Situation worries me, revealing tensions between power, law, and democracy.

Republicans should have removed McConnell from Senate leadership, he caused great damage to Trump presidency. McConnell was compromised by his Chinafiles and he got furious at Trump geopolitical anti-China priorities. Trump declared China his number one enemy (economy, trade, intellectual properties etc.) and he needed Putin on his side. That explains his seeking friendship with Putin. Democrats hate of Putin supported by the dishonest McConnell prevented Trump from fully implementing his agenda on China. That is McConnell’s deplorable undermining Trump Republican presidency. It doesn’t get deeper than that.

The question that is really pertinent here is whether or not the authority of the Constitution and all law based upon it still stands. Paul Craig Roberts asserts a revolution has occurred. If so, the new government no matter how much it pretends to be the old government need not accept the obligations of the old government.

I do not doubt that massive Treason against the Constitution has occurred and that Biden , many of his officials, the judiciary, and much of Congress are traitors to that Constitution. So what? In revolutions it is treason only if you lose. If you win you are a founding patriot of a new order of things.

Certainly, this revolution has been coming on for a long time and has seized the government without resorting to arms. They have come to power by Constitutional means or so it would appear. Never mind any irregularities; once power is obtained these can be safely buried. That is the beauty of what they have done.

If the judiciary is too cowed to contradict the authority and claims of the New Congress and New Presidency which recently took office what can you say about the Constitution? Corruption is too small a word to fit the reality. The Constitution is now what our New World Order says it is.

The great bugaboo of armed force is now the only recourse for the defenders of the old order. This should delight the defenders of the new order who have one of the greatest armies in the world to put down such defense. God defends the Right through arms and never loses. The mantle of the Deity, legitimacy, is the real prize gained in our recent political farce. The law that is to come, founded in that legitimacy, will surely be a non sequitur to the law as we have known it. We are damned who are now not legitimate.

New 31 January 2021 edition of my article: https://leonardrjaffee.substack.com/p/structural-crisis-senate-threatens-cd3

See a new, much-edited, substantially supplemented version of my article here: https://leonardrjaffee.substack.com/p/structural-crisis-senate-threatens

We all know what happened last time Zio-American Finance Capitalism took on Industrial Capitalism. It was pretty close run thing then. Today? Just let them try.

Bring it on! https://www.unz.com/pescobar/xi-reads-multilateral-riot-act-to-virtual-davos/#comment-4431373

Yes, bring it On!. The Jews early on recognized the value of creating Money from thin air. M1 = coins and currency in circulation + checkable (demand) deposit + traveler’s checks. There are three tools available to FRS to increase or decrease Mi. To increase M1 is to print more money, lower the interest rate and/or lower the loan deposit ratio. To decrease Mi is to remove printed money, increase the interest rate and/or increase the loan deposits ratio. Now Mi is become defunct as almost all the transactions are debit/credit and no printed money is involved, and hardly any checks.

It is the loan deposit ratio, which created Money from think air. Usually in the past the ratio used to hover around 8% to 12%. If the ratio is set at 8%, then the Banks can loan out 12 times the deposits they have. If it is set at 12%, then the Banks can loan out 8 times the deposits they have. If you remember, in olden days, the mortgage interest rates very high and the Banks were after customers to put money as CDs in their Banks. These days, Banks don’t need CDs, as loan deposit ratio has become almost 100% and it hoovers around 90%. Debit/Credit without money changing hands. Therefore, Federal Reserve has become useless.

In the past the countries used to destroy the parasites, but leave the mammon creation and wealth environment untouched. So, the parasite used to move to a different host who was very ripe for their survival. Now, already Money Creation is destroyed and the Wealth is being destroyed too, all over the world.

Where can one investment these day but only in stock market. Other investments such as properties, art, antiques and others are losings their value due to Covid-19. Invest, invest or your investment will loose value. A market crash is coming all over the world, including crypto currencies too.

Bitcoins at $40,000 which nobody seen it or fully understand it!

Best regards,

Mohamed

Many thanks for this, and very well said. Salam my brother.

WaSalam brother,

When Russia walked in and reclaimed Crimea, I said at that time Crimea was returned back to Russia on a Silver Platter as Crimea is very significant for Russia. We all know the history of Crimea very well and its’ significance to USSR, and we know about Khrushchev too. At that time, I said that USA, Russia, Iran are all in cahoots. People at that time thought I didn’t know the meaning of cahoots. Rest is history.

USSR was kicked out from the Middle East by Evil Kissinger as peace terms of Yom Kippur war. God bless President Nixon as he paid a very high price for it. Then came Obama’s red line on Syria. Supposedly Syria breached the red line. LOL, Obama asked for Congress’ approval to bomb Syria, but they refused him. So his knickers were in a twist. On a live TV Putin bailed him out, when Kerry suggested come rain and shine, Syria chemicals has to be removed. Sergey Lavrov offered they can remove these chemicals within six months. Voilà on live TV, Russia was back in Syria. Now Iran is in Syria, and Iran’s two main enemies were removed by Bush junior. Saddam and Taliban. Now, Islam is being United and Ummah is becoming ONE!

I still roll over laughing when I remember, the significance of 29 standing ovations….

Best regards,

Mohamed

Truth concentrated and consecrated:

An(d) here is the coup-de-gras: Compound interest was forbidden in Bentham’s day, and Bentham urged its legalization.

A compound curve for interest is outside of nature, as the claims on nature grow exponentially. Nature does not grow exponentially. Nature and labor cannot pay the claims, and society polarizes. Jesus started his mission on the Jubilee year, as Jubilees are coded in the Bible to prevent polarization.

If Bentham wasn’t a Jew, he certainly had the Jewish spirit. Bentham was not for the common good.

Unpacking that brilliance:

Interest and compound interest are ideas, concepts. They are not physical, they have no nature beyond the ideological, and thus are capable of being unrelenting.

All of nature and physicality eventually relents or fails. Thus interest and compound interest are evil as against the natural order due to the ideology overwhelming nature.

In other words, the usury ideology is diabolical.

Interest whether simple or compound is evil which must be forbidden.

Your mention of God Incarnate Jesus is in reference to Luke 4 wherein quoted speaking publicly for the first time: back in the hometown after performing miracles elsewhere word of which preceded the homecoming. addressing fellow Jews on the Sabbath, first reading Isaiah’s declaration of a Jubilee Year, then telling them the scripture is fulfilled in their hearing. They murmur proudly and approvingly of this one of their own. Then after listening for another minute they become filled with murderous fury. Why? He announced the relief is for all, not just Jews. They had been pleased to hear their interest-free intragroup debts would be forgiven, but the idea of absolving the usurious obligations they’d imposed on the outgroup was viewed by these Jews as an existential threat.

Nothing’s changed to this day. Jews still hate Jesus for that announcement and have genocidal designs on whitey as the descendants of Christendom.

And this is why The Divine Son of God Jesus named the Jew as murderer and liar with no truth in him, John 8:44.

So whether Jew or shabby goy “the Jewish spirit” or as E. Michael Jones titled his masterwork “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” drives predation upon humanity.

Chief Justice Roberts (a.k.a. la Justice Corrompue en Chef ) has refused to preside over the Senate trial of Trump’s impeachment. One may deduce, not unreasonably, that Roberts knows the Senate lacks jurisdiction (that the Constitution does not empower the Senate to try a President after his Office has ended and he has vacated it).

Roberts is politically corrupt and does not deserve the appellation “your Honor.” But he is very far from a fool: He would want not to preside over, or even associate himself with, a clearly unlawful Senate process.

Today sources reported that some Democrat Senators are suggesting that the Senate censure Trump, not try him (not try the articles of impeachment but, I infer, dismiss the case without trying it and censure Trump, instead). The reasons? Not enough votes AND the galactic importance of Covid-19 hype. See, e.g., https://www.newsmax.com/politics/tim-kaine-censure-trump-impeachment/2021/01/27/id/1007462/?ns_mail_uid=913b2e7e-2a0b-4835-b853-b4d70bd38dc8&ns_mail_job=DM186267_01272021&s=acs&dkt_nbr=0105022t9s7e

But I challenge any LAWYER (lawyer, not a Democrat or never-Trump Republican hack holding a JD degree) to find a constitution-provision that says the Senate is empowered to “censure” an ex-President. Such so-called “censure” would be merely some Senators’ announcing that they hate and contemn Trump and want people to think Trump is a baddy-baddy. It would issue as a mono-cameral Resolution that Trump is a baddy-baddy who deserves being hated and contemned.

And so what? Such Resolution would reduce to a Democrat-and-never-Trump-Republican Senator-contingent’s acting as if the NY Times’s Editorial Board or a group of CNN or MSNBC “round-table” talking heads. A President-censure “Resolution” would bear the legal force of a political passing of intestinal gas.

Congressional Resolutions may tell a President that Congress will not contest some particular Executive action(s), like invading Vietnam or Iraq. But they do not mandate or interdict anything with force of law: Statutes do.

In 1834, President Jackson suffered a Whig-Party-pushed censuring-Resolution. But later, Democrats expunged that Resolution. The Senate, the House, or, together, both Chambers can pass any kind of “Resolution,” even one that insists the Earth is really flat and Galileo and Copernicus were hallucinations of a 16th century Grand Mullah of Persia.

“Resolutions” are not statutes.

Rejoice! These clowns are “governing” The People.

Many thanks for this, and very well said. Salam my brother.

