JIMMY CARTER DEAD: WHO CARES?

CARTER-LOSER

The truth about the recently deceased Jimmy Carter is not pretty.

He was the worst president in modern history-- until Barack Obama assumed the position, and now Carter is looking even better with the title now being passed to the evil, corrupt, senile Joe Biden. All Democrats!

Carter was an anti-Semite, hated Israel, and was the father of Iranian Islamo-Fascism and terror, which brought suffering and death to hundreds of thousands of people.

Carter’s foreign (Iran, Afghanistan, Panama Canal, North Korea, anti-Israel) and domestic (stagflation, energy crisis, unemployment) policies were disasters.

Carter’s premier success was the Camp David Accords, which ended the overt war between Israel and Egypt—and resulted in the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Carter received the Nobel Peace Prize for his effectors, unlike Obama, who received his prize without any accomplishments.

Carter wrote the one-sided anti-Semitic polemic, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,  a vigorous attack on Israel wherein Carter blamed all Middle East woes solely on Israel and altered basic facts, implying that terrorism should continue until Israel accepted the goals of the “road map” to peace with Palestinians.

Bottom line…

Perhaps the best thing about Jimmy Carter is that he was patriotic and served his nation as a Lieutenant in the Navy.

Other than that. I don’t give a rat’s ass about Jimmy Carter’s passing or his legacy.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve

 

 


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


DEMOCRATS: AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO OUR NATION

Gun-to-head-uncle-sam

I have been struggling to make sense of the political and societal chaos we are now experiencing.

How can a political party put up a candidate with overt communist tendencies, another candidate who is manifestly corrupt and is demonstrably mentally challenged, and a vapid candidate who promotes communist solutions to social and economic issues but is so inarticulate that she makes little sense?

Likewise, how can this political party oppose an opposition candidate with such ferocity that it borders on the criminal abuse of power and the manifest violation of the candidate’s civil rights?

Are we living in a world gone mad, governed by corrupt idiots, or is there a master plan at work?

What it is that I believe we are seeing.

I believe that we are witnessing the progressive communist democrats redefining “democracy” from the consent of the governed to the consent of the governors and the weaponization of institutions to prosecute and persecute their opposition.

Democracy, as traditionally understood, is founded on the principle of the “consent of the governed.” This idea, deeply rooted in Enlightenment thinking and championed by political philosophers like John Locke, asserts that legitimate political power arises from the will and agreement of the people. It is the essence of democratic governance: a system where individuals collectively choose their leaders and, by extension, the policies that will shape their lives.

However, in recent times, there has been a subtle yet significant shift in how democracy is practiced and perceived. Under the progressive communist Democrats, we see the locus of power and decision-making move from the consensus of individuals to the consensus of institutions. This transformation could be described as the rise of the “consent of the governors.”

The Continuing Shift to Institutional Consensus

Institutions—governmental bodies, international organizations, or private corporations—have always played a vital role in shaping society. But in modern democracies, their influence has grown to the point where they often set the agenda, define policy options, and even shape public opinion. Several factors drive this shift:

  • Complexity of Governance: As societies become more complex, the issues they face—such as climate change, economic globalization, and technological disruption—require expertise and coordination that surpass the capacity of the average citizen. Institutions are increasingly seen as the best equipped to address these challenges with their specialized knowledge and resources.
  • Institutional Trust vs. Public Distrust: While trust in traditional democratic processes and elected officials has eroded in many parts of the world, institutions (such as central banks, courts, and regulatory agencies) are often viewed as more stable and reliable. This trust in institutions, however, comes at the cost of sidelining public input and reducing the transparency of decision-making processes.
  • Globalization and Supranational Governance: In an interconnected world, many decisions are made at the global or regional level through institutions like the European Union, the United Nations, or the World Trade Organization. These bodies operate with a degree of autonomy from direct public oversight, further shifting the balance of power from individuals to institutions.
  • Corporate Influence and Public-Private Partnerships: The growing influence of large corporations and the blurring lines between the public and private sectors have also contributed to this shift. Through lobbying and public-private partnerships, corporate entities and industry groups often have a significant say in policy decisions, reflecting a form of governance by consent among influential stakeholders rather than the broader populace.

Implications of This Shift

The movement from a democracy based on the consent of the governed to one focused on the consent of the governors has profound implications:

  • Erosion of Public Agency: As decision-making is increasingly centralized within institutions, the average citizen’s role in shaping policy diminishes. This can lead to feelings of disenfranchisement and apathy, weakening the very foundation of democratic governance.
  • Institutional Accountability: While institutions may possess expertise, their accountability to the public is often limited. Decisions made behind closed doors can lack transparency, leading to policies that serve the interests of a few rather than the many.
  • Redefinition of Legitimacy: Traditional democratic legitimacy comes from the electoral process and public participation. However, as institutions gain power, legitimacy is increasingly derived from expertise, efficiency, and outcomes—criteria that may not always align with the will of the people.
  • Reframing Democracy for the Modern Age is little more than deconstructing our representative republic and capitalist economic system for an authoritarian society akin to that in Communist China. 

Bottom line…

The progressive communist democrats would have you believe that freedom and democracy are not static concepts but concepts and constructs that evolve with the times. They view the Constitution and Bill of Rights not as restrictions on government power but as enabling authority to control every aspect of American lives to benefit society as a whole. And that society encompasses individuals and institutions outside our borders.

As we speak, the progressive communist democrats are setting the groundwork for challenging electors, state by state, the very action they circumvented with their January “Fedsurrection.”

To say we are well and truly screwed if we fail to capture unassailable majorities in Congress and succumb to progressive communist democrat lawfare is an understatement.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


TYRANNY OF THE JUDICIAR: ROGUE ACTIVIST JUDGES

When we think of political corruption, we think about corrupt politicians pandering to special interests. It is time to think about corrupt judges pandering to a partisan political agenda.

Lady-justice-b
The Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said the quiet part out loud…

Playbook: How Schumer is prepping for Trump 2.0

In less than a month, elected Democrats will find themselves with a lot less power in Washington, with a GOP-controlled House, Senate and White House resulting in a landscape in which their ability to tussle with President-elect Donald Trump will be largely rhetorical.

But if Dem leaders have learned one thing from Republicans over the years, it’s that sometimes, the judiciary can be the best bulwark against the opposing party getting what it wants. As our Anthony Adragna reported Friday, Senate Democrats have approved 235 of Biden’s judicial picks, eclipsing Trump’s 234 first-term judicial nominations.

I don’t know exactly what [Trump will] do. But I can tell you this: The judiciary will be one of our strongest — if not our strongest — barrier against what he does,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told Playbook in an exclusive interview this week.

Four years ago, Schumer launched a plan (along with President Joe Biden) to use the party’s Senate majority to prioritize not just passing legislation, but also pushing through as many judicial nominations as possible.

The result?

“When we started out, we knew it would be a very difficult job to do more than Trump had done,” said Schumer. “But we did: We got 235 — more than a quarter of the federal judiciary was appointed by our Senate and by the president.” <Source>

Federal Judges -- unaccountable to voters become the de facto policymakers.

In recent years, the power of federal judges in the United States has grown significantly. These appointed officials wield the authority to shape policy, interpret laws, and even challenge elected representatives’ decisions. However, this concentrated power has led to rogue, out-of-control activist judges who overstep their judicial boundaries, making decisions that align more with personal ideology than constitutional interpretation.

The One-Man Rule: Federal Judges and Their Dominance.

The “one-man rule” refers to the power of a single federal judge to make far-reaching decisions that can override laws passed by Congress or executive actions taken by the President. This has been observed in various contentious issues, from immigration policies to environmental regulations, where individual judges, often with lifetime appointments, can halt or alter policies for entire regions or the nation.

