Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
You Won't BELIEVE What's Going On with Government Spying on Americans
By George Washington
Created 08/17/2013 - 12:24
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
A Republic, If We Can Keep It
Classical values
comment:
Ann Barnhardt thinks we've already lost it. Mark Levin wants a dialogue about restoring the Constitution, perhaps leading to an Article V convention.
The more I look around, the worst it looks.
comment:
Ann Barnhardt thinks we've already lost it. Mark Levin wants a dialogue about restoring the Constitution, perhaps leading to an Article V convention.
The more I look around, the worst it looks.
VON BRAUN, Trip Around the Moon, DISNEY,1955
This was made in 1955. It is still incredibly advanced in ideas. Can you imagine the leadership of this country even beginning to attempt to do something like this? Even 40 years after landing on the moon?
By the way, most of this video is about building a space station.
By the way, most of this video is about building a space station.
Robert Bussard's Aspen SSTO Concept
This idea for this discussion was obtained from The Nuclear Rocket, by James Dewar.
Dewar said nobody has studied Bussard's concept since 1971. However, that is incorrect.
The linked pdf study was done in 2001 and concluded that the idea seems impractical for now. Perhaps, it is because of the use of scramjets, which have poor thrust to weight ratios.
The idea occurred to me that you could use Skylon's engines for the ASPEN. Replace the scramjets and take it up to Mach 5.5, then switching Skylon's engines to conventional rocket mode. Here's a twist though. Instead of using the scramjet trajectory, you are now free to use a sounding rocket trajectory. The sounding rocket, using Skylon's converted to conventional rocket, can get the vehicle well above the atmosphere, where it can then power the rocket to orbital velocity. It is hoped that the use of a trajectory like this will save onboard oxygen ( and weight penalty) because, as a sounding rocket, it won't need full power. Sounding rockets only get altitude, not velocity.
It will have the added benefit of avoiding NASA's prohibition on using an atomic rocket in the atmosphere. Once high enough, say at the Karman line, the nuclear rocket can then be used to gain orbital velocity. A similar technique is proposed by Parkins in his beamed microwave concept.
Why do this at all if the Skylon will achieve orbital velocity without the need for nuclear thermal technology? Well, the motive is to improve upon its performance. Nuclear thermal rocketry can achieve higher ISP's than conventional rockets. Dewar believes the payload fractions could be increased significantly. If he's right, this could be way to get cheaper access to space.
Another possibility would be to carry a small vehicle in the payload bay, and deploy it at the Karman line.
It would weigh much more than the Skylon is designed for, but the Skylon won't be going to orbit, so it may be able to handle the weight. Or the payload could be downsized. This is a bit harder, though.
If we stick to ASPEN, then we will have to borrow Skylon's engines. Alan Bond may not agree to that proposition.
You'd like to combine the two concepts for a more powerful concept.
Dewar said nobody has studied Bussard's concept since 1971. However, that is incorrect.
The linked pdf study was done in 2001 and concluded that the idea seems impractical for now. Perhaps, it is because of the use of scramjets, which have poor thrust to weight ratios.
The idea occurred to me that you could use Skylon's engines for the ASPEN. Replace the scramjets and take it up to Mach 5.5, then switching Skylon's engines to conventional rocket mode. Here's a twist though. Instead of using the scramjet trajectory, you are now free to use a sounding rocket trajectory. The sounding rocket, using Skylon's converted to conventional rocket, can get the vehicle well above the atmosphere, where it can then power the rocket to orbital velocity. It is hoped that the use of a trajectory like this will save onboard oxygen ( and weight penalty) because, as a sounding rocket, it won't need full power. Sounding rockets only get altitude, not velocity.
It will have the added benefit of avoiding NASA's prohibition on using an atomic rocket in the atmosphere. Once high enough, say at the Karman line, the nuclear rocket can then be used to gain orbital velocity. A similar technique is proposed by Parkins in his beamed microwave concept.
Why do this at all if the Skylon will achieve orbital velocity without the need for nuclear thermal technology? Well, the motive is to improve upon its performance. Nuclear thermal rocketry can achieve higher ISP's than conventional rockets. Dewar believes the payload fractions could be increased significantly. If he's right, this could be way to get cheaper access to space.
Another possibility would be to carry a small vehicle in the payload bay, and deploy it at the Karman line.
It would weigh much more than the Skylon is designed for, but the Skylon won't be going to orbit, so it may be able to handle the weight. Or the payload could be downsized. This is a bit harder, though.
If we stick to ASPEN, then we will have to borrow Skylon's engines. Alan Bond may not agree to that proposition.
You'd like to combine the two concepts for a more powerful concept.
ATK To Supply Stratolaunch Rocket Stages
spacenews.com
That means Stratolaunch is still in business. As a matter of fact, they've completed the large hangar for the plane.
The reason I posted this is that I had a thought, which may be completely out of the question. Nevertheless, it costs nothing to post it here, so here goes: Let's say we can develop an aircraft that can be dropped off like the typical spacecraft that they plan to do. Let's say this thing has a nuclear thermal capability and it uses the type of configuration discussed earlier today. Then a typical mission would fly out in the Atlantic Ocean and drop this nuclear beastie and the thing would launch itself into orbit.
The weight would be kept below a half million pounds. The Skylon weighs a bit more, but by using the Stratolaunch, we may be able to save some weight. Consider that the original configuration would have been a SpaceX design that would have weighed about that much. The Falcon 9 weighs about as much as the proposed Skylon. It may not be out of the question to get the weight down to half a million pounds.
You may be able to save weight on the nuclear thermal because of the higher ISP. Let's say about 1000 secs. The empty weight of the Skylon is 120k lbs. Loaded weight is 760k lbs. We'd have to lose about a quarter million pounds. Consider that we should be using less oxygen and hydrogen. Plus the air launch would also save fuel and other weight that the Skylon uses for its braking system that it won't need since it is already airborne. So, this may be possible.
So, if you go out into the ocean, it won't be a problem if it crashes before reaching orbit. It won't fire the nuclear engines until it passes the Karman line, which marks the beginning of space. Perhaps this would assuage some of the concerns.
WASHINGTON — ATK Aerospace will develop and produce “large-diameter” solid-rocket motors for the first and second stages of Stratolaunch Inc.’s planned three-stage air-launched rocket, the Magna, Utah, propulsion provider announced Aug. 13.
