We owe them no respect or obediance:
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.
They have sown the wind. It’s time for a new declaration of independence from these would-be tyrants.
[Update a few minutes later]
The origins of the Declaration of Independence:
Rutherford cautioned that a single bad act by a ruler did not justify revolution. Only if the ruler were systematically destroying the fundamental structure of society would the tremendous step of revolution be necessary. The 1776 American Declaration of Independence echoed Rutherford’s belief, explaining that “Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient cause. . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their [the people’s] right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.” The Declaration then provided a litany of King George’s abuses which proved the King’s intent to destroy civil society: “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”
Although not explicitly religious, the Declaration made a covenantal argument, that the king was violating his contractual duties that the people had entrusted him to perform: “that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.”
Rutherford argued that the people must address government abuses through methods that create the lowest level of disruption that was practically possible. Supplication was the first choice, flight the second option and use of force the last resort.
Similarly, the Declaration of Independence explained that the Americans had repeatedly asked the British for redress of their grievances and been met with constant rebuff. Fleeing to another country was not a realistic option for the entire American people. Accordingly, violent revolution was justified.
We’re not as far from that point as I wish we were. The irrational appeal of Trump is sadly a step along that road and a consequence of the disdain of the political class, in both parties.
[Update a while later]
Why the world is rebelling against “experts.”
Because they don’t know WTF they’re doing, and lie to us.
[Update a while later]
Related: A power play by the AAAS:
This statement is a blatant misuse of scientific authority to advocate for specific socioeconomic policies. National security and economics (specifically called out in the letter) is well outside the wheelhouse of all of these organizations. Note the American Economics Association is not among the signatories; according to an email from Ross McKitrick, the constitution of the AEA forbids issuing such statements. In fact, climate science is well outside the wheelhouse of most of these organizations (what the heck is with the statisticians and mathematicians in signing this?)
The link between adverse impacts such as more wildfires, ecosystem changes, extreme weather events etc. and their mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas emissions hinges on detecting unusual events for at least the past century and then actually attributing them to human caused warming. This is highly uncertain territory – even within the overconfident world of the IPCC. And the majority of the signatories to this letter have no expertise in the detection and attribution of human caused climate change.
The signatories whose membership has some expertise on the detection and attribution of climate change are only a few: American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Geological Society of America. The rest are professional societies who are not involved with the physics of climate but explicitly profit from the alarm.
Not enough opportunities for graft when you can’t irrationally frighten the sheep.
Having a bad day?
I agree we owe the political class nothing. Not sure about needing a new Declaration of Independence, yet it may depend on whether Hillary becomes above the law or the bureaucracy comes to its senses.
I’m having a bad year. The country is, too.
I hope 2016 doesn’t get renewed; the plot is completely unbelievable, and all the characters are unlikeable.
Ah, if only life was a sitcom…or some other television fantasy…
2016 is a bad year.
On a slight tangent, I’m finding myself enjoying youtube more often. It is far better than most TV out there, and the reason is simple. There is diversity of ideas in youtube.
I know that won’t last long. The EU has already pressured Google and Facebook (hardly twisted an arm, I’m sure) to ban “hate” speech (read anything that’s right wing, but not radical muslim). As youtube is owned by Google, I’m sure MiniTru will be cleaning up the place soon.
But I posted this after seeing a Progressive/Ghostbusters commercial. Lots of people are ranting about how bad the trailers are for the movie. The movie is like a parody of a comedy, and that premise is just not a good one. While people have very pointed criticism of the movie; the powers at be in Hollywood have only one response, “It’s because of the all women cast, and everyone is just misogynists”. And that didn’t go over well. Now there are tons of videos about had bad each trailer and commercial is for the movie. The response to being called mysoginist is; “why not have a team of both men and women?” In short, the sexists are in Hollywood, which is pretty accurate.
As I said, it is a tangent. But it is a sign to me that the masses get it, and the gig is up. There used to be a phrase, “never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel”. Well, pixels are cheap and everyone is buying.
Don’t know how long it will last though.
Google/youtube and Facebook have let Islamic terrorists post their junk for years and years. It takes Herculean effort to get these sites to remove snuff, propaganda, and calls to violence. These businesses may be based in the USA but they are not American.
The female ghostbusters could be OK but since they rely on political marketing, I doubt it will be.
One possible explanation for why they leave that stuff on their networks is that they were requested to do so by various intelligence agencies. By monitoring the production and consumption of those videos and related digital media, you can attempt to track the people involved. That’s just speculation on my part, though.
