Hillary Clinton labelled ‘psychopath’ after ‘lying’ about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein

Sure, Sky News Oz is totally off to the right, but it's always fun to watch. Rita Panahi may not be totally correct about lefties, as is the case with most of the rest of the talking heads. I mean Oz has a lot of the policies they criticise as being lefty, with really strong immigration control to boot. 

 Australia's tough on immigration, as is the case with the rest of the commonwealth, is something I agree with. It's dumb for people on the left to want to support open borders for a plethora of reasons. Unless they are doing it to highlight the idiocy of US imperialist, warlike policies, but that action is really lost in translation.

Revenons à nos moutons!

I've made it clear that I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton even if ranked Choice was an option. She would definitely come in behind my write in votes dogs and Bozo the clown.

But this video shows what she is up there with 'Orrible 'Arris for bad candidates fielded by an awful party.

No Russians involved! Unless Russians run the DNC.

 

And about that photo of Ghislaine Maxwell at Chelsea's wedding: It's easily searchable at Getty Images. There are at least three copies: https://media.gettyimages.com/id/103183991/photo/chelsea-clinton-marries-marc-mezvinsky-in-rhinebeck-new-york.jpg?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=hwRpJ3P-iRaanxtDIQ_yWaQL3LNMJoz-ddvP7bP1ans=

The Real History of the Second Amendment: Debunking the Individual Right Hoax

 OK, I pretty much agree with him, but he neglects the complaints in the Declaration of Independence were:

• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. 

• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

This gets into the real history of the mindset behind the Second Amendment which is the conflict between a professional, full time standing army and a part time force (the militia). The Federal government had an army, and the states had their militias.

This precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 for a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 That's pretty much the Second Amendment's significance is a nutshell. But this video gives a better idea of how the topic plays out in proper Anglo-American/Common law jurisprudence. 

The US NEEDS to become a true multiparty democracy.

This comes from a quote from Brent McKenzie's When Separation of Powers becomes a Suggestion in Fulcrum, where he says:

The Framers assumed ambition would counteract ambition. What they did not anticipate was a political culture in which party loyalty would eclipse national loyalty.

Not true since the Founders understood that political factions, which we now call parties, could pose challenges to the system and had significant debates about them. Some saw them as a natural outcome of a free society. George Washington warned against the dangers of political factions in his farewell address, emphasizing their potential to disrupt national unity.  The contentious election of 1800 with its rivalry between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans proved him correct.

James Madison emphasized the need for a system that controls the influence of factions on governance  in Federalist No. 10. Madison believed that a large republic would help control the influence of factions, as diverse interests would make it difficult for any single group to dominate. Unfortunately, he didn't see the problem with the current duopoly system which allows for control of the political sphere by a small group.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention political factions, despite the founders dislike for them. It was thought that the effects would be controlled through the system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, as we are seeing, those checks and balances are ineffective and quickly eroding until we will see a constitutional show down similar to the English Civil War, where the legislature takes on the Executive branch. Unfortunately, this is something which the US Constitution does not truly address with its system for amending the constitution.

The issues of factionalism, demagoguery, and the balance of power that concerned the founders still plague us today. I would say they are as bad if not worse now than they were at the beginning of this experiment. 

The "Westminster"/Parliamentary system requires that any failure to pass a budget results in new elections. Of Course, it's "Westminster" since Belgium holds the record for the longest time without a government in peacetime, lasting 589 days from April 2010 to December 2011. This period began when Prime Minister Yves Leterme resigned, and no new parliamentary majority could be established despite extensive negotiations. And, as of February 2026, Brussels is experiencing another political stalemate, having gone 542 days without an elected government. This ongoing crisis reflects the challenges of forming a coalition in a bilingual political landscape, where parties often struggle to find common ground.

Yet another reason I'm glad I didn't apply for Belgian citizenship when I was living there, despite speaking all four languages and feeling an affinity for the place. I mean, the beer is the best.

