POLITICAL: Why do I identify with the underdog?

Thursday, March 9, 2017

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4285968/Epic-battle-British-soldiers-African-tribe.html

What happened AFTER Rorke’s Drift: Remarkable untold story of an epic battle between British soldiers and an African tribe which brought a definitive end to the Zulu War is revealed 140 years after the conflict 

  • Little know (sic) battle between British and Bapedi tribe at Fighting Kopke was a definitive moment in the Zulu War
  • Despite being outnumbered more than three to one and having far less weapons, tribe fought to the very end 
  • Bapedi were finally defeated by Brits and their Swazi allies under the command of Sir Garnet Wolseley in 1879

By Keiligh Baker for MailOnline
PUBLISHED: 07:30 EST, 6 March 2017 | UPDATED: 09:43 EST, 6 March 2017 

*** begin quote ***

The remarkable story of an epic battle between British soldiers and a vastly outnumbered African tribe which brought a definitive end to the Zulu War has been revealed in a new book.

The little known Battle at Fighting Kopke was overshadowed by the story of the British defence of Rorke’s Drift which took place 11 months earlier and was later immortalised in the film Zulu.

Following the British annexation of land north of the Vaal River in South Africa in 1877, the native Bapedi tribe had been at loggerheads for two years with the British.

The conflict came to a head in a fierce four day battle at Fighting Kopke where the Bapedi were finally defeated by British troops and their Swazi allies under the command of Sir Garnet Wolseley in November 1879.

*** end quote ***

Tremendous casualties and everyone “loses”.

Hard to feel sympathy for the British and their Empire. Built over the bodies of their fellow human beings.

For some reason, I empathize with the underdog.

I wonder if someday, Americans will be fighting in their own homeland. Hopelessly against insurmountable odds?

It reminds me of: “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . .” — Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Hope I’m wrong, but it might be against our “own” Gooferment someday!

Can’t happen here!

Remember the Japanese internment, Waco, and Ruby Ridge?

# – # – # – # – # 


POLITICAL: What are the politicians and bureaucrats trying to hide

Saturday, March 4, 2017

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/california-supreme-court-no-you-cant-hide-public-records-on-a-private-account/#p3

SO MUCH FOR PRIVATE SERVERS —
California Supreme Court: No, you can’t hide public records on a private account
“Open access to government records is essential.”
CYRUS FARIVAR – 3/2/2017, 2:28 PM

*** begin quote ***

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that state and local officials must disclose public records even if those “writings” are held on private devices or accounts. The City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara had argued that such records could be exempted from the California Public Records Act.

*** end quote ***

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

That’s why I wouldn’t make a good politician and bureaucrat. I’d put ll my email on the blockchain.

Laugh!

# – # – # – # – # 


POLITICAL: Peaceful “Secession” — an idea who’s time has come

Saturday, February 18, 2017

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/02/13/california-secession/

California Secession? How it Could Happen in Practice

*** begin quote ***

The following article was written by James R. Rogers and originally published on the Library of Law and Liberty website.

Rumblings of secession talk in California, as in Texas a few years back, raises the question of how, if ever, a state might secede from the Union without war.
The legal issue surrounding secession in the Civil War era concerned whether states might unilaterally secede from the Union under the Constitution. The answer, underscored by force of arms and the U.S. Supreme Court, was a definitive “no.”

That states may not unilaterally secede from the Union, however, does not mean there is no route by which a state might secede peacefully, and even legally. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has said there is, albeit, saying it in dictum. In holding in Texas v. White (1869) that Texas did not truly secede from the Union, Chief Justice Chase, writing for the majority, nonetheless identified two routes by which U.S. states could peacefully secede: “There was no place for reconsideration or revocation [of Texas’s entry in the Union], except through revolution or through consent of the States.”

*** and ***

Much of the commentary related to California’s budding secession movement suggests that a constitutional amendment would be necessary for the peaceful, lawful secession of a state from the union. I don’t think so. Chase’s dictum regarding the “consent of the states” does not suggest the need for constitutional amendment to authorize a state’s secession.

