Contraiairmairi has been following up Dan White, the partisan, pro-Obama head of the Illinois election board for several months. Mairi has been asking Dan White to enforce the Constitution of the United States and require that Barack Obama produce verification that he is a natural-born citizen. After months of follow up Mairi has received the following response:
"Thank you for your letter regarding BO. And.....I will review and take appropriate action." Would you say Dan White and the Illinois Election Board are corrupt, incompetent or simply using the government to foster a preferred candidate?
Mairi has written me the following e-mail:
Dear Mitchell,
It only took THREE tries, but I FINALLY received a response from Dan White. Who'd-a-thunk-it?
In a nutshell, two sentences.
Now, he doesn't say WHEN! Maybe, oh, I don't know.........AFTER the election? In 2012 before the next election?
And absolutely NO mention of just what appropriate action might be......SHEESH!
This IS Illinois. I know, a reprimand? A little slap on the wrist in private so Dan White is not accused of "abuse"?
I did send copies of my second and third letters to media and Governor Blagojevich, and just for good measure, to Jesse White, our illustrious Secretary of State.
BO is sitting as a U.S.Senator, responsible for passing laws that ALL Americans will be impacted by. He sat as an Illinois Senator, legislating to Illinois residents, and he MAY be an illegal alien! I am surprised to have finally heard at ALL from Mr. White, but I am thinking he should change his name to Mr. "Whitewash"! Sounds a bit more appropriate to me!
Sincerely,
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
AJacksonian on Private War
Dumb Still Looks Free aka AJacksonian argues that while it is fun to speculate about counter-factuals:
"society decays into pointless political bickering. My personal speculation is that this is now the 'Stuck On Stupid' universe..."
For instance, argues AJacksonian:
"Those who wanted out of Vietnam have not answered for their ill considered ideas and ideals, and the blood that pools around their feet, a gift of their politics and outlook"
for instance, because of the brutality of the Pol Pot regime. AJacksonian argues that:
"History is not inevitable. There is no inevitable outcome to any action taken, no great graced pathway to perfection for humanity...much of socialism is delimited by its historical founding and the attitude of that era seeing an up and coming 'end state' of humanity...In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
"Of the most ill thoughts purported is the concept that if you just 'regulate' things and just 'make laws' that everything will magically alter and change to fit those 'regulations' and 'laws'...In fact, no, there SHOULDN'T BE A LAW for everything. What that creates is trying to live ones life by having it DICTATED TO YOU BY GOVERNMENT.
Sadly, those who dominate universities attempt to regulate speech. But
"The activity of trying to transform language by shifting its basis to suit political ideology while attempting to retain older emotional import is also described as speech, itself, devolves into meaningless babble."
Another example, along with universities and socialists, is al Qaeda, which also "delves deeper into fantastical thought and becomes less attached to this actual, real world"
AJacksonian argues that there are links among "terrorism, organized crime, corrupt politics, unsafe banking, political payoffs, and the growing tide of authoritarianism in society. Through that I've seen the deep interconnections of all of these with the power elite in society on all sides: political, economic, criminal, law enforcement, military. I've done long and hard research into what terrorism actually *is* as an activity - not our modern attempt to pussyfoot around with it, but the actual activity itself shorn of all politics and religion. It is a damned surprising conclusion as so many people think that this is something new under the sun while, in fact, it is as old as the very first huts to go up in a village and those villagers banding together to seek common defense.
"It is called: Private War. And the founders knew about it, and placed the powers to address it in the US Constitution in the only reasonable way possible: extract equal measure from those practicing it as they have inflicted on YOU. That goes back to Grotius, but the actual concept goes back thousands of years. By trying to condone it, those that do so are joining in reveling in tearing down civilization. The very same one that keeps them alive."
Unfortunately, neither conservatives nor liberals grasp underlying concepts:
"Lets have a Cold Civil War of Morons!"
"The least we could do is READ the stuff THEY (the founders) DID to understand what they put down. Once you run across a few variants of the start of the Declaration of Independence, you begin to realize that it isn't such a revolutionary document but an encapsulation of nearly four centuries of thought on those matters. That, to me, is horrifically awe-inspiring that Jefferson with editing help from Franklin could distill so much work into such a small space. It isn't that the ideals were revolutionary, it was their application and quick and cogent summation assuming that later readers would know where they got their inspiration FROM."
