Archive for the ‘Congress’ Category

The Continentals of the American Revolution

History Of The Continentals  <—  PDF

Dear readers:

The enclosed PDF contains a history of the Continental money issued by Congress during the American Revolution.  It is chapter 7 from my new book, “The Control and Manipulation of Money”, available for free download at https://fremontvalleybooks.com

Thanks,

EDD

 

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in American colonies, Congress, Early American history, Economics, Revolutionary War, U. S. money supply | No Comments »

The Biden Administration

The Biden Administration   <– PDF

Let us first take stock of where we are politically in America.

  1. We have endured a biological attack by China for the past 11 months in the form of the Wuhan virus. Fortunately we had President Donald “America First” Trump in office who was able to organize the government bureaucrats and the smart people in the research community to develop a vaccine in record time, something that very few people thought was possible, given the standard interval is about five years. The media claimed he was a fool to even try it.
  2. All summer long, Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA led “mostly peaceful protests”, mostly involving burning down police stations, federal courthouses, and many businesses, while the local police stood by and the Democratic leadership endorsed, encouraged, and applauded these street armies. The local politicians only allowed the police to arrest a handful of them, and few were prosecuted. The media made the appropriate excuses for these Marxist mobs.
  3. The governments of many states, mostly led by Democrats, decided to use the Wuhan virus to shut down their local economies, ruining many businesses and putting many out of work. At first it was to “bend the curve” of infections, but it soon became a test of how much tyranny the public is willing to put up with. The real goal, as always, was to somehow make the federal administration look bad.  The media made the appropriate accusations against Mr. Trump.
  4. The Democrat Party abused the judicial system during the summer of 2020, using the Wuhan virus as an excuse to obtain decrees on voting procedures that superseded the powers of the State legislatures. This happens to be unconstitutional, since Article 2 of the Constitution clearly states that only a State legislature can enact electoral laws. The objective, as we saw in November 2020, was to deluge the electoral system with fraudulent mail-in ballots that could not be verified.  That is how the Democrats got Joe “Wimpy” Biden elected President.  The media defended the unconstitutional activities of the judicial activists who ignored the Constitution.
  5. A great many affidavits attesting to electoral fraud were received and Republicans brought them to both state and federal courts, but all of those challenges were rejected on procedural grounds. No evidence was ever examined by any of the courts (as far as I know). The Republican lawyers made a huge error in not demanding that all the evidence be preserved for future examination, including the ballots, signature cards, voter rolls, and time-tagged tallies in the voting machines.  It is tantamount to a baseball batter bragging that he will hit a grand slam on the first pitch, without bothering to check if there are any guys on base.  That error allowed the Democrats to destroy all the evidence; now it is impossible to prove the veracity of the affidavits; we will never know how much fraud there was.  We now have six or seven States that run Presidential elections the way local elections are run in Chicago and Philadelphia.  The media demonized anyone who believed that something was not right.
  6. A rally was held on 6 Jan 2021, in which Mr. Trump listed the various ways in which the election results were questionable, and then encouraged the attendees to peacefully protest in front of Congress. Congress was at that time certifying Mr. Biden’s election. But ANTIFA members and a handful of not-too-bright Trump supporters engaged in a BLM/ANTIFA-style mostly peaceful protest at the Capitol, involving breaking windows, smashing down doors, and occupying Congressional offices.  A total of five people died: a police officer from head injuries, a protester from gunshots, and three others of “medical complications”.  The electoral balloting had to be stopped, and the members of Congress had to be led to a safe place until the Capitol police could remove the retards.  Now here is an important insight: all summer long, the Democrats in Congress praised the actions of the “mostly peaceful protestors” around the country who invaded people’s places of business, robbed them, and burned them to the ground.  Millions of Americans were inconvenienced for months by the BLM/ANTIFA mostly peaceful protests.  But, when the same tactics were employed against their (Congress’) place of business, inconveniencing them for a few hours, it’s an “insurrection”.  Poor babies; but I doubt they will get much sympathy.  The media chanted “Trump led a coup, Trump supporters are guilty of sedition and insurrection”, right on cue.
  7. The tech giants Amazon (led by Jeff “I own that too” Bezos), Google (led by Sundar Pichai), Facebook (led by Mark “Junior High” Zuckerberg), Instagram (owned by Facebook), YouTube (owned by Google), and Twitter (led by Jack Dorsey) have banned most conservatives (defined as anyone who is not a card-carrying Democrat) from their platforms on the grounds that conservatives are a general menace to society. They even managed to put PARLER (a competitor to Twitter) out of business. The media approved of the suppression of free speech.
  8. Today the Democrats impeached Mr. Trump for “inciting a riot”, despite there not being a single sentence in his speech that called for one. Maybe he should have called for a mostly peaceful protest. The media will brag how they won the revolution.