Rather, to implement this route for the legal secession of a state, Congress would need only to adopt enabling legislation spelling out the process by which consent of the states would be obtained. Congress could stipulate the states’ consent would be provided by some proportion of state legislatures – half of them, or two-thirds – adopting a “secession consent” resolution or something. Or Congress could authorize states to consent to a state’s request to secede through special state-level conventions or by direct vote in state-level referenda. Or perhaps Congress could provide state consent through a vote of the Senate, or a vote of the Senate and the House, or some combination of the above.

Whatever process Congress might adopt for secession need not be as onerous as the process required to adopt constitutional amendments: Adoption of enabling legislation need not require a supermajority vote in Congress (as constitutional amendments require). And, at congressional determination, the proportion of states sufficient to provide the “consent of the states” could be fewer than the three-fourths majority required to ratify constitutional amendments.

*** end quote ***

Very interesting.

Now that the Liberal Left in California has learned what “executive power” in the “wrong hands” means, they have become interested in secession.

I’m reminded of a quote: “Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a king can.” Mel Gibson as the character Benjamin Martin in the movie The Patriot http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187393/quotes

We’ve seen that the Congress has become corrupt and doesn’t faithfully execute its duties by creating the new Fourth Branch of Gooferment — the REGULATORS!

So perhaps, like the old Soviet Union it’s time to dissolve the Union and let partisans go their own way in peace. If the “blue states” want reform around welfare for all — fine. If the “red states” want to reform around “traditional values”— fine. California should be allowed to go its own way in peace.

Hopefully, it would NOT be like what happened in India and Pakistan initially, but things seem peaceful now. 

So too, can the RED USA and the BLUE USA live in peace together … …  finally.

Dona Nobis Pacem

# – # – # – # – # 


POLITICAL: Distrust all politicians; not just the ones you like

Saturday, January 28, 2017

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/11/glenn-greenwald-trump-will-have-vast-powers-he-can-thank-democrats-for-them/?utm_term=.fa8fd38315ad#comments

Glenn Greenwald: Trump will have vast powers. He can thank Democrats for them.
Liberals liked executive authority as long as Obama wielded it. Now they’ve set a precedent.
By Glenn Greenwald November 11, 2016 Glenn Greenwald, co-founder of the Intercept, led the NSA reporting that won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for the Guardian.

*** begin quote ***

The problem such advocates encountered was the same one they’d faced during the Bush presidency when trying (and failing) to persuade putatively small-government conservatives to oppose these expansions of presidential power: namely, many people are perfectly content to have such authority vested in leaders they trust, and fear them only when a politician from the opposing party wields them.

*** end quote ***

What goes around comes around.

Argh!

You’d think the R’s would have learned when they term-limited the Presidency to prevent FDR from getting a FIFTH term. And the first one so limited was the R Ike. Laugh!

So too, those that gave GWB43 a free hand, hated it when BHO44 had that “hand”.

Now the D’s, who gave BHO44 a more freer hand, now hate it when DJT45 get to wield it.

The Dead Old White Guys hated a powerful executive as much as they did the King and / or “democracy”.

“We, The Sheeple” should learn that lesson. All powerful executives is DISASTROUS to freedom and liberty.

Hopefully, everyone opposed to such — liberal, conservative, and libertarians — can reign in “the King”!

Argh!

# – # – # – # – # 


POLITICAL: Is it “health”, “health care”, “health care insurance”, or something else?

Sunday, January 22, 2017

FROM FACEBOOK

*** begin quote ***

Stephen E. Phelps Jr. shared Jeremy Beckham’s post.
15 mins ·

Jeremy Beckham
January 12 at 6:10pm ·
I sold health insurance from 2004-2006 for one of the largest health insurance companies in ~30 states.

Maybe because we’ve had ACA for a while, people don’t really remember what it was like then, but I want people to know that I declined people health insurance on a DAILY BASIS.

