A Dose Of Irony

A measles outbreak has been traced to illegal aliens, whom the federal government welcomes into the country as cheap illicit labor, and whose children are unconstitutionally treated as citizens if born on our soil. Meanwhile, more and more draconian laws are being passed to strip actual Americans of their rights by subjecting their children to a battery of vaccines whose medical value remains debatable, but whose profitability for the medical-industrial complex is tremendous.

In short, government that was designed to serve the American people now serves the discrete interests of foreigners and elites.

Happy belated Memorial Day.

Johnny Depp Divorce Highlights Some Perils Of Modern "Marriage"

Johnny Depp, one of the most desirable men on the planet, has been hit with a divorce after a very short marriage. He did not bother having a prenuptial agreement, so he will likely part with a significant chunk of his wealth for the privilege of spending a few months with Amber Heard. This sad spectacle offers some valuable lessons:

• You are not immune to divorce, no matter how rich, famous, or "alpha" you are.

• What passes for "marriage" today has less legal and moral force than a pinky swear. You can be divorced for any reason or no reason.

• No matter how wonderful you feel on your wedding day, people can change right before your eyes in no time flat. 

• Despite the hollow nature of "marriage" today, a divorce still carries dire consequences, not least of which is imprisonment if you don't cough up whatever amount of money the judge demands (and regardless of whether you even have it). Depp and Heard did not have children, so at least he doesn't have to suffer the indignity of being removed from their lives while still being forced to finance them, but this is a real danger for many others.

• Don't indulge in modern "marriage." It's an invitation for the government to gain even more power over you than it already has, and it offers no real benefits that you can't obtain otherwise. If you are religious, it's understandable that you would want your union to be consecrated in the eyes of God. Just be sure to leave the state out of it. After all, isn't separation of church and state the modern mantra?

• If you do decide to play Russian roulette -- the literal version of which has better odds than "marriage" and at least ends painlessly if you lose -- get a prenup. There is nothing unromantic or mercenary about this. You already have a prenup, namely your state's statutes governing what happens in the event of divorce. Your choice is not whether you want a prenup, but whether you want to have a say in it. Only a fool would forgo this opportunity and allow the state to have total discretion here, just as only a fool would fail to procure insurance when engaging in any life-threatening activity. But remember that your children still will never truly be yours, for no marriage avoidance or prenup can stop the state from taking them away.

UPDATE:

Right on cue, Amber Heard is flinging dubious accusations of abuse. This comes right out of the divorce playbook, a transparent attempt to make herself the victim and appear justified in her actions. Take heed here. The moment you realize that divorce is imminent, do not be baited into a confrontation, and try to avoid any interaction not witnessed by others. You will be presumed guilty, and you will have to prove your innocence.

Brief Observation Concerning Marijuana

Several states take their marijuana very seriously, expanding its allowable usage or even legalizing all usage. The problem, as usual, is the federal government, which presumes the ability to regulate this substance and to prosecute anyone who cultivates, transacts, or possesses it.

While I'm not a fan of burners or of anyone else who uses narcotics in a recreational manner, the federal government's behavior flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This simple language means that anything the states may do, the federal government may not, and vice versa. There can be no overlap in state or federal power, which are mirror images of each other (completely opposite). The very fact that states can and do regulate marijuana means that the federal government cannot, absent a constitutional amendment.

Does anyone care about this? They used to, which is why they approved the 18th Amendment before allowing the federal government to attack alcohol. But not anymore, which is why the modern entity calling itself the federal government attacks all manner of substances without waiting for any amendments. I would wager that, if pushed, most people would oppose enforcing the Tenth Amendment because this would wipe out a tremendous number of federal programs that are near and dear to their wallets hearts. Matters of property, contracts, employment, education, health care, research and development, and family are all within the sovereignty of the states rather than the federal government, and all federal programs dealing with such matters are unconstitutional. Are you prepared to let those programs die? I didn't think so. You sold your freedom and the rule of law for thirty pieces of silver, so don't expect to toke up (or do much of anything else) so easily anymore.

Deflategate Shows What A Shambles Justice Has Become

"Deflategate," a trivial matter concerning adults who play a children's game for a living, should have ended long ago. To recap, in 2015 the NFL suspended Patriots quarterback Tom Brady for a paltry few games because evidence showed it was more likely than not that he had participated in under-inflating the footballs he was throwing, which gave him an unfair advantage over other teams. Like any red-blooded American with an over-inflated ego, however, Brady refused to take the hit and get on with his good life, opting instead to make a federal case that has been dragging on for a year now. The NFL's penalty was overturned by a federal judge, but that decision itself was overturned by a panel from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Most recently, Brady announced his intention to appeal to the entire Second Circuit and, if necessary, to the US Supreme Court.

