When The Nuts Run The Asylum and You Voted For Them

English: President Barack Obama speaks to a jo...

English: President Barack Obama speaks to a joint session of Congress regarding health care reform (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You ever hear someone say Congress and the President are  nuts? There may be more truth to the statement than you’re going to be comfortable with. In fact, most of them are psychopaths.

A bold statement I know. I found this link How To Spot a Psychopath and just about every politician I’ve seen have these psychopathic traits. Let’s take a look…

  • Look for glibness and superficiality in interpersonal relations. Psychopaths can be charming and appear to be likable. They often have good verbal skills; they can be entertaining, funny and witty. They tend to use these skills to make themselves look good and to manipulate others to their own advantage.

Campaign season anyone?

  • Look for egocentric and grandiose behavior. Psychopaths are extremely self-centered and may greatly overestimate their importance and sometimes their abilities. This narcissism and exaggerated sense of self-worth appears to contribute to their tendency to live by their own rules and to ignore commonly accepted concepts of right and wrong.

Using pork barrel spending to build monuments to their “legacies”. Using the nation’s military as the world’s cop. Taxes is fine, but theft is wrong. Murder is illegal but bombing innocents in another country is collateral damage.

Ring a bell?

  • Look for signs of an inability to feel remorse or guilt. Lacking a conscience, a psychopath cannot “feel bad” after hurting someone. He cannot relate to your pain but may rationalize his actions or make excuses for it if he has to. A psychopath might just as easily deny an action or dismiss it as unimportant no matter how much trouble it has caused others.

See above, and also think about this. What terms are thrown around a lot?

“Fair share” “Social Contract” “For the (insert group)”

  • Look for lack of empathy. A psychopath cannot relate to the feelings of other people. Others’ suffering, hardship, despair, or pain does not elicit sympathy. In place of empathy is a cold indifference to the feelings and suffering of others. The intense interest a psychopath has for herself is never extended to others.
  • Look for signs of deceitfulness and manipulative behavior. There is no reason for a psychopath not to lie and they do whenever they think it will help them. In fact, Hare reports that they often seem to lie with pride. If a lie is uncovered, the psychopath will simply change his story or lie more in an attempt get away with the original deceit.

Have you ever seen Congress in action? The words, and actions combined. A politician’s records, rhetoric, etc?

  • Look for shallow emotions. Just as they lack consciences, psychopaths lack deep and true feelings. They may fake superficial feelings to manipulate others but they can’t relate to them on an emotional level. Unable to experience the depth of emotion most people feel, psychopaths can appear cold, like a predator surveying its surroundings looking for prey.

Looking at this criteria, you’ll have a hard time convincing me that my local politicians aren’t psychopaths.

Are yours?

Advertisements

The Principle Behind Democratic Slavery

I was reading the SCOTUSBlog on the Healthcare decision and got to the point where the writer discussed the Medicare Coercion. And how it failed. The one bright spot in the whole mess.

The writer pointed out a scary trend to me that I had written of before. Social Engineering.

“Instead, the Court moved on to the fourth issue in the case, popularly known as the “Medicaid coercion” issue. At issue is a provision in the health-care law that would require the states to provide Medicaid coverage for virtually all poor Americans under the age of sixty-five – a significant expansion of what the federal government currently requires – or risk losing all of the Medicaid funding that they get from the feds. The states argued that the provision is unconstitutional because the federal funding is so large, and they are so dependent on it, that they really don’t have a choice about whether to comply with the new requirements.”

Do you see the velvet chains the states have willingly wrapped themselves in. Federal money that is taken from the states and given right back as grants, etc is like a crack rock to a junkie. Can’t live without it.

“The Court acknowledged that Congress can put strings on the money that it gives to the states. However, it explained that this was not the kind of “relatively mild encouragement” that the Court had approved in earlier cases involving this “coercion” theory – for example, in a 1987 case in which it had held that Congress could threaten to withhold five percent of federal highway funds from states that did not raise their drinking age to twenty-one. Instead, the Medicaid provision goes too far and is more like a “gun to the head.” Having said that, however, the Court made clear that Congress could still attach some strings to the Medicaid funds. Specifically, even if it can’t take away all of the funding for states that don’t comply with the new eligibility requirements, it can still withhold the new Medicaid funds if states don’t comply. So although the Obama Administration lost on this issue, it’s probably a loss that it is willing to live with for now, as few states (if any) are ultimately expected to turn down the new Medicaid money, even with the strings.”

“Relatively mild encouragement” aka social engineering. How to gently move a society in the direction you wish it to go without alerting them of the loss of freedom and independence. I touched on it in the Land Of The Free or Home Of The Slaves chapter in Growls Of A Wolf. If you get pushy, like what the ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate did then more people notice and you see what happened. About 2 years after passing it was already in the Supreme Court. It’s not often I see a Federal Law in the Supreme Court.

You think your free? Even your state sold you out for 30 pieces of silver until everyone got so dependent they would fight for more dependence on the government before they would fight for freedom.

Innocent Then Guilty, Direct Taxes, & State To State Taxes; More Article One Section Nine

Let’s look some more at Section 9. And how it limits Congress.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

What? What are those? A Bill of Attainder is making some group illegal and tossing them in jail without a trial, and the ex post facto law is making something illegal and retroactively charging people with that crime or grandfathering in past groups. Ex: Gun ban, and upon confiscation everyone is charged for possession.

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

Capitation, a poll tax or, or a uniform payment from each person. Herein, in view of this. Best I can figure this one is taxes should be proportionate if its a fee.

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

This is easier, no taxes on items shipped between the states.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No laws benefiting on state over the other, or for ships to have to pay a government tax or fee, or have to enter another state’s ports.

The Federal Government used to have a lot less power, now some of our very thoughts are illegal. Next week we finish Section 9.

The 17 Powers of Congress, The First 3: Taxes, Debt & Commerce

What powers does the Congress have? Section 8 of Article tell us.

Section 8. 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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Right off the bat, the Congress was giving the ability to tax. Also

  • Duties: Which are taxes on goods coming or going into the country.
  • Imposts: Taxes collected in Customs
  • Excises: A internal tax on certain commodities, their manufacture, sale, or consumption within the country.

We have taxes to provide the common defense, which is everyone in the country’s borders should be protected by law and police and invaders. On a side note…government has failed on that. Anyway, Section 8 speaks again of the general welfare of the U.S. I explained in the very first essay on the Constitution that the word meant, and I quote…

A very contentious line in the Preamble. So let’s look at the origin and context of the time. Between 1275-1325 from the phrase wel fare. The old definition of Well is ‘in a good and satisfactory manner.’ Then we have Fare, which means ‘state of things’ in the first definition. Context is important. Together that is ‘a good and satisfactory state of things’. Not a monthly check or subsidized anything. That definition of welfare came from the church and philanthropists in the form of charity. Which is voluntarily funded.

And then that paragraph finished with all taxes being equal. Not this group pays more than that.

Then the next line gives it the ability to borrow money on the credit of the country. Boy wasn’t that power abused, especially within the last 50 years.

Then we have…the commerce clause, which has been twisted to justify almost everything. Lets look at it, with highlights…

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Regulate, not require. The regulations were for protection of fraud and protectionism among the states. Its why goods coming across state lines aren’t taxed by state governments before they’re allowed in or out.

We are just getting started folks, more coming next week.