Anyway, Belgium's political deadlock highlights the importance of strong federalism and regional autonomy, allowing local governments to maintain essential services even without a central government. Additionally, it demonstrates the need for political compromise and the potential risks of deep divisions within a nation, which can prolong governance challenges. 

While running a government like a business is generally a bad idea. Competition in this sphere to prevent monopolisation as well as cooperation between similar factions is helpful in preventing the ownership of the government by powerful factions. It's long past time the people took control of their government.

I can't say "took back control" since the system has never been one where the people are properly represented in the legislature. This has never, and will never, happen under the current system.

Sunday laws in a secular society

There's a reason that the US is a secular nation. And it happened because the religious people who founded this country knew the mischief that comes from having an established church.

That's because most of them came from, or were descended from people who were escaping state interference in religion. And that's pretty much the case for a good portion of my ancestors on my mother's father side who had been in North America before it was the United States.

It's also made clear in this video since there is no consensus as to WHEN the sabbath occurs. So, while a day of rest is found in Islam (Friday) and Judaism ("Saturday". Well, Friday sundown to Saturday sundown): It's not that cut and dried in Christianity. Most sects observe that day on Sunday, but not all of them do.

 I'm not sure whose Heritage the Heritage Foundation seeks to recreate, but it is in no way mine.

The US was founded as a secular nation, and that is in the Constitution. The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits Congress from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another. It is often interpreted as requiring a separation of church and state, ensuring that the government does not interfere with religious practices or promote any particular faith.

The people who created the United States knew that intention very well and misguided people who don't understand the constitution should avoid messing with it. 

Besides, these laws once existed, but they were repealed.

The British Judge's black sentencing cap (AKA Black cap)

I thought I did a post on my own blog about this, but this odd, little relic of court dress still exists in judicial garb: despite the abolishment of the death penalty. According the the UK Courts and Tribunal Judiciary's website:

 The black cap
The black cap – based on court headgear in Tudor times – was traditionally put on by judges passing sentence of death.
Since the permanent abolition of capital punishment in 1969, there has been no need for the cap to be worn. High Court Judges still carry the black cap, but only on an occasion where they are wearing full ceremonial dress.

 And Scott Turow writes in On Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer’s Reflection on Dealing with the Death Penalty:

A friend of mine has just been made a High Court judge. Among the majestic paraphernalia that he has had to acquire—the scarlet robes, the wigs full-bottomed and otherwise, the pressed white gloves, the satin gaiters, the silver buckles and so forth—is a square of black silk, the Black Cap, that the court usher places on top of his wig before he pronounces the death penalty: or rather, would have had to place on top of his wig had the death penalty not been abolished in England thirty-eight years ago. 

Which is a good place to  move into WHY I am writing this.

They aren't flat pieces of cloth as the image to the above left demonstrates. Although, they do look like flat pieces of cloth when put on an actual head. In reality, they are more like floppy mortar boards (square academic caps), which this picture taken on a larger head on the right demonstrates better.

But they are flat with a hole in it. There are pictures of a couple of them at the Old Court House Law Museum, but I am going to post the one I have below since it shows the hole a bit better.
https://ehive.com/collections/204776/objects/2234527/death-cap-black

https://ehive.com/collections/204776/objects/2234734/death-cap-black 

You can sort of get an idea of what they look like in that one since you can make out the bottom triangle in the pictures (the Old Court House's and mine).  It's the little flaps hanging off to the side.

Sentencing caps are made from three pieces of cloth.

1. one flat square for the top
2.  a flat square with a hole in it for the middle
3. and a triangle with an indentation for the half hole in it for the bottom

you get  a better idea if you look at the bottom picture, since it's hard to see what they look like since they are black.

Also, when it's put on a full size human head the little flaps, which are what is called the skull on an academic cap, aren't as visible. The triangle bottom is like taking the skull, but leaving it open and flexible so it can flop around. You can see them in some of the pictures of a real cap.

Does that make sense, or do the pictures help?

Anyway, I'm getting annoyed with people saying it's a flat piece of cloth. Anyone who says that has never actually seen one in real life.

Although, these things are relics from when there was capital punishment, yet they are still part of a British Judge's full regalia. So, I'm surprised there isn't more knowledge about these things. I don't want what little is out there to be tainted by inaccuracy.

I'm also surprised that they are hard to find. I haven't put much effort into inquiring with Ede & Ravenscroft. On the other hand, Judicial wear is, according to the website (
https://shop.edeandravenscroft.com/pages/legal-specialist-contact):

These garments are hand cut and made to order in our bespoke workrooms.

Please contact us to discuss your requirements.

I guess the death penalty is not genteel enough to be discussed.

So, you will have to make an inquiry to Ede & Ravenscroft if you want one from them.

But someone should be able to crank these out on something like an Etsy for those of ghoulish to want an authentic one.

I'm hoping this helps those people.

And this gets to a great time to put in a plug for my favourite pub owner and hangman, Albert Pierrepoint. He ran a pub in Lancashire from the mid-1940s until the 1960s. 

On the other hand, he was one of the last official hangman in Britain. who executed between 435 and 600 people in a 25-year career that ended in 1956. His father Henry and uncle Thomas were official hangmen before him. 

There's a great film about him called Pierrepoint: The Last Hangman, or just The Last Hangman. But that's not really accurate since after Pierrepoint's resignation, two assistant executioners were promoted to lead executioner: Jock Stewart and Harry Allen. Over the next seven years they carried out the remaining thirty-four executions in the UK. On 13 August 1964 Allen hanged Gwynne Evans at Strangeways Prison in Manchester for the murder of John Alan West; at the same time, Stewart hanged Evans's accomplice, Peter Allen, at Walton Gaol in Liverpool. They were the last hangings in English legal history. The following year the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 was passed, which imposed a five-year moratorium on executions. The temporary ban was made permanent on 18 December 1969.

So, nothing like a bit of trivia about the death penalty 

Now, will someone correct this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cap

Stop Israeli destruction of Christian Holy sites!

 I've been posting about this for a while. Israel persecutes Christians, yet the Christian Zionist community doesn't stand by their fellow Christians. 

I mean if shooting Christians who are praying or seeking shelter in a church in Gaza doesn't get you going, you need to reassess what you say you believe in.

That said it's time Christians challenge Israel’s colonial actions and takeover of Sebastia’s archaeological site; which is home to a 4th-century church built over the traditional place where John the Baptist was beheaded.

 

Anyway, look up my posts on how Israel persecutes Christians.

But I think most atheists are better Christians than a lot of people who claim to be Christian.

Crypto is a scam.

Nothing I haven't said before. Just don't pay attention to people selling "get rich schemes" (e.g., crypto, gold, etc.).

 

Libertarianism: Live Free...OR DIE!!!

Anyone familiar with me knows I have a low opinion of libertarianism. Like its leftwing twin, anarchism, it is a utoppian idea which falls apart quickly. The big difference between the two is that libertarianism wants to get rid of regulation and let the oligarch foxes run the chicken coop.

That said, this shows how the utopian ideal doesn't work.

The best part is that they defunded the police with the obvious consequences.

 

Amelia isn't going to cut it in the US. She supports ICE.

 I am going to change my previous post where I said " I think she would be more of an ICE supporter."

 No think about it: she DEFINITELY supports ICE.

She's not a symbol of resistance, she's a racist authoritiarian.

The Joke's over. If they think that the British police are authoritarian, then they are truly deluded with this bullshit.

 No think about it. She's the greaseman cheerleader for ICE.

Not sure what to think about Amelia.

Although, when George describes a television presenter as "That posh bird that gets everything wrong" in Hard Day's Night seems appropriate.

For those who have been lucky enough to have missed this trend, Amelia is a character from the educational game "Pathways: Navigating the Internet and Extremism". The game was designed for the British government to help young people recognize and avoid online radicalization. However, she has become a viral meme, often associated with far-right ideologies, which has shifted the game's original intent. Amelia parrots right-wing, often racist, talking points, connecting her celebration of stereotypical British culture with anti-migrant and Islamophobic tropes. Her England is that of an American who has never visited the place.

For example, she likes eating fish and chip in a pub, which is wrong on several levels. Traditionally, Fish and Chips came from the chip shop, or "chippie".  And pubs didn't sell food back then. Well, at least not like the ones like Wetherspoons does now. Even more importantly, Pubs are quickly vanishing for economic reasons:

The UK is experiencing a significant decline in the number of pubs, with projections indicating that one pub is set to close every day in 2025 due to rising operational costs and reduced consumer spending. This trend has resulted in thousands of job losses and highlights the urgent need for government intervention to support the struggling pub industry. 

  

Next comes her accent, which is rather posh since she is supposed to be from Yorkshire (Pathways mentions East Riding amd Bradford). Something like Jodie Whittaker's accent n the clip below would be far more appropriate. I can't imagine someone talking like Amelia and lasting long up there. Amelia belongs in Downton Abbey, not Yorkshire. And Highclere Castle, which poses as Downton Abbey, is in Hampshire, which is in the South of England.

But there are so many things wrong with the Amelia memes it's hard to get upset about, such as her in this D-Day landing craft full of Americans. Or are they Danes?  Since I see a Danish flag in the background. Toss in another vid has a giant Danish flag in it!

Someone mentioned something about her and Minnesota, but I can't see Amelia shedding tears for people who are fighting people deporting furriners. She is definitely more of an ICE supporter than opponent.

I believe the memes have her fawning over Nigel Farage. So, she's a definite loser, unless she secretly hopes for England to become the 51st State: after Wales and Scotland devolve and join the EU.

Well, as another line from the scene I mentioned from Hard Day's Night goes: "The new thing is to care passionately and be right wing."

And she does like dogs: although for seriously silly reasons.

A message from the Mayor of Bethlehem about Christians in Palestine

 There's a reason those 1,000 "Christian Influencers" didn't visit Bethlehem. That trip was such propaganda that it's not worth thinking about.

What's worth thinking about is how they can let other Christians be persecuted.

 

Don't forget Palestinian Christians

 And this comes from the Instagram page forgotten_christians:

Palestinian Christians living under Israeli occupation face daily hardships: movement restrictions, checkpoints and permit systems that limit access to work, schools, hospitals, and holy sites, alongside land confiscation and settlement expansion that squeeze livelihoods and community life. 

In Christian villages like Taybeh, residents have faced repeated Israeli settler attacks and intimidation targeting homes, farmland, and church property, creating fear and insecurity with little accountability.

For some reason, Christian Zionists neglect Palestinian Christians and their persecution by the State of Israel. Unless it blows up in their faces the way it did for Mike Huckabee, but even he turns a blind eye to the persecution of Christians and the destruction of churches.

 

The real problem here is that the Palestinian Christians are the "wrong sort of Christians" to get support from Evangelicals who support lsrael. we need to bring back the 1975 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379.

 

The real history of the Second Amendment.

Let's start this with this precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 for a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

I've gone on ad nauseum about how the current interpretation is an ultra vires act that has no historical basis. After all the complaints in the Declaration of Independence were:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

This gets into the real history of the mindset behind the Second Amendment which is the conflict between a professional, full time standing army and a part time force (the militia).

And you can show me where the US Constitution explicitly mentions "self-defence", or any other non-military use of arms if you think I am wrong.

There is far more evidence that my interpretation is the correct one:

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown. --Elbridge Gerry, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, 20 Aug. 1789, Annals 1:749--52, 766--67  

See also:

• Schwoerer, Lois G. “No Standing Armies!” The Antiarmy Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England, ISBN: 978-0801815638

Can one peacefully protest while armed?

Something that is annoying me is watching British commentators condemn ICE for shooting Alex Pretti.

My usual question to them is "what would be the reaction of British police if someone showed up at a protest with  a holstered handgun?"

And unlike a lot of people out there: this blog has been pretty consistent about carrying weapons to a protest as being a no-no. 

I'm sorry I can't say too much if Alex Pretti was going to show up with a firearm and get in the way of police. My experience is that is an incredibly bad idea from my long career of dealing with the police in various capacities.

But, as the quote from My Cousin Vinnie goes: "It's your ass not mine."

I know that some jurisdictions make it illegal to carry a weapon during a civil unrest (e.g., 18 Pa.C.S. 6107), which is why I said that I am surprised the real militia (national guard) didn't shoot Kyle Rittenhouse for walking about armed in Kenosha.

I had a manual on protesting from the 1960s which made it clear not to bring weapons to a protest, that I can't find. And there are states which prohibit this activity.

As does common sense.

To quote the Everytown page where I got the graphic:

White supremacists and anti-government extremists have sought to undermine our institutions with armed protests that too often escalate to violence. An 18-month study of 560 events where demonstrators, counter-demonstrators, or other individuals or groups were present and carried or brandished firearms found that at least 18% of these events occurred on the grounds of government facilities, with more than 100 reported at legislative buildings and vote-counting centers. The study also found that armed demonstrations are nearly six times as likely to turn violent or destructive compared to unarmed demonstrations. 

That comes from Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) and Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, “Armed Assembly: Guns, Demonstrations, and Political Violence in America,” August 23, 2021.

The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law pretty much agrees with this:

The right to peacefully assemble is enshrined in the First Amendment and has driven political progress in the United States since its founding. While the overwhelming majority of recent protests in the U.S. have been peaceful and have not involved weapons, a growing number have included individuals with firearms—whether participating as protesters, counter-protesting, or claiming to provide security.

Armed individuals undermine protests’ core democratic nature: They intimidate and discourage people from exercising their rights to speech and assembly, and they have interfered with basic democratic processes like voting and lawmaking. Amidst unprecedented political polarization and heightened fears of political violence, the presence of firearms at protests today threatens to be a particularly combustible trend. 

I could quote extensively from that report on how stupid Pretti was for being armed and how counterproductive it was, but he learned that lesson at the cost of his life. It's worth reading. https://www.icnl.org/wp-content/uploads/Guns-at-Protests-Briefer-vf-02.2022.pdf

So, you may not like what I say about Alex Pretti getting shot, but someone needs to toss some cold water on the practise of carrying weapons, particularly firearms, to protests. Pretti was "too soon oldt and too late smart" when it comes to this. And, like Rittenhouse, his heart was in the right place, but his head was up his ass.

Unfortunately, Pretti DID get killed for his ignorance.

See also:

• Protests might be one place you can't carry guns. Slate Magazine

Smile, you're on camera: Facial recognition becomes widespread in London...

I tried to write a post about the differences in US and Europan Union privacy laws which somehow got trashed, but the gist of it is that the US doesn't have strong data protection laws. That means law enforcement is working with the crap data mining services provide.

On the other hand, digital ID these days is biometric and works well with facial recognition.

And immigration services worldwide are using biometrics for law enforcement. 

I would also add in that immigration is tightening up worldwide. So, it feels hypocritical that people outside the US are condemning ICE. Especially since the Schengen Area in Europe fines people 1,000€ a day for overstaying. There is also a possibility of being banned from the Schengen zone.

 

Fortunately, people in the US are too distracted with ICE to notice that they are handing the data miners information. That was an important part of the lost post, a reference to this article: How is ICE tracking people in Minnesota? An expert explains.

It might make more sense to demand strong data protection laws which allow people to control what is private information being sold. Especially since your private information is one of the things making money for big tech.

And helping ICE do its job.

Sheriff warns bystanders...

OK, I've made it clear that you're taking your chances if you bring a weapon of any kind to any form of protest. Something I said in another post on police violence (Defund the Police is Utopian, Misinformed, and Misguided):

OK, the "Gun Violence Prevention" types should be upset about the guns on the street, but they are getting way ahead of where they should be in this process: especially if they are serious about cutting back on how many people patrol the streets. Getting the guns off the streets should be priority number one for the people who are going to float this crazy concept. Not to mention they should be really careful about how they frame the issue in regard to people who carry guns. Guns are not the problem in Europe and most of the rest of the world that they are in the US. 

Acquiring guns illegally in the US is not much harder. About 57% of this year’s deadly force victims to date were allegedly armed with actual, toy or replica guns. American police are primed to expect guns. The specter of gun violence may make them prone to misidentifying or magnifying threats like cellphones and screwdrivers. It may make American policing more dangerous and combat-oriented. It also fosters police cultures that emphasize bravery and aggression.

While people might want to say that Alex Pretti wasn't armed, as that quote points out you're taking your chances having anything in your hands in an encounter with the police.  

But, I'm going to let this sheriff explain this to you and maybe you might not do something stupid which gets you killed.

 

As I said in the other post:

I witnessed the police beating someone resisting arrest. It was about 4-6 police officers on one small, skinny person.

Was it a bunch of white racist cops in the US?

Nope, it was someone who refused to leave a bar on Gandy Street in Exeter, England in 1991. The person who was being beaten was white, as were the police. The issue was that the person was resisting arrest.

Getting in the way of police doing their jobs is taking a serious risk: whether you agree with what they are doing or not.

More Uruguay

I posted about this last December, but I am posting this again since part of Trump's insane expansionism is based upon a continued reliance on fossil fuels. Energy independence makes more sense if we are talking about national security than relying on fossil fuels coming from other nations.

And Uruguay proves it can be done. 

 

What if the American Revolution had failed?

This is one of many instances where the War for Independence could have fizzled out that I mentioned in the post on Canada not joining the War for Independence.

What We Can Do—Starting Now | A Daily Civic Action Plan

I've been thinking this for a while, but I will let this guy speak. He has another, longer video out, which I haven't seen, but I am interested in seeing. Toss in that I have said that Fred Hampton was dangerous to the powers that be since he worked on racial cooperation.

So, I am really glad to see this video say what needs to be said. 

Here's the longer video:

The US has the best government Cryptocurrency can buy.

I've already said that cryptocurrency is shady. This is a really good run down on why that is so. 

The US government needs to look into Trump's corruption and how cryptocurrency enables crime. 

Donald Trump demonstrates that the US Constitution is in serious need of an Overhaul

Trump has gone well beyond what should be legally acceptable for a US elected official, yet he has somehow managed to remain in power despite an strong lack of popular support. But, it is impossible to get rid of politicians who do not serve the people.

So, stop pretending that the US Constittuion is somehow a sacred document: even the founders knew it would need tweaking or they wouldn't have added a process to amend the thing. And it has been controversial since it was conceived: Hell, they wrote the thing in secret.

The problem is that "checks and balances" doesn't really work when the judiciary is really a rubber stamp for insane policies. Or that the legislature really is not the representative for the people.

Representative Government is a system of government where citizens elect leaders to carry out and make public policy. It is usually characterized by institutional guarantees like periodic elections of the leaders of government, a free press, freedom of public debate, freedom to associate and some degree of governmental accountability.

John Stuart Mill considers representative government the ideal form of government. One of the more notable ideas Mill puts forth in the book on the topic is that the business of government representatives is not to make legislation. Instead, Mill suggests that representative bodies such as parliaments and senates are best suited to be places of public debate on the various opinions held by the population and to act as watchdogs of the professionals who create and administer laws and policy. In his words:

Their part is to indicate wants, to be an organ for popular demands, and a place of adverse discussion for all opinions relating to public matters, both great and small; and, along with this, to check by criticism, and eventually by withdrawing their support, those high public officers who really conduct the public business, or who appoint those by whom it is conducted.

In other words, members are elected to legislative chambers by voters, as in elections of national legislatures in a representative government. Additionally, elected representatives may have the power to select a president, other legislators or other officers of the government or of the legislature, such as the prime minister under the parliamentary system. Although, prime ministers are usually the leader of their party, which forms the majority party in government in a Westminster parliamentary system.

The fact is that the US Constitution has become a joke outside of the United States. It's also becoming questioned within the United States. Well, other than by the people who want to believe the Russians stole the US elections.

Sorry, it's pretty obvious that was the founders for creating the electoral college who have been responsible for the problems in US elections. After all, Gerrymandering became a word when Elbridge Gerry created the thing in 1812.

On the other hand, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which was written around the time the US Constitution was has proven resilient through 5 French republics and some Empires as well. But it provides a much better framework for a bill of rights to build a government upon. After all, it does allow for peaceful changes in the structure of government.

Maybe we should look to that when the US Constitution is rewritten.

Why Did Canada Refuse to Join the American Revolution?

I like to point out how we already have a British North America: Canada. This points out some of the ways that the War for Independence could have fizzled: besides the ways it also came close to fizzling in on its own.

Independence wasn't as much of a certainty as people would like to think. The Colonies would have lost had it not have gained support from European powers: in particular, France. I would also add that there were some people in England who supported Independence for the Colonies.

Interestingly, most of the Loyalists who left the colonies ended up moving to what would become Canada.

And here's one of the scenarios where the British could have crushed the War for Independence early on.

Cooperatives in Italy: the alternative to monopoly, vulture capitalism

 I posted about these previously here, and just had the experience of visiting one recently on a trip to Italy: La Cooperative di Cortina. 

Not sure if you have a negative connotation of socialism and cooperatives, but this was a rather nice department store in Cortina, Italy, It was on the league of John Lewis Partnership in the UK, or something like a Macy's in the US.

It was a pleasant surprise for me to realise that I was in a cooperative.

And it came after seeing dogs in the stores. Although, I have gotten accustomed to seeing them in restaurants. 

Unfortunately, mine were left at home for various reasons: the major one being this was a ski vacation. We were usually out all day.

Anyway, the quality of the items was great and the prices were reasonable.

But the best part is that the workers, and some customers are members. I'm not sure what my membership with REI  (Recreational Equipment, Inc.) is, but I have belonged since I lived in Washington, DC in the late 1990s. REI brands itself as a consumer cooperative.

So, Cooperatives aren't totally alien to the US. They definitely aren't to the UK. 

On the other hand, dogs everywhere is definitely still alien in the US, but I hope for not much longer.

And here are a couple of happy pups in Cortina. 

I'm tossing in this video about Scotland's Community Wealthbuilding law, which sort of ties into the concept of cooperatives.

The Windows Exodus Has Begun. (And the Data Proves It)

I have to admit that I am coinsidering going back to Linux since Apple is trying to get me to upgrade to Tahoe. I don't want AI.

I want my computer to be a tool.

Not run my life.

1,000 hypocrites for Israel

Matt Gaetz exposes Persecution of Christians in Israel using Mike Huckabee's own writing.

Liberals aren't Leftists, and neither is the democratic party

 Yet another way to distract you from the US uniparty to give an illusion of choice. The people who scream socialism and communism would freak if either system were anywhere close to being implemented in the United States.

Erik Warsaw and Candace Owens discover the Quran

Knowledge conquers ignorance. The founders intended for the United States to be a secular state: including those who most people would consider the "religious right". This was because they knew the effects of governmental interference and entanglement with religion.

Jesus was Palestinian!

 The problem with this situation is that the Zionists, Christian and Jewish, have framed the situation as a "Holy War" between Jews and Muslims, which couldn't be further from the Truth in the Holy Land. But the Zionists neglect to mention that Christians have borne the brunt of the persecution and ethnic cleansing of the Nakba.

We Found A Solution To America's Inequality. It's Not Where You'd Expect.

"Often we accept something because it is part of our culture. They make us think it's the only possible world. The factory is closed and you have to look for another job. The end.

I invite a person who lives in America to try and question their own system, because if we don't question our system, we cannot change our system."

Start the New Year right with a Syrian Christian explaining Islam

Yep, the arabic word for god is indeed Allah.

I think it's better that this Christian speaks for himself, but it's something which needs to be heard.