Kurt Schlichter is one of the few “fighting” conservatives. Instead of just whining about the end of the rule of law, constitutional reformation and the seizure of the media and academia by the left he calls for resistance and suggests policy remedies in his book.
Subversion is my go to strategy.
He actually lives just a few blocks from me. Hope to get together for dinner soon.
Don’t worry, today will be the good old days. Its going to get much worse. The left knows how to divide and conquer.
The right doesn’t really get the threat. Hint: Trump is not the threat.
He’s not THE threat, but he is a threat.
Trump may not be reliable or consistent, but he’s already provided the country with the valuable service of exposing the rats. It is absolutely astonishing that supposed conservatives have come out saying they’d vote for Hillary before Donald. They seem to be oblivious to this not being business as usual.
Trump may not select the right people (some with lifetime appointments…) but Hillary, from the lefts perspective certainly will.
You don’t have to like Trump to understand the danger facing this country which is hugely greater than any one guy. The right has been complicit with the destruction of this country. Say anything you like about Donald, but I guarantee we will not see him on a world apology tour.
You don’t have to like Trump to understand the danger facing this country which is hugely greater than any one guy.
Of course I don’t have to like Trump to recognize that. What’s your point?
Say anything you like about Donald, but I guarantee we will not see him on a world apology tour.
That is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to not being a terrible president.
“If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
– Winston Churchill
Likewise, with Hillary on the ballot, I’d vote for the Devil himself(or Trump) to try and stop her from winning. As of now, there is not other alternative – it’s Trump vs. Hillary. We may not like the alternatives but, as of now, there is no other viable option.
We don’t yet know who either the Republican or Democrat nominee will be.
Between Obama constantly one upping Nixon to the cheers of the media and Democrats and the Democrat judges and government administrators ignoring the law in favor of their political ideology, the rule of law is dead.
Yep. This is why Hillary needs to be brought to justice. She brazenly violated the law. Obama claimed his would be the most transparent administration ever, yet the SecState burned her daily schedules and whatever records she kept, she considered them personal. Now her husband is showing open contempt for judicial ethics, though perhaps that’s nothing new. If the reward for this behavior is more power and authority, then our country has gone too far.
So, anyone do anything interesting on April 15th this year?
They’ve already beefed up the IRS. Funny how the left can not pay taxes and still be offered govt. jobs (and not just any.)
FBI director Comey is slated to give a nationwide address at 11am ET today.
This will be interesting.
Hillary and Obama plan to be on the campaign trail together today.
Comey did not recommend indictment.
We officially live in a banana republic.
If Vlad really prefers to deal with The Donald, he should
just print one of Hillary’s classified & previously unpublished emails in Pravda….
Even THAT wouldn’t sway the Dems I don’t think…
Pass me one of those subsidized bananas…
So the FBI found clear violations of the law and obvious negligence yet concluded that a case could not be made. Thus stated by a man claiming no outside influence despite being clear outside influence.
The Clinton’s don’t have to follow the law. Others will act accordingly.
The Affluenza Defense does work, so long as you have the affluence to meet with the AG on your terms. Trump should call her the Affluenza Candidate.
…aaaaand “unexpectedly,” Hillary is cleared.
I think Comely didn’t want to be the bad guy here. He knew no prosecutor would want to be part of the case, so he decided to make it easy on those who would have tried to turn him into the most horrible person on Earth. Understandable, but regrettable.
So he isn’t the “straight-shooter” we were told. He caved to political pressure rather than uphold the law. What a shock./sarc
In case there was any doubt, we are now officially living in a banana republic.
1. You think Hillary Clinton is a criminal
2. So you expect the FBI to recommend prosecution, even though neutral observers with knowledge of such things consider such a prospect to be unlikely if not unprecedented
3. When the recommendation is, as predicted, not forthcoming, you allege political motives on the part of the Republican FBI director
So you expect the FBI to recommend prosecution, even though neutral observers with knowledge of such things consider such a prospect to be unlikely if not unprecedented.
Which “neutral observers”?
For example, those cited in this Politico piece from April.
If memory serves I posted a link to this piece, and your comment was that Jeffress didn’t know what he was talking about.
Yes, and he continues to not know what he’s talking about.
Andrew McCarthy is the antithesis of a neutral observer, and even he does not claim that such a prosecution would have any chance of success, just that some prosecutors “would feel obliged” to file an indictment.
The only reason that the outcome of a prosecution would be doubtful is the same as in Whitewater; it would be hard to find a jury of twelve without at least one die-hard Clinton supporter to hang it.
I figured our resident “New Tory” would check in quickly on this one–and so he has! If there’s anyone who knows how to respect, obey and in general grovel and make excuses for our Ruling Class, it’s Baghded Jim!
What I am saying is that Comely isn’t recommending prosecution because he knows no prosecutor would want to walk into that buzz saw. So he isn’t inclined to play the role of Ken Starr in this situation. As I said, understandable.
He could have simply nt commented on that. He coudl have said:
“Statute 12345 stipulates it a crime if the material is handled with gross negligence. We found that the material was handled with gross negligence.”
and left it at that.
Or he could have simply listed the violations of the statute without naming the statute.
But he didn’t do that. So I don’t think your theory holds water.
Comey provided evidence that Hillary violated US Code 18 Section 793f yet said she shouldn’t be prosecuted based on Section 793a.
Martha Stewart was prosecuted for far less.
Hillary also lied several times to the American people, starting with the notion that she did not send or receive classified information (she did) and that she handed over all work related emails (she did not). Of course we know she already lied about doing all this so she could use a simple device (it was simple and there’s a photo of her using multiple devices).
Bottom line, Hillary is grossly incompetent and a liar to the American people to be President.
Perhaps I’m naive, but I believe the law applies to everyone. Today, “equal justice under the law” was once again proven to be a lie. There is no such thing as “the rule of law” when the Clintons are involved. I expected the FBI and prosecutors to do their jobs. Obviously, they can’t or won’t. If the law (a href=”https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793″>18 USC 793) paragraph F clearly states that negligent handling of classified information is a crime subject to a fine and/or up to 10 years in prison. Notice that it doesn’t make an exception for prominent Demcrats like Hillary.
Comey:
“In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”
That doesn’t mean crimes weren’t committed, it just means they weren’t brazen enough for a prosecutor to take a chance on a politically charged prosecution.
As was the case with Whitewater.
He didn’t have the name Slick Willey for nothing.
Also Comey:
“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. … But that is not what we are deciding now.”
So other people would face consequences. Just not Hillary.
Other people could face other consequences. Comey can only comment on one consequence, criminal prosecution, and clearly doesn’t think it’s appropriate for a case like this, regardless of the identity of the offender. Clinton is facing the consequence of bad publicity and damage to her political career.
Clinton is facing the consequence of bad publicity and damage to her political career.
What? A free trip by taxpayers on Air Force One to get Obama’s endorsement?
According to Comey, Obama should be determine the Administrative Punishment, which could include loss of pension and disqualification from ever holding a security clearance, which would mean no intelligence briefings provided to candidates of both parties.
It’s a farce and the gig is up.
Well, that would hardly be a bad thing for Trump and it wouldn’t be a punishment for Clinton. Here’s a Trump-centric argument that applies somewhat to Hillary as well.
Tim Naftali, an intelligence expert and professor at New York University:
“Politically, I think for many candidates, it’s better that they don’t know things,” Naftali said. “They might realize how vacuous their foreign policy thinking was.”
Trump has made a pillar of his candidacy the argument that the Obama administration has utterly failed to counter its strategic rivals, from ISIS to Russia to China.
“Once candidates get secret information, they realize that there aren’t answers for every problem, but they also discover that the U.S. government is not neglecting all these problems,” Naftali said. “It makes some of their arguments on the stump completely hypocritical.”
For Trump, the temptation to blab about what he learned in a classified briefing might be great. But the smarter move might be to nod politely and forget what he heard.
From http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/05/spies-worry-candidate-trump-will-spill-secrets.html
Comey also said there was no external influence despite a public meeting with a potential co-conspirator and the AG, as well as a campaign trip with Obama and Hillary together just hours after the announcement. He was lying and doesn’t care. Lynch and Obama knew what he would report days ago, or these other things would never have happened.
Why exactly would Comey, a Republican, lie on behalf of Hillary Clinton? Just how big is this imaginary conspiracy?
Are you claiming that Bill and Hillary’s conspiracy to hide her records as SecState on a private email server so they could not be accessible to FOIA requests us imaginary, or do you expect me to know all the people involved?
Except that she:
1) clearly intentionally mishandled the information because she knew it was illegal to have er own server for State Department emails
2) “Vast quantities” is a ridiculous statement as guys like Polmar were jailed for less volume.
