Putin is an oligarch. But an oligarch that uses Russians' culture to guarantee his hegemony, I suspect he is smart enough not to bite off more than his base of power can chew.
Western oligarchs are not like that. They dream of open-bordered global oligarchy under corporate fascists. Not all oligarchs need be anti-nationalists. Only the NWO oligarchs.
Russia grew away from international communism. The West grew into international corporate fascism. If that is true, I would prefer Putin to most of our leaders in the West.
Best would be to strengthen checks against all oligarchs. But if a people become so depraved that they must have their oligarch, I would prefer a nationalist oligarch to an open-bordered fluxing hierarchy of corporatist oligarchs.
Putin is not trying to destroy his nation's dominant culture.
Evidently, Putin and the Russians do not believe that unchecked multi culti invasions would make them "stronger together."
I have trouble seeing much principled difference between a (Bush-Romney-McCain-Paul-Boehner) Conserver for the Corporate Empire and a (Bill-Barry-Hillary-Reid-Pelosi) Sell Out to the Corporate Empire.
It seems to me that they're both working for the Corporate Empire and against the American Ideal. Except for the names they call Americans (adorables and deplorables), it's hard to see much distinction that makes a difference. Either way, they put us in uniforms and sell out our heartland.
I doubt either we or God would be very long entertained in a world for which every problem had been solved. Maybe there's an upside to our "finite but unbounded" situation? Keep up the good fight. :)
I do not mean to say that law is unimportant or futile. Only that its nurturing necessitates contemporaneous care with regard to the character of the citizenry (sovereigns).
I don't always explicitly say so, but those that are familiar with me probably detect that I mean to tweak those who think the solution to our problems is to eliminate faith-based religion. To put it plainly, I think they're off their rockers.
Going further, I tend to detest the ACLU. We have too much law, too many lawyers, and too much litigation. We need to stop with the wussy attempts to fix everything with rules and instead "man up" the citizenry. Even if that would make more than a few people cry.
To quote William Tecumseh Sherman, "I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell."
Likewise, I am sick of laws, even though I am a lawyer.
Unfortunately, that which a State official was without de jure power to do, can be made within his de facto power, by Feds backed by the establishment. I have not seen where any court has entertained a factual investigation of the points made by the author of The Law That Never Was. Rather, the Feds were content simply to use their superior fiat authority. And now, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Even so, we can learn. We can learn why the quality and character of the people being governed is more important than the wording of the law! To parallel a familiar Bible verse, Were the people without dignity and decency, the law is as sounding brass.
Without quality people amenable of the Rule of Law, the "enactment" of ever more laws becomes an unfunny joke and the republic becomes as rotted bananas. The deliberate multi-culti killing of America has been a curse ever since Reagan. The notion that it does not matter about the origin of a wannabe immigrant is a monstrous lie told by monstrous liars.
"The view of the courts was that the declaration by the states that they had ratified the amendment, and the assessement by the Secretary of State that sufficient states had done so, is enough to validate the amendment. Wording variations were considered too trivial to affect the outcome. Even if Benson's historical facts were 100% accurate, they would not affect the validity of the amendment."
Our world is not a closed system. Bertrand Russell nursed a project to try to close a system for encompassing math. Godel showed why that won't work. Asimov wrote a great story called "The Last Question." Another mind blower is David Deutsch's The Beginning of Infinity.
The Founders/Framers gave us a system to help us cope with a world that is of astounding potentiality in its unfolding. Yes, our world is "finitely" constrained in respect of math-based systems of conservation. But the potential paths the unfoldment may take are unbounded and unlimited! As I said, I much suspect that even our fundamental ideas about "absolute" equations in physics are likely subject to continuous change over the long haul of space-time. Any non-cursory study of words used within a culture quickly shows how the attitudes and meanings we attach to our words are in constant flux.
The Framers tried to forestall problems by providing for a method of self correction by Amendment. But that does not always work, as we are seeing. Same with the process of Impeachment. So they also were realists and recognized the "tree of liberty." Whiny wusses will smother us until we say Enough! and force them to launch. But the ones with the biggest blood sucking beaks will resist self-launching to the last extremity: So we punt to the tree of liberty.
Quantitative and qualitative; formal and cultural: No system of formal rules (Constitution) can defend itself in the absense of an assimilated and decent citizenry. The call to become "stronger together" with multi culti was the siren song of the devil and his people farming parasites. Tinker with all the corrections you want. Eliminate the 16th and 17 Amendments. But I firmly believe that won't make a diddle's difference unless and until we reassimilate a decent, liberty-loving culture, founded in values that are higher than greed, envy, and "equality."
