USA 2020 Elections: Thread

[grarpamp]

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=235369
https://northmantrader.com/2019/03/18/the-end-of-trust/

America Is DONE*

2019-03-21 14:02 by Karl Denninger

When In The Course of Human Events......

The Founders of this nation put forward a very basic premise:

    to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

That no government, no person whether royalty or not, King, Queen or
Pawn, can take from one to give to another, to make one lesser than
another, to bring remove from one the basics of humanity for the
privilege of another.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness

That the very premise of humanity is that one has a right to live, to
be left alone to do as one pleases, and to pursue -- but not be
guaranteed -- happiness.  The only lawful and proper constraints arise
when your exercise of same prevents someone else from having that same
peaceful enjoyment.

One cannot have a right to life if one cannot defend it using tools at
least as powerful as those who would take it from you.

One cannot have liberty if one is compelled to slavery for another's benefit.

The Founders put together a document called The Constitution.  The
debate over it, and what needed to be added to it, is found in The
Federalist and The Anti-Federalist; two books that are the chronology
of the running debate of the time.  Anyone who claims to have an
opinion on the foundations of our nation and why the Constitution is
important ought to have read both, as should anyone who claims a right
to run for elective office at any level -- state, local or federal.

Chief among the foundation of this nation is The Rule of Law and that
it apply equally to everyone, all the time, in each case without
exception.  Our government and We The People have made a mockery of
this.

Not one illegal immigrant has a right to be here under any
circumstance; The Rule of Law says so.  It does not matter whether
they personally intended to break said law; that merely encompasses
whether they bear criminal culpability for the offense.  If you find
yourself with someone else's $1,000 and you did not intend to steal
it, but you had no lawful means by which you came to have it you still
have no right to keep it.

Calling someone a Dreamer is an insult to America.  Their "dream" is
theft.  A thief has no right to keep the spoils irrespective of their
personal culpability in obtaining same nor do they have any right to
demand respect from anyone else.

Senators Richard Blumenthal and Mark Warner, both Democrats, have
threatened legislation that is a rank violation of the First Amendment
in response to the Christchurch livestream.  Where is respect for the
contract our government has with the people; the terms of which are
embodied in The Constitution and its Amendments?

There is no respect because the people of this nation no longer have
respect for themselves nor any willingness to hold government to the
terms and conditions of its very existence.

Every single person in America should not only watch the Christchurch
slaughter they should watch all videos of any extremist Muslim who
saws off heads or throws gays off buildings.  It is not possible to
understand evil and the only effective means to stop it if you refuse
to recognize it exists and watch the errors others made that led them
to their demise.

How many gay people would support a person who supports said political
and religious philosophies if videos of those adherents murdering gay
people by throwing them off 20 story buildings were readily available?
 Why do you think Senators Blumenthal and Warner want that content
declared illegal despite it being a rank violation of the Constitution
to do so?

Governments are banning and attempting to ban such not because they
fear copycats: They are banning that speech and literally burning
books because faced with the gore, the nastiness and inhumanity of
these acts the people may conclude that it was the government itself
that sowed the seeds of these acts, conspired with and gave comfort to
said people and groups all the while rendering individual people
powerless to stop it by infringing on The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
-- and did all of the above intentionally.

Were the people to reach that conclusion they'd be correct and in
response they might revoke their consent to said government entirely
and demand it depart.

A slave is not allowed weapons because he might use them to become free.

Cultures collapse when there is no cohesion remaining -- when the
primary means to get ahead is to stomp on someone else's head instead
of innovating and when cheating is no longer punished and is
celebrated instead.  If that is not curtailed then collapse is
inevitable -- it is simply a matter of time.

Whether something is "hate speech" is in the eye of the beholder but
irrespective of that The First Amendment protects it.  Why?  Because
even the most-vile expression of dislike is one's right to hold and
have.  To state otherwise is to state a right to control another
person's mind and thoughts -- to not only enslave as to labor but to
thought itself.

That is profoundly evil.  It is what the Communist Chinese are doing
right now with the Uyghurs, numbering more than 11 million of their
citizens.

This very same act is what our government is now calling on "big
companies" to do, it is what the left has repeatedly done to anyone
who dares speak against their policies and desires whether on college
campuses, in corporate America or in the public square and now we have
two Senators who deserve an immediate and long prison term for their
threat to knowingly and intentionally violate their oath of office and
The First Amendment, including the threat to impose said violation by
force.

Celebrities with dim-witted children got them into colleges by paying
bribes and cheating.  The claim that said students were "blameless" if
their test scores were faked or they faked a "disability" to extend
time and thus be able to cheat is a lie.  Said "students" are fully
culpable yet none of them have been charged; not only did every one of
them know they didn't compete on the rowing team (for example) any of
them who got an extra hour or two to take the SAT or ACT knew damn
well they were cheating, whether they knew their answers were being
modified or not.

Why did this happen and why aren't the kids in the dock too?

WE HAVE NO RULE OF LAW.

Colleges claim they need "diversity."  That's nonsense; in a
meritocracy the best rise irrespective of skin color, race or
religion.  The fact is that this "diversity need" is met by lowering
standards and allowing unqualified people who cannot do the work into
the school.  This was going on in the 1990s and it has only gotten
worse -- much worse -- since.  There is, of course, no value in that
to a person "selected" via "diversity" if they have to pay full price
and will inevitably fail to be able to do the work.  This in turn
means someone else gets screwed so they don't have to pay full price
and they also don't have to do the work they are incapable of.  The
alleged "degree" conferred by said school is thus rendered
meaningless; it no longer denotes competence and to prevent that from
being recognized and their "brand" destroyed said colleges conspire
with employers and governments, both outwardly and not to "require"
said "credentials" for an ever-expanding list of "professions."

In short college is no longer about education; it is about grift,
fraud, bribery and slavery.  It's a racketeering enterprise writ large
and ought to be prosecuted as a felony, starting with the "most-elite"
schools.  Is it any surprise that a tiny bit of the bribery began six
months earlier with so-called "standardized" testing that really isn't
and claims of being on a soccer team that were false?

WE HAVE NO RULE OF LAW.

The Fed is prohibited from buying anything other than government
backed securities.  Fannie and Freddie paper have on their face the
statement that they have no such backing; go online and view any of
their prospectuses.  I pointed this out more than 10 years ago with a
copy of the front page of one such offering out of thousands; every
one bears the same statement.  That the government bailed them out
does not matter.  The Fed's transacting in same and their continued
ownership is illegal.  Rather than change the law (which might provoke
a debate over exactly what The Fed "prints") they simply ignore the
law and you let them.

The Fed's legal mandate under the law is for stable prices.  The Fed's
chair and other governors make dozens of speeches a year and testify
under oath before Congress to their intent to violate the law with
their "2% inflation target."  Congress could change that law but doing
so might provoke a debate over exactly what The Fed "prints" and so
instead both Congress and The Fed ignore the law and you let them.

The truth is that Money is a medium of exchange which you acquire by
producing something of value to someone else.  It facilitates trade
because it is fungible -- that is, you don't need to transact in
oranges, chickens or hours of programming a computer; all three can be
reduced to money.

You cannot print money because it is impossible to materialize a
television, a car, a piece of computer software, gasoline or
electrical power out of thin air.

You can print credit, which spends like money.  But if you emit credit
then what you are claiming is that someone in the future will produce
a thing to legitimate what you did.  If the people refuse what's left?
 Force -- slavery in point of fact.

WE HAVE NO RULE OF LAW.

A Pakastani American named Imran Awan worked for Democrats in Congress
from 2004 - 2017.  While doing so it is rather apparent he ran a spy
ring inside Congress and stole Congressional computer equipment, much
of it with the knowledge of Congressional Democrats.  Prosecuting him
would have inevitably drawn those Democrats into what could have
easily wound up being criminal culpability including spying for
foreign nations.  So they let him go despite proof that he wired more
than $280,000 to Pakistan -- funds that very well might have been used
to facilitate terrorism!

WE HAVE NO RULE OF LAW.

It is a felony to restrain trade, attempt to monopolize or fix prices
among people who are supposed to be competing.  The medical industry
does it every single day.  Why not when the example set is that if
you're rich or powerful (and they are both) you could even spy for a
foreign nation and get away with it.  We could literally dispose of
the entire federal budget deficit, all of the Federal debt, all of the
state and local pension problems and cut property taxes in half or
more if we put a stop to this crap.  They do it because despite the
law they have no fear of prosecution.  Why should they?

WE HAVE NO RULE OF LAW.

I can, through hard work, earn a mid-six-figure income and have
multiple business ideas that I'd like to develop.  I've done it before
and can do it again.  But given the above examples, along with the
myriad things I've watched big business do in the last 20 years and
get away with all of them -- acts that were I to do myself I would be
prosecuted criminally and go to prison, why would I?  If I was to
undertake any of those risky ventures and put my capital and
intellectual effort at risk any of those people could illegally
undermine my product or service, putting me out of business or simply
steal it.  Unless I was willing to personally kill the persons
responsible there is nothing I could do about it and I'd go broke.  I
will not undertake such a venture for as long as all of this crap
exists, and that's why.  I instead choose to hike, ski, run, drink
beer and enjoy a much lower stress lifestyle.  I do not need any of
the trappings of wealth; they're options.  When my time comes to die
those ideas,  products and services intentionally left undeveloped
will die with me instead of being produced.

WE HAVE NO RULE OF LAW.

The Christchurch shooter, obviously nuts, wrote a "manifesto" which
governments are actively trying to suppress your ability to read.  In
it he pointed out an inconvenient truth -- that there is no nation
with a material white population percentage in which white women are
reproducing at a replacement or better rate.  That is, unless this
changes white people will eventually go extinct.

We bemoan a little fish, frog or bird disappearing but there is
literally not one word in the media about the most-productive and
innovative differentiated group of human beings ever to walk the
planet heading directly for extinction by their own voluntary
decision.  Why are white women choosing not to bear children?  Maybe
it's because a goodly number of them have come to the same conclusion
I have -- that there is no rule of law -- and thus unless they're so
rich they can cheat like those who did so to get their kids into
college their offspring have no chance of success on a merit basis and
they thus make the entirely reasonable decision not to create children
at all.  After all why would you willingly and intentionally bring a
child into this world if you believe they are going to be enslaved and
mercilessly robbed for their entire lives?

Rather than correct that problem governments instead are importing
people who have not yet made that determination or worse, believe and
are explicitly promised that they can simply put their hand out and
force others to provide whatever they want and need -- and thus those
people make the entirely reasonable decision to breed like rabbits!

WE HAVE NO RULE OF LAW AND WE ARE GOING TO LITERALLY EXTINGUISH WHITE
PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE WESTERN WORLD AS A RESULT.  AS FURTHER
POPULATION SEGMENTS ARE TAPPED TO BE THE VICTIMS OF SAID POLICIES THEY
WILL CHOOSE NOT TO REPRODUCE AS WELL AND INEVITABLY THEY WILL ALSO GO
EXTINCT, ONE AT A TIME.

We have in fact become so depraved that our own government is giving
cats diseases on purpose to study them and even though those diseases
are easily curable and the animals could then be adopted out that
takes a bit of effort and more than a a nickel in cost so they kill
them instead.  That would be bad enough but our government is also
importing cats and dogs from nations around the world for the purpose
of meat to feed said study subjects, practicing animal cannibalism.
We can't be bothered to use byproducts of human food production; you
see, that might cost a bit more money.

I'm not the only one who recognizes this; here's another article
pointing out many of the same things.

    America is extended, riddled with debt and too reliant on ever
more debt, past its growth peak, incapable and unwilling to address
structural issues. Both political parties have given up on dealing
with debt, illusory monetary policies such as MMT are invented to
render structural issues as irrelevant. Meanwhile wealth inequality
keeps expanding from administration to administration no matter who is
in charge with voters distracted by the ideological divisions of the
day, not trusting their leaders or each other.

    And all this with 3.8% unemployment. What will this all look like
during the next downturn? Nobody knows. Rome showed us to not take
civilization for granted. It also showed us to not ignore structural
problems before they become too large to tackle.

Sven may be hopeful but I am not.  I'm not alone either.  Charles Hugh
Smith has written a number of columns on this same point, including
just recently.

I challenge you to show me just one "grand idea" or modern stock
market rocketship that is not a scam in some form over the last 10+
years.  Netflix, as just one example, effectively stole their entire
distribution infrastructure, which is very expensive, through various
forms of browbeating and when that was threatened they got the
government to mandate their ability to force non-customers to pay for
what they wanted during the Obama Administration.  Then, when Obama
left, both he and his wife got a multi-million dollar contract from
the company.  You don't really think that was the kickback payment to
the former President since the stock went from ~$5 when Obama took
office to nearly $400 now....

I've written on many of these other firms, in detail, over the last
decade.  None of them would exist were there an even-handed
enforcement of the law for the simple reason that all of them violate
the basic law of business balance: The more people who touch a
transaction the more it costs -- always.  The reason for that is
simple: Nobody works for free and if you think you've found someone
who is someone else is stealing from them because no rational person
will perform work that benefits only someone else.

THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW.

This can't -- and won't -- change without Americans rising up by the
millions and demanding that it stop and be willing to enforce that
demand by whatever means are necessary.  This does not mean violence
is required but until and unless those who claim to be "our leaders"
believe that any such demand has the force of the people behind it and
will be enforced should they stick up their middle finger toward
common people once again as they have done for the last 30+ years they
have no reason to stop stealing, stop rigging the system and stop
screwing everyone else.

There's no reason for me to be hopeful because there is no reason to
believe that Americans, say much less the people in any of the other
developed, western nations will in fact demand this crap stop.  In
fact there is every reason to simply sit back and enjoy what little
time is left, given that within the next six years tipping points will
be reached in the US on a budget and monetary basis that will destroy
the illusion of "growth and prosperity" and from which there is little
or no chance of recovery.