But
"When looking at The two party trainwreck, we see how behaviors coincide between elected officials to yield a poor result: the two party system has stabilized on the lowest common denominator of 'what it takes to get re-elected' then use the power of the office to sinecure that position. That becomes a joint piece of work regardless of party due to the type of powers held by the parties and those in office."
The Republicans, for example, are split between what AJacksonian calls "Progressive" and "Traditionalist" concepts:
"If you want to use the power of government to enforce any moral behavior or code of activity then that is 'Progressivism'. The 'Traditionalists' want nothing, whatsoever, to do with handing government more power as it is a Punisher, and you don't really like to give more power to Punishers. A necessary Punisher, yes, which means you keep it restricted and accountable for the very few things you want it to do."
In the 1960s
"a third form of Transnationalism also started, and it is the worst of horrific triplets. It goes by the name of Transnational Terrorism...All of these join up in wanting the destruction of Western Liberalism and Individual Rights. Whenever you hear about 'group based' analysis, you are looking at someone doing a Transnationalist analysis...The Transnational Left thinks it has its winning hand via the Saul Alinsky/Bill Ayers route of indoctrination via education, Transnational Right looks to impose economic efficiency via organs like the Wall Street Journal and its anti-Nationalist views on illegal immigration and liquidating culture on a regional basis and utilizes the power of capital growth and wealth accumulation to attract its adherents, and the Transnational Terrorists just want to kill you if you disagree with what they do, and rule by intimidation and terror."
AJacksonian concludes:
"This sort of deal now puts Traditionalist Conservatives and Go-along, Get-along Jacksonians in the same boat, a position that has never been occupied due to the older Individualism vs. Society Necessary outlooks, where the stresses between wanting Individualism to reign over society and those pointing out that Society creates the space for Individualism have been at logger-heads since the founding. Now they are in the same boat by circumstance and the ability of Traditionalist Conservatives to support Society Minimal standards and Jacksonians to push Individual Accountability views now must find common accord as no one else wants them in the Transnationalist Camps...These two areas of culture have overlapped and intergrown in the 40 years since the Jacksonians were read out of the Democratic Party and now form 'Polarized America'."
Thus, there are two camps. One of totalitarian Progressives and the other of those who are "seeking to create good lives and accountable government and help those that agree with us on that basis for a better world. The first has no standards, save destroying anything that allows individuals to achieve...The other holds standards to one self, one's family, one's society and government so that each are held accountable...The first is authoritarian based and is seeking to found a new Empire of Global Discrimination with a death toll that will be unmatched by any previous authoritarian State as this will be a Global Empire...The second is the coalescing of Free People to support their liberty and freedom via minimal accountability."
The authoritarians always resort to the force of the State to put down rebellion and start fights to divide their opponents.
AJacksonian's blog is well worth the read.
"society decays into pointless political bickering. My personal speculation is that this is now the 'Stuck On Stupid' universe..."
For instance, argues AJacksonian:
"Those who wanted out of Vietnam have not answered for their ill considered ideas and ideals, and the blood that pools around their feet, a gift of their politics and outlook"
for instance, because of the brutality of the Pol Pot regime. AJacksonian argues that:
"History is not inevitable. There is no inevitable outcome to any action taken, no great graced pathway to perfection for humanity...much of socialism is delimited by its historical founding and the attitude of that era seeing an up and coming 'end state' of humanity...In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
"Of the most ill thoughts purported is the concept that if you just 'regulate' things and just 'make laws' that everything will magically alter and change to fit those 'regulations' and 'laws'...In fact, no, there SHOULDN'T BE A LAW for everything. What that creates is trying to live ones life by having it DICTATED TO YOU BY GOVERNMENT.
Sadly, those who dominate universities attempt to regulate speech. But
"The activity of trying to transform language by shifting its basis to suit political ideology while attempting to retain older emotional import is also described as speech, itself, devolves into meaningless babble."
