15
0

Government should always be minimized


 invite response                
2023 Jul 18, 5:56am   15,768 views  221 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (60)   💰tip   ignore  

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/setting-the-stage-for-your-own-execution


i’m such a fan of “coyote’s law” coined by longtime gatopal™ warren meyer of coyoteblog fame.

i shall paraphrase:

“before granting any new power or prerogative to the state, first imagine that power wielded by the politician you hate most, because one day it will be.”


« First        Comments 181 - 220 of 221       Last »     Search these comments

183   Patrick   2024 Apr 26, 9:13am  

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/bad-luck-friday-april-26-2024-c-and


All nine Justices, including the liberals, seemed shocked by the concept of absolute presidential immunity. Like me, you’ve probably heard the media’s vomitous, broken-record jargon until your ears were bleeding: “nobody is above the law.” Really? Is that true?

Let’s start with judges. Judges are immune. If a judge makes a mistake, and an innocent person goes to the electric chair, what happens? Nothing. Even if the judge intentionally railroaded the defendant because of racial bias or for any other reason, what happens? Nothing.

How about Congressmen? Congressmen are immune. If they start a war that gets thousands of Americans killed, for illegal reasons (Wag the Dog), what happens? Nothing. (Critics will yap about bribery. So what? How many successful prosecutions have there been? At best, which is a stretch, bribery prosecutions only show a limited exception to Congress’ broad, general immunity.)

How about City Commissioners? City Commissioners are immune. What if a city commissioner violates citizens’ constitutional rights in Florida by mandating vaccines, and an outraged lawyer (me) proves the constitutional violation in court? What happens to the Commissioners?

Nothing.

How about cops? Cops are immune. At least, they enjoy qualified immunity. What happens if a cop negligently mows down grandma while chasing a teenaged jaywalker at irrationally high speeds? Nothing. Immune.

For Heaven’s sake, the entire government is immune. It’s a concept called sovereign immunity. The only way ‘round sovereign immunity is when the government graciously de-immunizes itself by passing a law allowing certain types of claims against government officials. Otherwise, tough luck, starbuck.

Although his immunity produces extremely vexing results in many cases, it is just as necessary as other types of government immunity. The President is not even an ordinary government official. He’s an entire branch of government. Article II of the Constitution establishes the President as the Executive Branch. Under the Constitution, the President enjoys powers exceeding those of any other government official, so it seems uncontroversial that he would also enjoy immunity exceeding that of any other government official.

I mean, through his pardon power, the President can even dish out immunity to anybody else, for any crime, no matter how horrible, even mislabeling checks. Why not himself?

Would I love to see Barack Hussein Obama tried for his crimes? A hundred percent. But that would open Pandora’s immunity box and start the political prosecution train going. Next stop, Banana Republic.

What to me was unaccountably absent from yesterday’s oral arguments was any discussion about the mountain of broad immunities already enjoyed by government and whether the President’s immunity should rest somewhere near, if not right at, the peak.

In other words, at minimum, a president should never have less immunity than every other government official. We put up with immunity so judges can rule without fearing personal consequences. We want Presidents to execute their duties boldly and decisively.

Nobody made that point yesterday.

What can I tell you? It’s a super strange year.


Immunity of the people who rule us is a good reason to minimize their numbers and power.
204   HeadSet   2024 Jun 14, 2:55pm  

UkraineIsTotallyFucked says





Feminist still want to be screwed by their men, though.
213   AD   2024 Jun 20, 11:10pm  

I thinking about when I took the intermediate (level 2) acquisitions management course at Defense Acquisition University and the instructor at day one said that around 20% could be cut from a major acquisition program and it could still meet the Pentagon's requirements.

The Federal Reserve policies contributed to the federal debt to GDP ratio reaching the current level of 121%, whereas it was around 106% right before the COVID pandemic started.

And I read using Google Gemini AI that about $660 billion was spent on federal debt service in 2023, compared to

* $773 billion for the Pentagon
* $887 billion for Medicaid
* $302 billion for Veteran Affairs (about $151 billion of this went to VA disability and income security/pension payments)

Congressional Budget Office forecasts around $870 billion for federal debt service in 2024 which surpasses the Pentagon budget :-/
217   AD   2024 Jul 1, 11:46pm  

.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/presidential-debate-how-much-debt-grow-under-biden-trump-terms

Trump added $8.4 trillion to the debt, and $4.8 trillion of that was due to non-COVID pandemic/crisis spending.

As of 21 June 2024, Biden added $4.3 trillion to the debt, and $2.2 trillion of that was due to non COVID spending.

Congressional Budget Office forecasts a $2 trillion deficit for 2024, and that $1.2 trillion (of that $2 trillion) has already been realized since end of May 2024.

The deficit was $1.7 trillion in 2023.

So Biden will add at least $5.1 trillion to the debt during his first term compared to Trump's $8.1 trillion.

But Trump was politically forced to sign bi-partisan spending bills to respond to the COVID crisis. Trump staved off a major economic depression because of all the COVID lockdowns.

.
218   Patrick   2024 Jul 3, 6:04pm  

https://barsoom.substack.com/p/fear


It shouldn’t be surprising that the war on terror ended up making us chronically terrified. That’s the track record for these things. Even back in the 1990s we knew that. The war on poverty generated an obscenely inflated welfare underclass while systematically slowing economic growth, thereby generating poverty twice over. The war on drugs led to a society of drug addicts, in which every fifth person is on at least one kind of pill, and most of the rest are self-medicating in other ways. Instead of weed (legal now, in any case), we have fentanyl and meth. Victory!

When Washington declares war on something, it invariably produces more of it. This seems perverse until you realize that wars on abstractions are simply how managerial bureaucracies extend their bases of power. A war that can never be won is a war with job security. A war that gets worse the longer and harder you fight it is even better, because this generates growth.

Washington’s current wars seem to be on racism, baseline human sexual normalcy, men, and multipolarity; the latter is really just a fancy word for the growing tendency for other countries to not do what Washington tells them to because, in general, they prefer being racist to being erased, they think the butt stuff is weird, they don’t want to be castrated, and since they are not castrated, they are still capable of not liking to be told what to do. Sure enough, all of these wars, whether cultural or geopolitical, are steadily generating the very things that they’re trying to stamp out. Racism stocks have reached prices they haven’t seen in generations, thanks to sustained decade of all-out full sector push by the media, corporate, educational, and public sectors, all doing their part to push that line up, up, up. Meanwhile, the war on multipolarity seems in general to be doing a fantastic job of generating more multipolarity.

The longer Washington wages its cowardly war against Russia, China, Iran, and I guess now North Korea, the more Washington’s standing in the world is reduced. I say ‘cowardly’ of course because the war is not waged openly: formally, no war has been declared by Washington or any of its core NATO allies against any of the obvious belligerents. It’s all done through proxies which Washington pays to train and arm and die on its behalf, funding it all with a money printer whose brrrring has gotten defeaning. Or it’s done through sabotage; let’s not forget Nordstream, which kicked the legs out from under Germany’s, and therefore Europe’s economy, in perhaps the most breathtakingly cynical act of strategic sabotage against a supposed ally that one might imagine. Washington doomed Europe in order to ensure that Europe would stay attached to Washington. The whole world sees what Washington is doing of course, and is frightened lest it happen to them, but also disgusted that it happens at all; the latter emotion is becoming increasingly dominant, however, because Washington is becoming less frightening every day.

Washington could not even coordinate an orderly retreat from Afghanistan; its wunderwaffen have made little impact on the Ukrainian battlefront; even combined with its vassals, it cannot match levels of armament production that come effortlessly to its adversaries; its pier in Gaza fell apart uselessly; its mighty navy has so far been utterly powerless to stop a blockade imposed by some obscure tribe of desert Arabs. Then there’s the big fail, Washington’s attempt to nuke the Russian economy by locking it out of the SWIFT system. The Russian economy is doing fine, in fact better than fine, but SWIFT on the other hand is swiftly becoming irrelevant.
219   DemocratsAreTotallyFucked   2024 Jul 8, 8:56am  

If I saw 3 out of 4 of these on TV, does that count?


« First        Comments 181 - 220 of 221       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions