Bizarro Theater: colonial America

Monday, February 8, 2016

THE FOUNDERS OF THE USA WERE RADICALS. THEY WERE NEVER CONSERVATIVES NOR TRIBALISTS. YOU MIGHT BE A RESTORATIONIST BUT LIKELY YOU ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE NOR TRIBALIST.

The founders were radicals. They weren't conservatives.

The founders overthrew the conservatives — the King and the British loyalists. They established a radical, new form of governance, one based on republicanism and a union of sovereign states, a kind of government never tried anywhere by any people before.

The aim of radicalism is to destroy. The aim of conservatism is to preserve. The aim of true liberalism is to improve.

Progress means going from tribalism to individualism. It is the move away from communism in women and property to individual ownership of self, in things and in agreement with other individuals, from feudal arrangements to individuals voluntarily organizing around the trade of property in pursuit of profit.

Most Americans are free-capitalism progressives. They support the general political movement that has been ongoing since the British Enlightenment of the supremacy of the individual over the group.

They support buying and selling of goods and their own labor. Thus, they support markets. They support earning wages and thus they support how they get wages, the profitable efficiency achieved from capital. They support profits and the profit principle (see: CAPITALISM. BECAUSE WITHOUT IT, YOU WOULD BE LIVING AS A BARE SUBSISTENCE SAVAGE).

They support the right to start your own business and compete fairly without the help of government. And they support the primacy of the individual through ardent defense of the individual and his property (see: COMMERCIAL REALITY. A CRASH-COURSE IN UNDERSTANDING HOW IT ALL WORKS and THE THEORY OF TRADING PROPERTY FOR PROFIT).

That is what being a progressive truly means. Real progressives champion the individual and his property. Being progressive does not mean being hip or being a libertine.

And most Americans are restorationists. They want to revert to full adherence to the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution. Today's Americans are restorationists who want to enforce the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution in pursuit of limited politicians, enforced competition, self-rule and entrepreneuralism.

Restorationists are not conservatives. No authentic Bill of Rights American who believes in free-enterprise and the Protestant work ethic ever should want to help the Conservatives.

True conservatism means to maintain power typically derived from land ownership or monopoly or oligopoly franchise owing to laws and regulations. Conservatives seek to prevent change for themselves by discouraging every bit of competition.

Conservatives oppose true competition and defense of the individual and his property. Conservatives who tend to be the super-rich of the establishment seek to use laws and regulation to form oligopoly in markets and keep down the Middle Class (see: KILLING THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE "WE WANT YOU TO BELIEVE CAPITAL GAINS INCOME IS DIFFERENT" TRICK).Conservatives are the champions of crony politics (see: IT'S ALWAYS CRONY POLITICS, CRONY GOVERNANCE AND CRONY REGULATORY CAPTURE and TRY CRONY POLITICS, CRONY GOVERNANCE AND CRONY REGULATORY CAPTURE BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CRONY CAPITALISM.)

The propagandists of the Republican Party have been lying to Americans for decades. They have used hot button issues — gay marriage, abortion — to gain support of good Americans and in so doing, gain the political power needed to push a globalization internationalist agenda that runs opposed to the shop keepers, mechanics, subcontractors and restaurateurs of the USA, you know, middle-class, small-businessmen. Republicans have tricked Americans into getting their votes by saying they would argue against abortion and gay marriage.

Notice, they never said they would stop these things. And they have not. Merely they have said they would argue against such things.

Conservatives whether Blue Dog Democrats or Rockefeller Republicans have been defending open-borders internationalism globalization for 40 years and massive immigration for over 50 years. The internationalism agenda of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party of supporting massive immigration has been killing working-class Americans.

Conservatives fight to keep the existing state of affairs. The existing state of affairs is the ongoing subversion of the Constitution and the ongoing push for globalization. Republican conservatives are fighting to keep globalization going.

Voting for conservatives rather than nationalists for the middle class is personal economic suicide for most Americans (see: AMERICANS ARE COMMITTING (ECONOMIC) SUICIDE DAILY WITH IPHONES AND IPADS).

Rockefeller Republicans and Bushian Republicans are True Conservatives. They stand opposed the American Middle Class and the Bill of Rights.