That means Stratolaunch is still in business. As a matter of fact, they've completed the large hangar for the plane.
The reason I posted this is that I had a thought, which may be completely out of the question. Nevertheless, it costs nothing to post it here, so here goes: Let's say we can develop an aircraft that can be dropped off like the typical spacecraft that they plan to do. Let's say this thing has a nuclear thermal capability and it uses the type of configuration discussed earlier today. Then a typical mission would fly out in the Atlantic Ocean and drop this nuclear beastie and the thing would launch itself into orbit.
The weight would be kept below a half million pounds. The Skylon weighs a bit more, but by using the Stratolaunch, we may be able to save some weight. Consider that the original configuration would have been a SpaceX design that would have weighed about that much. The Falcon 9 weighs about as much as the proposed Skylon. It may not be out of the question to get the weight down to half a million pounds.
You may be able to save weight on the nuclear thermal because of the higher ISP. Let's say about 1000 secs. The empty weight of the Skylon is 120k lbs. Loaded weight is 760k lbs. We'd have to lose about a quarter million pounds. Consider that we should be using less oxygen and hydrogen. Plus the air launch would also save fuel and other weight that the Skylon uses for its braking system that it won't need since it is already airborne. So, this may be possible.
So, if you go out into the ocean, it won't be a problem if it crashes before reaching orbit. It won't fire the nuclear engines until it passes the Karman line, which marks the beginning of space. Perhaps this would assuage some of the concerns.
Hawaiian volcano serves as make-believe red planet for Mars researchers
.theguardian
Seems to be skeptical of the value of this type research.
The author must be reading Limits to Growth, or is a Club of Rome member.
Six astronauts emerged this week from four months spent living on Hawaii's isolated Mauna Loa volcano to simulate life on Mars, the latest elaborate make-believe staged in the name of science.
Seems to be skeptical of the value of this type research.
The author must be reading Limits to Growth, or is a Club of Rome member.
What if everybody who is somebody got made first?
But Tommy didn't get made, he got whacked while thinking he was being made.
Moon hole might be suitable for colony
cnn, jan 1, 2010
quote:
You could put a geodesic dome over something this size.
Nobody thinks you could make a moon base because hardly anybody thinks about it much. Gingrich was lambasted for the idea, but it isn't a bad project for a country to undertake. Other countries are planning moon bases. Only the USA seems to lack interest.
quote:
The vertical hole, in the volcanic Marius Hills region on the moon's near side, is 213 feet wide and is estimated to be more than 260 feet deep, according to findings published in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
You could put a geodesic dome over something this size.
Nobody thinks you could make a moon base because hardly anybody thinks about it much. Gingrich was lambasted for the idea, but it isn't a bad project for a country to undertake. Other countries are planning moon bases. Only the USA seems to lack interest.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Cruz v. Christie, the GOP conundrum
The GOP is a fractured mess. Two NRO pieces demonstrate it.
Here's an anti-Cruz post. By the time you are finished with it, you will be convinced that Cruz is the next Barry Goldwater.
In the other corner, is this post. By the time you finish it, you may have realized that the GOP has definitely got a problem. How to unite such a fractious group?
You may not be able to unite it. You may have to bust it up.
Personally, I don't like Christie. I like Cruz, but I am a bit suspicious. If the party is to remain a party, perhaps neither should get the nomination. Unfortunately, that doesn't inspire anybody.
Christie is an odd fellow. He says things that sound like Al Davis, the NFL owner, who once said---"just win baby". But what good is winning if you don't have anything you are trying to win with? If all you are is a faux Democrat, what good is that? Christie is the guy Democrats love to love when it doesn't matter, but they will definitely hate him up if he gets the nomination. The GOP just keeps trying to emulate the Dems, but that doesn't work. You have to be about something, and be somebody.
Cruz is somebody, but that could be a problem too. What worries me about him is that he says what conservatives want to hear, but is that sincere? Is it all just an act? The other part of that is that conservatives are just a minority like the liberals. If you run the party as a conservative party, you may lose everybody else.
You have to unite around something. Let it not be around personalities. That's what we got with Obama.
I recall what Gingrich said about politics in America---all too often, politics is about personalities, and not ideas.
One idea that I would favor is to get back to the Constitution. The country has enough left that it could heal itself as long as it has the proper foundation in place. The current foundation needs to be shored up. It is cracking rather badly, as the current leadership of both parties seem bound and determined to crack up the rule of law and replace it with the cult of personality..
Here's an anti-Cruz post. By the time you are finished with it, you will be convinced that Cruz is the next Barry Goldwater.
In the other corner, is this post. By the time you finish it, you may have realized that the GOP has definitely got a problem. How to unite such a fractious group?
You may not be able to unite it. You may have to bust it up.
Personally, I don't like Christie. I like Cruz, but I am a bit suspicious. If the party is to remain a party, perhaps neither should get the nomination. Unfortunately, that doesn't inspire anybody.
Christie is an odd fellow. He says things that sound like Al Davis, the NFL owner, who once said---"just win baby". But what good is winning if you don't have anything you are trying to win with? If all you are is a faux Democrat, what good is that? Christie is the guy Democrats love to love when it doesn't matter, but they will definitely hate him up if he gets the nomination. The GOP just keeps trying to emulate the Dems, but that doesn't work. You have to be about something, and be somebody.
Cruz is somebody, but that could be a problem too. What worries me about him is that he says what conservatives want to hear, but is that sincere? Is it all just an act? The other part of that is that conservatives are just a minority like the liberals. If you run the party as a conservative party, you may lose everybody else.
You have to unite around something. Let it not be around personalities. That's what we got with Obama.
I recall what Gingrich said about politics in America---all too often, politics is about personalities, and not ideas.
One idea that I would favor is to get back to the Constitution. The country has enough left that it could heal itself as long as it has the proper foundation in place. The current foundation needs to be shored up. It is cracking rather badly, as the current leadership of both parties seem bound and determined to crack up the rule of law and replace it with the cult of personality..
None of this is an accident---the leadership wants this
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
If This Guy Is What The Future Of America Looks Like, We Are In Big Trouble
By Tyler Durden
Created 08/15/2013 - 22:50
Recently, Fox News interviewed a self-described beach bum named Jason Greenslate who was very open about the fact that he has no problem sponging off of all the rest of us. When he was asked if he ever had any interest in actually getting a job, his response was "not whatsoever". Instead, he says that his job is to "make sure the sun's up and the girls are out" and he would rather spend his days partying. Of course every American should be free to live their own lives as they see fit, but the problem is that Jason Greenslate is using food stamps to help support his lifestyle. Of course the vast majority of those enrolled in the food stamp program are not like this. But there are also those such as Jason Greenslate that are openly abusing the system and making it more difficult for those that actually need the help to get it. Sadly, he is a product of the system that he was raised in.
Source URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-15/if-guy-what-future-america-looks-we-are-big-trouble
America 2013: Rodeo Clown more politically mature than politicians and media
Legal Insurrection
Liberals love to dish it out, but they just can't take it.
Bush was bashed continually, but that was different I suppose.
Heck, Bush was compared to a monkey for crying out loud.
Liberals love to dish it out, but they just can't take it.
Bush was bashed continually, but that was different I suppose.
Heck, Bush was compared to a monkey for crying out loud.
Forget the scramjet on Skylon type vehicle
Scramjets are too heavy and the performance isn't good enough with a thrust to weight of only 2 to 1
Scramjets aren't likely to ever be used to transport people, in my opinion. Not good enough.
Here's the relevant post.
It seems that the Skylon may dump a lot of hydrogen overboard, but that isn't confirmed. It's possible that there may have been a use found for this hydrogen as opposed to just dumping it. Depending upon memory, there.
Scramjets aren't likely to ever be used to transport people, in my opinion. Not good enough.
Here's the relevant post.
It seems that the Skylon may dump a lot of hydrogen overboard, but that isn't confirmed. It's possible that there may have been a use found for this hydrogen as opposed to just dumping it. Depending upon memory, there.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Everything that should be down is up, everything that should be up is down
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
Four More Years?
By Tyler Durden
Created 08/14/2013 - 20:18
Presented with no comment...
American Band - Grand Funk Railroad
I was looking at another video that seemed appropriate right now, and came across this. It is actually quite good, so I'm putting it up.
10 images mocking George W. Bush that were far worse than a harmless rodeo clown
Michelle Malkin
comment:
Malkin compares it to Bush and she's right, of course.
But let's look at the bigger picture. This is a First Amendment issue. There wasn't anything wrong with mocking a President. It's your right. As for Obama and his ilk, it goes with the territory. Duh!!! The left does this all the time, but they don't want it done to themselves. Can't take a joke. Anyway, another reason this is wrong: the lessons from the Bushmen.
We need to restore the republic. The left is dangerous to our liberty.
comment:
Malkin compares it to Bush and she's right, of course.
But let's look at the bigger picture. This is a First Amendment issue. There wasn't anything wrong with mocking a President. It's your right. As for Obama and his ilk, it goes with the territory. Duh!!! The left does this all the time, but they don't want it done to themselves. Can't take a joke. Anyway, another reason this is wrong: the lessons from the Bushmen.
We need to restore the republic. The left is dangerous to our liberty.
How Government Violates the Fourth Amendment Rights of Renters
Reason.com
comment:
Good luck with that. The Courts are part of the problem, not the solution. The Court encourages creeping statism and authoritarianism. It won't come to their rescue.
The Nelsons and other renters claim that the city is violating their constitutional rights, and last year petitioned the Supreme Court to review the city’s actions.
comment:
Good luck with that. The Courts are part of the problem, not the solution. The Court encourages creeping statism and authoritarianism. It won't come to their rescue.
Newt Gingrich: No GOP health care plan
politico
Maybe because Newt keeps going off the reservation, that is why he didn't get the nomination.
This provided an opportunity for the left to bash the GOP. Not that they needed much help, since the GOP is shooting itself in the foot on a regular basis.
Priebus told CNN he did “not completely” agree with Gingrich’s remarks and brought up health care proposals on Republican leaders’ websites.comment:
Maybe because Newt keeps going off the reservation, that is why he didn't get the nomination.
This provided an opportunity for the left to bash the GOP. Not that they needed much help, since the GOP is shooting itself in the foot on a regular basis.
The Liberty Amendments --- Review
It was an easy read and it was persuasive.
Levin points out that when in doubt, refer to the Constitution itself. Those who feel fear at the prospect of an Article V Convention to propose amendments should rest easy. The Constitution itself says that it is for proposing amendments, not for rewriting the entire document. Secondly, the text says that the states will ratify the amendments in the same way that any other amendments are ratified. Finally, there should be a recognition that the federal government is already lost, there should be no fear in trying to restore it. The Convention will succeed in restoring the Constitution or it won't. The process itself is the potential remedy.
Not only should there be no fear of a Convention, but there should be fear of doing nothing at all. The government is abandoning constitutional republicanism. The federal government will not reform itself, so it is up to the states to restore the republic lest it fall into total disrepair on its own.
One other thing--- I didn't know about the Anti-Federalist Papers. These were written in opposition to the adoption of the Constitution, and to counter the Federalist Papers, which I did know about. The Anti-Federalist Papers warned about the conditions that we find ourselves in today. We are being tested, if the Constitution cannot repair itself, it will have been found to be defective. The fitness of the people for self-rule will have been exposed as inadequate if we fail this test.
Most of the rest of the book covers his proposed amendments.
Levin points out that when in doubt, refer to the Constitution itself. Those who feel fear at the prospect of an Article V Convention to propose amendments should rest easy. The Constitution itself says that it is for proposing amendments, not for rewriting the entire document. Secondly, the text says that the states will ratify the amendments in the same way that any other amendments are ratified. Finally, there should be a recognition that the federal government is already lost, there should be no fear in trying to restore it. The Convention will succeed in restoring the Constitution or it won't. The process itself is the potential remedy.
Not only should there be no fear of a Convention, but there should be fear of doing nothing at all. The government is abandoning constitutional republicanism. The federal government will not reform itself, so it is up to the states to restore the republic lest it fall into total disrepair on its own.
One other thing--- I didn't know about the Anti-Federalist Papers. These were written in opposition to the adoption of the Constitution, and to counter the Federalist Papers, which I did know about. The Anti-Federalist Papers warned about the conditions that we find ourselves in today. We are being tested, if the Constitution cannot repair itself, it will have been found to be defective. The fitness of the people for self-rule will have been exposed as inadequate if we fail this test.
Most of the rest of the book covers his proposed amendments.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
USA GDP per capita in oil prices per barrel 1960-2011
This chart uses the same method as before, but this time, instead of gold prices per oz, oil prices are substituted instead.
The results are similar enough, but one import difference. The years 1997-1999, the USA GDP per capita per barrel of oil spiked, and then came back down to historical levels. The chart is annotated with historical events that could explain what happened during that time. There was an Asian crisis which contributed to much lower oil prices during the period in question. This would have the impact of inflating the GDP as the GDP would rise in the typical fashion, but the price of oil drops significantly. The effect is that it makes the GDP numbers spike, as shown.
Otherwise, the same point still holds. The economy appears to be stuck in the mud.
The results are similar enough, but one import difference. The years 1997-1999, the USA GDP per capita per barrel of oil spiked, and then came back down to historical levels. The chart is annotated with historical events that could explain what happened during that time. There was an Asian crisis which contributed to much lower oil prices during the period in question. This would have the impact of inflating the GDP as the GDP would rise in the typical fashion, but the price of oil drops significantly. The effect is that it makes the GDP numbers spike, as shown.
Otherwise, the same point still holds. The economy appears to be stuck in the mud.
Seven arrested in Memorial Park sex sting
ABC News, Houston Local Affiliate, Channel 13
That one guy looks like he'd do something like this, and he works for the government.
That one guy looks like he'd do something like this, and he works for the government.
What could go wrong in an Article V convention?
Advanced apologies if this is repetitive in some way.
Glenn Reynolds asked the question of what happens if the states call for an Article V constitutional convention, and the Congress refuses to act? What do you do about this? This and other questions need to be addressed before an Article V convention is sought.
One possibility is that the states calling for the convention decide to go on their own and do it anyway without the blessing of Congress. This is rather risky for Congress, the convention, and the nation at large because in such a scenario, the possibility is greater for a runaway convention. For if Congress doesn't call for one, as is required under Article V, they will have signaled their opposition. Those who intend to change the Constitution will not fail to notice the Congress' hostility toward their obligations under the existing document. If such exists, there can be no other peaceful recourse but to go on your own and that could lead to a more unpredictable outcome. If Congress, or the President decides to preempt the convention by force, a dreadful crisis will ensue. The very legitimacy of the government shall then be in question. The country could be plunged into civil war.
Now, if the Congress does honor its obligation to call for the convention, it can claim, if any controversy shall arise, that it did its part. If it does not, it will be complicit in the resulting crisis if the convention does go runaway. The Congress does have some power and influence here even if the convention is held, it dare not forfeit it away. One thing that the Congress can do legally is to preempt any attempt by the convention to ratify the results of the convention in a way that is not in accord with the Constitution itself. That is to say, if the Congress refuses to act, how then could they object if the convention then specifies a ratification mode that is not in accord with the Constitution? The Congress, in failing to oblige the duties set forth in the Constitution, can hardly be credible if the convention adopts a ratification mode that the Congress itself finds objectionable and not in accord with the Constitution when Congress itself wasn't faithful to it either.
Article V says the convention can propose amendments only. Now if the Congress calls for the convention as requested by the states, and the convention exceeds its authority, then the Congress will have the high ground and can legitimately terminate the process, since it would be illegal. But if it didn't obey the Constitution, and refused to do its duty in calling for one, it can hardly complain when the convention goes runaway. So, the convention must stay on the up and up, or it is in hot water. It should behave itself then, as Congress will hardly be indifferent towards the proceedings. Neither shall the President, by the way.
If everybody plays by the rules, there can be no controversy. The amendments would be submitted to the states and if ratified, will become the law of the land.
So, there can be no controversy as long as everybody plays by the rules. As soon as the rules are disregarded, the situation goes into crisis. The incentive is to play by the rules.
It would be well to consider why the Convention is being called in the first place. It would be called because the government is NOT playing by the rules. The greater probability is that Congress will cheat, not the Convention. So, if Congress does cheat, it will force the Convention to go rogue, and plunge the nation into crisis. An Article V convention is legal, its suppression is not as long as the convention sticks with proposed amendments, and not craft a new Constitution in total.
What if Congress cheats, and the Convention goes rogue? Then that is a definite crisis with an indeterminate outcome. But consider this: if Congress does cheat, then what protection does our current situation give us? We should push the envelope and find out. For if the Congress and the President will not honor the Constitution as written, we had better find out now than to wait until it is too late.
Glenn Reynolds asked the question of what happens if the states call for an Article V constitutional convention, and the Congress refuses to act? What do you do about this? This and other questions need to be addressed before an Article V convention is sought.
One possibility is that the states calling for the convention decide to go on their own and do it anyway without the blessing of Congress. This is rather risky for Congress, the convention, and the nation at large because in such a scenario, the possibility is greater for a runaway convention. For if Congress doesn't call for one, as is required under Article V, they will have signaled their opposition. Those who intend to change the Constitution will not fail to notice the Congress' hostility toward their obligations under the existing document. If such exists, there can be no other peaceful recourse but to go on your own and that could lead to a more unpredictable outcome. If Congress, or the President decides to preempt the convention by force, a dreadful crisis will ensue. The very legitimacy of the government shall then be in question. The country could be plunged into civil war.
Now, if the Congress does honor its obligation to call for the convention, it can claim, if any controversy shall arise, that it did its part. If it does not, it will be complicit in the resulting crisis if the convention does go runaway. The Congress does have some power and influence here even if the convention is held, it dare not forfeit it away. One thing that the Congress can do legally is to preempt any attempt by the convention to ratify the results of the convention in a way that is not in accord with the Constitution itself. That is to say, if the Congress refuses to act, how then could they object if the convention then specifies a ratification mode that is not in accord with the Constitution? The Congress, in failing to oblige the duties set forth in the Constitution, can hardly be credible if the convention adopts a ratification mode that the Congress itself finds objectionable and not in accord with the Constitution when Congress itself wasn't faithful to it either.
Article V says the convention can propose amendments only. Now if the Congress calls for the convention as requested by the states, and the convention exceeds its authority, then the Congress will have the high ground and can legitimately terminate the process, since it would be illegal. But if it didn't obey the Constitution, and refused to do its duty in calling for one, it can hardly complain when the convention goes runaway. So, the convention must stay on the up and up, or it is in hot water. It should behave itself then, as Congress will hardly be indifferent towards the proceedings. Neither shall the President, by the way.
If everybody plays by the rules, there can be no controversy. The amendments would be submitted to the states and if ratified, will become the law of the land.
So, there can be no controversy as long as everybody plays by the rules. As soon as the rules are disregarded, the situation goes into crisis. The incentive is to play by the rules.
It would be well to consider why the Convention is being called in the first place. It would be called because the government is NOT playing by the rules. The greater probability is that Congress will cheat, not the Convention. So, if Congress does cheat, it will force the Convention to go rogue, and plunge the nation into crisis. An Article V convention is legal, its suppression is not as long as the convention sticks with proposed amendments, and not craft a new Constitution in total.
What if Congress cheats, and the Convention goes rogue? Then that is a definite crisis with an indeterminate outcome. But consider this: if Congress does cheat, then what protection does our current situation give us? We should push the envelope and find out. For if the Congress and the President will not honor the Constitution as written, we had better find out now than to wait until it is too late.
Glenn Reynolds Keynote - Conference on the Constitutional Convention
Reynolds describes himself as a "small c" conservative. He thinks the enterprise is dangerous, but he is not arguing against it. He points to a Rasmussen poll that indicates that people believe the government doesn't have the consent of the governed. Uses a metaphor which utilizes the analogy of the constitution as a computer's operating system. Want to deal with specific issues not in the operating system, but the application software. Temptation to make legislation a part of the constitution---the legislation as application software and the constitution as the operating system.
Levin's book doesn't propose to re-write the operating system. It just purges a lot of the application software from the operating system and restores it to its original condition "from the factory".
Glenn Reynolds Keynote - Conference on the Constitutional Convention from Rootstrikers on Vimeo.
Levin's book doesn't propose to re-write the operating system. It just purges a lot of the application software from the operating system and restores it to its original condition "from the factory".
Glenn Reynolds Keynote - Conference on the Constitutional Convention from Rootstrikers on Vimeo.
The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic: Mark R. Levin
Riehl World View
comment:
Just checking for reactions to Levin's new book.
Levin's own site has a link to the Amazon editor's review of the book, plus other reviews.
David Limbaugh, who I noted as being skeptical of a "con-con", writes a review.
William A. Jacobson, of Legal Insurrection, has a review here.
Glenn Reynolds, of Instapundit, also has his review on USA Today.
I often link to the above, so I put their links up here again. I may do a review myself on Amazon, as I am currently reading the book.
comment:
Just checking for reactions to Levin's new book.
Levin's own site has a link to the Amazon editor's review of the book, plus other reviews.
David Limbaugh, who I noted as being skeptical of a "con-con", writes a review.
William A. Jacobson, of Legal Insurrection, has a review here.
Glenn Reynolds, of Instapundit, also has his review on USA Today.
I often link to the above, so I put their links up here again. I may do a review myself on Amazon, as I am currently reading the book.
OFA Gets Zero Attendance for Climate Change Rally
Free Beacon
quote:
Ironic, isn't it? A lefty nonprofit that doesn't get harassed by the IRS. It wants more regulations and more power, as usual, but can't bear to get wet from the rain to attend a meeting of such consequence.
quote:
Not a single person showed up at the Georgetown waterfront Tuesday for a climate change agenda event put on by Organizing for Action, the shadowy nonprofit advocacy group born out of President Obama’s 2012 campaign,comment:
Ironic, isn't it? A lefty nonprofit that doesn't get harassed by the IRS. It wants more regulations and more power, as usual, but can't bear to get wet from the rain to attend a meeting of such consequence.
John Kerry: 'This Little Thing Called the Internet ... Makes It Much Harder to Govern' | CNS News
CNS News
A rather curious statement from Kerry:
Kerry is complaining about something that is challenging these statist trends. His complaints ring hollow.
A rather curious statement from Kerry:
"and that is complicated by a rise of sectarianism and religious extremism that is prepared to employ violent means to impose on other people a way of thinking and a way of living that is completely contrary to everything the United States of America has ever stood forHas the United States stood for spying on its own citizens? What about the use of drones on US citizens? What about the increasing dictatorial nature of the government?
Kerry is complaining about something that is challenging these statist trends. His complaints ring hollow.
Reading Mark Levin's new book: initial impressions
The Liberty Amendments
The first few chapters are impressive. This book has got to be on everybody's must read list. The reason: our government has been getting out of control and this process began almost as soon as the Constitution was adopted. An Article V constitutional convention is much needed, and Levin dispenses with the fears of a runaway convention. It is quite persuasive.
The first few chapters are impressive. This book has got to be on everybody's must read list. The reason: our government has been getting out of control and this process began almost as soon as the Constitution was adopted. An Article V constitutional convention is much needed, and Levin dispenses with the fears of a runaway convention. It is quite persuasive.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
The outrageous may become the new norm
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Nixon's "Last" Press Conference (1962)
It was supposedly his last press conference, but there were to be many more. It should have been a disqualifier, since it showed that he couldn't take the heat. It was said that "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen". Well, Nixon couldn't stand the heat. He should have been a goner after this.
If Amnesty Wins, Blame Cruz
The Daily Caller via Instapundit
quote:
Here's the litmus test for me---anybody who remains loyal to the GOP is suspect. That includes Cruz. You see, the top of the party is very suspect, so that anybody who remains loyal to it is also suspect. In order to deal with that corruption, you have to decapitate it. You do that by taking the body away from the head. The body is the base of the party, which the head continually betrays.
Kaus may be right---we are being fooled and betrayed yet again.
quote:
Big GOP Donors, who almost unanimously favor amnesty, are sophisticated enough to know the difference between fighting 100% against it and going through the motions. They will remember and reward Cruz’s restraint. And he’s rising in the polls–the grassroots have been galvanized by Cruz’s Obamacare fight as surely as they could have been galvanized by a high-profile Cruz immigration fight.comment:
Here's the litmus test for me---anybody who remains loyal to the GOP is suspect. That includes Cruz. You see, the top of the party is very suspect, so that anybody who remains loyal to it is also suspect. In order to deal with that corruption, you have to decapitate it. You do that by taking the body away from the head. The body is the base of the party, which the head continually betrays.
Kaus may be right---we are being fooled and betrayed yet again.
Review--The Liberty Amendments: Amend the Constitution--to Save It
Breitbart via Instapundit
quote:
comment:
Levin calls for a constitutional convention. I agree. In fact, I did this myself on this here blog. Glad that he agrees. Maybe Limbaugh will start pushing it.
Update:
A discussion of the possible downside of a "con-con"---- a runaway convention.
quote:
Levin's The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, released Aug. 12, is an ambitious plan to save the American political experiment from the encroachments of big government in Washington, D.C.
comment:
Levin calls for a constitutional convention. I agree. In fact, I did this myself on this here blog. Glad that he agrees. Maybe Limbaugh will start pushing it.
Update:
A discussion of the possible downside of a "con-con"---- a runaway convention.
Argentina, the blueprint for a future America
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
Guest Post: Cristina Fernandez Wants You To Have An Erection
By Tyler Durden
Created 08/12/2013 - 15:05
This one is too ridiculous to not pass along. I've long written that desperate governments try to 'control' everything as they slide into insolvency. They impose capital controls, exchange controls, wage and price controls, gun controls, border controls, and more. But the government of Argentina has really taken this to another level. Their latest stunt? Manufacturing Viagra at a state-owned pharmaceuticals company... and giving it out for free to the people. It's the ultimate reminder of how absurd government control can be when things get really desperate. They reach a certain point where, after capital controls, gun controls, wage and price controls, etc., the only controls left to implement are people controls.Elon Musk's Hyperloop
The pdf file was rather long and takes too long to read this morning. For reference purposes, here's the embedded Scribd version for anyone who is interested:
A couple points:
The real problem is that the government isn't doing it in order to improve anything. They are doing it in order to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense.
Update:
Popular Mechanics has a short writeup here.
A couple points:
- Musk doesn't plan to build it himself
- It is said to be open-source, meaning anyone can contribute ideas to it
The real problem is that the government isn't doing it in order to improve anything. They are doing it in order to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense.
Update:
Popular Mechanics has a short writeup here.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Experimental X-51A Scramjet Breaks Record | Video
An idea occurred to me. The scramjet needs to be accelerated to Mach 5, where it can take over and accelerate potentially near orbital velocity. The idea was to put one of these on a Skylon, and have the Skylon accelerate up to Mach 5, and then let this thing take over. It would go as fast as it can until the Skylon can take over again and proceed to orbit.
The advantage sought would be to minimize oxygen. The Skylon would be airbreathing up to Mach 5, and the scramjet would be airbreathing up to Mach 17, say. The Skylon would then only have to accelerate up from Mach 17 to Mach 25 in rocket mode. It may even be possible to accelerate using the scramjet all the way to Mach 24. Then you would only need a little more acceleration to reach orbital velocity.
Now, if you were to add a nuclear thermal capability to it, it wouldn't need oxygen at all. That would mean six engines total and a freakin' huge hydrogen tank.
The advantage sought would be to minimize oxygen. The Skylon would be airbreathing up to Mach 5, and the scramjet would be airbreathing up to Mach 17, say. The Skylon would then only have to accelerate up from Mach 17 to Mach 25 in rocket mode. It may even be possible to accelerate using the scramjet all the way to Mach 24. Then you would only need a little more acceleration to reach orbital velocity.
Now, if you were to add a nuclear thermal capability to it, it wouldn't need oxygen at all. That would mean six engines total and a freakin' huge hydrogen tank.
Has the USA passed the event horizon?
Another way of saying it is: is the USA past the point of no return?
There may be no stopping the illegal immigrant legislation. Not only that, the Democrats have been successful in making this a racial issue. So, in the future, the demographics will favor them, and almost everybody knows it.
That's why the GOP is so anxious to cave in on the issue. They've lost it and they know it.
If this bill passes, there won't be any chance of redefining the issue on non racial grounds. That may be a long shot, but it will still exist for awhile if this bill is defeated. The questions are, number one, can the bill be defeated, and number two, can the GOP redefine the issue on non racial grounds. In other words, are we past the point of no return?
If we are, things are likely to get ugly. The Democrat's ideas can't work. For heaven's sake, the Congressional Black Caucus wants Sheila Jackson-Lee to be responsible for homeland security. Putting this imbecile in charge of the nation's security is suicide. But that will become the norm in the liberal's version of a brave new world. We will likely see these imbeciles all over the place.
How is it that this can happen? How can an imbecile be in charge unless we are all imbeciles? Surely, not everybody is that stupid. But here we are.
There may be no stopping the illegal immigrant legislation. Not only that, the Democrats have been successful in making this a racial issue. So, in the future, the demographics will favor them, and almost everybody knows it.
That's why the GOP is so anxious to cave in on the issue. They've lost it and they know it.
If this bill passes, there won't be any chance of redefining the issue on non racial grounds. That may be a long shot, but it will still exist for awhile if this bill is defeated. The questions are, number one, can the bill be defeated, and number two, can the GOP redefine the issue on non racial grounds. In other words, are we past the point of no return?
If we are, things are likely to get ugly. The Democrat's ideas can't work. For heaven's sake, the Congressional Black Caucus wants Sheila Jackson-Lee to be responsible for homeland security. Putting this imbecile in charge of the nation's security is suicide. But that will become the norm in the liberal's version of a brave new world. We will likely see these imbeciles all over the place.
How is it that this can happen? How can an imbecile be in charge unless we are all imbeciles? Surely, not everybody is that stupid. But here we are.
Movie review: “Elysium” is implausible
Free Republic
quote:
comment:
Precisely. It is a shoot-em-up action junkie type movie. Trying to get anything of social commentary from it is like trying to get social commentary out of Conan, The Barbarian.
quote:
Elysium has too many loud, noisy action scenes, and not enough calm, quiet, reflective scenes of thoughtful contemplation. It didn’t have any lines of dialogue that I can see myself wanting to quote in the future. None of the characters were particularly interesting.
comment:
Precisely. It is a shoot-em-up action junkie type movie. Trying to get anything of social commentary from it is like trying to get social commentary out of Conan, The Barbarian.
How to beat NSA snooping
Don't use Google. You can try this near search engine described here. That and the Tor browser may be enough for now.
You can't trust the system anymore
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
Guest Post: 19 Illegal Immigration Facts You Won't Read In Mainstream Media
By Tyler Durden
Created 08/11/2013 - 15:53
Should we broadcast a message to the rest of the world that anyone that can find a way to enter this country and somehow get to a "sanctuary city" can sign up for a plethora of welfare benefits and live a life of leisure at the expense of hard working American citizens? Yes, this question sounds absurd, but what we have just described will essentially be official U.S. government policy if the immigration bill going through Congress becomes law. Sadly, in politically correct America you can't even talk about the problem of illegal immigration these days without being labeled as a "racist". Our immigration system is completely broken, but these days we cannot even have a rational debate about these issues. In politically correct America, illegal immigrants have become a "favored class" of people that you are never supposed to say anything bad about. The following are 19 very disturbing facts about illegal immigration that every American should know...Sunday, August 11, 2013
Blog: Hollywood leads charge against Russia's anti-gay law
American Thinker
quote:
This looks a bit hyped. The number of people responding to this is small, but Obama did throw his two cents in.
Obama should pick better fights than this. He may need some victories. He's better off fighting Republicans, who are more interested in surrendering than fighting. The Russians probably won't dive for the canvas the same way as the GOP establishment will.
quote:
From Hollywood to Broadway, the entertainment industry is using its star power and financial muscle to raise a storm of protest over the anti-gay legislation in Russia that is battering the image of the Winter Olympics in Sochi.comment:
This looks a bit hyped. The number of people responding to this is small, but Obama did throw his two cents in.
Obama should pick better fights than this. He may need some victories. He's better off fighting Republicans, who are more interested in surrendering than fighting. The Russians probably won't dive for the canvas the same way as the GOP establishment will.
The Watergate Cover-Up Trial: Justice Denied?
The Atlantic, via Instapundit
comment:
This fits into my theory that something snapped after 1970 or so. Could the snapping event have been Watergate Scandal?
The election of 1974 brought Democrats into power in numbers nearly as great as after the LBJ landslide in 1964. Were the effects upon legislation similar to that of LBJ's Great Society?
Certainly, the Watergate scandal certainly helped the Democrat's political prospects. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is still with us today. One of its features is baseline budgeting, the kind of budgeting that refers to spending increases as "cuts". There is little way that even a GOP president, and a GOP congress can do about this. A provision related to former Senator Harry Byrd requires 3/5 majority to pass the Senate, which just about dooms any chance of getting the budget under control.
Another consequence was the loss of the Vietnam War:
Certainly the loss of Vietnam inspired Al Qaeda types to believe that they can defeat the USA in a war. They've got allies in the Democrat party. Ultimately, we were attacked on September 11th, 2001.
The election laws were also changed in a way that was helpful to Democrats:
Not to mention that those who work in unionized shops have their union dues go to pay for Democrat's campaign donations.
No question about it. Watergate was good for Democrats. Did the Democrats exploit the crime for political purposes? Sure looks like it.
comment:
This fits into my theory that something snapped after 1970 or so. Could the snapping event have been Watergate Scandal?
The election of 1974 brought Democrats into power in numbers nearly as great as after the LBJ landslide in 1964. Were the effects upon legislation similar to that of LBJ's Great Society?
Certainly, the Watergate scandal certainly helped the Democrat's political prospects. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is still with us today. One of its features is baseline budgeting, the kind of budgeting that refers to spending increases as "cuts". There is little way that even a GOP president, and a GOP congress can do about this. A provision related to former Senator Harry Byrd requires 3/5 majority to pass the Senate, which just about dooms any chance of getting the budget under control.
Another consequence was the loss of the Vietnam War:
As its first act after the 1974 election, the new Congress cut off all aid to South Vietnam. Within a short period of time, this led to Communist conquest of all of Indochina, the massacre of at least 4 million of our friends in the killing fields of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, and the displacement of millions of “boat people.”
Certainly the loss of Vietnam inspired Al Qaeda types to believe that they can defeat the USA in a war. They've got allies in the Democrat party. Ultimately, we were attacked on September 11th, 2001.
The election laws were also changed in a way that was helpful to Democrats:
Following the Watergate scandal and the resignation of President Richard Nixon, Congress amended FECA in 1974, severely limiting the amount individuals could contribute to federal candidates and placing spending limits on federal elections. In addition, the law established the creation of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce election laws and to establish a public financing program for federal candidates.
Not to mention that those who work in unionized shops have their union dues go to pay for Democrat's campaign donations.
No question about it. Watergate was good for Democrats. Did the Democrats exploit the crime for political purposes? Sure looks like it.
A New Party
This post should receive a speculation alert. That's what I give when I start talking out my ass, which I have a bad habit of doing.
This is about politics. Usually, the speculation alerts were about science. I have a very slight knowledge of some sciences and such. What I propose in the scientific area is tainted a bit by a lack of knowledge, which I admit freely. Also, with respect to politics here, I am not well versed, so take the following with a grain of salt. Just say it is from a concerned citizen who has been watching the scene and who has come to a few conclusions about the state of affairs in this country.
The main conclusion is that our leadership is failing us. The economy peaked about 1970 or so, and hasn't really recovered to that level since. It has been reflected in many ways and in many statistics, but most of all, I have lived through that time. There were indeed better times, but why has this happened, and what can be done about it?
There is no accountability. Sure, Nixon was forced to resign, but Clinton was not. The accountability seems one way. If the GOP screws up, they will be punished. Not so for the Democrats. The Dems did lose power for awhile, but now they are back, and they are definitely intent upon making themselves the majority party for a long, long time.
Something is wrong with the GOP that prevents them from being an effective opposition party. The Democrats will say the GOP is racist, homophobic, and bigoted. They will say that the GOP is a warmonger party. But the only party that benefits from race and class differences are the Democrats themselves. Why can't the GOP fight back? How can the GOP fight back?
I have come to the conclusion that the GOP can't fight back because they don't want to fight back. They are quite content with being the minority party, and this implies something. Why would you be content with being in the permanent minority unless there was something that you were getting in compensation? I think that the GOP, especially the leadership, won't fight back because they are corrupt. They are being bought off for their acquiescence in the Democrat majority. The Democrats will tolerate the junior party as long as they aren't a threat to them. On the other hand, if the junior party doesn't like being the junior party, the Democrats will crack down. And so they have. And the GOP is now assuming their usual submissive posture. Thus, we have no accountability when the Democrats screw up. The GOP just doesn't have the stomach for it. It's that or they aren't any different from the Democrats in principle, even though they are pretending to be.
Since there is no accountability in the GOP, which means they cannot hold the Democrats accountable, there has to be some corrective action to ensure that there will be accountability. That would mean a new party. This new party will have to have a way to ensure compliance with its core principles. That is to say, if a wayward member violates the principles of the party, then there will be corrective measures to bring that individual back into compliance, or in extreme cases, to expel that member. If such measures already exist, it is a mystery to me. If it is a mystery, it should no longer be. Therefore, such measures should be made public and transparent. This will ensure not only the compliance with principles, but with the integrity of the enforcement mechanisms. Personally, I don't believe that the GOP has any such thing unless it is enforced by personalities only. That is not acceptable either.
There's too much personalities in politics. It should be about principles, not personalities.
The problem here is how do you enforce compliance with principles? Also, what are the principles?
Starting with the latter, the new party should be rock solid on the Constitution. In letter and in spirit. If a member cannot follow the Constitution, the member doesn't belong. The document implies limited government. If the government is not to be limited, then why do you need a Constitution in the first place? Why do you need checks and balances if you can trust politicians to do the right thing? The checks and balances imply that politicians won't do the right thing. The right to vote also implies that you can't trust politicians, for if you could, you wouldn't have to face the people with what you have done with the powers given to you. It may be argued that the system already does this, but that system is not working. The party system and cult of personalities are overriding the fail safe features of the Constitution and are imposing a type of coup against the sovereign, which is the Constitution itself.
To be a member, it has to be determined if a prospective member is dedicated to limited government. In order to find out, a member must be vetted absolutely throughly. It must be determined why that individual seeks public office. Is it to serve, or is it to be served? A personality test should be administered in order to see what makes an individual tick. If that individual lusts for power and control, he or she doesn't belong in a party dedicated to limited government. For that person will seek to override limits upon himself or herself.
The vetting process should ask the most personal type of questions. For an individual must be willing to bare his soul to the world. If he or she is hiding something, it must be assumed that this thing would make that person unreliable. It may be argued once again, that our system already does this. But it doesn't. Barak Hussein Obama is hiding a large part of his past. That should not be allowed in the new party. The system is failing us, and this causes our leaders to fail us.
Recapping the principles of this new party, and a few additional ones not covered so far, it should:
This is about politics. Usually, the speculation alerts were about science. I have a very slight knowledge of some sciences and such. What I propose in the scientific area is tainted a bit by a lack of knowledge, which I admit freely. Also, with respect to politics here, I am not well versed, so take the following with a grain of salt. Just say it is from a concerned citizen who has been watching the scene and who has come to a few conclusions about the state of affairs in this country.
The main conclusion is that our leadership is failing us. The economy peaked about 1970 or so, and hasn't really recovered to that level since. It has been reflected in many ways and in many statistics, but most of all, I have lived through that time. There were indeed better times, but why has this happened, and what can be done about it?
There is no accountability. Sure, Nixon was forced to resign, but Clinton was not. The accountability seems one way. If the GOP screws up, they will be punished. Not so for the Democrats. The Dems did lose power for awhile, but now they are back, and they are definitely intent upon making themselves the majority party for a long, long time.
Something is wrong with the GOP that prevents them from being an effective opposition party. The Democrats will say the GOP is racist, homophobic, and bigoted. They will say that the GOP is a warmonger party. But the only party that benefits from race and class differences are the Democrats themselves. Why can't the GOP fight back? How can the GOP fight back?
I have come to the conclusion that the GOP can't fight back because they don't want to fight back. They are quite content with being the minority party, and this implies something. Why would you be content with being in the permanent minority unless there was something that you were getting in compensation? I think that the GOP, especially the leadership, won't fight back because they are corrupt. They are being bought off for their acquiescence in the Democrat majority. The Democrats will tolerate the junior party as long as they aren't a threat to them. On the other hand, if the junior party doesn't like being the junior party, the Democrats will crack down. And so they have. And the GOP is now assuming their usual submissive posture. Thus, we have no accountability when the Democrats screw up. The GOP just doesn't have the stomach for it. It's that or they aren't any different from the Democrats in principle, even though they are pretending to be.
Since there is no accountability in the GOP, which means they cannot hold the Democrats accountable, there has to be some corrective action to ensure that there will be accountability. That would mean a new party. This new party will have to have a way to ensure compliance with its core principles. That is to say, if a wayward member violates the principles of the party, then there will be corrective measures to bring that individual back into compliance, or in extreme cases, to expel that member. If such measures already exist, it is a mystery to me. If it is a mystery, it should no longer be. Therefore, such measures should be made public and transparent. This will ensure not only the compliance with principles, but with the integrity of the enforcement mechanisms. Personally, I don't believe that the GOP has any such thing unless it is enforced by personalities only. That is not acceptable either.
There's too much personalities in politics. It should be about principles, not personalities.
The problem here is how do you enforce compliance with principles? Also, what are the principles?
Starting with the latter, the new party should be rock solid on the Constitution. In letter and in spirit. If a member cannot follow the Constitution, the member doesn't belong. The document implies limited government. If the government is not to be limited, then why do you need a Constitution in the first place? Why do you need checks and balances if you can trust politicians to do the right thing? The checks and balances imply that politicians won't do the right thing. The right to vote also implies that you can't trust politicians, for if you could, you wouldn't have to face the people with what you have done with the powers given to you. It may be argued that the system already does this, but that system is not working. The party system and cult of personalities are overriding the fail safe features of the Constitution and are imposing a type of coup against the sovereign, which is the Constitution itself.
To be a member, it has to be determined if a prospective member is dedicated to limited government. In order to find out, a member must be vetted absolutely throughly. It must be determined why that individual seeks public office. Is it to serve, or is it to be served? A personality test should be administered in order to see what makes an individual tick. If that individual lusts for power and control, he or she doesn't belong in a party dedicated to limited government. For that person will seek to override limits upon himself or herself.
The vetting process should ask the most personal type of questions. For an individual must be willing to bare his soul to the world. If he or she is hiding something, it must be assumed that this thing would make that person unreliable. It may be argued once again, that our system already does this. But it doesn't. Barak Hussein Obama is hiding a large part of his past. That should not be allowed in the new party. The system is failing us, and this causes our leaders to fail us.
Recapping the principles of this new party, and a few additional ones not covered so far, it should:
- Be dedicated to the principle of limited government as directed by the Constitution
- Be dedicated to the principle over principles over personalities
- Be dedicated to the principle of accountability
- Be dedicated to the principle of transparency
- Be dedicated to traditional American values and organizing principles such as
- Christianity
- Free enterprise
- And the rule of law
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)