It’s easier to argue that there is none, that Free Will, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law; Love is the law Love under will”, is all there is.

A more appropriate title for this entry is, the Majority rules and the minority is at their mercy: but who is allowed to be the Majority?

That’s why the whole schlemiel can only be maintained by force. So the Conservative, Hobbesian Ideal has now “evolved” into agree and conform or we will imprison you, nuke you, spy on you, harass you. The irony of the “nonconformists”, those that refused to accept the Church of England as the National Religion, came here and want to occupy the US government and State governments to impose their own religious tenets on everyone else

By virtue of the foregoing circumstances, the only real determining factor, is, what “we” have agreed to because all protections afforded to people are thereby available whether we vote or not.

This is the necessary and proper purpose of the Courts, to inform us of what we have agreed to, whenever a controversy of this sort arises, regardless of who represents us and regardless of our ability to draft complaints in Law French; on the other hand, there is an idea, that what we have agreed to is Majority Rule and that a “privilege to rule”, may be achieved, by the fabrication of Majorities as defined by the outcome of elections.

So either the majority is bound or limited or it’s not; and either business is bound or limited or it’s not. May it sell you rat poison as good food, relatively harmless for humans?

The way “America” was lost, is found, by way of one distinct and determining factor; but the US presently exists within a parallel political universe and when we 1st perceive this given the disposition and tendency regarding the outcome of elections, we are tempted to choose, “which America” by ballot box. The America to which Newt Gingrich &co refer is the CSA, the Confederate States of America and that is the America they seek to “save” because it is the America we have lived in since LBJ refused to accept the nomination for his re-election.

But what I refer to, is, the USA.

And this is the 1st time in US history where this distinct and determing factor is so apparent that it barely transcends “partisan political” lines.

And yet we hear or read Antonin Scalia refer to the “original intent” of our “founding fathers” and some of US mistake this for the lawful rules of statutory construction; but in reality this “conservative” methodology followed by Robert Bork (Mittney’s adviser on Judical nominations) and his so called “federalist society” (who in actuality are the antifederalist part of the Goldwater coalition blown away in 1964) does not follow the rules of statutory construction but instead follows a way of political thinking devised by Jefferson Davis - e.g., that women and Negroes were not considered to be within the original body politic addressed by Thomas Jefferson in “The Declaration of Indepedence” and thus “inclusion” and “participation” is not and was not the “original intent”.

What a coincidence, that Mitch McConnell, the leading opponent of Barack Obama being President of the USA is also from Kentucky.

But these ideas of Jefferson Davis don’t stop there, they were “extended by implication”, that Negroes are an inferior race, that are unfit to govern, caveat, the America that the conservatives fear is being lost.

Barack Obama is a Negro, a Black person who happens to have been elected as the President of the USA, and the “conservatives”, following their founding father and his White Christian Male tenets, presume, that President Obama is therefore unfit to govern; and aside from this racial discrimination they boldly propound and perpetuate (in every means short of addressing him as Mr Nigra President, Sir) their sole piece of corroborating evidence is that the unemployment rate is high (at this point about 1/2 of 1% higher than the averages under Ford, Carter and Reagan) and that he was unable to end the depression faster than Franklin Delano Roosevelt did.

FDR was elected 4 times, but of course he wasn’t a Negro.

A reasonable person of average sensibilities can clearly see this Black and white tension between the Democratic-republicans particularly in this upcoming National election. Hi, I’m the white guy, vote for me, because the Nigra’s lazy and just can’t do the job. That’s because he’s a Nigra and he’s therefore unfit to govern.

Reagan unleashed these same ideas; and after these ideas are unleashed, then what we agreed to, is left by the wayside to be replaced by Majority Rule and the “electoral mandate”. Consequently, both factions concern themselves, instead, with who gets to participate in voting.

So, alas, what we have agreed to, becomes confused and confounded, with, what majoritarians claim is their right or Mandate, produced by the result of an election.

Before President Obama presents his case at the National Convention we have the same old conservatism delivered, this time, by Mittney/Ryan:

(1) Standard Oil shall drive the “economy” - the New King Cotton

(2) Education by school vouchers - the new “separate but equal”

(3) Unregulated free trade - Business needs to retail more products made by slave labor; with the US military to threaten war if one of the GOPstapo companies can’t get what they want from notably China, Russia or Iran,

(4) and because there are so few of these companies, a balanced budget - who needs the Reagan “safety net” when the foregoing “policy” is going to create the same amount of jobs that will happen regardless of who is elected [same as their 1930s opposition to the New Deal];

(5) Tax reduction for Business and Deregulation to allow for free banking, the abolition of Dodd Frank, Obamacare and the private exportation of natural resources. Mittney wants to run the government like a business what do you think he’s going to sell? So much for “we own this country” Clint and

(6) Increased war spending - i.e., “return to the bi-partisan foreign policies of Truman and Reagan” - i.e., production of more nuclear weapons.

Footnotes - and then other well known incidentals from the last 40 years - prosecution of pornographers they don’t like and criminalization of abortions for women that refuse to knuckle under and submit. Your place is at home, birthing children and cleaning Daddies poopy undies.

Talk about choosing the winners and losers

If you believe that the Courts are trustworthy and will grant actions to protect your rights, as agreed to, then the tyranny of the Majority shall be checked and rendered powerless; and if the US executive [as well as State Governor(s)] are trustworthy and will ensure that Court Actions, granted, shall be faithfully executed, then elections are merely the way we choose the people that make, change or break the law, under the idealized sanction of, Majority Rule.

Majority rule is the progeny of factionalism, which makes the US Constitution and the Supreme Law of the Land, it’s greatest inconvenience.

It is the US Constitution - that is, the Constitution of the USA, rather than the CSA - which serves to check and then balance the tyranny of the majority, because under the constitution of the CSA, “the shadow government” or whatever you like to call it, is a little like England’s - it’s not written - we also know who the Majority is. And when the meaning of what we have agreed to, is confused and confounded, with these parallel political universes and the Majoritarian product resulting from an election, then that essential trust, regarding the Legislature and Chief Executive, is broken; as is the recent tendency regarding the Courts.

It ought never be, “which America are we going to choose”, we already agreed to the USA, not the CSA and that choice ought never to be subject to the whim of a majority, again; and yet look at the choices in this election:

Oil is the new King Cotton, school vouchers are the new “separate but equal”, Paul Ryan and Mittney claim that Our Rights Come From God rather than what we’ve actually agreed to. So if we’re atheists then we have no rights; or is it that we just can’t know what they are?

Not to worry, because only the GOP, like Henry Cabot Lodge, speak directly with God and are thereby the only fit people to govern and thus are the fittest and best equipped “to lead us” and protect us, from the fuck ups of God - like hemp, nudity in your own back yard, the word fuck, what it is, and what it looks like - by also prohibiting you the privilege of a driver’s license unless you publish your Social Security Number to the State forcible denial of entry into a public building, or now, even your polling place, without picture ID. Pat down, magnetometer, baton probes, xrays, strip searches, lay face down on the ground, taze him, beat him, cuff him, by “electoral mandate” and Majority rule.

Don’t they realize there’s Nigras on the loose and OMG one of thems in the White House !! we have to do something !! hey, Mittney’s a white guy !!

But “issues” regarding God are easy to solve, because God doesn’t interfere with any aspect of life. Life is just there. So when people claim they do these things in the name of God? They merely do things themselves or collectively by free assembly and association - you see, the congregation didn’t “do it” the Priest did it, just like Henry Cabot Lodge. Right Paul?

‘We don’t piss in your ashtrays so don’t throw cigarette buts in our urinals’ ([p] Kurt Vonnegut “God Bless You Mr. Rosewater”).

Keep it at the alter.

So what I’m going to do, build, or how about, just write, so then you can read it, if thou wilt, and then all that agree, may take full credit, and just think of it, as, something you did yourself:

Slaves didn’t build the South, planters did; labor didn’t build the railroads Collis P. Huntington did.

What would truly impress me though is if anyone from the Democratic-republicans would correctly identify what the Federalist Party plan, was, rather than the tenets of Jefferson Davis, because the Federalist plan was the clear and incontrovertible result of US Independence.

Here, I’ll do it for you.

What is referred to as “The Revolution” did not start in the US it started arguably in Great Britain, notably with the Royal Charter of the Bank of England. The Revolution was the establishment of capitalism and the overthrow of feudalism, which is also corroborated by express provision, in the US Federal Constitution. But what is referred to as “capitalism”, today, is at best, a euphemism.

The generalized distinction of that time was that production property, was by title to an estate (real estate) by grant of privilege from the throne [cf. allodium]; from whence the freedom to Will, by inheritance, was made possible cf. the corruption of blood. This is the best example of right or privilege originating from the government, since in England the corporate throne is the Lord of the Land but does not discriminate in regard to penis or vagina as a precondition of office. So in this regard, and aside from plunder, the wealth of the nation was generally the raw product of the land or else creations and manufactures commissioned by the throne or by profits and proceeds from an estate, by virtue of Royal title.

Incidentally, where most of the arguments against taxation derived - viz., the Landed Gentry -e.g., that all taxes are taxes against the land. Or eminent Domain, that Queen Elizabeth is not welcome to entry upon our estates to take and carry away our horseshit for the manufacture of salt petre for gun powder, lest she pay.

But the feudal title and privilege is also the best example of what is referred to as “government, picking the winners and losers”.

But capitalism was not an immediate phenomenon. The landed gentry were opposed to it in England claiming it to be a Jew Merchant Leach Conspiracy to Dupe the Crown of England; and many of these, actual, as well as would be, gentry, escaped to the US to pursue that sort of feudal happiness, here, like the Southern planters, whom in turn adopted the same argument against the Bank of the US.

But capitalism, aside from the struggle for it’s establishment, was something that also evolved over a considerable period of time in a similar sort of parallel political universe, which could be traced back to Phoenicia, from whence Carthage arose, or in more recent times, through the evolution of “joint stock adventures” - e.g., a group of private persons “paid in” capital to a common treasury for the purpose and duration of an adventure - going to Cognac for Brandy, bringing it back to divy up. Until it was eventually decided, why don’t we make these associations permanent, we can sell what we can’t drink, pay in the proceeds and then go back for more !! and thus the enterprise became incorporated - under Royal Charter.

In contrast, Charters in the US were, by - the people assembled - granted by various localities under the law of the State while former grants of the throne were still honored again by express US Constitutional provision.

Now it does not take too keen a mind to see the advantages which other Nations, notably Britain, had, in such regard: but this was no easy task to establish here because Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-republican party wanted this power to incorporate reserved exclusively to the States; and yet, unlike Andrew Jackson, renewed the Federal Charter for the Central Bank of the US, while he was US President.

The Bank of the US was Chartered under Washington and fellow Federalists.

So this revolution was international and the only aspect of it that was unique, in regards to the US, is that it was based on the freedom of association; but seriously, did you ever have the privilege to vote for or against any incorporation?

So if these Majoritarian factionalists want to talk about freedom, the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, to any degree of depth, greater than the usual baloons and bunting, “that’s the story”.