Touché

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/rand-paul-test-vote-impeachment-trial-constitutionality/index.html

Washington (CNN) — The Senate tabled an effort by Sen. Rand Paul Tuesday to force a vote on the constitutionality of former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, but the vote offered an indicator for how Republican senators — who overwhelmingly voted for Paul’s measure — feel about the trial.

Paul’s motion was killed on a 55-45 vote, with five Republicans joining all Democrats, meaning 45 Republicans voted for Paul’s effort. Republican Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania crossed party lines to vote with Democrats.

In order to convict Trump at his trial, at least 17 Republicans will need to vote with all Democrats when the trial begins next month. Significantly, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell sided with Paul in the vote — a potential indicator that he agrees the constitutionality of impeaching a former President is in question.

Paul argued after the vote that the fact that 45 Republicans sided with him “shows that impeachment is dead on arrival.”

“If you voted that it was unconstitutional then how in the world would you ever hope to convict somebody for this?” Paul asked, adding ,”45 of us, almost the entire caucus, 95% of the caucus, voted that the whole proceeding was unconstitutional. This is a big victory for us. Democrats can beat this partisan horse as long as they want — this vote indicates it’s over, the trial is all over.”

Even those Republicans who voted against Paul’s measure — including Collins — said Tuesday’s vote was a sign of the eventual outcome of the trial.

“Do the math,” she said. “I think it’s extraordinarily unlikely that the President will be convicted.”

DRAMA Continues….

Mohamed

What I understand that impeachment will require 2/3 votes or more, not just the simple majority. In the House, the impeachment passed on a partisan basis, where only majority was required. The way I see it no way on earth Trump will be impeached due to partisanship.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senators-sworn-in-impeachment-trial-start-feb-9

Paul said he expected his resolution to prove there would be “no chance” of impeaching the president in the Senate.

“I think there will be enough support on it to show there’s no chance they can impeach the president,” Paul told reporters Tuesday. “If 34 people support my resolution that this is an unconstitutional proceeding it shows they don’t have the votes and we’re basically wasting our time.”

The Senate would need a two-thirds majority, or at least 67 votes, to convict the president.

Touché

Mohamed

My, what a precious and pompous old trout you appear to be!

Salam brother,

Throughout the history mankind has tried to destroy the parasite, leaving the environment ripe for the parasite to move to a different host. If we really want to destroy the parasite we need to destroy the environment mammon on which the parasite thrives. If we are able to do this, we will destroy the parasite for a long, long time. If you take 1% of the richest people, their actual possession is very minute, and also like other human beings their daily needs are not much. All their wealth is in useless papers. It is the greed for accumulation, which is hardwired in the mankind.

Prince of Peace (as) showed us that you can feed the whole village with five fish. I don’t take that story as literal but rather as metaphor, being our needs can be satisfied with very little. Now, I am not taking about going the Amish way, driving horses and buggies. But we don’t need all that wealth. Mammon which has become cashless society is a median of exchange and in itself doesn’t have any value. It is all debit/credit and nothing more. Hopefully, with destruction of wealth, prices for goods will plunge to affordable levels for everyone in the world. Also, consumption will be actual rather than buying paintings as investments, which keeps driving the prices up and up. A good example is Bitcoin. Invest, invest, invest or your useless paper you own will decrease in value. An investment for investment sake.

As a Muslim, my religion teaches me that Jews and Christians are Family of the Book. The Book is singular here. A book in Hebrew is called, “Ketuv” and in Arabic it is called, “Kitab”. Mankind is One Family, either we are brothers in Adam or brothers in religion. One God, One Religion….

I am sure majority of mankind including Jews are tired of parasite.

Best regards,

Mohamed

So, the Dramas continues…

God bless President Trump, as his impeachment is nothing but a series of long running Dramas….

Amen!

Possession is still 9/10th the rule

Salam,

Well said brother and I had to look up the definition of possession. I am not an legal expert but let us assume a person owns 100 properties on paper, legally how many of the properties he/she can claim as possession? It is the old argument about pot, one can smoke as much one wants to, but possession is illegal. Your are absolutely right about the 9/10 rule, unfortunately as far as the Palestinians are concerned they fell under the 1/10th category because obscure religious book some 4000 years ago has deeded them to parasites.

I have heard that the parasites were kicked out from 109 countries in the past. The basic problem is that the parasites were always the money changers. This is the wealth which brings them tremendous power as they can buy almost anything with that wealth. As long as they remain the money changers the parasites will move from one country to another. The wealth has to be destroyed. A British economist wrote a book sometime ago called, “Small is Beautiful”. At any given time, our possessions are very few and our basic daily needs are small. We need to get out the rat race before we destroy the Earth. Hopefully, the FAKE Covid-19 will destroy most of this wealth. One has to look at the world financial center, London to see what is happening.

Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations recognized inherent monopolies such as utilities companies and that these inherent monopolies should be subject to regulation, which they are now. Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and so forth have become inherent monopolies too, and they cannot self regulate themselves. Zuckerberg shouldn’t have the sole power on the POTUS account. So, the Dramas continues…

I for one don’t consider any President, Senator, Congressman sold out to foreign powers. When USS Liberty was destroyed, President Johnson called the planes back in the midway. I don’t think that he is a sellout, or John McCain was a sell out too, though he one of the best Drama actor!

Best regards,

Mohamed

Actual possession of land and other tangibles is something real and very different than just reading paper. Papers shows titles from ‘A’ to ‘B’, not what is in actual possession or if that possession is better title than the paperwork. All claims lapse in 20 years under English Common Law, bar absolutely in 50 years, can be revived up to the 100th year… its a long time but at some point all titles will vanish.

Possession is still 9/10th the rule

Your “logic,” “fact”-ideation, and “evidence” are not of any world I know.

The term “mammon” is not expressed or even intimated in either your Karl Rove quote or your paraphrase of it.

Your Federal Reserve, debt, money-printing, Freidman, and China (etc.) discussion is utterly irrelevant to my comment to which you reply and to my article concerning the Trump impeachment’s Senate trial.

Your comment bears no content that can support with any sane logic your assertion that

…the “democracy” and “republic” have never been in peril.

Your Milton-Friedman/Federal-Reserve/money-printing/debt/China/Negative-Income-Tax discursion is gibberish.

Is your salutation “Best regards” a sarcastic irony? [Sarcasm reflects poor imagination of infantile mind.]

Is your comment’s closing “signature” — “Mohamed” — a joke? Your comment-handle is “Larchmonter420.”

naked short selling of what?? ideas? the only thing that matters is real life, actual possession of land and other tangibles.

Actual possession of land and other tangibles are on useless papers too. Ask Zuckerberg, now the richest man on earth, how many useless papers he owns. Properties papers, ownership papers, stock and bond papers, bank deposits and statement papers, owning crypt0 currencies in the cloud papers.. Papers, papers, papers…. The real wealth is what he actually spends, which is hardly much and the rest are investments in useless papers.

Best regards,

Mohamed

* “mammon”? Ron Unz did not pay me for my article. I wrote my article solely because I fear for our nation — for what little remains of our “democracy” and “republic” and the “honor” of our government and our media.

I paraphrased Karl Rove quote for your convenience:

Original Quote of Karl Rove : “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

My paraphrasing of Karl Rove Quote : “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own drama. And while you’re studying that drama — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new dramas, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re drama’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

To me 29 standing ovations by a joint meeting of Congress is the Biggest DRAMA. These are honorable men who will never insult the Office of Presidency, no matter who occupies that Office. So, the “democracy” and “republic” have never been in peril.

As far as mammon and usury are concerned, Federal Reserve System is obsolete. The three momentary tools no longer apply, anymore. Hardly any money is being printed. It is all debit/credit; debit/credit; debit/credit and of course at the very top the debits always equal to credit. Basically, an accounting entry. So, federal debt no longer matters.

All the jobs were shipped to China as a favor to them. Now the jobs in China too are automated. As Milton Friedman explained many years ago that we need, “Negative Income Tax”. The way he calculates the “Negative Income Tax” is different from what McGovern suggested in 1972.

Fake Covid-19 is Godsend! Whether we like it or not, the “Negative Income Tax” is already being implemented all over the world, under the disguise of Covid-19.

Best regards,

Mohamed

I regret that, in writing my comment # 110, I neglected to make clear at that comment’s outset that the comment (# 110) replies to your comment # 109, Larchmonter420.

You wrote:

Ron should consider kicking this author from his site, rather than enriching him with Mammon. This is this first time I have seen a threat by the author of the thread in response to a post. Behold, it is a sign of desperation.

* “mammon”? Ron Unz did not pay me for my article. I wrote my article solely because I fear for our nation — for what little remains of our “democracy” and “republic” and the “honor” of our government and our media.

* I did not threaten to sue GeeBee. I noted that GeeBee’s statement was actionable libel. That is a statement of fact, not a threat. I suggest you read more carefully.

I would not sue GeeBee. I would not waste the substantial time and monetary and emotional costs involved in ascertaining GeeBee’s identity, drafting the necessary complaint, summons, and memorandum of law, pursuing discovery, arranging appearances and testimonies of witnesses, and presenting evidence, etc. GeeBee is not worth such expenditure.

My purpose was only to point out the wrongness of GeeBee’s conduct, so that, perhaps, Mr. Unz would chastise GeeBee or at least so that other readers would appreciate the wrongness of such behavior.

* I am not the first author who has reacted as I did to GeeBee’s libel (and it was libel).

