Publisher’s Note: I may be one of the few who is not surprised in the least a Grand Old Politburo dominated state apparatus is increasing laws, spending and theft at astronomical levels.
“So why isn’t the GOP going to do a budget? Because the vote on the 2019 budget — the last one Congress will consider before the 2018 midterm elections — will reveal that all the Republican promises on the deficit and debt, including its blind belief on dynamic scoring, were completely bogus.”
Mrs. Ryan and Mrs. McConnell know exactly what they are doing.
Per the latest kerfuffle on the Deep State coup, this is nothing new. Remember that Comrade Ted Kennedy sought assistance from the USSR in 1980 to torpedo the Reagan election.
And please don’t be mistaken that the Grand Old Politburo is allergic to communism since the party was built on Lincoln’s Marxist project during the brutal war on the Southern exit strategy. The Republicans have been a big government party since their inception.
“We might also note that for six of Reagan’s eight years, he enjoyed a Republican-controlled Senate (from 1981-1987), all the while racking up record-breaking deficits.
So, is a vote for the GOP a vote for less government spending, more fiscal restraint, and “personal responsibility.” It’s hard to see how one could possibly construe that from the historical record.”
Commies gonna commie.
On another note, as a “defense observer”, I want you to get a taste of what your tax dollars are funding. The DoD acquisition system is a very expensive financial wrecking ball that hasn’t produced a single new successful large weapons program since retiring the A10 Thunderbolt II rolled off the factory floor in 1984. You’ll note the B1B, F22 and B117 are either moribund or cancelled.
Here is what 20,000,000,000 debt-bucks delivers now posing as a functional aircraft carrier. Keep in mind the Navy accepted this pig. I want you ton know if I took one debt-buck and stacked it up 20bn times, the tower would be approx 1,360 miles high.
“As of June 2017, the program estimates that EMALS has approximately 455 Mean Cycles Between Critical Failures (MCBCF) in the shipboard configuration, where a cycle represents the launch of one aircraft. While this estimate is above the rebaselined reliability growth curve, the rebaselined curve is well below the requirement of 4,166 MCBCF.
In June 2017, the Program Office estimated that the redesigned AAG had a reliability of approximately 19 Mean Cycles Between Operational Mission Failures (MCBOMF) in the shipboard configuration, where a cycle represents the recovery of one aircraft. This reliability estimate is well below the rebaselined reliability growth curve and well below the 16,500 MCBOMF specified in the requirements documents.”
In English that means the aircraft carrier cannot reliably launch aircraft sorties. And we haven’t even discussed the problems with the F35 disaster.
F35: Construction costs stand at $400 billion at the moment, almost twice the initial estimate. In a time of budgetary restraints and cutting back, the federal government insists on sinking $1.45 trillion over the next 50 years on a plane that is proving itself to be a lemon. Considering the estimate was only at $1 trillion in 2011, the $450 billion increase in required funds indicates that the $1.45 trillion will likely increase further.
The U.S. atomic bomb Manhattan Project cost $26 billion in its entirety measured in today’s dollars. To put it in perspective, the F-35 program costs grew by “approximately one Manhattan Project every three weeks between 2011 and 2012.”
That is your money forcibly drained from you.
That’s what you pay for (and your unborn grandchildren) under duress.
They are debt-bucks after all.
If you aren’t preparing for the worst, you aren’t paying attention. -BB
“But now, in which direction has latter-day American Liberalism tended? Has it tended towards an expanding régime of voluntary cooperation, or one of enforced cooperation? Have its efforts been directed consistently towards repealing existent measures of State coercion, or towards the devising and promotion of new ones? Has it tended steadily to enlarge or to reduce the margin of existence within which the individual may act as he pleases? Has it contemplated State intervention upon the citizen at an ever-increasing number of points, or at an ever-decreasing number? In short, has it consistently exhibited the philosophy of individualism or the philosophy of Statism?”
– Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945) From the Introduction to Spencer’s forgotten 1884 classic, The Man Versus the State
The latest internecine conflict between the wings of the uni-party in the swamp deserve some credit for revealing the absolute buffoonery of our overlords where they can’t even conduct a conspiracy worthy of the name.
My case in this essay is that no law can possibly grant freedom without taking from another. None.
In the larger scheme of things, what the 13th Amendment granted in removing chattel slavery did indeed replace that servitude with another codified in the loathsome 14th Amendment.
Malum prohibitum and malum in se laws have both been used and abused to point where one can’t be distinguished from another.
“These are what the law classifies as malum in se, as distinguished from malum prohibitum. Thus, murder, arson, robbery, assault, for example, are so classified; the “sense” or judgment of mankind is practically unanimous in regarding them as crimes. On the other hand, selling whiskey, possessing gold, and the planting of certain crops, are examples of the malum prohibitum, concerning which there is no such general agreement.”
I called the rule of law into question before and want to tease out a thread from the argument that probes even deeper into legitimacy.
John Hasnas makes the case:
“For with the acceptance of the myth of the rule of law comes a blindness to the fact that laws are merely the commands of those with political power, and an increased willingness to submit oneself to the yoke of the state. Once one is truly convinced that the law is an impersonal, objective code of justice rather than an expression of the will of the powerful, one is likely to be willing not only to relinquish a large measure of one’s own freedom, but to enthusiastically support the state in the suppression of others’ freedom as well.”