Another example, along with universities and socialists, is al Qaeda, which also "delves deeper into fantastical thought and becomes less attached to this actual, real world"
AJacksonian argues that there are links among "terrorism, organized crime, corrupt politics, unsafe banking, political payoffs, and the growing tide of authoritarianism in society. Through that I've seen the deep interconnections of all of these with the power elite in society on all sides: political, economic, criminal, law enforcement, military. I've done long and hard research into what terrorism actually *is* as an activity - not our modern attempt to pussyfoot around with it, but the actual activity itself shorn of all politics and religion. It is a damned surprising conclusion as so many people think that this is something new under the sun while, in fact, it is as old as the very first huts to go up in a village and those villagers banding together to seek common defense.
"It is called: Private War. And the founders knew about it, and placed the powers to address it in the US Constitution in the only reasonable way possible: extract equal measure from those practicing it as they have inflicted on YOU. That goes back to Grotius, but the actual concept goes back thousands of years. By trying to condone it, those that do so are joining in reveling in tearing down civilization. The very same one that keeps them alive."
Unfortunately, neither conservatives nor liberals grasp underlying concepts:
"Lets have a Cold Civil War of Morons!"
"The least we could do is READ the stuff THEY (the founders) DID to understand what they put down. Once you run across a few variants of the start of the Declaration of Independence, you begin to realize that it isn't such a revolutionary document but an encapsulation of nearly four centuries of thought on those matters. That, to me, is horrifically awe-inspiring that Jefferson with editing help from Franklin could distill so much work into such a small space. It isn't that the ideals were revolutionary, it was their application and quick and cogent summation assuming that later readers would know where they got their inspiration FROM."
But
"When looking at The two party trainwreck, we see how behaviors coincide between elected officials to yield a poor result: the two party system has stabilized on the lowest common denominator of 'what it takes to get re-elected' then use the power of the office to sinecure that position. That becomes a joint piece of work regardless of party due to the type of powers held by the parties and those in office."
The Republicans, for example, are split between what AJacksonian calls "Progressive" and "Traditionalist" concepts:
"If you want to use the power of government to enforce any moral behavior or code of activity then that is 'Progressivism'. The 'Traditionalists' want nothing, whatsoever, to do with handing government more power as it is a Punisher, and you don't really like to give more power to Punishers. A necessary Punisher, yes, which means you keep it restricted and accountable for the very few things you want it to do."
In the 1960s
"a third form of Transnationalism also started, and it is the worst of horrific triplets. It goes by the name of Transnational Terrorism...All of these join up in wanting the destruction of Western Liberalism and Individual Rights. Whenever you hear about 'group based' analysis, you are looking at someone doing a Transnationalist analysis...The Transnational Left thinks it has its winning hand via the Saul Alinsky/Bill Ayers route of indoctrination via education, Transnational Right looks to impose economic efficiency via organs like the Wall Street Journal and its anti-Nationalist views on illegal immigration and liquidating culture on a regional basis and utilizes the power of capital growth and wealth accumulation to attract its adherents, and the Transnational Terrorists just want to kill you if you disagree with what they do, and rule by intimidation and terror."
AJacksonian concludes:
"This sort of deal now puts Traditionalist Conservatives and Go-along, Get-along Jacksonians in the same boat, a position that has never been occupied due to the older Individualism vs. Society Necessary outlooks, where the stresses between wanting Individualism to reign over society and those pointing out that Society creates the space for Individualism have been at logger-heads since the founding. Now they are in the same boat by circumstance and the ability of Traditionalist Conservatives to support Society Minimal standards and Jacksonians to push Individual Accountability views now must find common accord as no one else wants them in the Transnationalist Camps...These two areas of culture have overlapped and intergrown in the 40 years since the Jacksonians were read out of the Democratic Party and now form 'Polarized America'."
Thus, there are two camps. One of totalitarian Progressives and the other of those who are "seeking to create good lives and accountable government and help those that agree with us on that basis for a better world. The first has no standards, save destroying anything that allows individuals to achieve...The other holds standards to one self, one's family, one's society and government so that each are held accountable...The first is authoritarian based and is seeking to found a new Empire of Global Discrimination with a death toll that will be unmatched by any previous authoritarian State as this will be a Global Empire...The second is the coalescing of Free People to support their liberty and freedom via minimal accountability."
The authoritarians always resort to the force of the State to put down rebellion and start fights to divide their opponents.
AJacksonian's blog is well worth the read.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Four Party System?
Given the failure of the two party system, a number of Jacksonian conservatives are anticipating a split in the Republican Party. In an e-mail sent (courtesy of Larwyn) AJAcksonian argues that:
"two parties will not exist as they are within 4-6 years.
"The divisions in the D party and R party are present and clearly seen, and a maximum of four parties, but most likely three will be a result.
"I have my old Jacksonian Party concepts that I posted awhile ago, which are dry... outlines of a party, not a party. That starts with the fundamental understanding that Jacksonians are what they do following what they say so as to prove they mean it. That requires an Ethics Platform for candidates and those seeking office... not a Party Platform, but a clear and distinct way to demonstrate that running for office is not a sinecure and that each race is a whole, new race. Any new party *must* address the concentration of power in the US and its movement to Incumbistan. Those moves come from parties with 'plans' not 'policy' and as Jackson demonstrated, it is policy that matters and plans must be forthrightly derived from good policy, thus a new party must have people who clearly establish policy and will work out good plans to carry them forth and WORK (that dirty word in DC) to get them done.
"That is a reformulation of politics top to bottom, not a reform of it: those who do it that way will create something new under the sun and yet as old as the Republic.
"My ideas are highly idealistic, and truly I don't expect them to work on a reasonable basis - they serve as the basis to stir thinking to GET an idea of what a new party Should Do. It must cut off the basis for Party power and for individual power accumulation. It must be a structure that is defined by its members in common, yet with simple and easy to define ways to disagree and not turn into 'factions'...
"For all of that a new party must be simple, uncomplicated, basic in outlook and look to keep the simple means of accountable government as its touchstone. If it is not in the Constitution, government doesn't get it. No Teddy Roosevelt 'expansionist views' towards power are part of that...
"Thus, any new party must address the plurality of thoughts that coalesce upon the common understanding that more government is not 'good' government. That 'regulation' is not control. That 'governing' is not ruling.
"Today we adhere to the former and yet the latter is our foundation and salvation as a people.
"If we dare to believe in ourselves first... and keep government always accountable to us."
"two parties will not exist as they are within 4-6 years.
"The divisions in the D party and R party are present and clearly seen, and a maximum of four parties, but most likely three will be a result.
"I have my old Jacksonian Party concepts that I posted awhile ago, which are dry... outlines of a party, not a party. That starts with the fundamental understanding that Jacksonians are what they do following what they say so as to prove they mean it. That requires an Ethics Platform for candidates and those seeking office... not a Party Platform, but a clear and distinct way to demonstrate that running for office is not a sinecure and that each race is a whole, new race. Any new party *must* address the concentration of power in the US and its movement to Incumbistan. Those moves come from parties with 'plans' not 'policy' and as Jackson demonstrated, it is policy that matters and plans must be forthrightly derived from good policy, thus a new party must have people who clearly establish policy and will work out good plans to carry them forth and WORK (that dirty word in DC) to get them done.
"That is a reformulation of politics top to bottom, not a reform of it: those who do it that way will create something new under the sun and yet as old as the Republic.
"My ideas are highly idealistic, and truly I don't expect them to work on a reasonable basis - they serve as the basis to stir thinking to GET an idea of what a new party Should Do. It must cut off the basis for Party power and for individual power accumulation. It must be a structure that is defined by its members in common, yet with simple and easy to define ways to disagree and not turn into 'factions'...
"For all of that a new party must be simple, uncomplicated, basic in outlook and look to keep the simple means of accountable government as its touchstone. If it is not in the Constitution, government doesn't get it. No Teddy Roosevelt 'expansionist views' towards power are part of that...
"Thus, any new party must address the plurality of thoughts that coalesce upon the common understanding that more government is not 'good' government. That 'regulation' is not control. That 'governing' is not ruling.
"Today we adhere to the former and yet the latter is our foundation and salvation as a people.
"If we dare to believe in ourselves first... and keep government always accountable to us."
Jesse Jackson Says That Under Obama, American Support For Israel Will Be Reduced
Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs (h/t Larwyn) reports that Jesse Jackson has publicly stated that:
"Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades", they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House. "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end...Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, 'just a supporter.' But he adds that Obama has been 'a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family.' Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.
Read the whole thing here.
"Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades", they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House. "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end...Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, 'just a supporter.' But he adds that Obama has been 'a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family.' Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.
Read the whole thing here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