Open this article of Israel Shamir: The New Puritans, https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-new-puritans/

Then Read these comments:

Comment # 246 of “paranoid goy” (a comment-poster), where paranoid goy calls Linh Dinh (and Unz Review author) a “rhino horn smuggler,” https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-new-puritans/?showcomments#comment-4089722

Comment 251 of paranoid goy, https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-new-puritans/?showcomments#comment-4091222
In that comment, paranoid goy doubles down on his libel, and states this:

Thanks for corerecting my speling of gauge, you sure showed me! Linh Dinh? I only ever read one of his pieces, where he reminisces upon his stay in Angola, and his appreciation of the plentiful supply of rhino horn. Around here, we know exactly what that means, and he is free to deny the charge himself. He does write engagingly enough though, doesn’t he?

Comment 259 of Loup-Bouc, where, replying to paranoid goy, Loup-Bouc, Loup-Bouc states this:

Since YOU[ assert the existence of a Linh Dinh piece in which Linh Dinh “reminisces upon his stay in Angola, and his appreciation of the plentiful supply of rhino horn” [a piece that my 19 searches (with both Google and swisscows) did not discover], YOU are obliged to cite the piece with an internet link, because your statement is libelous unless true. [I used Swisscows, not just Google, because Swisscows does NOT either de-platform sites or prioritize sites per political preference.]

If, truly, Linh Dinh uttered the “rhino horn” statement you allege (uttered it in actuality, rather than in your hallucinatory experience), might Linh Dinh’s statement have been humor or wit (both of which you lack) — NOT an indication that Linh Dinh “smuggles” rhino horns (an indication absent even if Linh Dinh uses rhino horns for the idiotic “reason” put by faux Chinese Medicine).

Then read these two comments of Linh Dinh (who is, recall, an Unz Review author):

(1) https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-new-puritans/?showcomments#comment-4092810
where, replying to “paranoid goy” (a comment-poster), Linh Dinh states:

“Linh Dinh the rhino horn smuggler?”

This “paranoid goy” is a bald-faced liar, everybody. Disgusting.

(2) https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-new-puritans/?showcomments#comment-4092846
where, replying to paranoid goy but also addressing Ron Unz, Lin Dinh states:

Hi Ron,

To baselessly accuse someone of a crime is no joke. This “paranoid goy” should not be allowed to do this at Unz.

Libel is a crime.

Linh

I suggest you, Larchmonter420, learn to read scrupulously and to investigate well before you publish assertions like yours that I quoted at the start of this comment.

My, what a precious and pompous old trout you appear to be! I await your action in libel in mock trepidation sir.

Ron should consider kicking this author from his site, rather than enriching him with Mammon. This is this first time I have seen a threat by the author of the thread in response to a post. Behold, it is a sign of desperation.

It will be nice when Trump proves on Prime Time TV that some rouge country interfered in the election. Wonder, how will the Majority Leader the Schumer of Israel will act? I am ready for a new and improved DRAMA.

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own drama. And while you’re studying that drama — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new dramas, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re drama’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

In the 2016 Election Drama, the precedent is already set where Russia was a Rouge Country. Won’t be difficult to pin it on Israel this time.

Good times are ahead! A truly United USA! Amen!

My, what a precious and pompous old trout you appear to be! I await your action in libel in mock trepidation sir.

This comment corrects a bad internet link that appears in my previous reply (comment # 106).

The bad link was that given for my comment of January 22, 2021 at 10:32 pm GMT (comment # 70).

The correct comment # 70 link is:
https://www.unz.com/article/structural-crisis-senate-threatens-to-usurp-presidency-constitution-and-will-of-the-people/#comment-4423651

You wrote:

I just saw your ping-pong game with Jaffee, and couldn’t help noticing that he used a very obvious ‘cop-out’ excuse, namely the old ‘I’m far too busy and important to respond to people who challenge my shoddy and shaky pronouncements’ gambit.

I do not complain against your putting false argument — as much, actually, you do (and as Mefobills did). [Free speech is good even when it is bad.] I do not object even to your rendering ad hominem attack (as you did). [Non-libelous ad hominem attack is free speech, too (albeit often stupid or silly).]

But I do object to your attacking me ad hominem with a flagrantly false assertion. SUCH ad hominem attack is libel — actionable libel.

I did not state anything like “I’m far too busy and important to respond to people who challenge my…pronouncements.” I stated exactly this:

I want not to use much more of this comment-thread. So, I shall not present a second detailed response, but note only that again you present no valid, reliable evidence of anything, but merely assertions.

* * *

I shall not respond to you again, but only to avoid taking up more of this thread. I do not mean to insult you. You seem sincerely concerned for the general welfare of humanity. I plain to respond only to one other comment, posted by a different reader (not you, sir or madam). Then, likely I shall not post more comments.

My comment of January 23, 2021 at 12:39 am GMT (comment # 81), https://www.unz.com/article/structural-crisis-senate-threatens-to-usurp-presidency-constitution-and-will-of-the-people/#comment-4423889

And in the same comment, and an earlier comment [comment # 70, January 22, 2021 at 10:32 pm GMT, https://www.unz.com/article/structural-crisis-senate-threatens-to-usurp-presidency-constitution-and-will-of-the-people/#comment-4423889 ] I responded to Mefobills with much detail and with sound, competent evidence that I linked to online sources.

Not I, but your comment, fits your terms “shoddy and shaky.”

Among the Republican establishment, the most toxic of politicians to emerge is Mitch “mumbles” McConnell. He did every single thing he could do to sink the Trump administration. He has the leader of the conservative party, almost single handedly ruined it in the last five or ten years.

I just saw your ping-pong game with Jaffee, and couldn’t help noticing that he used a very obvious ‘cop-out’ excuse, namely the old ‘I’m far too busy and important to respond to people who challenge my shoddy and shaky pronouncements’ gambit.

Bentham was certainly an odd chap: I recall my brother-in-Law telling me that when he studied architecture at The Bartlett College (part of University College, London) Jeremy Bentham’s mummified body was always sat in a chair at the head of the table, on the occasion of the annual college dinner, in accordance with his wishes prior to his death in 1832 (Bentham had helped found University College).

It might be worth you invoking in reply to Jaffee the 20th-century English philosopher Anthony Ludovici, and especially his book Jews and the Jews in England (which he wrote under the pseudonym ‘Cobbett’, for understandable reasons bearing in mind it was published in 1938) in which he touched upon Bentham. He wrote:

The fact, moreover, that in England after the resettlement the Jew was in the position of a stranger aspiring to power in a society already organized to a great extent upon the aristocratic and hereditary principle, meant that his one form of power — Money — found itself opposed, or at least limited, by other kinds of power which, besides having no necessary basis in money alone, were inaccessible to money as such. These other kinds of power were Gentile aristocratic lineage, Gentile aristocratic privilege, hereditary honours and functions, all of which could not be bought, had no market price, and belonged to a political system and a constitution which would need to be transformed and if necessary wrecked, if these forms of power were to be released to merely affluent candidates for their possession.

Thus, if in such a society the Jew was to persist in his ambition to acquire power that had no insuperable limitations, it meant that, willy-nilly, he must give the weight of his support in influence and money to all those tendencies in the land which were aiming at destroying these peculiar and unpurchasable forms of power, and at dismantling the political framework into which they fitted.’

Ludovici goes on to ask whether the old order were stupid, neglectful or merely naïve in going along with much of the attack upon their power at the hands of Jews, concluding:

‘But what is important is the fact that, no matter how virtuous or efficient they might have been, and no matter how exemplary might have seemed their administration and their leadership in the eyes of the masses, the Jew could not logically have acted otherwise than he did; for he was by the very nature of his position committed to siding with their political critics and opponents.

‘Fundamentally, there is no reason — no fact in the past history of the Jews — which would justify us in assuming that, had the privileged rulers of this country satisfied all the demands of the nation, the Jews, as inveterate strangers, knowing only their own ethnic and spiritual solidarity, would have allowed the efficient performance of their functions by the privileged classes to weigh against the more pressing desideratum of opening up all avenues to power for themselves.

‘Hence, throughout the latter part of the eighteenth and the whole of the nineteenth centuries, two movements aiming at the reform of the House of Lords — to mention no other modifications of the national political structure — ran side by side. On the one hand, there was a steady crescendo of denigration levelled at the hereditary principle, and, on the other, a tendency to lower the prestige of the Upper House by making money alone a means of access to it.

‘Early in the nineteenth century, by a curious coincidence which requires some explanation, the same publicist who wrote a “Defence of Usury” had also attacked the constitution as being “aristocracy-ridden”, (Jeremy Bentham: “The Catechism of Parliamentary Reform”, 1817) and if by 1911, after a propaganda campaign which for fraudulent misrepresentation surpassed anything of the kind in history, and in which the landed nobility were persistently represented to the people as their only real oppressors and parasites, the Parliament Act virtually removed the House of Lords from any functional position of importance in the constitution, it was because there had been no rest, no pause, in the steady advance of Radical anti-Lordism from the day of Bentham onwards.

‘Now, the whole of this anti-peer campaign was supported and directed by the Liberals and their extreme Left Wing, and it was on the side of the Liberals that the English Jews necessarily ranged themselves.’

Ludovici thus attacks not merely the Jews, but their supporters among the gentiles who had swallowed the Jews’ bait, namely the Liberals. Bentham was surely in the vanguard of this attack on Traditional life, and thus he assisted the ushering in of our toxic Judaised world of Materialism and ‘individuality’.

(1)

I type very badly. Today, I cannot spare time enough to proofread the following text. I apologize for any typing error(s) that may mar the following text.

(2)

This is a compliment, not an insult or supercilious remark. I wish that when I was still teaching law-students, the majority thought critically as your comments suggest you can.