So, to summarize, as is typical in revolutions:

  1. Pressure from below by the BLM and ANTIFA street armies.
  2. Pressure from above by the suppression of speech by the tech monopolies, doing indirectly what the government cannot do directly — on behalf of the Democrats.

That is where we are.  What happens when Mr. Joe “Wimpy” Biden takes office on 20 Jan 2021?  The Democrats will take the opportunity to suppress the Constitution specifically and the rule of law in general; take away as many civil rights as possible; promote the interests of their favorites; demonize and ridicule their enemies (real and imagined); and attempt to acquire absolute power over everyone’s life.   The Democratic Party consists of vengeful, implacable, vindictive, hateful, hypocritical, arrogant know-it-alls, just like the “cool kids” back in junior high school.  Watch out: people who have never graduated from junior high at an emotional level will now be running the country.  How do we know Mr. Biden is a wimp?  The same way as in junior high: the kid who always swaggered around, talking tough, but scared to death of being challenged to prove it.  Unfortunately, as in junior high, the big talk may be enough to ward off any common sense ideas.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Congress, elections, government powers, progressive, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

Real World Graduation, Question 99: PAC Employees

RealWorldGraduation_Question_99_PAC_Workers   <– PDF

Many members of Congress hire their spouses or other relatives to work on their permanent campaign staff or political action committees [1].   These people are paid by either the campaign funds or from contributions made to the political action committees.  It is not necessary that the relatives, as employees, perform any particular task as part of their employment.  It is legal for members of Congress to put relatives on their payroll for these jobs, but in what ways might it be considered unethical or immoral?

a) If it’s legal, then it cannot be unethical or immoral, so this question is irrelevant.

b) It constitutes nepotism, in which family members get special treatment (good paying jobs) simply for being relatives.

c) It is possible that the relatives are no-shows, simply being paid as a means to enhance the family income without actual work being performed.

d) It is possible that the family member is less qualified than other people to perform these tasks, so the organization is not getting the best talent for the money.

e) Some combination of b), c), and d).

[1]   Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, Outrage, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007, pp. 111-115

(The answer is on p. 2 of the PDF.)

Tags:
Posted in Congress, critical thinking, Real World Graduation | No Comments »

Real World Graduation, Question 84: Cabinet Nominations

RealWorldGraduation_Question_84_Cabinet_Nominations   <– PDF

Article 2, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution states, regarding the office of the President:

“He shall have power, by and with the consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointments of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in courts of law, or in heads of departments.”

The President’s Cabinet members fall under the category of “officers of the United States”, and require confirmation by the Senate.  A member of the U. S. Senate once voted against the creation of a federal Department of Education (although it passed).  But now, many years later, he has been nominated by the President to be the Secretary (head) of the Department of Education.  On what grounds should the Senate confirm or not confirm him?

a) His original opposition to the creation of any federal Department proves that he cannot be trusted to lead any department. Therefore the Senate should not confirm him.

b) The Senate should not confirm him. The fact that he voted against the creation of the Department proves he is opposed to education, so schools will get worse under his “leadership”.

c) The Senate should not confirm him. If he voted against the creation of the Department, then it is likely that he has contempt for teachers, teachers unions, Department of Education workers, and children in general.  Such a person would not command respect within the department.

d) The Senate should confirm him only in the interest of getting him out of the Senate. True, his original vote proves he is unqualified, but he will do less harm overall as a member of the bureaucracy than as a member of the Senate.

e) The Senate should confirm him only if he promises not to change current policy and promises to recuse himself from budget debates; that way, his biases against education will have no practical effect.

(The answer is on p. 2 of the PDF.)

Tags: ,
Posted in Congress, Constitutional Convention, critical thinking, Real World Graduation, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »