By Nathan Barton
…too long to list, and keep to under 1,000 words. But good morning, anyway, and here is a few stories and quotes that attracted my attention today.
Anyway, Good morning! I haven’t commented on quotes much recently, but here are two that struck my interest. “In framing a government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” James Madison (1751-1836), is called the Father of the Constitution for the USA, and was 4th US President.
Madison got it backwards: if you HAVE any government (not itself a good idea), that government has to FIRST be controlled (both by itself and by “the governed,” and THEN enabled to control something and someone else. That is, of course, virtually impossible, and why the only MANDATORY government that will work is SELF-GOVERNMENT: of the person, by the person, and for the person, coupled with voluntary cooperation between self-governors, in essence “submitting one to another” in a freewill manner for the mutual benefit of all parties. If you MUST have a government, the only way it can possibly (and not certainly) be controlled is to make sure that even a relatively small minority of “the governed” have the power to take DOWN the government to defend themselves when it goes rogue – which is pretty quickly.
Margaret Mead was quite right when she said, “The contempt for law and the contempt for the human consequences of lawbreaking go from the bottom to the top of American society.” And the first, at least, is a GOOD thing. Both of these are the result of having laws which prohibit actions which are NOT harmful aggression against someone else: which are NOT evil in and of themselves. We all tend to lump all laws together: even the ancient children of Israel could not easily differentiate between the moral laws and the ceremonial laws given through Moses.
We are rightly contemptuous of most laws because they have no justification except the whim of the voters or their representatives. And therefore, because most of these unjustified laws have no human consequences (except as imposed by the government as a terrorist, threatening or taking violent aggressive action on those who break them), we do not properly assess the negative human impacts of breaking those few laws which DO have justification: laws against aggression such as theft, wounding, killing, enslaving, and the rest. Americans, and ALL people, should have contempt for manmade law.
US Capitol was on “high alert” for 9/11 anniversary,”…staff were told to keep their car keys and wallets on their person at ;all times this week in case the Capitol is evacuated.”
Mama’s Note: How thoughtful… at least that would make it easier to identify the bodies…
Nathan: Like all the bodies survived in NYC on Bloody Tuesday? More excuse to turn the Capitol into a bunker, and DC into a fortress city against Americans.
Mama’s Note: Fortress city against Americans? The people who choose to stay there are very much welcome to it. The higher and broader the fence they build between them and us, the better – far as I’m concerned. DC needs to be knocked down and the ground salted. Everything in it represents slavery and death to me.
A Subway refused to allow a military veteran to enter their store with his service dog, which triggered a major setback in his treatment, even though the store advertised that service animals WERE welcome. Godfather Politics, a site that usually understands these things better, wants to see the store and its staff (which also, I might add, lied repeatedly) pilloried for doing so. It is NOT the refusal of service to the vet that really should be pursued by any sort of legal action (but rather by local VOLUNTEER efforts to get them to change their ways), it is the false advertising. Nothing else. No one (except maybe Subway itself) MADE that store’s owner and manager put that sign up.
Last week, a stupid sheriff’s deputy let his two-year-old shoot him and several other people in a fast food place. This week, we see that a Utah teacher “accidently” shoots herself in leg at school. Granite School District spokesman Ben Horsley says the teacher was in the faculty restroom when the gun went off.
Mama’s Note: Gun was probably not in a good holster, for starters, maybe none at all and in a pocket. The other thing is, of course, that because of this she either got it tangled in clothing or pulled the trigger herself somehow. Too bad we can’t educate these “journalists” that guns simply do not “go off” without the trigger being pulled, one way or another. The lady needs to go back for some more training, and engage in dry fire until she has absolutely mastered her trigger discipline. Sigh.
Nathan: It was once common to read about plainclothes police shooting off their service weapons when going to the toilet, because the guns fell out of their pocket OR inside the pants/skirt holster when they disrobed. Of course, that is why plainclothes cops are unarmed today. The same should apply to teachers.
In other news of Wednesday, the US Senate failed to pass a constitutional amendment which would have gutted the First Amendment by allowing “government” to control and limit free speech and denying artificial persons (such as corporations) all rights. George Will kindly provides a list of the scum (Demo and “Independent”) who voted to destroy the Constitution on paper as well as in practice. It includes TWO Coloradoans, a South Dakotan, a Montanan, and others which clearly do NOT represent their states. Even voting in favor of such a thing would seem to me to constitute proof that these 46 people are ENEMIES – DOMESTIC enemies – and traitors, and should be put down like the rabid dogs that they are. Is not enough enough?
“It includes TWO Coloradoans, a South Dakotan, a Montanan, and others which clearly do NOT represent their states.”
No politician represents anybody but himself, and the special interests who paid for his election. The whole concept of political representation is nonsense, unable to stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. When someone claims to want to represent you (politically), that’s just a euphemism that means he wants to rule you.
Here’s a hint: it’s not representation, if you (individually) can’t fire him on the spot.
Absolutely! Been saying that for a lot of years. You can hire a lawyer to “represent you,” but you can fire him too. But another problem with political representation is the fact that there are as many different needs, desires and opinions as there are people to be “represented.” No person or group of people can satisfy all of them by any political process, no matter what the intentions or desires of the representatives might be. So this “they work for us,” or “the will of the people” is simply silly. And, given political games and inherent dishonesty, the “will of the majority” isn’t likely ever achieved either. It’s all a scam, an excuse for the few to control the many.