party (and the Republicans too) robbed all of them to give "bailouts" to the richest banks, corporations and individuals, shows just how gullible people can be."

- Larken Rose

Sunday, July 10

Consent of the Governed?

Mr. Higgs eloquently expands on one of my earlier posts.
BW

What gives some people the right to rule others? At least since John Locke’s time, the most common and seemingly compelling answer has been “the consent of the governed.” When the North American revolutionaries set out to justify their secession from the British Empire, they declared, among other things: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” This sounds good, especially if one doesn’t think about it very hard or very long, but the harder and longer one thinks about it, the more problematic it becomes.

One question after another comes to mind. Must every person consent? If not, how many must, and what options do those who do not consent have? What form must the consent take ― verbal, written, explicit, implicit? If implicit, how is it to be registered? Given that the composition of society is constantly changing, owing to births, deaths, and international migration, how often must the rulers confirm that they retain the consent of the governed? And so on and on. Political legitimacy, it would appear, presents a multitude of difficulties when we move from the realm of theoretical abstraction to that of practical realization.

I raise this question because in regard to the so-called social contract, I have often had occasion to protest that I haven’t even seen the contract, much less been asked to consent to it. A valid contract requires voluntary offer, acceptance, and consideration. I’ve never received an offer from my rulers, so I certainly have not accepted one; and rather than consideration, I have received nothing but contempt from the rulers, who, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement, have indubitably threatened me with grave harm in the event that I fail to comply with their edicts. What monumental effrontery these people exhibit! What gives them the right to rob me and push me around? It certainly is not my desire to be a sheep for them to shear or slaughter as they deem expedient for the attainment of their own ends.

Moreover, when we flesh out the idea of “consent of the governed” in realistic detail, the whole notion quickly becomes utterly preposterous. Just consider how it would work. A would-be ruler approaches you and offers a contract for your approval. Here, says he, is the deal.

Monday, July 4

Almost a Bullseye

Sometimes in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another. It is high time to declare our personal independence from any remnant of obligation to those who have spit upon the rule of law. We owe them nothing - not respect, not loyalty, not obedience.

Think about it. If you are out driving at 3 a.m., do you stop at a stop sign when there’s no one coming? Of course you do. You don’t need a cop to be there to make you stop. You do it voluntarily because this is America and America is a country where obeying the law is the right thing to do because the law was justly made and is justly applied. Or it used to be.

The law mattered. It applied equally to everyone. We demanded that it did, all of us – politicians, the media, and regular citizens. Oh, there were mistakes and miscarriages of justice but they weren’t common and they weren’t celebrated – they were universally reviled. And, more importantly, they weren’t part and parcel of the ideology of one particular party. There was once a time where you could imagine a Democrat scandal where the media actually called for the head of the Democrat instead of deploying to cover it up.

People assumed that the law mattered, that the same rules applied to everyone. That duly enacted laws would be enforced equally until repealed. That the Constitution set the foundation and that its guarantees would be honored even if we disliked the result in a particular case. But that’s not our country today.

The idea of the rule of law today is a lie. There is no law. There is no justice. There are only lies.

Hillary Clinton is manifestly guilty of multiple felonies. Her fans deny it half-heartedly, but mostly out of habit – in the end, it’s fine with them if she’s a felon. They don’t care. It’s just some law. What’s the big deal? It doesn’t matter that anyone else would be in jail right now for doing a fraction of what she did. But the law is not important. Justice is not important.

The attorney general secretly canoodles with the husband of the subject of criminal investigation by her own department and the president, the enforcer of our laws, shrugs. The media, the challenger of the powerful, smirks. They rub our noses in their contempt for the law. And by doing so, demonstrate their contempt for us.

Only power matters, and Hillary stands ready to accumulate more power on their behalf so their oaths, their alleged principles, their duty to the country – all of it goes out the window. But it’s much worse than just one scandal that seems not to scandalize anyone in the elite. Just read the Declaration of Independence – it’s almost like those dead white Christian male proto-NRA members foresaw and cataloged the myriad oppressions of liberalism’s current junior varsity tyranny.

There is one law for them, and another for us. Sanctuary cities? Obama’s immigration orders? If you conservatives can play by the rules and pass your laws, then we liberals will just not enforce them. You don’t get the benefit of the laws you like. We get the benefit of the ones we do, though. Not you. Too bad, rubes.

So if you are still obeying the law when you don’t absolutely have to, when there isn’t some government enforcer with a gun lurking right there to make you, aren’t you kind of a sucker?

Don’t you feel foolish, like you’re the only one who didn’t get the memo that it’s every man/woman/non-binary entity for his/her/its self?

Who is standing against this? Not the judges. The Constitution? Meh. Why should their personal agendas be constrained by some sort of foundational document? Judges find rights that don’t appear in the text and gut ones that do. Just ask a married gay guy in Los Angeles who can’t carry a concealed weapons to protect himself from [OMITTED] radicals.

The politicians won’t stand against this. The Democrats support allowing the government to jail people for criticizing politicians and clamor to take away citizens’ rights merely because some government flunky has put their name on a list. Their “minority report” on Benghazi is an attack on Trump, and to them the idea of congressional oversight of a Democrat official whose incompetence put four Americans in the ground is not merely illegitimate; it’s a joke.

Is the media standing against this, those sainted watchdogs protecting us from the powerful? Don’t make me laugh.

What do these moral abortions have in common? Short term political gain over principle. These people are so used to the good life that a society’s reflexive reliance on the principle of the rule of law brings that they think they can undermine it with impunity. Oh it’s no big deal if we do this, they reason. Everyone else will keep playing by the rules, right? Everything will be fine even as we score in the short term.

The Romans had principles for a while. Then they got tempted to abandon principle for – wait for it – short term political gain. Then they got Caesar. Then the emperors. Then the barbarians. And then the Dark Ages. But hey, we’re much smarter and more sophisticated than the Romans, who were so dumb they didn’t even know that gender is a matter of choice. Our civilization is permanent and indestructible – it’s not like we are threatened by barbarians who want to come massacre us.

Oh, wait. The last words of some of these people to their radical Muslim killers before they are beheaded will be, “Please remember me as not being Islamaphobic! And sorry about the Crusades!”

There used to be a social contract requiring that our government treat us all equally within the scope of the Constitution and defend us, and in return we would recognize the legitimacy of its laws and defend it when in need. But that contract has been breached. We are not all equal before the law. Our constitutional rights are not being upheld. We are not being defended – hell, we normals get blamed every time some Seventh Century savage goes on a kill spree. Yet we’re still supposed to keep going along as if everything is cool, obeying the law, subsidizing the elite with our taxes, taking their abuse. We’ve been evicted by the landlord but he still wants us to pay him rent.

Now it seems we actually have a new social contract – do what we say and don’t resist, and in return we’ll abuse you, lie about you, take your money, and look down upon you in contempt. What a bargain!

It’s not a social contract anymore – American society today is a suicide pact we never agreed to and yet we’re expected to go first.

I say “No.”

We owe them nothing - not respect, not loyalty, not obedience. Nothing.

We make it easy for them by going along. We make it simple by defaulting to the old rules. But there are no rules anymore, certainly none that morally bind us once we are outside the presence of some government worker with a gun to force our compliance. There is only will and power and we must rediscover our own. If there is no cop sitting right there, then there is nothing to make you stop at that stop sign tonight.

They don’t realize that by rejecting the rule of law, they have set us free. We are independent. We owe them nothing - not respect, not loyalty, not obedience. But with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we will still mutually pledge those who have earned our loyalty with their adherence to the rule of law, our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

- Kurt Schlichter
Townhall.com
 

My reply:
One point, Kurt: "There used to be a social contract...". Such a "contract" is defined "the voluntary agreement among individuals by which...organized society is brought into being". As such, neither I or anyone else I have ever known agreed to such a thing, voluntarily or not. Living under its auspices does not an endorsement make. At best, it's a matter of convenience with recognition of the terms the caveat. Still, it preserves the right of said individuals to withdraw/withhold such recognition at any time - without penalty - providing no aggression is initiated against others. As you subsequently wrote: "It’s not a social contract anymore...". In fact, it never was except for those who actually signed the document laying out the terms and, possibly, those who gave others their permission. I didn't. You didn't. No one reading this did. We weren't alive and "authorization" ex post facto doesn't work. The sooner the reality of your essential conclusion: Government is the immoral imposition of Force just as Taxation is Theft is realized, the sooner Freedom and Liberty can break out for the benefit of everyone; no signature required.
One other cautionary point: You wrote "But with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we will still mutually pledge those who have earned our loyalty with their adherence to the rule of law, our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.". I, for one, do not count myself among the "we" who are "mutually pledging" anything to anyone who intends to be my "ruler", elected by a majority or not. I retain the basic right to be the Boss of Me. Should I willfully and aggressively trespass anyone's inalienable right to Life, Liberty of the pursuit of happiness, I will willfully subject myself to appropriate justice. But I refuse to be subject to the eventual tyranny of the majority, the only accurate definition of "democracy". As Henry David Thoreau stated: I was not born to be forced. 

Brian Wilson

Friday, June 17

FBI Lies

Note: 
The author of the article below, Hugh Turley, is one of the 3 leading experts on the Vince Foster murder; we became friends while I was hosting a talk show on DC's WWRC. Since the earliest news reports, Hugh, "confidential informant" Patrick Knowlton and attorney John H. Clarke, have diligently followed and exposed every aspect of the murder, including the failures, harassment and duplicity of Park Police, FBI, coroners, forensic "experts", Senators, Congressmen, reporters and the news media. While sordid and convoluted, their combined diligence resulted in revelations and vindications. However, with insufficient media exposure and a surplus of public apathy, this heinous crime, the perpetrators and a united government-media cover-up hiding in plane sight, remains a criminal obfuscation of the truth to this day.
Brian Wilson

"The cover-up of the murder of a White House official is a crime against society and the American people. The cover-up of the murder of Vince Foster should concern both Democrats and Republicans...

The proof of the cover-up is found in Ken Starr’s report on the death of Vince Foster. The U.S. Court of Appeals that appointed Starr ordered him to include evidence of the cover-up, over his objection, in his own report, as an appendix. It is stated in the appendix to the report, “the FBI concealed the true facts surrounding Mr. Foster’s death” and “the FBI obstructed justice in this matter.”

The news of this historic appendix to the Independent Counsel’s report has been suppressed by the news media since 1997 when it was made public. It is available at university libraries and online atFBIcover-up.com."
Article here.

About Orlando...

"The reality is that terrorist attacks of small and medium scale are likely to become a monthly or weekly occurrence in the U.S. and the EU as we close in on the end of the year. Get used to the idea, because this problem is not going to go away while our own governments are aiding and even funding the very psychopaths that they are supposed to be protecting people from...

If you want better odds of survival, you will arm yourself, you will train regularly to handle active shooter scenarios and you will carry your weapon avidly. If you do not, then YOU are responsible for every consequence that you, and those you care for, suffer down the road."

Wednesday, June 15

Thought for the Day

Power does not self-generate. It is the toxic amalgam of a strain of deleterious human failings. Government itself is the manifestation of immoral force administered by liars, thieves and sociopaths. At best, it is the pavement of good intentions. If power doesn't corrupt, why has their never been an uncorrupted government? Since Government is merely a magnet for the socially reprehensible and criminally insane, sane people should be rejecting nonsense like "elections" and working instead to dispel any form of "government" - for their own safety and welfare.