(3) You wrote:

I understand your argument as:
Judgment shall be A and B.
In this instance, there can be no A.
Therefore there can be no [complete set of] A and B.
Therefore there can be no Judgment at all, whatsoever.

Am I summarizing your argument correctly?

You have mis-summarized my construction of Article I § 3 clause 7 first sentence: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” Also, you continue to mis-construe Article I § 3 clause 7 first sentence.

Article I § 3 clause 7 first sentence reduces to this:

Given J, then P ≯ (R∧D)

where
“J” means “J of conviction” (or “Judgment affirming the charge(s) the articles of impeachment assert”)
“≯ ” means “not greater than” (or “not further than”)
“R” means “removal from office”
“∧” means “and” (exactly and only conjunctive)
“D” means “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office…[etc.] under the United States”
“(R∧D)” means “absolute conjunction of R and D” — not (R∨D), where “∨” means “logical ‘or,’ which is “(a)∨(b)∨[(a)∧(b)],” or “(a) or (b) or both (a) and (b)”

Consider the proposition:

Given J, then P: ≤ (R∧D)

where
“:” means “such that”
“≤” means “less than or equal to”

Per that proposition [“Given J, then P: ≤(R∧D)”], if the Senate convicts an impeached civil Officer, the Senate may choose not to impose (R∧D) punishment but impose, instead, e.g., to censure that Officer; and censure may be more or less harsh or may may include a specific rebuke respecting one certain previous act or some number of specific acts that the Officer committed while in Office.

Assume, for argument, that such proposition [“Given J, then P: ≤(R∧D)”] comports with Article I § 3 clause 7 first sentence. (That assumption is quite arguable, and, in a perfectly fitting case, I would support holding that assumption valid under Article I § 3 clause 7 first sentence. But the Trump impeachment is not such case.)

Let “C” stand for “censure but not R∨D.” Now look narrowly “backwards” — not from (R∧D) to “C ∧ not-R,” but from (R∧D) to “not-R ∧ D.”

Suppose an impeached civil Officer remained in Office during the entirety of Senate trial of the Officer’s impeachment, that the Senate adjudged the Officer “guilty,” and the Senate ruled not that P be the Officer be (R∧D) but only D. The result would be that the Officer would remain in Office despite the Senate ruled that the Office be disqualified from holding and [or] enjoying “any office [my emphasis] of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

Look hard: In such case, the Senate would have permitted an Article I § 3 clause 7 disqualified Officer to “hold and enjoy” an “Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States,” though the Senate had disqualified the Officer from holding and enjoying any “Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

If, per Senate ruling, H may not hold any “O” [“Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States”], then H may not hold O1,O2,O3,….O∞. Thus, H may “hold” or “enjoy” no Office of honor, Trust [etc.], ever, anywhere “under the United States.” Hence, H may not “hold” or “enjoy” the Office that the Senate has permitted H to remain holding and enjoying.

So, “Given J, then P≯ (R∧D)” must mean “Given J, then P⇔[P≡ (R∧D)]∨ [(P≡(C∧¬D)].” [Senate can punish an impeached Officer only if punishment is removal AND disqualification from holding or enjoying “any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” OR punishment is only censure and not “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust…(etc.).]

Recall my earlier observation:

The Constitution’s Framers were not stupid or oblivious to probable consequences of their Constitution-provision choices. Surely, the Framers appreciated (even if only for sake of their own self-interests) that if the Senate could disqualify a non-Office-holder from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States,” any person could be barred from holding “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States, even if the person has never violated any official Office or official Trust” under the United States,” or even never held such Office — e.g., simply because a House majority and two thirds of the Senate dislikes the person’s politics or the conduct of his private life.

Cheers,

Leonard R. Jaffee

Thanks again, but I am not persuaded. Or perhaps I am not comprehending your essay and comments.

I think you have misapprehended the meaning of the phrase ‘shall not extend further than to.’

I understand your argument as:
Judgment shall be A and B.
In this instance, there can be no A.
Therefore there can be no [complete set of] A and B.
Therefore there can be no Judgment at all, whatsoever.

Am I summarizing your argument correctly?

naked short selling of what?? ideas? the only thing that matters is real life, actual possession of land and other tangibles.

A narcissist would not have put up with personal attacks based on specious reasoning for four years, coming out and facing a hostile press almost every day. Listening to their vicious insinuations and parrying them at every opportunity

I’ve had the same thoughts as you. What motivates Trump? He always put himself in the limelight and self promoted.

It is possible that people are complex and simple black and white definitions are too easy?

Is it possible that Trump got enough feedback from his people at the rallies to then be able to face down the clowns in Washington swamp?

Today Fed is determining the interest rates.
Talking about usury is waste of time.

Usury isn’t about interest rates. That is Bentham’s works that have you baffled with his BS. This is why Bentham was dangerous. You are a living example.

In the Philadelphia Colony, they made new loans based on land, which then put new “money as credit” into the supply.

They also SPENT new money into the supply on things like bridges and the commons. This new money paid the interest on the new loans. The loans were also held such that they did not go exponential … this was done by limiting the loans to simple interest paid in yearly increments, generally around 8 years length. The debt claims from the loans were not usurious in that they could be paid out of the physical productivity of the Colony. Franklin wrote about this experience:

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1701-1750/benjamin-franklin-a-modest-enquiry-into-the-nature-and-necessity-of-paper-currency.php

General Welfare clause and American System of Economy were contemporaneous.

General Welfare clause transmitted to the Constitution through Franklin and Leibniz.

https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_02-06/031_happinessA.html

(whenever you see the word “venetians” in the link, substitute usurers)

Life/Liberty/Happiness is Franklin/Leibniz

Life/Liberty/Property is a materialistic view.

The materialistic view is that man is an animal and can be hedonistic (like Bentham), and the jewish method of usury to “put property to property” is just fine and dandy. Usury funds their hedonism.

It is something like NAMBLA, the north american men boy lovers association. They put out a doctrine as a cover and shield for their perversions.

There is a large body of thought and definitions of what usury is, which predates Bentham. Artistotle codified the most prominent definitions, which is why Bentham attacked Aristotle.

Clown world is funded, and clown world requires propaganda narratives.

Bentham also opposed natural law and natural rights. Much of human history was trying to define what the logos is, or god-given natural law and natural rights. And now we are back full circle to the Catholic Schoolmen led by Thomas Aquinas, who further defined what usury is, and how it is against the natural order.

Thank you for your responses.

I’ll guess you are not Jewish, Mr Jaffee is.

I am not an ethnic Jew. And I do not adhere to any form of Jewish religion (all forms of such religion I despise). I am an atheist and utterly irreligious. My surname is held by many Jews. But I am not my surname.

In my earlier reply, where I responded to your statement that

Although possibly superfluous, it’s there and should give rise to the realization that, of course, nothing in this section about what the Congress can do would prevent further punishment under the law, i.e. just the legislative branch removing and banning a guy from executive office for treason wouldn’t prevent his also hanging under the law.

I noted that “Article I § 3 clauses 6 & 7 & Article II § 4 do not require that a crime be committed.” One indication was the Clinton impeachment, in which the dominant charges were obstructing civil-suit evidence-discovery and having (consensual) sexual encounters with a (non-minor) White House aide, conduct that no law makes criminal.

In his Senate trial, Clinton survived by one vote, that of Arlen Specter, who applied the Scottish criminal law regime in which the jury’s choices are (a) not guilty, (b) guilty, (c) not innocent but guilt not proved; and Specter chose (c). Specter felt that Clinton had done wrong but felt also that the case had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In the same part of my earlier reply, my concluding observation was:

So, Article I § 3 clause 7 punishment does not require that the impeached civil Officer have committed an act or omission that criminal law makes a crime. AND an impeached Officer’s having committed such crime does not require or necessarily authorize the Senate’s punishing him per Article I § 3 clause 7.

Your statement related to the Article I § 3 clause 7 language

…but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

My concluding observation ought to have included also this: The above-quoted Article I § 3 clause 7 language has no function but to recognize or provide that a Senate impeachment trial is not a criminal proceeding and does not affect, positively or negatively, any criminal law liability. Hence, that language says nothing respecting what punishment the Senate is empowered to impose.

I have stood before judges three times in my life. Each time they lied to my face. I spent two nights in jail. I wrote a song about it.

Camela’s Foot/Binding Administration?
I’m gonna have to steal that.

I looked up ‘mefobills’, fascinating. I’ll guess you are not Jewish, Mr Jaffee is.
It’s a great discussion and I thank you both.

Quite an accomplishment. Almost everything you said is false, wrong or fattening.

You wrote:

First, and most importantly, the first clause of the key sentence begins by stating that it is a limitation on the Senate. The Senate can do no more than this, that, and the other thing.

Your construction is false.

The Constitution’s Article I § 3 clause 7 proposition reduces to: “Judgment shall not extend farther than P, where P = Q & R.”

The language “Judgment shall not extend farther than P” begs the question of what P is. Article I § 3 clause 7 answers that question, expressly, explicitly, clearly thus: “Q and R’ is “removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” [my emphasis].

Article I § 3 clause 7 does NOT provide that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, or disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” And Article I § 3 clause 7 does NOT provide that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to either removal from Office, or disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States or both removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

Article I § 3 clause 7 DOES provide expressly, explicitly, clearly that Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.

Perhaps a language-logic observation may help:

The term “and” is conjunctive, always only conjunctive — always both (a) and (b, or all of (a), (b), (c)……and (n).