Some of the things that resulted in automatic “DNQ” (does not qualify) determination from our underwriters, which means there was NO policy we would issue you, included (and these were all standard in the industry):

– Ever, in your life, having a heart attack or stroke
– Ever, in your life, receiving any sort of mental health care or substance abuse treatment in any inpatient setting (I saw a woman in her 40s declined insurance because she was a ‘cutter’ in the 1980s and was hospitalized for that, yes, more than 20 years prior)
– Having a history of most (but not all) forms of cancer
– Diabetes or pre-diabetes
– Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
– Crohn’s Disease & Ulcerative colitis
– Connective tissue disorder
– Autism
– Obesity (Defined strictly by BMI score)
– Having both high blood pressure and high cholesterol
– Being pregnant (fortunately at least a lot of these women could get on Medicaid, even pre-ACA, because conservatives were worried they would just choose to have an abortion if they couldn’t pay bills from delivery).
– If you were a woman of child-bearing age and you had ever given birth to a pre-term baby, we would decline coverage for YOU, even if not currently pregnant, because the risk of an additional pre-term birth was greater and we would be on the line for that in the event you did get pregnant again

Other health conditions, like asthma, allergies, high blood pressure on its own, wouldn’t necessarily result in a DNQ, but would result in a permanent “rider” to your policy which mean that we agreed to cover you EXCEPT any medical bills, prescriptions, incurred related to your asthma, allergies, etc.

Another odd thing I remember: sometimes fathers would get ordered by judges as part of their child support order to pay for their kids’ health insurance. But then we (and everyone else) refused to insure the kid due to health history, and they’d basically be under the threat of violating the judge’s order and maybe even going to jail. It was a very odd legal issue that I never really saw resolved. lots of times the judges would think the fathers were lying about being unable to procure insurance and were just being lazy. I think lots of people didn’t realize how crummy the individual health insurance landscape really was until they called to try to obtain it.

I had to console people in tears on a regular basis. We were instructed by management to just get them off the phone as quickly as possible to free the phone line for a healthy person. One line that was popular to tell people was “well you wouldn’t ask a car insurance company to insure your car after it’s been in an accident!” but it felt incredibly heartless to compare someone’s autistic son to a car accident, so I never said that. All I could tell them to do really was either try to get in their state’s crummy and expensive “high risk pool” (if there was one, some states didn’t even have that) and write their members of Congress.

Looks like we might be heading back to these lovely days.

*** end quote ***

Economics is called the “dismal science” for a reason. So to, it’s called “insurance” for a reason. It’s sad to be the bearer of bad news, but there is NO FREE LUNCH. Just as you can’t insure your house after the fire or the car after the accident, you can’t insure someone’s health when they are sick or at risk of being sick already.  Not much one can do with the realities of life.

If the Gooferment gets out of the way, there are some suggestions that would help:

https://downsizedc.org/blog/20-ways-replace-obamacare

*** begin quote ***

PROPOSAL #3: Politicians should make all sickness and wellness expenditures tax deductible, including insurance premiums and preventive measures, such as supplements and fitness clubs.

Congress should make all health expenditures tax deductible, without requiring a threshold to itemize. Make it so we can deduct our healthcare expenses in addition to our standard exemptions and/or other deductions. Americans should also be allowed to save unlimited amounts in their Health Savings Accounts.

These changes will…

— Give Americans more control over their own healthcare spending, and a more secure future, through unlimited HSAs

— Put individually purchased insurance on the same tax-footing as employer paid insurance. That will…

— Create incentives where people prefer individual policies, which will…

— Help decouple health insurance coverage from employment, so that…

— People will no longer lose their coverage when they lose their jobs.

Increasing the number of Individual policies will also curtail the pre-existing-conditions (PEC) problem that happens when people get sick during periods of unemployment. The PEC problem was state-caused. Politicians paved the way with tax policy. The way out naturally involves fixing tax incentives.