3) the conduct was intentional.
Comey is a bought dog.
Yes Jim, that’s what he said. If someone else had set up a personal computer and it was found to contain top secret, secret and confidential information on it through gross negligence and stupidity, they would be held accountable.
Just. Not. Hillary.
That burden relieved, she can continue campaigning that we need more government because it increases accountability to the people. Expect her supporters to be genuinely dismayed that they are branded imbecilic hypocrites when the word “accountable” passes from their mouth.
Fortunately for Hillary, the damage in publicity and political career will be mitigated by the fact that she has an army of ready-made servants prepared to make excuses for her.
Yes Jim, that’s what he said.
No, it isn’t. Here’s the whole quote, including the sentence you replaced with ellipses:
“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”
So is Hillary Clinton getting special treatment by not being subject to “security or administrative sanctions”? How exactly do you apply workplace sanctions to someone who left her job years ago?
Yes, she is getting special treatment. Ask Sandy Berger how workplace sanctions are imposed after leaving office.
Berger pled guilty to a crime.
Try again.
Thanks for proving my point about special treatment.
John Deutch:
“It seems clear that Mr. Deutch received special treatment because he was a top official, and that Ms. Reno gave him the benefit of the doubt, just as she has done for others in the administration. For an experienced prosecutor, she has an uncanny instinct for ignoring or misreading the evidence and the law when top officials are credibly accused of misconduct. Before the books are closed on this case, the actions of Mr. Deutch and his former colleagues must be carefully examined. If the evidence warrants prosecution, the high positions they held should be no barrier. ” – NY Times
She is getting special treatment by not being held accountable for the clear un ambiguous violation of law which he itemizes leading up to that statement. Violations, Comey admits, would result in consequences for other.
“How exactly do you apply workplace sanctions to someone who left her job years ago?”
Well, according to armies of half-wits across the country we should elect her president so that accountability can be brought to government.
Amateur Pundit Accountability Report
“I predict that neither Biden nor Gore will enter the race, and that Sanders won’t win half as many delegates as Clinton.” — Jim, August, 2015
Ruling: Two right, one very wrong
“My prediction: The FBI will recommend prosecution” — Rand, October, 2015
Ruling: Swing and a miss
“My prediction: the FBI will not recommend prosecution before January 20, 2017” — Jim, October 2015 (same thread)
Ruling: Looking like a safe bet
“Here’s my scenario; the JD indicts, Hillary drops out and endorses Biden” — Arizona CJ, October 2015 (same thread)
Ruling: Air ball
“Prediction: Obama will not issue any pardons related to State Department email, Benghazi, the IRS, Fast and Furious, Solyndra or even Jade Helm (am I forgetting anything?).” — Jim, January, 2016
Ruling: So far so good
“The FBI director would like to indict both Clinton and Abedin.” — Rand citing Darrell Issa, January, 2016
Ruling: Maybe Issa isn’t a neutral source?
“They seem to be waiting on this so they can have Hillary beat Sanders, then get driven out of contention, so they can nominate someone of their own choosing.” — Paul D., January 2016, same thread
Ruling: Nope
A few more:
“Jim is bitterly clinging to a Hillary candidacy. She’s toast.” — Leland, August, 2015
Ruling: “Toast” is leading the RCP average by 4.6% today
“Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee, and more-likely-than-not will win the general, unless the economy goes south between now and November, 2016.” — Jim, August, 2015 (same thread)
Ruling: So far, so good
“Fortunately for the country, though unfortunately for politics as entertainment, I expect that Trump will leave the race by Super Tuesday.” — Jim, August, 2015 (same thread)
Ruling: 100% wrong
Toast is 21% fewer voters turning out for the Democrat Primary and nearly losing to Sanders. You Jim are counting chickens that haven’t hatched.
Tell us more about accountability! People making excuses for Hillary have such credibility on the issue!
I’ve predicted the entire time that Obama’s DOJ wouldn’t brings charges against Crooked Hillary.
Every agency controlled by Obama is corrupt. Is there a single one that hasn’t used personal emails and destroyed evidence?
Jim, you didn’t cite me…. And so far so good…
Abedin and Blumenthal remain vulnerable, since I haven’t heard where Comey is on their culpability. If Hillary is elected she won’t have to pardon, her AG just won’t prosecute based on the theory that Hill’s own incompetent handling of the classified email on her server should act as a shield against prosecution of those who could make a case that they were trusting their superior to handle the information appropriately.