The term “or” has two, distinct meanings. One, a common (non-logical/non-legal) meaning, is “complete disjunction” — “either (a) or (b) but not both (a) and (b).”

The fundamental (or rudimentary) logical “or” — and the correct legal “or” means “(a) or (b) or both (a) and (b).” Quite like the “or” of symbolic logic, propositional calculus, truth logic, and Boolean algebra, the legal, “or” indicates that “A or B [is true] if A [is true] or if B [is true] or if both A and B [are true].

Some truth-logic “disjunctive” [logical “or”] properties:

associativity: A ∨ (B ∨ C) ≡ (A ∨ B) ∨ C
commutativity: A ∨ B = B ∨ A
distributivity: [A ∨ (B ∧ C)] ≡ [(A ∨ B) ∧ (A ∨ C)]
and……………….. [A ∨ (B ∨ C)] ≡ [(A ∨ B) ∨ (A ∨ C)]
and……………….. [A ∨ (B ≡ C)] ≡ [(A ∨ B) ≡ (A ∨ C)]

The symbol ∨ means “or”
The symbol ∧ means “and”
The symbol ≡ means “identity” or “is identical to” (which is similar to, but not exactly the same as =, which means “equals”)

So, since Article I § 3 clause 7 provides expressly, explicitly, clearly that Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States,” Article I § 3 clause 7 provides that Judgment shall extend ONLY to BOTH removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

The proposition that “Judgment [my emphasis]…shall not extend farther than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit …[etc]” does NOT imply the proposition PUNISHMENT shall be EITHER “removal from Office OR disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit …[etc] OR BOTH such punishments.

The proposition that “Judgment[my emphasis]…shall not extend farther than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit …[etc]” does NOT imply ANYTHING respecting whether PUNISHMENT may be one or the other of “removal from Office OR disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit …[etc] RATHER THAN ALWAYS BOTH “removal from Office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit …[etc].”

Just so, the language “Judgment [my emphasis]…shall not extend farther than to” refutes your argument.

The “Judgment” is the determination whether the impeached Officer is guilty as the impeachment articles charge. A guilty-as-charged judgment is the event that authorizes punishment.

If the judgment authorizes punishment, then the punishment can be ONLY and EXACTLY what Article I § 3 clause 7 prescribes: “removal from Office, and [my emphasis] disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States. Such punishment is not possible if the impeached Officer’s Office has ended and he has vacated that Office. One cannot remove something from a place or situation if that something is absent.

The Constitution’s Framers were not stupid or oblivious to probable consequences of their Constitution-provision choices. Surely, the Framers appreciated (even if only for sake of their own self-interests) that if the Senate could disqualify a non-Office-holder from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States,” any person could be barred from holding “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States, even if the person has never violated any official Office or official Trust” under the United States,” or even never held such Office — e.g. simply because a House majority and two thirds of the Senate dislikes the person’s politics or the conduct of his private life.

Pointing to the Article I § 3 clause 7 provision that “the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law,” you state:

Although possibly superfluous, it’s there and should give rise to the realization that, of course, nothing in this section about what the Congress can do would prevent further punishment under the law, i.e. just the legislative branch removing and banning a guy from executive office for treason wouldn’t prevent his also hanging under the law.

That language does not even intimate what you argue.

Article I § 3 clauses 6 & 7 & Article II § 4 do not require that a crime be committed [see Leonard R. Jaffee, IMPEACHING CHENEY, http://usalone.com/jaffee_on_impeachment2.htm AND consider the Senate trial of the Clinton impeachment, in which the dominant charges was obstructing civil-suit evidence-discovery and having sexual encounters with a White House aide, conduct that no law makes criminal].

Article I § 3 clauses 6 & 7 & Article II § 4 contemplate removing a “civil Officer” from Office if he has perverted his official office, corrupted government, threatened the Republic or our democracy, or damaged the public welfare the official swore to protect. A civil Officer can have committed such offense even if his conduct does not constitute a crime according to any criminal law [again see Leonard R. Jaffee, IMPEACHING CHENEY, http://usalone.com/jaffee_on_impeachment2.htm ].

So, Article I § 3 clause 7 punishment does not require that the impeached civil Officer have committed an act or omission that criminal law makes a crime. AND an impeached Officer’s having committed such crime does not require or necessarily authorize the Senate’s punishing him per Article I § 3 clause 7.

You wrote:

Why shouldn’t the Senate be able to permanently bar a guy from office and profit from the United States for Treason just because he commits it too late for the process of impeachment and trial to be practicable?

You state a policy question. But the question is moot, because the Constitution determined that question with Article I § 3 clause 7. The determination was that the impeached civil Officer must be subject to “removal from Office” — for, the only authorized punishment involves “removal from Office, and [my emphasis] disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.

Usury, as any other economic activity is subject to Law of supply and demand.
And anyway who the hell can determine what is usury and what is not.
Today Fed is determining the interest rates.
Talking about usury is waste of time.

Thanks. (Unable to use the AGREE/DISAGREE button.)

So Bentham approved of usury because decadent aristocrats who borrowed and wasted the money deserved to suffer. Most borrowers aren’t clueless aristocrats who deserve to suffer.

Constitutional law in 9 words. Constitutional law is whatever a judge says it is.

School integration and bussing, affirmative action Louisiana slaughterhouse case, rulings that closed entire industries.

Since the Griggs case the judges have totally overturned and rendered null the 14th amendment. Legislators don’t make laws any more. Judges and plaintiffs attorneys do.

At one time a group that wanted a law to benefit the group hired a lobbyist to influence legislators to propose and pass the law.

Now the groups just fund a lawsuit and hope the judge issues orders the group’s attorneys wrote for the judge. If the first law suit fails, the group just filed again and again till some judge somewhere issues the orders that create a new law.

That is the most confusing riposte I have yet to receive on this site. Oh, there are plenty of responders whom I would regard as confused, but you, sir, are confusing. “Hundreds of millions” of Calvinists? Oh please. Evidently demographic geography is not your high suit. “Gail (sic) force wind”? Would that be akin to the late actress Gail Storm”? I “prove” exactly what? Calvin’s description of “unknowable knowledge” strikes me as pilpul.

Do you happen to be a Presbyterian preacher/teacher at John Calvin University for those hardcore Calvinists that the folks I met while traveling in the Netherlands happened be delighted that they split the country for South Africa and western Michigan?

Whatever good was to be found in Christianity as a culture was deeply distorted by Calvinistic Puritanism and its “Chosen People” mythos….My preference is to employ the more objectively truthful description: the “JudieChristie MagickMindfuck.

So, I hear you saying the failure of those mindfucked people (and I’m not sayin they aren’t) by the hundreds of millions was caused by opportunity and inclination and not predestination per se. At least not *the* fait accompli into whose gail force wind you now spit, head on. Calvin merely observed the phenomenon. You prove it.

Puritanism does not act out expecting to change others. It acts from within, it is a moving force and cannot be denied by those possessed of it. In the event you kill a Puritan, make sure it is for who they are, rather than who they are not. They simply cannot act in ways to make you think they are right, when if by doing so, they lose their own person. How do they know who they are, you ask? What is their unknowable knowledge? Calvin described it. They acknowledge it as unknowable. Others rage.

“Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?” Psalms 2:1

Respectfully, your problem may lie in having accepted the counterfeit of the so called Jews, “Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.” Rev. 3:9

Get your night vision together man. First, eliminate the impossible. That is, if your heart believes that it may be.

I guess in your world, naked short selling cannot happen?

It is just selling of shares. Actually it is the hypothecation of shares. The free market is perfect.

https://stopnakedshortselling.org/about/

The “Bible” and “Jesus” and your other sources prove nothing of economics, and they, like you, do not show why, e.g.,

___________________

See Hudson’s book, “And forgive them their debts.” Jesus was very much a monetary reformer. Jesus started his mission on the Jubilee year to intercept Hillel’s Pharisee class. The Pharisee class and Hillel’s prozbul clause was attempting a creditor take-over, where the creditor class could extract from debtors forever — a form of usury. This is relatively new information for humanity, so it is understood if you are not conversant. Hudson and the Harvard team’s information has not reached critical mass yet.

As far as libertarianism goes, it is being deconstructed on an ongoing basis, with articles on it here at UNZ.

https://www.unz.com/article/did-milton-friedmans-libertarianism-seek-to-advance-jewish-interests/

Bentham was a usurer, and wrote a book about it. “Defence of Usury,” in 1811 (London, Payne and Foss)

Bentham was the spiritual cousin of Hillel.

Bentham’s book was even republished in 1842, just around the time that Bank of England’s abuses were becoming an obvious problem. From around 1810, BOE’s policies were impoverishing the lower levels of English society.

In 1844 the BOE was FORCED with reforms to:

Stop charging interest on governments debt to it.
A separate note issuing department that required gold backing for more than 15million pounds of notes.
Silver could be used again to back up the bank, but not used as coinage.

(The objective was to reign in the bank.)

In other words, the first Debt Spreading Bank in history, which then took over a country, used Bentham’s works to justify their usury position, which had impoverished the the lower strata. The public fought back with the 1844 reforms, which are something Bentham would not have understood given his worldview.

I did mention sources by the way, such as Bentham himself, Whipple and Haney.

I’m sorry if your worldview is under assault. But, I’m only interested in the truth and if I break eggs to make an omelet, so be it.

The Obama administration counted anyone turned away at the border (never stepping once on U.S. soil) as having been “deported”. Numbers were very fudged. On the other hand, Trump failed to live up to his campaign rhetoric with regard to illegal aliens.

There isn’t really any difference in selling shares of an estate against securing that estate for payment of notes and bonds. It’s still just selling shares of the same estate. In a really free market the price of money falls towards zero, and if it pays interest this allocates investment by attracting capital.

The bottom line is that these hypothecations are just organising shares of interest, the real issue remains the organic property relationship, which is founded on the ecology of social relationships. The main question is strictly who should have possession of what, and when, and why.

Most things which are now subject to speculation are easily removed just by high exemptions from levy, and time barring claims grounded in real possession. One of the lawyerly tricks that emerged was the “suspension of time”, that making payments tolled the time limits to prosecute claims.

At the same time the clock always marches on, so does time really stand still by abstract ideation? i think not… time stops for no man. This means all demands for payment are inherently limited. The Catholics understood the problem, but their “solutions” were always blockheaded.

I want not to use much more of this comment-thread. So, I shall not present a second detailed response, but note only that again you present no valid, reliable evidence of anything, but merely assertions. The “Bible” and “Jesus” and your other sources prove nothing of economics, and they, like you, do not show why, e.g.,

A libertarian argument is no defense either.

[Your assertion.]

But, still, the matter is NOT Bentham. The matter is the content of his published works that argue for utilitarianism — a sociopolitical regime that promotes the greatest human happiness for the greatest human number.

I shall not respond to you again, but only to avoid taking up more of this thread. I do not mean to insult you. You seem sincerely concerned for the general welfare of humanity. I plain to respond only to one other comment, posted by a different reader (not you, sir or madam). Then, likely I shall not post more comments.

said:
“Zio Biden will have a Jewish dominated administration.”

Here we go:

what the hell is a court needed for in the first place?

Since you ask, a Court is therefore needed in order to legally try, convict, sentence and hang-draw-and-quarter corrupted, disloyal, anarchic, treasonous, godless, nation-wrecking scum like that Judge.

You’re welcome.

But the guilt is still on Democrats who obviously cheated.

Calculating an amount due on the lien position is just mathematic abstraction. All of these things are “threshold”, to reach the point of stating a claim by right.

The equity of foreclosure, eviction, shut off or another hard consequence is within the sound discretion of any court, and the right of actual possession is always guaranteed trial by jury. All that really matters are the legal time bars to make claims for land and other assets, every lien might as well be ‘infinity’… usury is just a concept.

That’s why it has no penalty nor any ordination in Scripture. It can’t be defined, but it will be abolished by truly free markets that drive all prices down to cost and exchange.

Just flip it around opposite and you have the answer. Instead of building a powerbase in the government, the deplorables spent the last 4 years pissing off the people with real power. Not building a powerbase, and pissing off those in power… they have a death wish.

Because RED state retards are all IDIOTS, they chose a perfect clown to manifest their deplorable sensibilities. Now that Trump is just a greasy smear, they have martyred themselves on a cross of mental illness, and a hundred years from now there will be shrines to them all over the US, describing the lost race of rubetards and dumfuks that like to wave flags. That the obsolete jerbtard class was so devoted to him (because of him being a conman idiot) just shows how desperate they are for attention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Dance

The redtard race will soon be confined to reservations and locked out of the whiteman’s world, barred from commercial travel. They need to revert to a way of life more suited, circa mid 19th century, no technology. Modern things spook the werkist jerbalots.

See how FTYF?

I will give $500 to anyone who can cite the Article and Clause that creates the sacred “right to choose” an abortion.

Excessive regulation of the public medical license denies equal protection of the human right to privacy, which includes medical decisions. The same reason I am entitled to medicate without permission from the FDA is the same reason women are entitled to abortion surgery without too much oversight of the required medical license. It’s a question of balancing public interest with personal liberty, so it became a judicial precedent after much deliberation. I want my $500

I will never lose that money, because it doesn’t exist.

You don’t have money? Dishonor! I feel cheated

this sacred constitutional right to abortion

Not a “right to abortion”, a right to make medical decisions with a licensed doctor without undue public interference. Of course every conservatoon gets everything backwards, hence the recent collapse of the Trump regime. 100% morons, all of you.

tell us that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”

translation: “the right to keep and bear arms in defense of the State shall not be questioned”

also stated “loyal subjects may have arms for their defense suitable to their condition”

places absolutely no limitations on the ̶g̶o̶v̶e̶r̶n̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ average moron to ̶b̶a̶n̶,̶ ̶t̶a̶x̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶/̶o̶r̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶f̶i̶s̶c̶a̶t̶e̶ brandish, menace and display any and all weapons not in the hands of the National Guard

FTFY

I suggest you need to present substantial supporting evidence, not merely your rather hefty assertion

I have made a lot of comments here at UNZ, and I often provide supporting evidence.

Thanks for correcting me about Bentham’s dad. Still, Bentham was wrong on usury, and has done enormous damage. The old testament prohibits usury, and a Jew “of the book” should know that.

Usury is a power relation, it is not just the taking of interest. It is the taking of sordid gain, with no counterpart in production.

A libertarian argument is no defense either.

It was the classical economists who were able to discern what free markets were… markets free of rents and unearned income. NOT LIBERTARIANS.

Bentham was pretty much a P.O.S. Charles Haney, in “History of Economic Thought” classified Bentham as a “hedonist.” One who asserts that individual actions are solely motivated by a desire for pleasure and avoidance of pain. The community Bentham stated, is a fictitious body, and the common interest can be understood by what is the interest of the individual… nothing ought to be done or attempted by the government.. his rule of government is to be quiet.

So, Bentham instead of criticizing the most powerful Jews for their anti-social activities, views as harmful by all former moral systems, Bentham instead plays the anti-semitism card. Bentham even attacked Aristotle for corrupting Christianity.

In Bentham’s book, Bentham associates some of the positive attributes of thrift with money lending. Money lending becomes on the same plane as thrift in his worldview.

An here is the coup-de-gras: Compound interest was forbidden in Bentham’s day, and Bentham urged its legalization.

A compound curve for interest is outside of nature, as the claims on nature grow exponentially. Nature does not grow exponentially. Nature and labor cannot pay the claims, and society polarizes. Jesus started his mission on the Jubilee year, as Jubilees are coded in the Bible to prevent polarization.

If Bentham wasn’t a Jew, he certainly had the Jewish spirit. Bentham was not for the common good.

A movie about Al Gore.

Video Link

This is a superb comment. Roe and the more recent decision extending civil rights to the LGBetc. group are examples of a judiciary that pays no attention to either the words or the spirit of the Constitution. The federal government has become a totalitarian monster that, particularly in the hands of the current Democratic party, is determined to allow no dissent despite the clear meaning and intent of the first amendment.

Which Constitution? of the Republic of the united states of America or THE UNITED STATES, INCORPORATED? The last President of the Republic was Ulysses S Grant. All those after him have been corporate officers CEOs/Presidents. Do some research. We live in a bubble if misinformation and disinformation spoon-fed to us from birth. After you discover the truths about this country and almost every country in the world you’ll get sick. Step outside the US Inc matrix or another matrix and you become a domestic terrorist/you now are one with the animal kingdom. Survival will definitely be for the fittest. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

You misread Bentham’s “In defense of Usury.” Bentham’s position reflected a libertarian perspective and a dislike of most English aristocrats of those times — those whose livelihoods depended on inheritance and who did nothing productive.

Respecting the libertarianism of Bentham’s “Defense of Usury,” I shall quote a Libertarian source, rather than argue the matter (partly because the argument’s adequate construction would consume too much space here):

In A Defence of Usury (1787), he [Bentham] argued that it was a mistake for governments to prohibit high interest rates because individuals are the best judges of what will benefit them.
* * *
In his discussions of concrete issues, Bentham in general supported a laissez-?faire economic policy, as can be seen in his Defence of Usury. There he takes issue with Adam Smith, whom he otherwise looked up to as a hero, because Smith was willing to support government in its attempts to keep the rate of interest down. In addition to economic freedom, Bentham especially espoused the cause of intellectual freedom and freedom of speech. Because individuals are usually the best judges of what is good for them, and because a regime of liberty provides the individual with the greatest freedom to follow his own goals, there is a presumption in favor of it, and the burden of justification is on those who would make exceptions.

“JEREMY BENTHAM,” in LIBERTARIANISM, https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/jeremy-bentham

And cf. this:

[In “Defence of Usury” (1787),” …Jeremy Bentham wrote a series of thirteen “Letters” addressed to Adam Smith, published in 1787 as Defence of Usury. Bentham’s main argument against the restriction is that “projectors” generate positive externalities. Gilbert K. Chesterton identified Bentham’s essay on usury as the very beginning of the ‘modern world.’ Bentham’s arguments were very influential. “Writers of eminence” moved to abolish the restriction, and repeal was achieved in stages and fully achieved in England in 1854. There is little evidence as to Smith’s reaction. He did not revise the offending passages in The Wealth of Nations, but Smith made little or no substantial revisions after the third edition of 1784.

Quoted from the Bibliography of the JEREMY BENTHAM UTILITARIAN PHILOSOPHY, Central European University, Budapest, course concerning “Moral Intuitionism, Epistemological and Ethical Aspects,” http://utilitarianphilosophy.com/jeremybentham.eng.html

Bentham’s anti-aristocrat/anti-inheritance view accorded with the perspective that (a) if an enriched-by-inheritance aristocrat squanders his unearned fortune and tries to survive by borrowing from a usurer, he deserves the financial stress he suffers and (b) liberty requires risking the negative effects of your choices (a condition that is anathema to socialism). Cf. Josiah Wedgwood, THE ECONOMICS OF INHERITANCE (first published in 1929), https://archive.org/details/economicsofinher035213mbp/page/n1/mode/2up

You wrote:

Bentham’s father was Jewish, and Bentham also ignored the fairly strong Old Testament admonitions against usury.

Your assertion’s “ignored the Old Testament” part is questionable at best. In Bentham’s time (mid-and-late 18th century to early 19th century), immensely few Jews ignored the Old Testament — though, perhaps, many attributed much greater importance to the Talmud..

Your “father was Jewish” assertion appears to be simply false. A competent source states: Bentham was baptised “14 Feb 1747/8 ” at St Botolph without Aldgate, London, England. His father, Jeremiah Bentham, was baptised Dec 1712 at St Botolph without Aldgate, London, England. See “Ancestry of Jeremy Bentham,” in countyhistorian, https://sites.google.com/site/countyhistorian/ancestry-of-jeremy-bentham

Still, such ethnicity/religion matters are irrelevant. The matter is the content of Bentham’s Fragment on Government (1776) and An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), not Bentham’s ethnicity or religion, or even Bentham himself. The specific matters are: (a) Did Bentham’s “utilitarianism” influence the Constitution’s “Framers”? And (b) would Benthamian “utilitarianism” be s greatly beneficial principle of social/political/economic organization?

You wrote also this:

Bentham spread the same erroneous B.S. that Calvin did, and both men did enormous damage, and whether by design or confusion are NOT for the common good. Their connections to our (((friends))) is suspicious.

I suggest you need to present substantial supporting evidence, not merely your rather hefty assertion.

And you wrote this:

In other words, Bentham did not have the moral instinct of mankind, but instead was a usurer, hiding behind his utilitarianism doctrine.

I do not recall encountering any evidence that Bentham was a usurer. Bentham was not a money-lender, pawn-shop proprietor, or even a banker.

As my article noted (see its first endnote, endnote “[1]”), Bentham was an economist, philosopher, and jurist. And he was a leading theorist of Anglo-American jurisprudence (legal philosophy) and, politically, an major active advocate of individual and economic freedoms, separation of church and state, freedom of expression, and women’s equal legal rights.
See again JEREMY BENTHAM UTILITARIAN PHILOSOPHY, Central European University, Budapest, course concerning “Moral Intuitionism, Epistemological and Ethical Aspects” (supra); and see also the Jeremy Bentham entry of Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer reviewed source), https://iep.utm.edu/bentham/

Thank you, though, for presenting your point of view.

Few know the truth about Trump’s presidency.
And, as comments even on this site show, few understand under what circumstances he was to “govern”, while many make comments against his presidential performance.

Criticizing then, is easier than understanding, let alone knowing.

You know why in nominal democracies people don’t actually choose the rulers? Because they lack the ability to be as aware of reality as, for instance, you are.
And that’s a thing like IQ. No-one’s going to change it.

The bile towards Trump was because Trump tried to awake the asleep, instead of cheating and exploiting and despising them like the anti-Trump associated rulers do. To them, he was a traitor, one to be made an example of, because, of course, the association of the rulers works effectively for the very reason that betrayal is made to cost a lot, and they are highly cohesive.

This author just spent thousands of grueling words parsing arcane Constitutional details un-lit by any intellectual context to rail against a piece of political theater that’s appropriately intended to shame and dismember openly corrupt elements of the GOP from continuing to taint the legislature via Trump’s legacy.

I say good it’s good theater! And the rebuke of Trump should be even harsher.

I didn’t read every word in this emission of an article because the details are largely irrelevant to the matter at hand. We know the President as Chief Executive has the greatest single point of responsibility to honor and protect the Constitution, and the document being a proxy for the voice of the people, honor and protection of the American people themselves. Trump took daily shit on the people, and therefore the Constitution as the will of the people.

All this academic parsing is obviated by Trump himself, who as President in office is effectively above the law. Trump openly denigrated the nation at every turn and made stinking political sausage through malice and criminal incompetence. These are just plain facts of the man Trump, that are so numerous and various, there was a reported assigned to count Trump lies in an official capacity and was well on the way to 60,000 lies in 1400 days of office. Keep in mind this President was flown there and back to his personal golf courses for recreation during hundreds of of those days but thanks to Silicon Valley he could keep lying and increase the pace of his lying to super-human levels This lying stat does cover the harmful policy intents, shameful stunts, and political pandering which are the man’s m.o., just the outright official lies told as a matter of course.

I seem to recall a little event where Trump himself put his hand on the Bible and swore an Oath of Office to the Constitution. Can you uphold the Constitution while lying about everything?

Trump was tolerated pretty well in his executive capacity and given every benefit of the doubt the Office can confer, and he still fucked it up. Even Jack Dorsey was like we have have to abide the misuse of our platform because he’s the President. They finally turned off Trump’s spigot only after the end of hope of any redemption. Talk about a swamp, the IQ of the nation went up 20 points in one day.

Trump lived for the sausage-fest of his own politics and he’s dying of the sausage-fest. He can join his buddy Jeffrey Epstein in their bliss on heavenly sausage island.

As to this pedantic Turing Test of an article, it should be on a dweeby subreddit on the design of CAPCHAs along with the topic of online IQ tests that drag on and give a lower score the longer you take them while feeding the contents of your Contacts into to spambots.

For the most part, our entire legal profession has been taken over by an overeducated, inexperienced crowd of people who are not able to deal in “Letter” and “Spirit” of law. They’re prisoners of the letter of the law because their only background is of the spoken and written word.

Supposed populist politicians is one of our most pressing problems…

Leaving Trump aside, for the moment, consider Bernie. Twice (2016 and 2020) he had substantial popular support, enough to be nominated, yet threw those supporters under the Democratic Party bus and meekly endorsed the candidate favored by party leaders. This was no accident — it was his job — corralling idealistic and highly motivated young Democrats (and independents) and delivering their votes to the leadership’s favored candidate…

It’s a simple bait and switch, used by both parties, and accomplished with a genial pat on the back as “we can nominate him/her next time, but right now we’ve got to support a candidate that can win the most important election ever against our evil opponent” is whispered in their ears.

And what was Trump? A billionaire populist? A savvy self-promoter who let his ego get the better of him? A cartoonish foil for Hillary to defeat?

Can’t say for sure but, with the benefit of hindsight, my guess would be a combination of savvy self-promoter and foil for Hillary. That would explain a lot, especially Hillary’s (and the Democrats) absolute hatred of Trump and his supporters. That his shtick worked is testament to both his talent for self-promotion and our dislike of Hillary. Guess she miscalculated…

In any case, it became obvious that either the fix was in, when he refused to back Flynn and appointed swamp creatures to fill his administrations’ posts, or Trump was a fool. But that’s not to say he wasn’t useful in exposing the media and deep state’s contempt, hatred and fear of us — deplorables all — by personifying it in their attacks on him.

The question that matters now, for populists, is how do we avoid the leadership trap?

That old triplechin quean, McConnell, is protected and enriched thereby, as he is and long has been blackmailed. Check out photos taken of him with his aides. One which stood out in my mind’s eye was Triplechin being trailed by this slightly studly youngish aide. His preference? Could you even pretend to begin to imagine those folks in the Commonwealth of Kentucky voting for a Senator who was fully open about his preferences? I mean, we ARE talking Kaintuck here.

Consider the Ep$tein, Maxwell, Wexner nexus. Many observers have fingered them as working directly for the Mo$$ad and possibly MI-6, the CIA and other intel agencies as well. Their primary weapon for blackmail are honeytraps, by which they have even been said to control the egregious John Marshall’s penultimate successor as Chief Ju$tice of the Extreme Courte$ans, John Roberts (whose name—or some similarly named unknown individual of blackmail able importance—was discovered in one of Ep$tein’s logs).

Anyone notice how the Joint Chiefs of $taff for the U$ armed forces put out a notice to all military personnel that they must not participate in acts of sedition prior to the coronation of the Kamal’s Foote/Biding administration.? Since the days of their attempted Operation Northwoods false flag scheme to attack Cuba, which was vetoed by JFK (among his other sins against the Deepe$t $tate); the proof was already in the pudding that the JC$ is dirty and our military is compromised by their chains of command from the top-down—which is the way the enemies of We The People choose to employ their nefarious control system over one and all—excepting, of course, the Elite$ themselves.

The sympathy I have for Trump, derive from his supporters.
They are desperate for draining the swamp.
Now I hear there is Impeachment from the republican side.
It’s about Biden in Ukraine.
If that goes thru.
Wow!
Trump-supporters may force their ambigous, reluctant idol to actually do their bidding!?

thotmonger, thanks for the helpful reaction to that word choice, accept. I meant accept not like bend over for it and relax and enjoy it but accept like AA says, this here is your problem, face it. We do of course have to wind up and shitcan this regime. But it will not get done by milling around the capitol because the capital is a puppet theater.

The constitution could work perfectly well now, I think, with no amendments, if it were honored. One inveterate US problem is that people tend to dick around with the org charts too much, to the point that they never get world-standard rights and rule of law in place.

Brabantian, thanks for the reminder about Roll! I was only dimly aware of him at the time.

https://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/08/22/u-s-federal-judge-john-roll-murdered-the-sheriffs-judge-who-upheld-the-constitution-and-reversed-congress/

N.B. 21, 22

Mefobills: Thanks a heap for all the research which went into your dissection of the egregious futilitarian, Jeremy Bentham—and for most informatively equating him with the horrible John Calvin, whose surname was apparently Cohen, by origin. Before reading yet another of your masterly dissertations, it was my intention to point out what little I knew about Bentham.

Calvin’s “predestination” scheme was highly attractive to the accelerating fortunes of the urban bourgeoisie in Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, Scotland and among the Cromwellians in England—also the Puritan, alleged “Pilgrim Fathers” in Plymouth Colony and latterly in Massachusetts Bay. Those recent converts to literacy tended to read only one book, the Constantinian Bible. They became ensorcelled by the Old Testicles and the bloodthirsty tribal WarGod of the ancient Hebrews, Yahweh. Whatever good was to be found in Christianity as a culture was deeply distorted by Calvinistic Puritanism and its “Chosen People” mythos.

Much of the religious fervor which dominated the American frontier in the latter decades of the 18th Century and early 19th–they called it “The Great Awakening”— was infused with the patriarchal form of religiosity as ignited by Calvinistic tropes and memes. Today’s cultural dominance in much of the South and chunks of the Midwest by boobtoob preachers, Dominationists and the highly heretical oxymoronical “Christian” Zioni$ts can be seen as the afterbirth of cultural Calvinism. Calvinism is Talmudic in its essence and squats at the nexus of what they like to call “Judeo-Christian Civilization”.

My preference is to employ the more objectively truthful description: the “JudieChristie MagickMindfuck.

Not a crisis. Not anything at all. Just noisy farts, which are smelly for a moment but always dissipate. All politics is noisy farts, and the only purpose is to bring in money to the politicians.

Pretty good trick. Most people don’t get paid for farting. Politicians do.

Former President Trump is playing his final scene today, making ready to hand over the lead part of a government like reality show to the mentally infirm Joe Biden. Biden, with history of pathological lying and a trail of crimes and associations with other crimes had no actual chance of winning a real election, but real elections are now only part of America’s history.
Trumped & Dumped: The Psychological Operation Scrambles to Survive | Jack Mullen
https://blog.thegovernmentrag.com/2021/01/21/trumped-dumped-psychological-operation-enters-phase-two/

Only another lawyer would argue that Jaffe’s ramble was superb. I’m sorry, but even more so than myself, that profession wallows in prolixity. On and on and on, he did not cut to the chase and simply, with a relative handful of bolsters, conclude that the enemy of We The People won on all counts against the very concept of republican governance and any semblance of popular sovereignty.

Owning the Senate, due to vote thievery in Georgia by an I$rael firster and a wild-eyed Black preacherman; The House,under faded-beauty and then some, Nancy Pelosticator; the Administration under the soon to be 25th Amendmented St. Joe, always biding with the Deep $tate; the CIA–Rottenfuhrer of the Deep $tate; the 6 mega-billionaire Zioni$ts controlling 90% of the mass media of mindfuckery, mesmerization and mass megalomania and finally, the CIA financed and directed “Social Media”, the greatest enemy of our First Amendment rights;;; those nefarious forces nearing absolute control over the federal regime in the Di$trict of Corruption have now fully succeeded in driving the last nail into the coffin of the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights, the enabling precondition for establishment of the federal system.

Behind the scenes, roaring and howling with fits of schadenfreude laughter; the ultimate shotcallers, those OWNER$ of the Federal Reserve and most other major international banking institutions, are rubbing their greasy palm$ with total glee by having pulled off the greatest heist in world history.

The issue is simple, the cowardly Democrats and some dishonest Republicans want to eliminate formidable political adversary not in the transparent political arena but by the undemocratic means of a lowly coward. We stand by while they are chipping away from our limited democracy.

I don’t think Trump enjoyed lording over other people. He enjoyed being feted. He enjoyed being admired and loved.

So you’ve diagnosed President Trump as a narcissistic phony. Typical Democrat distraction. The very people most perceptive at detecting narcissists are the working Americans who supported him for no reasons of personal advancement in politics or the bureaucracy. The same ones who had long decided that the big media had an agenda that did not include looking out for their interests.

A narcissist would not have put up with personal attacks based on specious reasoning for four years, coming out and facing a hostile press almost every day. Listening to their vicious insinuations and parrying them at every opportunity.

A narcissist would have pretended to concede the election for the good of the country and gone home to write a book entitled What Happened or maybe An Inconvenient Truth and basked in a manufactured victim-hood.

Trump has a knack for making headlines daily, by generating an endless stream of headlines which are offensive to half the domestic population yet inspiring to the rest. He has generated quite a loyal following. Trump’s values are identical to Corporate neoliberal values whose only value is profits. Forget the constitution, human rights, clean water, fresh air, a safe working place, or a level playing field. Take whatever you can get away with and use your money and power to obstruct any search for the truth or justice. Trump personifies Milton Friedman’s claim that the best prosperous outcome for the general population is for everyone to act selfishly.

Trump is a despicable excuse for a human being, who lost the popular vote twice but still managed to get elected through the undemocratic notorious electoral college that has delivered the two worst Presidents of our lilfetimes.

For the last four years Trump has snubbed his nose at the legal system and its traditions. More importantly he had failed to deliver on his campaign promises, even though prior to the pandemic employment and the stock market improved. Most people give credit or blame for their economic health to the President even though the Federal Reserve exercises real control. The simple fact is that since 2008 the real rate, set by the Federal Reserve, of the prime rate less the inflation rate, has been negative or close to zero. The only purpose of this real rate is to save the criminal speculators in Banking who created the 2008 crisis in the first place and every other financial crisis in the history of the USA.

Does any of this matter, since he’s been thrown out of office? Trump is a con man with track record of defrauding people through failed casinos, airlines, steaks, vodkas, Universities, charities and real estate transactions, many of the latter which involve money laundering. He is also suspected of engaging in tax fraud and violation of election laws in Georgia. There is a legal tradition in this country for investigating and prosecuting this behavior. Holding him accountable for these behaviors is more important than impeachment. Successful prosecution will most certainly end his political career. Besides, the Democrats under Pelosi, have failed to communicate to the public the scale of Trump’s persistent flaunting of the law. Impeachment twice on the basis of a single charge, which half the country refuses to accept, has more downside than upside, even for the Democrats.

Better to send the con artist to prison in a jumpsuit for his more ordinary crimes. He will never be able to run again then anyway. I look forward to never thinking about the bum again.

… the Confederacy devolved the phrase to “Life, Liberty and Property”

The expression is believed to have been derived from John Locke’s definition of a man’s property as his “life, liberty, and estate.”

The phrase was more effectively borrowed and re-stated in Virginia’s Declaration of Rights (June, 1776) by this passage:

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

Jefferson and Franklin both felt it would play better to the masses by downplaying ‘property’ and playing up ‘happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence.

So, stop trying to smear the Confederacy for a concept that underpinned the United States of America from its earliest days.

Judges are essentially verbal logicians, and they will manipulate the words to justify the end.

Exactly, though I would commend the use of the word sophist instead of logician. We need, I think, to distinguish between the search for, and belief in, an objective reality and the so-called post-modern disbelief in any possibility of finding truth. That disbelief goes back several millennia in fact and is now commonly associated with the Greek sophists:

The works of Plato and Aristotle have had much influence on the modern view of the “sophist” as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning. In this view, the sophist is not concerned with truth and justice, but instead seeks power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist

Societies that value truth but recognize the difficulties involved in discovering it also put value on freedom of expression. Those interested in power for its own sake, not so much. Unfortunately the power mongers always have the advantage of moral certainty. For them Alinsky and the Protocols are the only bibles.

LOL — the example doesn’t show that “Judges are essentially verbal logicians” — it shows that they are LIARS!

The Trumpster is a phony. He folded like a cheap suit, as he had done the bidding of the Khazar Satanists like a judas goat.

So why did he spend so much effort on populist rabble rousing, when he knew the deep state hates that with a passion?

Unlike Julius Caesar, Mr. Trump didn’t think it was necessary to bring his armed troops with him as he crossed the Rubicon. Doesn’t matter; both will have ended up “killed” by their respective Senates.

Semper Fi SPQR, do or die.

Anyone who has been in Federal Court knows that “Justice” is the last thing that occurs there….I Clerked for a Federal Judge — “joke” does not adequately describe it, if you are charged by the Feds you will be railroaded, innocence means zero once you are charged and all the “Judge” cares about is getting you to plead guilty and move the case, you will be grossly overcharged to force this to happen and the Judge will glare at you and let you know he hates you if you go forward — unless you are a Leftist Political hack or “activist” then you will be cut loose and probably never even charged….”justice” Roberts is the “model” — his rulings in Obamacare etc. show he has no care for the actual “law” at all — all the other Federal “judges” follow his example….The best thing that could happen to the USA is for the end of the Federal Courts, DOJ, and FBI — all are Enemies Of The People — get involved with them and find out.

McConnell received $25,000,000 in cash from his ChiCom dealing In Laws as a “gift”? In what world is this not a bribe from the ChiComs — from whence In Laws $ all arises…. McConnell shows the country is totally sold out to the ChiComs and in fact “governed” by them — the rest of Congrassholes are about the same with various “spies” working them, having sex with them, and screwing us — the USA is an occupied country via IsraHell and the Chinese Communists — very, very bad days are ahead and most in the USA are moron mask wearers who actually believe the filthy pieces of cloth do something for their “health” contrary to all actual 41 Medical Studies to date which state the opposite — truly Maskholing was an IQ test and the country failed to reach even the level of “Moron”. Easy to steal an election when dealing with Maskhole Morons. Sad all are being pulled down by them….

Good comment! The elites need a stake driven through the heart, not verbose reprimands. (I’m not insulting the author, it is fine to be educated on constitutionality and our history)