Preventative measures, such as fitness clubs, vitamins, and other supplements should also be tax deductible. Everyone agrees on the preventative power of exercise, and the Life Extension Foundation has marshaled overwhelming evidence that many supplements outperform pharmaceuticals both in preventing and treating disease. More investment in prevention will lower medical costs over time.

Remember, politicians poisoned our healthcare system. They can only fix it by sucking out the politics.

*** end quote ***

# – # – # – # – # 


POLITICAL: CA’s version of a “Boston’s Big Dig” boondoggle

Saturday, January 21, 2017

http://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-big-dig-1484609909?mod=djemMER

California’s Big Dig
Elaine Chao can take the train to Fresno off federal life support.
Jan. 16, 2017 6:38 p.m. ET

*** begin quote ***

Elaine Chao is rolling to confirmation as Transportation Secretary with little trouble. The same can’t be said of California’s beleaguered bullet train, and one of Ms. Chao’s first orders of business should be to cut the choo choo off federal life support.

Last week the Los Angeles Times reported that the first 118-mile segment in the state’s rural Central Valley could run 50% over budget, according to an internal Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) risk analysis that was labelled “confidential.” The FRA also warned that the California High-Speed Rail Authority would miss several deadlines.

The Obama Administration gave California $3.2 billion to build the 500-mile bullet train from San Francisco to Anaheim, which seven years later still isn’t shovel ready. The $10 billion in state bonds that voters approved in 2008 for the $64 billion (and counting) train have been tied up in litigation. Meanwhile, Democratic legislators have been loath to appropriate funds beyond a fraction of the revenues generated by California’s cap-and-trade program, which is also under legal challenge.

*** end quote ***

Kill all the “boondoggles”.

If a private investor wants to risk their money, fine.

Opt the taxpayers out!

# – # – # – # – # 


POLITICAL: The Lawlessness of Law Enforcers

Friday, January 20, 2017

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/01/william-norman-grigg/routine-lawlessness/

The Perverse Ingenuity, and Routine Lawlessness, of Law Enforcers
By William Norman Grigg
Pro Libertate Blog
January 16, 2017 

*** begin quote ***

Enforcers of drug prohibition can be perversely ingenious in devising methods to subvert due process guarantees. One tactic widely employed by police officers looking for a way to circumvent the Fourth Amendment is to intimidate a subject into giving the officers permission to invade the rights of others – such as residents of an apartment building, or passengers in an automobile. That ruse has been rebuffed in two recent state Supreme Court rulings.

Police officers in Berlin, Connecticut who conducted a warrantless search of an apartment complex using a drug-detecting dog violated the Fourth Amendment, acknowledged a December 22nd ruling from that state’s highest appellate court.

In May 2012, acting on an anonymous tip, police obtained permission from the owners and managers of an apartment complex to carry out what was called a “canine examination of the common areas of the building.” A drug-detecting dog named Zeusz was deployed in the hallway of each floor of the complex, and allowed to sniff at the bottom of each door. Zeusz displayed what is called a “passive alert” at unit 204, which prompted the officers to obtain a search warrant. This led to the discovery of several marijuana plants.

The Fourth Amendment’s definition of a reasonable search refers to a particular description of “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”; this language was designed to forbid the kind of general warrants that were commonly used by British military and customs officials in the years immediately prior to the colonial rebellion. By getting the owners of the apartment complex to authorize a warrantless search – waiving the rights of dozens of people to be secure in their individual domiciles — the Berlin Police behaved less like their British forebears than their antecedents in Communist East Germany.

*** end quote ***

The police are absolutely out of control. Time to reign them all in. Need to end the “(pseudo) War on (some) Drugs” from whence all these illegal search and civil forfeiture abuse originates from.

Juries must vote “not guilty” on all drug laws or any OTHER “victimless crime” like prostitution.

Argh!

# – # – # – # – # 

 

 

 

 

 


%d bloggers like this: