The Adminstrative State, "Sue and Settle" Trumped !

The Important Story You’re Not Hearing Much About | Power Line:

To quote Brer Rabbit "Please don't throw me into that briar patch!".

Most people will have never heard of this technique, but it is blindingly simple. You run a federal agency like EPA. You want more power so you can get more money, employees, etc, AND you can attack political enemies and write allowances for poltical friends.

SO, you contact a freindly interest group, say "The Sierra Club", and have them SUE YOUR AGENCY because they claim that you have not regulated something enough! Maybe you go to court and "lose", thus meaning you now "must" do the extra regulation you wanted to do, OR, you just settle out of court with the friendly interest group that sued you, gaining the power you wanted -- AND, maybe giving them + your and their lawyers a nice monetary settlement. SWEET!

Not any more. TRUMPED!

This of course will get VERY little coverage since the agencies / groups involved don't really want this looked at, however it is certainly one of the real reasons they absolutely hate Trump!

'via Blog this'

Lock SOMEBODY Up! (at least)

The story so far | Power Line:

Readers of this blog realize that I'm at least a few years into my belief that we no longer live in "America", but rather in BOistan. Or, to give it a bit more color, "Toto, I have the feeling we are not in Kansas anymore".

Thus, it really isn't surprising at all that while "The Party" (TP-D) and it's propoganda arm, the "Fake Media" (FM) was busy lamenting Trump supporters saying "Lock her up" about Hillary, the BO adminstration and the Administrative State was actively investigating Trump and his campaign for 8 months trying to lock HIM up! Nixon was at least running for office when "The Plumbers" tried to bug the Dems campaign and he helped cover it up. BO wasn't even on the ticket -- he went crimial for the Wicked Witch.

Never fear, as the linked article points out:

 "Bottom line: The Obama Justice Department and the FBI spent at least eight months searching for Trump–Russia ties. They found nothing criminal, and clearly nothing connecting Trump to Russian hacking…."

Anyone that is paying attention knows that we no longer live in a "Christian nation", or even a nation with a Consitutution or laws -- we live in a totalitarian failed tribal state called BOistan, and if we ever want to get back to "Kansas", we better melt the damned witch of totalitarianism!

We got VERY lucky, or in my belief VERY blessed in the Old Testament Esther - Haman sort of blessing, and we better impale a few folks if we want to return to justice. When a nation returns to pre-Christian, pre-law times, even an "eye for an eye" is completely optional. (that was a LIMITING law instituted by God) BO, Hildebeast and Slick would look great on a pike, and as Ester makes clear, justice needs to have some real TEETH in a tribal state.

If it wasn't extremely obvious before, it certainly is now. Anyone that thought that "the election would put it behind us" was WAY too optimisitc. TP is not giving up, and their only remaining power is the illegitimate one of the Administrative State -- they have been, and they intend to keep using it overturn the results of the election. They MUST be shut down! HARD!

Once morality and rule of law has been abandoned as it clearly has in BOistan, the ONLY thing left is MIGHT IS RIGHT, and Trump gave the forces of "bad, but not the worst" a chance to prevail over "absolute godless destruction of anything remotely decent". It still isn't much of a choice, but at least it is "Old Testament clear" -- it's definitely eye for an eye (or worse) time. From Esther 7

8 Just as the king returned from the palace garden to the banquet hall, Haman was falling on the couch where Esther was reclining.
The king exclaimed, “Will he even molest the queen while she is with me in the house?”
As soon as the word left the king’s mouth, they covered Haman’s face. 

9 Then Harbona, one of the eunuchs attending the king, said, “A pole reaching to a height of fifty cubits[b]stands by Haman’s house. He had it set up for Mordecai, who spoke up to help the king.” 

The king said, “Impale him on it!” 

10 So they impaled Hamanon on the pole he had set up for Mordecai. Then the king’s fury subsided.

BO, Hildebeast and Slick impaled on a 75' pole next to the Washington Monument with Ester 7 quoted in giant letters saying "One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all!"

And America would be made great again. It is absolutely clear that "voting" and whatever was supposedly "law" in BOistan is long gone -- blood is going to be shed. Better a few examples than civil war.

Davos, Eight Billionaires vs Half the World

Eight billionaires 'as rich as world's poorest half' - BBC News:

So 8 billionaires have as much wealth as the poorest half of the planet. They are:

1. Bill Gates (US): co-founder of Microsoft (net worth $75bn)
2. Amancio Ortega (Spain): founder of Zara owner Inditex (net worth $67bn)
3. Warren Buffett (US): largest shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway (net worth $60.8bn)
4. Carlos Slim Helu (Mexico): owner of Grupo Carso (net worth $50bn)
5. Jeff Bezos (US): founder and chief executive of Amazon (net worth $45.2bn)
6. Mark Zuckerberg (US): co-founder and chief executive of Facebook (net worth $44.6bn)
7. Larry Ellison (US): co-founder and chief executive of Oracle (net worth $43.6bn
8. Michael Bloomberg (US): owner of Bloomberg LP (net worth $40bn)

They are likely all at Davos this week, and in general, while the media might report the 8  having the same wealth as about 3.75 billion people, they are all pretty well liked. Ellison maybe not so much, but Gates, Buffett, Bezos, Zuckerberg and Bloomberg are seen as "decent progressives" that support "the right causes".

Bloomberg is kind of an interesting case. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about his wealth:

In March 2009, Forbes reported Bloomberg's wealth at $16 billion, a gain of $4.5 billion over the previous year, enjoying the world's biggest increase in wealth in 2009.[25] At that time, there were only four fortunes in the U.S. that were larger (although the Wal-Mart family fortune is split among four people). He had moved from 142nd to 17th in the Forbes list of the world's billionaires in only two years (March 2007 – March 2009).[26][27] In September 2013, Forbes reported Bloomberg's wealth as $33 billion and ranked him as the 13th richest person in the world. In March 2012, Forbes reported Bloomberg's wealth at $22 billion, ranking him 20th in the world and 11th in the United States.[14] In September 2015, his net worth was $43.3 billion, ranking him the 6th richest person in the United States

Bloomberg happened to be Mayor of NYC in 2009, which was NOT a very good year in the Stock Market, and he ALSO enjoyed the worlds largest increase in wealth in 2009.

I'm wondering if Trump enjoys the world's largest increase in wealth in any of the years of his presidency if it might hit the press at all? Probably not ... we know they are "fair and balanced". Strangely, I could find nothing on the business genius that Bloomberg had run all his businesses when he fully divested to be Mayor? They must have been a real financial wizard to have him enjoy the WORLDS biggest increase in wealth in '09!

This sort of thing is what knuckle dragging Trump supporters and stupid Brexit types get angry about. As I've mentioned before, Davos man wants to see the masses of Americans drastically "lower their expectations for life" as I've written of before.

See, our betters in TP ("The Party"(D)" and the MSM know what would be better for us, and they LOVE the Davos sorts. Those folks are "the right kind of rich" -- no need to put any taxes or controls on THEM!

Get right with TP and your heart is right! When your heart is right, you can be fabulously wealthy, have all sorts of women (or even children as evidenced by Jeffrey Epstein and Slick Willie) ... you "rule the world", and all you have to do is agree with TP!

Well, that, and realize the set of you that actually rules the world is EXCEEDINGLY small!

'via Blog this'

Prosecuting Political Opponents

16 Times Democrats Tried To Prosecute Opponents:

Naturally, "The Party" (TP-D) which controls the entire government bureaucracy, legal system and media is well acquainted with prosecuting their political opponents -- in fact, it has become pretty much their standard operating procedure, as the 16 incidences listed in the article point out.

Equally unsurprising is the fact that they find the idea that any loyal TP member in good standing might face prosecution as COMPLETELY abhorrent and beyond the pale. If such was possible, TP would not be TP -- the totalitarian owner of legal and extra-legal prosecutions for whatever deed or, "rumor" that TP happens to think might gain them something. It really doesn't make any difference what Bill and Hillary have done -- they loyal members of TP, which means that THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW ... and both they and other TP members are very proud of the fact that they have "never been prosecuted".

They are all one big happy crime family -- move up in TP, and you too can be immune to prosecution. It seems stranger and stranger that everyone doesn't just "get their minds right", and it seems pretty certain that Hildebeast will be sure that a lot more DO learn to kneel before her once she gets her sceptre.

I'd list a few others just to round it out a bit.

• Ray Donovan, "where do I go to get my reputation back". 
• Ted Stevens ... this one was VERY smart of TP, because it got them a 60 vote Senate (along with voter fraud in MN). 
• Tom Delay -- again, they got a powerful opponent out of politics and nearly jailed him. He was forced to spend millions to barely survive -- this can happen to YOU as well if you choose to cross TP. 

If we had the time, we could go on for at least 100's, and probably thousands or even millions. The case of the small time political person that speaks out in the opposition to TP,  and suddenly finds themselves with a very nasty IRS audit, EPA summons, zoning trouble, etc is pretty much a standard in the dwindling Republican ranks. "Keep your head down" is the mantra if you dare oppose TP.

Having Ted Kennedy highly visible for a long time in TP was a big plus. It is IMPORTANT to show the little people that if you have power you can ACTUALLY get away with murder! It is like the Mob roughing up and killing some folks to be certain that everyone understands who the REAL bosses are. TP is the BIG mob -- they need folks like Ted or Bill and Hillary around just to prove that they are above the law and you are not.

It looks grim right now for any opposition to TP. That is the way it has pretty much been since FDR, with a short small glimpse of hope during the Reagan years and the Gingerich House. Death of dreams, people and nations always tends to be dark -- it just goes with the territory. The powerful like to see their opposition TOTALLY removed -- they really don't want to even HEAR an opposing view!

TP is rather comfortable prosecuting their political opponents, and even if Trump should win, they will go on doing so. They own the legal system and the administrative law system -- even if they were to lose the WH, their power is so great as to make any real opposition for at least decades a total impossibility.


'via Blog this'

Administrative Law

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/letat-cest-moi

I'm sure that many find me alarmist on the issue of the extreme loss of rights that has already happened to Americans. The root assumption of the Administrative State is that the "general population" isn't capable to make their own decisions. The ideas of the Administrative State are so good, they have to be made mandatory -- your freedom MUST be restricted because you are not smart enough to make decisions on your own.

A few points:

1. Seat belts, car seats for kids. wearing a helmet on a bicycle or fire insurance are all things that most do to try to cover risk of things that we hope will not happen at all.
   
2. There is also a human tendency to work rather hard at denying risk or even known eventual outcomes like death. Seatbelts and car seats were made laws for basically that reason -- some people just DO NOT want to use them, as they DO NOT want to be reminded of the risk! I maintain that the only people that really enjoy riding a motorcycle are those riding without a helmet -- ideally shirtless wearing shorts. They KNOW they are not going to crash!
   
3. We have a hard time picking up slow incremental change, especially when we are being soaked in a media environment intent on us NOT picking up changes. Many will feel a "pang" when say voter ID is defeated even though they have to pull out their ID more and more frequently just to live, or say an old guy loses a basketball team over something he said on what he assumed was a private conversation that was taped -- BUT, the very fact that these things are happening makes the majority of people LESS likely to react (see 1).  

Just to be clear, I'm NOT saying that "everything" or even "most" things the Administrative State mandates are not "good ideas" (eg. I wear a seatbelt). The PROBLEM is that we become accustomed to thinking that the nanny state is always "protecting us". They are convincing us to be followers rather than thinkers, and they are molding us to THEIR world view! We are "outsourcing" or critical thinking!

For example, even though anal sex was certainly a major cause of AIDs, The Administrative State did not make it illegal like they effectively did with cigarette smoking. Their version of "morality" simply would not allow it!

This is why I think this review, although long,  is very worth reading. I may even skip this particular book as too arcane and focused on a single mechanism of tyranny (administrative law), although I'm very aware of the general phenomenon given books like "Liberal Fascism" and "The Forgotten Man", "The Road to Serfdom", etc. BUT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING TO US!!!!

Here is how the column concludes ... I heartily agree!

But there is something even more fundamental about “necessity” and social “complexity.” The administrative state is a poor way to handle the complexity that has justified its existence all along. The administrative state assumes that it has reached answers to questions that ultimately might not have scientific conclusions. Federal agencies, thus, “have difficulty keeping up to date with science,” because their particularized controls for particularized problems are inflexible and cannot adapt to technological change.  

Administrative law depends on epistemological arrogance, assuming that there is one right answer to a given problem. But our entire society (like all free-market societies) presupposes that there exists a diversity of opinions, objectives, and needs. It is precisely in an “increasingly complex” society that there is no one-size-fits-all answer. 

If the tendency of modernized society is toward freedom or at least social fragmentation, then continual direction by the federal government may actually be inconsistent with modernity. 

Maybe humility—and constitutional government—are better after all.

'via Blog this'

The Divine Right of Administrators

Is administrative law unlawful? A word from the author | Power Line:

A nice synopsis of a book that I would like to read.

An even briefer summary:

1. Much of our lives today are ruled by "Administrative Law" -- all the permits, paperwork, etc that accretes around government is one example. 
2. Administrative Law is in no way "modern or new", it is OLD and nasty, it has been used forever by rulers to gain as much power as possible. 
3. It is EXPLICITLY Unconstitutional 
4. It grows like a weed because any administrative organization becomes rent-seeking and wants to perpetuate and expand it's power. 

Well worth the read through the column if not the book.

'via Blog this'