This is a joke.

For one thing, the NFL is a private organization and should have the right to dish out any penalties provided for under its agreements with teams and players, without any second-guessing by meddlesome federal judges (who already interfere far too much in daily life).

For another, the purpose of having a court system is to provide two critical things with regard to disputes: 1) certainty, and 2) finality. Courts no longer provide either one, but rather constantly flip-flop and leave everyone in the dark as to what the rules are. The Supreme Court's decisions from the past year alone demonstrate that "law" now means whatever a judge feels like, without regard to codified rules or precedents, which is to say there is no law. Not only does this make it impossible to conduct one's affairs with any peace of mind, but it also constitutes a major drag on the economy.

What this farce demonstrates is that government can involve itself in any private matter, and that the outcome is anyone's guess. Feel safe and sound?

John Kerry Confirms Globalist Designs Of The Political Elite

John Kerry gave up the ghost recently when proclaiming -- in a tacit criticism of Trump -- that we inhabit a "borderless world." His attitude mirrors Nancy Pelosi's and confirms that most American "leaders" are traitors who have abandoned their mission to serve the American people. Their mission now is to destroy the nation-state and create a prison planet, with themselves as the wardens.

I've written before about the urgent need to preserve national sovereignty. For those of you with the stamina, take a look below:

The Gathering Threat Of Global Hegemony

The federal government has made itself the master of the law rather than the servant. Consistent with its self-appointed role as absolute lawgiver, today’s federal government casts a shadow over virtually every aspect of American society, leaving nothing of circumstance beyond the taxing, spending, and commandeering reach of politics. As a consequence, the once-rich tapestry of American life has faded into a spiritual and cultural wasteland characterized by stifling political correctness; larcenous wealth redistribution; a vanishing middle class; the mainstreaming of obscenity and profanity; the subsidizing of illegal-alien invaders; and the militarizing of civil authority. Our ability to elect the persons who perpetrate these outrages does nothing to make us free, but rather invites us to partake in our own ruin. Such is the result championed by the self-styled idealists occupying both major political parties, who fly opposing banners and sing competing slogans, but who all march to the same tune. Their ascendancy has heralded America’s decline.

What makes this state of affairs somewhat tolerable is that the American government counts as only one among many, and that no single government dictates terms for the entire human race. Competition among sovereignties, a noble pursuit once enshrined in our domestic Constitution among the States, now survives only by the grace of foreigners. So even though our American experiment had been hijacked, we could find some measure of comfort in that we now inhabit a global economy where we can move our money and ourselves with greater ease than ever. Americans can outsource, offshore, and expatriate away from the government’s machinations, a refreshing reality that thumbs its nose at the political class and its delusions of grandeur. Recent data indicate that approximately ten percent of households in the United States have already committed to moving abroad or are seriously considering doing so, while another eleven percent express a desire to reside abroad part-time – astonishingly high numbers that run the gamut across all professions and age groups. Better yet, the sheer number of countries is exploding, as bloated centers of political power such as the old Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia fracture and crumble. In today’s world of nearly two hundred competing sovereignties we find unprecedented variety and freedom from central control. And deep down we feel a sense of adventure, envisioning faraway lands and exotic peoples; knowing that some corner of creation remains free from the strangling grip of officialdom; and daring to hope that the errors of history can eventually be righted.

However, our cause for celebration strikes terror in our rulers, who see their influence on the wane as we grow more nimble-footed in an ungoverned world. Faced with this quickening flight from their tightening grip, the members of the political class have refused to admit the error of their ways or to accept their well-deserved irrelevance; instead, they have chosen to swim against the tide of history and strive for a universal control from which no one may escape. To advance this quest for global hegemony, they employ a spectrum of tactics ranging from transnational regulations to economic sanctions to outright military violence. But most important of all, they swaddle these tactics in idealistic verbiage such as “democracy,” “human rights,” and “free trade” in order to de-fuse popular suspicion or criticism, thus re-enacting the domestic saga of the United States whereby the federal government flattened all competing sources of power in the lofty names of “equality” and “civil rights.” Now, instead of murdering the sovereignty of mere component States, the political class aims to murder the sovereignty of nation-states so as to erect a uniform, global authority in which political power is preserved against all external challenge. By accomplishing this, the political class will at last have a free hand to carry out massive wealth redistribution and its corresponding evils, ensuring that the remaining pockets of civilization yield to a worldwide ghetto presided over by oligarchs.

The only way that the political class can successfully destroy national sovereignty is to destroy international law, whose very name bespeaks an arrangement of affairs between independent actors. Similar to our Constitution and its deference to the several States, international law leaves each nation-state the master of its own destiny and with presumptive power to govern its own citizens in its own way. National sovereignty’s essential role in the international legal order is reflected by the fact that the very sources of international law have their roots in national consent, as follows:

Sources of International Law 

• Treaties: Agreements binding only those nations that sign and ratify them. 

• Customary Law: A widespread practice among nations based on the belief (opinio juris) that such practice is legally required.

• General Principles of Law: Principles appearing in the domestic legal systems of the vast majority of nations in the world community. 

These benchmarks illustrate – contrary to prevailing opinion – that international law constitutes a purer form of law than what most modern governments offer their own people, since true law stems from the customs and wishes of the participants. For example, under the common law that America inherited from England, judges did not presume to create law, but rather to observe it and uphold it as manifest in the people’s way of life. Likewise, international law follows the practices of the family of nation-states, seldom daring to divorce itself from the very community whence it springs.

This legal system – with its foundations in national consent and international consensus – poses a direct threat to the political class, which conceives of “law” as simply whatever those with the greatest power might decree on a given day. Resenting the persistence of a global arrangement whose rules are not arbitrarily handed down by a sovereign, the political class has made disturbing progress towards radically transforming international law from a limited system addressing national rights and responsibilities to an all-encompassing system addressing individual rights and responsibilities. By muscling aside the nation-state as the primary subject of international law, the political class hopes to melt down each nation’s independence into a homogenized political system that directly regulates us as individuals, crushing the very rights and freedoms that the political class claims to be protecting.

We constantly hear that the world is chaotic and needs the guiding hand of government to steer it; that international law is toothless against evil regimes; and that the better angels of our nature demand that we take steps to rein in the abuses of the nation-state system. It is undeniable that nation-states often behave in a callous and brutal fashion, but for all the abuses that nation-states commit – and which the political class incessantly invokes as justification for global governance – a world with a single and unrivaled sovereign represents a cure far worse than the disease. National sovereignty and international competition are essential to the survival of human civilization, for they limit the reach and strength of any single government, and they compel governments to face external enemies in a creative struggle whereby good ideas have a chance to outlast and defeat bad ones. If Weimar Germany of the 1920s and ’30s had been a global democracy rather than a merely national one, Hitler’s election to high office and subsequent seizure of absolute power would have spelled a worldwide Third Reich rather than a localized dictatorship that, fortunately, could be resisted with outside military force. In a uniformly governed world, any opponent of such tyranny would be merely internal; he would be labeled as an outlaw; and he would be imprisoned or executed. One can run this “thought experiment” to envision any number of nightmarish outcomes, such as a global Mao Tse-tung, a global Pol Pot, or a global Stalin.

We know for a fact that governments kill far more of their own people than each other's: during the twentieth century alone, governments murdered roughly 160 million of their own citizens in bloody orgies of “democide,” while killing only a fraction of that number through international warfare. So if the nation-state system seems lawless and vicious, it surely cannot match the potential brutality of a world under a single government. In light of this knowledge, it is folly to exchange a world of divided sovereignties, however imperfect, for a single worldwide sovereignty, however promising. One would be just as foolish to consolidate all of the world’s criminal organizations into a single unrivaled syndicate on the belief that this would reduce thievery and violence.

Yet the political class wishes to wrap us in the chains of global government on the slender inference that we can make such a government “good,” and on the even more slender inference that such a government will remain “good.” This assertion falls to pieces merely upon considering what these same people believe constitutes good government: the Leviathan state unbounded by the rule of law, whose power to legislate, regulate, tax, spend, and destroy continues to swell with no end in sight. A glimpse at history likewise disproves the political class’s rhetoric, for the precious few governments we can honestly rank as admirable did not remain so for very long. Mankind is far from perfect and will remain as such, and any government he constructs will eventually regress to the mean and indulge in the affronts to life, liberty, and property that typify the story of civilization. We would be much wiser to evolve by allowing for the birth and death of diverse governments, just as nature evolves by allowing for the birth and death of diverse individuals. In short, better to have several hundred bites at the apple than just one.

Sadly, the “mainstream” debate concerning international affairs ignores asking whether a global centralization of power should occur and concerns itself solely with how it should occur, much the same way that political discourse degenerated within the United States. “Conservatives” call for global rule under American influence, pursuing their vision of “democracy” by way of mass murder and violations of bedrock norms governing the initiation of military force. On the other side of the coin, “liberals” pursue a softer, more systemized version of hegemony by promoting international bureaucracies that will impose “human rights” and “environmentalist” principles that, when viewed up close, amount to little more than warmed-over Marxist schemes for micromanaging our lives and depriving us of any choices or dignity. Both the “conservative” and “liberal” sides of this loaded debate discard the wisdom that all governments are a menace unless offset by other competing governments. Forgotten is the lesson that the best way to curtail abuses of power is to disperse power far and wide, depositing it into so many hands that large-scale transgressions lack the raw material to take shape. As shown by the tragic experience of the United States – a nation conceived in liberty but increasingly bereft of it now – internal legal restraints do not prevent the accumulation and abuse of political power, no matter how ingeniously those restraints may be devised. Only external restraints suffice, and only in a world of multiple sovereignties do we have any hope of continuing the march of human progress.

One may wonder how to avert global hegemony, especially since the awesome forces of modern government constantly portray it as necessary and pursue it with unrelenting vigor. A good start is to take care of matters close to home, especially by reclaiming the disproportionate and unconstitutional power concentrated in Washington, D.C. Achieving that objective alone would spark an explosion of competition and creativity worldwide, as the current network of bribery, corruption, and coercion emanating from the federal government would dissipate. Apart from that, the truth of the matter is we don’t really have to stop the process at all, for it contains the seeds of its own destruction. Societies thrive on a unique sense of shared history, as well as on a sense of differentiation from one another; “global society,” however, has no cultural ethos with which to define itself, and no alien culture from which to differentiate itself. The absence of known, hostile societies beyond the sphere of our world frustrates the cohesive spirit that might otherwise give birth to a worldwide identity or corresponding political order. For example, certain members of the swelling European Union have refused to surrender their political sovereignty to the growing mega-bureaucracy in Brussels, Belgium, thereby rejecting one of the most notable attempts in recent history to ratchet political power upwards beyond the nation-state. Even the voices pushing for a more centralized European Union have stressed the need to counterbalance the United States, demonstrating that a perceived external threat is the best way persuade people to submit themselves to the indignities of modern governmental rule.

Modern nations consolidated from the sixteenth through the early twentieth century, but now the opposite trend prevails: communities are increasingly asserting their independence from large centers of power. Pan-governmental schemes run contrary to this trend and will collapse under their own weight, as technology continues to push power over the dams built by the few and into the hands of the many. Political globalization and the dream of global government lack any shared sense of purpose to support them; instead, the gathering threat of global hegemony rests on the modern quicksand of narcissism, anti-culture, and power-worship – the effluvia of a dying civilization rather than a prospering one. But the political class can inflict incredible harm on us by stubbornly refusing to diminish or relinquish its outdated influence, so at the very least we should become acquainted with their designs lest we offer them unwitting support.

Pelosi Collaborates With Fox

A member of Congress, Nancy Pelosi, is collaborating with a former head of state of Mexico, Vicente Fox, to influence the outcome of an American presidential election, specifically to ensure that America's borders continue leaking like a sieve. Though I don't really care about elections beyond their entertainment value, many Americans still do, and they should pause to note that Pelosi is committing treason. After all:

• Mexico is invading our land with the full support of the Mexican government;

• Mexicans openly claim that the land they are invading belongs to them and that they intend to reconquer it (although, in truth, they are invading it precisely because it is not Mexico, which they wish to escape from);

• Illegal migration of Mexicans has inflicted incalculable harm in the form of violent crime, property damage, and wasted public resources; and

• Employers are taking advantage of this slave-wage labor force to cut costs and deprive Americans of gainful employment.

For Pelosi to give aid and comfort to foreign invaders who have hostile intentions is treasonous. But then again, her despicable conduct is now part of the fabric of American public policy, what with (unconstitutional) "birthright" citizenship along with federal precedents and mandates forcing us to subsidize these invaders.

Some people think Trump will take care of all this. I'm dubious, and I have much greater faith in reclaiming our own right and responsibility to handle such matters, such as these folks are doing.

Trump The Republican Nominee?

With Ted Cruz's departure from the race, the powers-that-be might roll out any number of tactics -- including the "lone nut" scenario -- to prevent a nationalist from occupying the White House. There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. I will say that watching the establishment tremble is worth the price of admission.