I like to converse with thinkers. Sometimes a thought needs development and contextual appreciation. To see the forest and the trees. A lot of people like to insult when a thought takes more than 20 words. I prefer that they just block me, since I have no interest in them. That was the purpose of the invitation in the first few lines. They were not meant to insult the article writer. I actually thought he may have some sense, albeit not good sense, until I got his response.
The notion that the Constitution can or should be read to mean whatever anyone wants is just infantile, if not insane! That said, for the Constitution not to be a suicide pact, it has to, as you said, leave "wiggle room."
So the political problem is this: How to leave the wiggle room? Well, not by so disassimilating the citizenry as to make it a zombie for people farmers. To keep a representative republic, you cannot kill the culture that holds it together. You need what I call faith (whether spiritual or secular based), family, and fidelity. (Not "faith" in gov "charity.") I suspect that slogan drives gays, rainbows, and wussies nearly nuts. F them. I invite them all to block me.
REGARDING SENTIENCE: I would compare where Isaac Asimov touched on such notions in his Foundation series. A character named Bliss was part of Gaia, a planet of a single consciousness. With Gaia, every person, every tree, every grain of sand is part of the organism, sharing group memories. Bliss generally spoke as I/we/Gaia to make clear that she spoke for a superorganism where all things participate in group consciousness, while often retaining individual perspectives.
See http://www.theepochtimes.com/n..., which indicates that David Chalmers has suggested that it is possible that consciousness is a fundamental building block of physics, and thus it exists in all things—from human beings down to photons.
Maybe consciousness puts the fire into the equations, Chalmers said. The equations stay as they are, but we see them as means for describing the flux of consciousness.
I would change "in" to "with." That no physically measurable and inanimate thing can exist in any meaningful sense of manifestation or potentiality except in correlation with one or more perspectives of consciousness.
REGARDING A LIVING CONSTITUTION:
Consider Asimov: "It is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be.... This, in turn, means that our statesmen, our businessmen, our everyman must take on a science fictional way of thinking."
"There are no happy endings in history, only crisis points that pass."
"You don't need to predict the future. Just choose a future -- a good future, a useful future -- and make the kind of prediction that will alter human emotions and reactions in such a way that the future you predicted will be brought about. Better to make a good future than predict a bad one."
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
"The only function of a school is to make self-education easier; failing that, it does nothing."
So Asimov would seem to support the idea of a living Constitution.
However, he also said: "If we only obey those rules that we think are just and reasonable, then no rule will stand, for there is no rule that some will not think is unjust and unreasonable."
So Asimov recognized a problem, but he did not resolve it (I think because the problem is not resolvable in objectivity, but only with the subjective participation of assimilating points of view within a civilizing society.
I have tried to express a similar idea when I have suggested a test for a society that wants to respect the essence of humanity: What system of rules is best adapted and adaptable for respecting the freedom and dignity of the society's members? Under what kind of self-correcting constitutional foundation and unfoldment would such a system best be established and sustained, and how would it surpass future and often unforeseen challenges that would kill it if it lacked capacity to change? (The Constitituon is not a suicide pact in the face of unforeseen challenges.)
But that kind of test cannot be set down in objective concrete before the fact of the unforeseen mortal challenge.
Differently stated: How do we select justices with wisdom enough to keep the Constitution as objectively reliable as reasonably possible, without killing either the Rule of Law or the Republic itself?
As to that, this much is "almost certain": The Constitution and the Representative Republic will both be walking dead zombies once they are coopted by a ruling NWO of corporate fascists that control every formal institution, including Scotus. The reason I don't say "absolutely certain" is because there will always remain the still, quiet voice of the unifying Reconciler. Always available to inspire and strengthen all that are receptive.
Note: Qualitative ideas of moral establishment, sustenance, and surpassage seem to correlate with quantitative physical ideas of a beginning point of reference, a finite and constrained system of conservation, and an unbounded potentiality.
IAE, the "answers" do not seem to be entirely availed in rigid logic, even though reason quickly becomes lost when not tethered to logic. I suspect even our basic laws of physics, over a long run of space-time, are continuously subject to flux that renormalizes in respect of feedback between a source Reconciler and its variously fluxing and local perspectives.
COMMENT: I sometimes wonder why Asimov took such a dramatic stance as an "atheist." It seems to me that his notions concerning consciousness were quite respectful of the very basis for religious spirituality. He recognized an innateness to consciousness, a system of math based conservation, and infinite unfolding potentiality. There's the trinity right there: Pervasive Consciousness, Present Substance, Cumulating Information -- fluxing to reconcile and renormalize all that unfolds to every perspective. He would likely have been at home with the Founders/Framers. Maybe his gayness contributed to make him a dramatic rebel.
I have said it countless times: We need more effective mechanisms -- formal and spiritual -- for checking oligarchs to deter their dirtying of our representative republic. But it falls on deaf or impotent ears. Why? Because who can stand against the weight of corruption that has infested our every institution? I am unsure if Trump is the man. What I am sure of is that I have seen no other that comes close.
I hope Trump will start moving us in some right directions. Possible Examples:
CORPORATE FASCISM: Stop the corporate sell out of America. Get effective checks against influence buying that harms our national interests. Stop the pension and welfare bribery scam. Slow the multi culti invasion to manageable levels. Term limits. Move to revoke the 17th Amendment.
TAXES: Kill the Income Tax and replace it with a progressive Consumption Tax. Use the Personal consumption tax to strongly discourage the buying of political influence. Confiscate much of the wealth of Oligarchs that dare to pollute our political system. Use the revenues to contract out improvements on infrastructure. Tax imported goods but not imported money. Don't tax exported goods but do tax exported money. Otherwise, do not tax domestic businesses.
SOCIAL POLICY: Reduce central fed control over domestic policies (education, abortion, drugs) of States. Stop pretending every culture is equally desireable or assimilable. Stop pretending representative republicanism is appropriate for every culture. Stop trying to force nation building among liberty-illiterate cultures. Call a COS and, if necessary, expel notoriously liberty-illiterate bi-coastal States.
CITIZENS AND SOLDIERS: Appoint decent Americans. Turn the direction of education. Give people that believe in the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule their voice back. Encourage diversification that would lessen the influence of secular Jews over the ACLU, ADL, Hollywood, DC. Encourage diversification that would lessen the influence of Catholics over Scotus. Encourage diversification that would lessen the outlandish political influence of Gays buzzing up everything everywhere. Especially with regard to the grooming ("education") of children. Someday, push the wussy culture down in our military, and reinstate DADT. Stop the wussyboy hyphenation madness. Restore respect for faith, family, fidelity.
Could be that a solar flare will swallow us tomorrow. People should simply exercise their best judgment, in good faith and good will. They should not presume they are entitled to demand ever greater kinds and degrees of charity from the public treasury. They should not surrender individual responsibility to a gov facade for cheap bribes fashioned to benefit entrapping cronies.
We don't know what Hillary or Trump will do. We do know Hillary has said she wants open borders and Trump has said he loves the republic. But they're both fallible politicians with histories. Which one loves ruling and which one loves the nation?
So far, it seems the establishmentarians, liars, pay-to-players, marinated-in-college-faux-science-wussies, thugs, anti-Americans, and bums love Hillary the most. Among themselves, they can "prove" just about anything they want. I can't prove much about Trump. But I strongly suspect there is a reason all the people I loathe are lined up against him.
I don't believe support for Hillary has much to do with equality, fairness, principles, responsibility, competence, steadiness, trustworthiness, decency, or even humanity. Rather, I suspect it has much to do with low information, indoctrination, envy, greed, hedonism, faithlessness, and corruption. All the stuff Progs try to project onto Conservers of Liberty and lovers of the American Ideal of individual freedom and dignity.
Look at Huma's background and then try to argue Hillary has good judgment. Maybe Hillary with Huma was trying to top FDR with Harry Hopkins. And Obama with Valerie Jarett-Loretta Lynch-Eric Holder-Susan Rice-Elena Kagan-Kevin Jennings (Glsen)-Cecelia Munoz-Van Jones-and onandonandon.
The devil in DC is so big and obvious that a lot of people can hardly see him.
May the heroine that lies fall with the man that would be king. https://youtu.be/apfaDqcf2FA
No one has a direct birthright in freedom and dignity. Our birthright was in a culture of genes and mores that valued freedom and dignity. We forgot about eternal vigilance and wussily allowed the dilution, pollution, drowning, and destruction of that culture.
Now we have a culture the biggest part of which is comprised of wussypeople that do not know enough to value freedom and dignity, of thugpeople that hate to be responsible for their own freedom and dignity, and cronypeople that are conditioned to gratify themselves by ruling over the freedom and dignity of everyone else. Instead of Rule of Law, we will have Rule of Cronydom based on phony promises to Wussydom. Our version of a cacaphonous adhan will be the blaring of The Cackler, more than 5 times a day.
If any part of the U.S. is to be restored as an island of freedom and dignity, it will not be by playing nice, being patient, or trying to fix subhuman stupidity and corruption that likes being subhuman stupid and corrupt.
Russia, like much of the U.S., is more a corporate fascist state than an assimilated nation. When it comes to competitions for empire between criminal syndicates of corporate fascists, it's hard to see how America would have an interest, as a nation. Especially since the goal of corporate fascists, worldwide, is to erase national and cultural (freedom loving) boundaries. If we are not to have a nation, how can we have an opposing national interest?
Geopolitical interest? Does that mean geo-corporate (borgdom) interest?
Cruz could have been second best and, had he better managed his ambitions, made a possible VP. I wanted to hear more from him, outside the NBC noise. Regardless, it has become clear that he would not have been the man for the times. For the times, Trump, with all his warts, is the One and the only one.
No one else could have taken an anti-establishmentarian position and still have attracted enough publicity and funding to have had the chance of a special snowflake in hades.
Unless better leaders appear, we will have to make do with people like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Jeff Sessions, Mike Pence, Rand Paul, Greg Abbott, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, and Mark Levin. All fall short, but most others fall far shorter. Perhaps Trump can find some others that may be better. There don't seem to be many.
The problem is twofold. More than 100 years of commie crud clogging our political bloodstream. And funding.
Nearly all serious campaign funding seems to come from pay-to-play corporate fascists. And corporate fascists tend to want cheap labor, much as water runs down hill. They don't need to conspire to lead water to run downhill. It's getting water to run uphill that is the challenge.
This is leading to the death of the republic by immigration flooding. And no one seems to have acceptable or effective ideas for how to eliminate the revolving door through which pay-to-play political influence is fed back and forth between grifting office holders, lobbying influence peddlers, and people-farming, hedge-mastering, corporate-oligarchic fascists.
The consequence is that the masses of ignoranti are only given lip service while they are farmed for the benefit of the legally and morally criminal corrupti. Our Representatives "monitor" our complaints, but they have near zero will to do anything effective about them. And they would lose funding support from the establishment if they did.
In a way, Communism and Fascism do seem both to be flavors for bundlers of elitists to rule over the masses. I would suppose communism depends more on direct threats and force applied through its nomenklatura, while fascism may smooth its application more efficiently with fiat money and opportunities for corruption funnelled through its oligarchs.
Subjugated subhuman hivemind will be fulfilled. But I don't think it will be any kind of utopia, which "exists" only in fantasyland. Eventually, it will dawn on the hivers that they have created a prison, and that the minds they are psychotically raping are mirrors into their own. Then the gates will close for a millenneum long laugh by the devil.
It sounds as if the nomenklatura being made into a nearly hereditary oligarchy through a facade of capitalism that largely runs on fiat money would be an evolvement that would not be dissimilar to what is often called fascism. If so, fascism need not be altogether unlike communism, but it has more smoke and mirrors to sometimes soften the appearance of brutishness, if not brutishness itself.
It appears that Russia and the U.S. are converging on fascism from different points of departure. To get to worldwide NWO fascism, a global form of fiat money may help.
I hope the NWO crumbles first, like the Tower of Babel. It seems easier to think of a scale between individual free agency versus hive mind, with communism and fascism being different in quality, but not so much in substantive result, i.e., somewhat hierarchical overlordship.
Instead of a linear scale, it may sometimes make sense to model a sphere. Free human beings are at the center. Varieties of nutter hivemind intrude and circle madly around, intersecting in constant turmoil and countless wars.
Globalists want to be at liberty to centrally farm the masses. They don't want national borders. They want corporate bins, and they want masses desperate enough to compete to jump into them. Until globalist fascists consolidate power, they will dress up their programs in whatever names the masses like.
If Libertarian sounds good to the masses, that is what global corporate fascists will call themselves. Whatever the culture, food, or music of the labor market they are surveying, corporate fascists will coopt its names to suit their purposes. Anyone that has no idea about what is necessary to conserve human decency, dignity, and liberty has no business pretending to be much of anything. Anyone that is so naive is silly putty in the hands of conniving fascists.
The Koch Brothers can call themselves whatever they want, but only fools accept them as anything contrary to corporate fascists. Unfortunately, political candidates in need of funding routinely find it necessary to give corporate fascists cover to pretend to be what they are not. And that is precisely why the U.S. has become a kakistocracy. We tend to be governed by the biggest floating lying fascists possible. Everywhere, our culture has become such that the important promotions go first to the servants of the devil. But hey, Christianity is the problem, right? S/
Trying to preserve political freedom is more important than trying to force economic equality. Patrick Henry did not say, Give me an equal share of free stuff or I will cry and loot. But a lot of people that vote for a living do.
As I see it, a real Conserver of Liberty is one who seeks to preserve the Bill of Rights as conceptualized by the Founders. A faux Conservative (or neo-Con) is one who seeks to serve corporate fascists in order to replace the representative republic with a NWO empire. (A fool Lib is one who dreams that the solution to every problem is to skip nakedly through the streets blowing kisses of love love love.)
However, the empire interests of neo-Cons tend to have nothing to do with the interests of Conservers of Liberty. Neo-Cons don't want defense treaties with other representative republics. Instead, their visions of empire lead them to make alliances with other fascists, some of whom run kabuki republics. For this, they throw the best of American blood and treasure into the gaping mouth of Baal.
Evolutionists talk about instincts for flight or fight. Sometimes they forget about freeze. Nevertrumpers don't do fight or flight. They do freeze.
They hope the beast will leave them alone and let them inherit the earth if they play dead. They expect everything is going bad, no matter what. So they want to be able to say, after the collapse, when efforts to rebuild are under way, that they did not vote for the collapse. But neither did they invest their sorry azszzes in doing anything to stop or reduce it.
No doubt, they sometimes ally with those that do hedge funds in the manner of Munchausen by Proxy. They hope and scheme for catastrophe so they can pretend to care -- after the fact. Like the Saudi that offered the check to Giuliani after 9-11.
By "defeating" Communism, did we defeat despotism?
We defeated communism by converting Russia, China, and ourselves into corporate fascists. We didn't like brute despotism unless it was greased with fascist fiat money. Is that what we've been about?
Did we advance "freedom" at home by empowering despots abroad and by enriching the faithless corporatists that now own our politicians?
When one takes a hard look at the results following WWII, did we win, or did we stack the deck for Russians and Chinese to move from brute despotism to despotism refined with corporate money? Did we stack the deck to eventually sell ourselves out to Chinese corporate fascists?
As I look at nearly every established institution and corporatist lining up for Hillary and her program to sell our republic out to corporate fascists, it's hard for me to believe that "freedom" won.
We now have a lot of people that just want to be ruled because, deep down, they think they're unworthy to run their own lives. They want the system to make them economically equal without their having to sweat about it. Ask those people if they much care whether the elites that rule them do so under a central apparatus that calls itself communistic or that calls itself progressive (aka corporate fascist).
Re: "they [Rinos?] offer no real criticism of Trump's actual stated policies"
That's because, apart from the lip service of Rinos' public personas, their private personas are in substantial accord with the sell out to the same corporate fascists that have bought the Dino politicians.
Rinos use Trump's rough social edges as cover so they don't have to pretend to be against Hillary's blitz to the fascists. They calculate (hope) that we have been too much asleep to wake up in time to stop their barbqueing of America.
Megyn says she spends less time on Bill's sexual misadventures because he is not running. But that is crap. Bill will be used. Hillary said he was good at domestic policy and would be in charge of the economy.
Moreover, Hillary's character for how she went about defending Bill by attacking the women he attacked is an important consideration.
Not to mention that rumors about about Hillary's own perversions. However, no one seems to have offered big rewards for bringing documentation. Rather, most follow her squirrels pointing to Putin instead of to more likely sources of leaks (inside agents that love their country and want to protect it from Hillary, who seems to be some genetic mutant strain of Ma Barker and Bonnie of Clyde).
If Trump were a rich Dem like Howard Stern, Megyn would likely be on him like a tramp. She does not shy from using her assets.
We sure as heck don't need to be paying taxes to fund free tuition to get true believer degrees in collective indoctrination forced on us by our corporate managers.
Hillary is a shameless, lying, perverted sociopath who is bent on the treasonous selling of the U.S. into corporate fascist servitude. But for Christian mercy, I know of no punishment that would be proportionate to her evil mind.