George Herbert Walker Bush and the GOP Establishment stopped The Reagan Revolution after Reagan's departure from the White House. GHW Bush was a Trojan Horse in the Reagan White House. GHW Bush turned control of the GOP back to the eastern establishment, center-left internationalists.

We have had 27 years of Bushism globalization and internationalism in the USA and that ideological stance has brought the USA to near ruins.

Republican conservatives are fighting to keep globalization going. Forty-seven Republican conservatives voted yea for TPP/Fast track. Many on the pro-TPP list also support illegal alien amnesty on the path to citizenship. They need to be voted out of office and replaced with Nationalists.

Lisa Murkowski (AK), Dan Sullivan (AK), Jeff Flake (AZ), John McCain (AZ), John Boozman (AR), Tom Cotton (AR), Cory Gardner (CO), Marco Rubio (FL), John Isakson (GA), David Perdue (GA), Michael Crapo (ID), James Risch (ID), Mark Kirk (IL), Daniel Coats (IN), Joni Ernst (IA), Chuck Grassley (IA), Jerry Moran (KS), Pat Roberts (KS), Mitch McConnell (KY), Bill Cassidy (LA), David Vitter (LA), Thad Cochran (MS), Roger Wicker (MS), Roy Blunt (MO), Steve Daines (MT), Deb Fischer (NE), Benjamin Sasse (NE), Dean Heller (NV), Kelly Ayotte (NH), Richard Burr (NC), Thom Tillis (NC), John Hoeven (ND), Rob Portman (OH), Jim Inhofe (OK), James Lankford (OK), Pat Toomey (PA), Lindsey Graham (SC), Tim Scott (SC), Mike Rounds (SD), John Thune (SD), Lamar Alexander (TN), John Cornyn (TX), Orrin Hatch (UT), Shelley Capito (WV), Ron Johnson (WI), John Barrasso (WY)

Here are the few Republican heroes who voted nay against TPP / Fast-track:

Jeff Sessions (AL), Richard Shelby (AL), Rand Paul (KY), Susan Collins (ME)

Ted Cruz (TX), Michael Enzi (WY).

For more right from Bizarro Theater on the horrible Obamatrade and globalization pushed by conservatives:

It's too bad that the natural-born Canadian immigrant Ted Cruz seems like a constitutionalist except when it becomes inconvenient. Cruz is running for the Republican Party nomination for the presidency, but is ineligible as he was naturalized eight years after his birth. For more, see:

What does it tell you when the majority of Democrats voted to deny their own man Obama TPP/ Fast Track?

John McCain claims to be a conservative. Marco Rubio does. They voted for TPP/Fast Track. These people support amnesty for illegals.

Paul Ryan claims to be a conservative. Ryan gave Obama the farm to fund sanctuary cities and importation of Mohammadan immigrants from Syria.

Rupert Murdoch claims to be a conservative and he funds major open-border initiatives.

Look at all of the horrible conservative rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCUSA):

Kelo v. New London
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc
King v. Burwell

Three of five SCUSA robes who ruled in the affirmative in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), were GOPher Party nominees — Justices John Paul Stevens (Ford appointee), Anthony Kennedy (Reagan appointee), David Souter (GHW Bush appointee), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton appointee) and Stephen Breyer (Clinton appointee). And Clinton was a Blue Dog (conservative) Democrat, in practicality, a Rockefeller Republican.

Kelo v New London lets big businessmen swipe property in land from small owners under the guise of improving municipal tax receipts.

Look at all of the horrible conservative reciprocal trade agreements with non-industrial countries, which only leads to the destruction of our own industry owing to wage differentials:

Colombia
Panama
Mexico
Chile
Peru
Morocco
Jordan
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Nicaragua
Dominican Republic

The Republican Party means center-left globalization party. They have not hid this fact since Goldwater lost to LBJ. They helped to pass LBJ's Great Society legislation. They helped to pass immigration reform in 1965, the law which has given us our current state of horrible affairs of too many immigrants.

Being tricked into getting your vote by claims of arguing against abortion and gay marriage doesn't make you a conservative. Unless you are get a paycheck from party headquarters, get an appointment to office or get laws passed to protect your business, you're not in the party. Merely you have been suckered into being a fan, a subscriber, like those fools with the Sierra Club and Greenpeace.

The Republican Party always have been internationalists. Here is point 14 from their party platform going all the way back to 1860, that is, before the Civil War:

That the Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.

Now, there will be some who will get triggered by cognitive dissonance and want to argue for themselves as conservatives. They will err with the fallacy of appeal to authority by citing a dictionary definition.

A dictionary is mere collection of usages whether those usages are right or wrong. Ask any dictionary editor. As well, various dictionaries get written for estimated reading levels.

American Thinker's own Selwyn Duke would agree with me. See what he had to say on the subject in Is Trump the First ‘European-conservative’ American Presidential Candidate?:

A prerequisite for grasping this is first understanding the true natures of liberalism and conservatism...While many have their own definitions of the latter -- and will stubbornly insist they’re correct -- the truth is that both political terms are provisional, meaning different things in different times and places. The term “conservative” in the 1970s referred to a communist in the USSR and someone staunchly anti-communist in the US... Liberalism is the process of inexorably trying to change the status quo; conservatism is the process of trying to preserve the status quo. Thus, what the terms represent will vary depending on the status quo in question."

The Russian communists fighting against the fall of the Soviet Union were conservatives. Yet, when Russian communists originally overthrew Czar Nicholas II, they were radicals.

The word conservative entered English from the Middle French conservatif in the late 1300s. The use of the word in politics traces to French disciples of Edmund Burke's opposition to the French Revolution and his call for clerical and political restoration in 1790. They called him "Le Conservateur."

By 1830 or so in Britain, conservative replaced the pejorative Tory as Tory was the name of a British political party first composed of Yorkist Tories of 1680. Tories were Irish Catholics who were dispossessed of their land and hence the label Tory, which means outlaw.

When the Democrats who controlled the 63rd United States Congress and the presidency in Woodrow Wilson established the Federal Reserve, they were radicals. Today, those who defend the Federal Reserve monetary system of 100% bank credit are conservatives.

The Republican Party started out as radicals. They overthrew the slavery system of the South and caused a civil war over it. They were radicals when they overthrew the monetary system based on money and went with one based on greenbacks.

The Republican Party have ended up as conservatives. They are trying to preserve their 40 years of globalization and internationalism.

Free-capitalist progressive restorationists are those who believe in a limited role for government and a strict adherence to the constitution. Conservatives do not believe in these things.

The existing state of affairs is the ongoing subversion of the Constitution. Obama is a radical. Bernie Sanders is a radical.

Bernie and Obama are tribalists. Marxist / Socialists are tribalists. Tribalism is not a kind of liberalism nor a kind of progressivism. To better understand Obama, check out BEATING THE DRUMS FOR OBAMA TRIBALISM.

Hillary Clinton is a conservative. She wants to preserve the status quo of the globalists as her husband was a globalist. Ted Cruz is a conservative. So too are Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich.

Either way, whether with Obama and Bernie, or Hillary, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Christie, or Kasich, any of those people will wreck the USA. Open-borders and international ruling boards that aren't elected by Americans will kill the USA.

To better understand what is happening, check out these:

✓ ARE BERNIE SANDERS AND DONALD TRUMP A SURPRISE OR ARE PUNDITS STUPID? THE SHAKE-UP OF USA POLITICS CONTINUES. ARE NEW PARTIES EMERGING?
✓ NO ORDINARY WHITE GUY COULD EVER HOPE TO WIN THE U.S. PRESIDENCY IN 2016 AND MAYBE NEVER AGAIN. THE GOP WILL BE OVER SOON ENOUGH.

We can have free trade deals with the Canadians, with the Australians and with the Kiwis, but we should never have free trade deals with low capital countries (see: SOPHIE'S CHOICE OF CAPITAL OR LABOR. A FREE-MARKETS LIBERTARIAN BECOMES AN ANTI-CAPITALIST AND PERPETUATES AN ECONOMICS MYTH).

Americans must demand Congress to rescind all of the trade deals with countries not close to our own in terms of industrial development as measured by GDP per capita. In fact, tariffs should be levied high against such local capital countries. Free trade deals with countries like China and Mexico kill the return on capital in the USA and thus kill high-paying jobs in the USA. All wages come from capital.

The big firms hate domestic competition. They love these trade deals with Third World countries. It kills domestic competitors.

To see the right tariff formula: WHY TRUMP IS WINNING. THE REST ARE INTERNATIONALIST SELLOUTS WHO STAND AGAINST WORKING-CLASS AMERICANS.

You must read these works. You must read all of my works on Bizarro Theater.

And for a general history of the Conservative Coalition, Wikipedia offers a write-up.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

DOES U.S. LAW OR THE CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZE OBAMA TO UNILATERALLY SUSPEND IMMIGRATION LAW? HAS OBAMA GIVEN CAUSE FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT?

One of the gripes of Colonial Americans against King George (3), which led to the American War for Independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain was imposition of foreigners upon the colonials. So insenced by his acts they made their grievance known in the Declaration of Independence — "obstructing the Laws for the Naturalization of Foreigners"

The U.S. Constitution fails to enumerate specific powers over immigration to either the President or the Congress. What the designers of the Constitution did was explicitly authorize the Congress the power grant citizenship only to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4).

That said, Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution granted power to Congress to “define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations.” It is under this clause that likely Congress can define immigration law granting the rights of immigration and the liability against those who violate the rights Congress gives itself in any immigration law.

Recently, America's supposed constitutional scholar president and quite likely ex-EOP student Barry Obama unilaterally decided to import no less than 10,000 Syrians claiming that such Syrians are refugees. Yet, no where does the U.S. Constitution or public law created by Congress authorize any president of the U.S. to unilaterally suspend immigration laws, go fetch foreigners living in other lands, turn them into immigrants whom he favors, let them cut the line and gain legal residency status in the USA.

The section of U.S. Law that governs immigration is U.S. Code: Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY. The section of U.S. Law that governs asylum is 8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum. The section of U.S. Law that governs refugees is 8 U.S. Code Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCHAPTER IV - REFUGEE ASSISTANCE (§§ 1521 to 1525).

Under 8 U.S. Code § 1157 - Annual admission of refugees and admission of emergency situation refugees, law required Obama to announce before the start Congress' fiscal year the exact count of refugees he would process in the United States once they arrived here by their own means. Obama simply cannot decree any number of refugees he desires based on his politics.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the number of refugees who may be admitted under this section in any fiscal year after fiscal year 1982 shall be such number as the President determines, before the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.

It is also quite likely that Obama has violated 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens. Aliens are inadmissible if have failed to present documentation of having received vaccination against vaccine-preventable diseases, which shall include at least the following diseases: mumps, measles, rubella, polio, tetanus and diphtheria toxoids, pertussis, influenza type B and hepatitis B, and any other vaccinations against vaccine-preventable diseases recommended by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.

Also under 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens, no one can be admitted who has engaged in terrorist activities. Anyone who has fought against the Assad government, the legal, sovereign government of Syria, no matter how bad that government is, is a terrorist.

(B) Terrorist activities(i) In generalAny alien who—(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,

There is law that authorizes specific paid for acts once refugee aliens have entered the USA. That law is 8 U.S. Code § 1522 - Authorization for programs for domestic resettlement of and assistance to refugees. Yet, there is nothing is this section law that authorizes Obama or any president to fund the transportation of refugees from their own countries.

No where in U.S. Law is Obama authorized to import anyone and then subsequently grant them refugee status. Obama simply lacks the authority to do so. In doing so, the ex-community activist agitator and higher education constitutional hack has violated both his constitutional oath and well as U.S. Public law.

If any president could transport refugees and transport any number of refugees as Obama intends to do, any president might transport a foreign-trained subversive force who could then lead an insurrection in effort to overthrow the Congress and the United States of America in a military coup d'etat.

Obama seems to be little more than a lame King George the Third.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

AMERICANS LIVING IN FOREIGN LANDS SHOULD TELL CONGRESS TO FACTA-OFF.

So today, Dylan Griffiths of Bloomberg reported the number of Americans renouncing U.S. citizenship stayed near an all-time high in the first half of 2014 before FACTA rules came into force. Between January and June, 1,577 once U.S. citizens renounced their citizenship to U.S. embassy officials.

Since July 1, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act has been in full effect. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act decrees that U.S. citizens who live outside the USA to report their financial accounts held outside the USA to the IRS on behalf of Congress. Bizarrely, the law also requires foreign financial institutions to report to the IRS about their customers who are U.S. citizens.

NO ONE who earns income outside the borders of the fifty states which comprise the USA should pay taxes to the U.S. Congress. No one.

Disgustingly, Congress believes they are owed an unearned share of profits of U.S. citizens living elsewhere in other countries like Canada and Australia. It's neither moral nor legally justifiable for Congress to demand taxes from anyone earning income outside the USA. Greedy Congress "men" yearn for this undeserved tax revenue so they can increase the balance owed on their giant-sized Congressional debt credit card, wrongly parroted by most as the "national debt" or "federal debt".

When the authors of the second constitution wrote rules giving Congress the capacity, authority and thus power to lay and collect taxes, those authors wrote their taxation design in Article 1, sections 2, 8 and 9. Enough of the delegates from the various states ratified the constitution enshrining that power into law.

In Article I, Section 2, the authors wrote,

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Specifically, Article 1, Section 8 states,

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

In Article I, Section 9, the authors wrote,

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

and

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

So the authors' made explicit their design:

Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states.
The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes.
Direct taxes shall be apportioned by the results of the census.
No export taxes of any kind.

By apportionment, the ratifiers agreed that Congress would be restricted to collecting direct taxes, such as an income tax, based on the percentage of each states' population to the total for the USA. So, if New Yorkers had 10% of the population of the USA, and if Congress levied an income tax, New Yorkers had to pay 10% of all income taxes laid by Congress.

In effect, apportionment acted as a block against Congresses from levying income taxes. Later, after the 1895 U.S. Supreme Court declared a federal income tax unconstitutional because it violated this rule of apportionment in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust, another Congress decided that apportionment acted as shackles against them, so they passed the 16th Amendment, in which they wrote,

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Interestingly, before the 16th amendment, the Constitution had no mention of income.

Samuel Johnson, the devout Anglican lexicographer first published his A Dictionary of the English Language in 1755. Looking at the third edition, published in 1768 before the writing of the second constitution as well as the tenth edition published in 1792 soon after the writing of the second constitution, we can come to see how the founders thought of income.

Both th 1768 edition and the 1792 edition have revenue and income as synonyms, having an head entries for each word, revenue and income. Both words meant annual profits received from lands or other funds as well as the produce of anything.

Both th 1768 edition and the 1792 edition have revenue as a synonym for the head entry rent, specifcally defining the word rent as annual payment; the money paid for anything held of another.

Both th 1768 edition and the 1792 edition have definition for produce. Produce meant product; that which yields or brings. The secondary definition for produce is amount; profit; gain; emergent sum or quantity.

Both the 1768 edition and the 1792 edition have definition for yield. Yield meant to produce; to give in return for cultivation or labor.

So those who drafted and ratified the second constitution had in mind earnings from land whether crop sales or rent, as well as interest from loans as the source of taxes. Never did the so-called founders or framers envision taxing anyone's labor income.

After 1895, Congress demonstrated by action they needed to define income as more than rent and interest, hence, this is why the 16th amendment includes the phrase "from whatever source." Further Congress demonstrated the need to rid itself of the pesky apportionment rule, hence the phrase, "without apportionment among the several States."

Yet, it is quite clear that in the second constitution, the ratifiers authorized taxation only with respect to the states and the Congress which drafted the 16th failed to expand taxation beyond states.

Thus, IRS rules regarding taxation of Americans as U.S. citizens living outside the USA and FACTA are quite unconstitutional. In short, Congress lacks authority to levy taxes upon anyone outside the territory of the USA and specifically the states.

If Congress had that authority, the Constitution would contain something along the lines of what would be construed as absurdity by everyone, e.g.,

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, without regard to any census or enumeration, without regard to citizenship or domicile, upon anyone living the earth over.

Congress needs a geography lesson. No one living in the 193 U.N. member countries, nor living in the 206 sovereign countries, nor those living in the U.S. possessions of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as the free association countries of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau owes Congress a penny, much less a dime.

There is no constitutional basis for Congress to claim the right of taxation neither on U.S. citizens living outside the USA nor upon foreigners wherever they live the earth over, except within the boundaries of the actual fifty states that constitute the USA.

That successive Congresses are so brazen to seek taxes from U.S. citizens earning income abroad and that many idiotic Americans support them in their Ahab quest shows the world how far Americans have fallen. Americans have wandered far from the path of the right way.

Bizarro Theater

Pages