A case in point is the proliferation of district court judges issuing nationwide injunctions that block or alter federal policies. These decisions, while legally binding in the context of the particular case, can set a dangerous precedent when a single judge disrupts a national policy, leaving the issue to be determined by appeals courts or, ultimately, the Supreme Court.

Remedies for Judicial Overreach.

Several practical remedies must be put in place to counterbalance the rise of rogue judges and restore a fair balance of power. Here are some key strategies:

1. Limiting Injunctions by Federal Judges

One of the most controversial practices in recent years is federal judges’ frequent use of nationwide injunctions. These injunctions are often issued at the district court level, with the potential to halt or modify sweeping national policies. A reform to limit the scope of these injunctions could be a significant step toward curbing the overreach of individual judges.

Proposals to restrict nationwide injunctions and ensure that their application is only for the direct parties involved—rather than applying broadly across the nation—could help prevent judicial rulings from becoming de facto law. This reform would prevent a single judge from derailing policies carefully debated and approved by elected representatives.

2. Term Limits for Judges

Another controversial suggestion is the introduction of term limits for federal judges. Judges, especially those in the federal system, are appointed for life, leading to an entrenched judiciary that may become more ideologically driven over time. Term limits would reduce the concentration of power in the hands of unelected officials and allow for a more regular turnover of judicial power. A potential solution could involve imposing a fixed tenure, such as 18 years for Supreme Court justices, ensuring a balanced opportunity for Presidents to appoint judges.

3. Greater Judicial Accountability

While judges are meant to interpret laws impartially, accountability mechanisms could be strengthened to address concerns about over-litigating partisan regulations. Introducing mechanisms for greater transparency in decision-making could ensure that judges remain committed to interpreting the law rather than making policy through judicial activism.

One such safeguard might involve more robust ethical oversight, including a review process for judicial decisions with significant political implications. Judges who consistently exhibit overreach or partisan tendencies could be subject to an independent review board to assess their actions and consider possible remedies for judicial misconduct.

4. Congressional Oversight

While the judiciary is intended to remain independent, it is still an arm of government that must serve the interests of the public and the Constitution. Congress could pass laws to limit judicial overreach, set more explicit boundaries on federal judicial authority, and prevent the judicial system from being used for partisan litigation. Congress already has the power to impeach judges, which is rarely used.

Stronger oversight could include congressional hearings to review the judicial impact on laws and policies, especially when cases involve contentious issues like abortion, climate change, or executive authority. Additionally, more oversight of judicial nominations, including more explicit standards on judicial philosophy, could reduce partisan influence in the appointment process.

5. Streamlining and Limiting Legal Challenges

The growing influence of activist legal organizations has contributed to the rise of over-litigating partisan issues. Judges have become the final arbiter of issues that might have been better settled through democratic processes or legislative compromise. Introducing reforms to limit the number of times cases can be brought forward on the same issue (reducing forum shopping) or requiring stronger standing requirements for plaintiffs could mitigate unnecessary or partisan-driven lawsuits.

Primer on Impeaching a Federal Judge

Impeaching a federal judge in the United States is a serious and complex process that requires specific grounds. According to the U.S. Constitution, federal judges can be impeached for committing “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This term is somewhat broad, but it generally includes the following grounds:

  1. Criminal Conduct: A federal judge may be impeached for engaging in illegal activities, such as bribery, fraud, perjury, or other criminal acts that undermine the integrity of the judicial system.

  2. Corruption: Judges can be impeached if they engage in acts of corruption, including accepting bribes or other forms of improper influence that affect their impartiality or decision-making.

  3. Abuse of Power: This includes a judge using their position to exercise authority in an unlawful or excessively partisan manner, such as ruling in favor of personal interests or to the detriment of justice.

  4. Misconduct or Ethical Violations: Serious breaches of judicial ethics, such as prejudice or bias in rulings, discriminatory behavior, or gross violations of professional conduct, can form the basis for impeachment.

  5. Gross Incompetence or Failure to Perform Duties: Judges who are grossly incompetent or fail to perform their duties effectively may be impeached. This can include consistent failure to deliver timely rulings or other forms of neglect.

  6. Impairment or Disability: In some cases, if a judge becomes mentally or physically impaired to the point of being unable to perform their judicial duties, this can be grounds for impeachment, although other legal procedures like medical retirement might also address it.

The Impeachment Process

Impeachment of a federal judge follows the same basic process as that for a President or other federal officials:

  1. House of Representatives: Impeachment begins with the House of Representatives, which must approve articles of impeachment (by a simple majority vote).
  2. Senate Trial: If the House votes to impeach, the process moves to the Senate, where a trial is held. The Senate serves as the jury, and the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court presides over the trial if the impeachment involves the President, but a senior senator would preside if a judge is impeached.
  3. Conviction and Removal: To remove the judge from office, a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required to convict the judge.

While impeachment is rare, it has occurred a few times in U.S. history, demonstrating that these proceedings are typically reserved for serious violations of the public trust.

Since Congress created the federal court system, Congress has the power to reform the rules, which creates an artificial imbalance of power in our legal system.

The framework for the federal judiciary, established by Article III of the U.S. Constitution, drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788, provides the structure and authority for the judicial branch of the U.S. government, outlining the powers and duties of the federal courts.

More specifically, Section 1 establishes the judicial branch and vests the “judicial power” of the United States in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. While the Constitution established the structure of the federal judiciary, the Judiciary Act of 1789 implemented the specifics and set up the federal court system in practice.

The Act’s provisions also created 13 district courts (one for each state at the time) and 3 circuit courts, which were designed to handle cases in smaller regions before they were appealed to the Supreme Court, along with defining the jurisdiction of the courts, the process for selecting federal judges, and other aspects such as the structure of the court system.

As of 2024, the United States has 94 federal district courts. These courts serve as the general trial courts of the federal system.

The issue is that a district judge may issue a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) or injunction to block a federal regulation, executive order, or practice that affects people across the country, especially when the issue involves constitutional rights or federal policy. The matter stands until it is nullified by the issuing judge or reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, the most serious cases are handled by the manifestly corrupt D.C. Circuit, which handles cases related to federal administrative agencies, among other matters.

Bottom line….

I am positive that when our Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution and created co-equal branches of government, they did not anticipate Congress creating an all-powerful federal judiciary that could defeat the will of the people, albeit temporarily, based on one man’s rulings have seen the politicians, especially the progressive communist democrats, weaponize our justice system and the effects of lawfare. 

The balance between the branches of government is critical for a thriving democracy. The current concentration of power in the hands of federal judges can skew this balance, threatening to undermine the principles of democratic representation. By enacting reforms to limit the power of rogue judges, introduce term limits, strengthen accountability, and streamline litigation, the United States can ensure that the judicial branch serves its constitutional role without becoming an unchecked force for partisan activism.

Ultimately, the antidotes to rogue judges and over-litigating partisan rules lie in restoring a system where elected officials and voters maintain greater control over the political process. Only then can we achieve a system of governance that genuinely reflects the will of the people.

As of now, we are so screwed as the Judiciary usurps the role of Congress, much like a lazy and corrupt Congress has ceded lawmaking to federal agencies in the Executive Branch.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


YOUR FUNNY FOR TODAY...

Behar1

To describe Whoopi Goldberg as an intellectual thought leader, Joy Behar as a comedian, or individuals on "The View" as possessing common sense is to ignore reality.

In a classic self-own, the harridans on "The View" told their increasingly vanishing audience, "Harris could have won if we could regulate social media."

That's it, you stupid bitches; the way to win a free and open election is to impose authoritarian, regime-top-down censorship, which suppresses free speech and debate.

Right! It's the rogue corporations and Elon Musk that is the real problem.

Why this program is under the banner of ABC's "News Division" is beyond belief.

Kermit Fartingcows Trump Last

We are so screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


KWANZAA: THE KOMMUNIST KRISTMAS BASED ON MARXIST IDENTITY POLITICS

KWANZAA-KROCK

Based on Marxist identity politics, Kwanzaa is a week-long celebration from December 26 to January 1 each year.

Kwanzaa was artificially created in 1966 by Maulana “Ron” Karenga (born Ronald McKinley Everett), a militant communist associated with the black power movement of the 1960s and 1970s and posing as an African American scholar and activist.

Kwanzaa, emphasizing black cultural identity, racial pride, and self-sufficiency, was always about empowering certain black leaders, fundraising, and building political coalitions based on racial grievances.

Karenga was involved in a horrendous criminal episode involving the torture of two women stemming from his authoritarian leadership role in the Black Nationalist group known as the “US Organization.”

Ron Karenga is another nasty dude with top-notch academic credentials…

In 1971, two women who were members of Karenga’s “US Organization” became involved in a dispute with him. According to reports, the women were accused of disloyalty to Karenga and the organization. The exact nature of their alleged offenses is disputed, but they were believed to have been accused of working with a rival faction or expressing dissent against Karenga’s leadership.

Karenga, in an apparent effort to assert control over his followers and discipline the women, reportedly ordered them to be tortured. They were held captive and subjected to severe physical abuse, which included being beaten, electrically shocked, and forced into painful and humiliating positions. The two women later reported the abuse to the authorities.

Karenga was arrested and charged with felony assault, including false imprisonment, assault with a deadly weapon, and torture. The case received significant media attention because of Karenga’s status as a prominent Black nationalist leader and the extreme nature of the allegations.

In 1975, Karenga was convicted on two felony counts of assault and torture and was sentenced to one to ten years in prison. He served about four years in prison before being released on parole in 1979.

While in prison, Karenga continued to study and write. After his release, he reintegrated into academic life, earning a position as a professor at UCLA in the Department of Africana Studies, a hotbed of radical communist activism. Over the years, Karenga has maintained his position as an influential intellectual and the founder of Kwanza with progressive communist democrats.

Bottom line…

Kwanzaa is an artificial creation and all about identity politics, the further division of America along racial lines, and the empowerment of radical authoritarian black leaders with unlimited power in their respective black communities.

For those who find inspiration in its teaching of self-reliance, remember this was the same message of the militant Black Panthers and mirrors the philosophy of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.

Worship what you want, but it is time to put aside the hyphenated American and concentrate on being Americans in an exceptional America.

Until then, we are screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


MERRY CHRISTMAS 2024

To all my readers…  Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! 

I'd like to take this opportunity to wish you and your loved ones the very best for the coming Holiday Season.

To everyone else…  

Please accept with no obligation, expressed or implied, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2023, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. This is, of course, neither to suggest nor imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country; also, this is not to imply that "America," as noted herein, is the only America in the Western Hemisphere. May these heartfelt wishes be received with equal intensity regardless of distribution of individual wealth, documented carbon footprint, or perceived social privilege among the wishes addressed herein. This wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, or sexual preference of the wish.

Enjoy!

Happy Holidays...

Let us, for a moment, forget the political and financial catastrophes that have befallen our nation and concentrate on family and friends.

And most importantly, let us not forget those who have protected our nation and who stand watch over our celebration.

ArmedServices-MIA

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL

Happy-holidays
For my best friend Al, who insists on a happy blog post...  

Oh, what a day, so bright and blue,
The squirrels are singing, how about you?
The clouds are dancing in a huddle,
And the raccoons are wearing hats to cuddle.

I found a sock that’s full of cheese,
It squeaked at me—oh, such a tease!
The moon is wearing purple shoes,
And all the fishes sing the blues!

I met a toaster in the park,
It told me jokes till it was dark.
The butter smiled and waved goodbye,
As a flying sandwich zoomed on by.

So here’s my blog, as sweet as pie,
With singing hats and a butterfly.
Don’t think too hard, just let it flow,
For happy nonsense is the way to go!

 

Have a safe and healthy holiday season.


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL MODEL: LAZY, EFFICIENT, OR DANGEROUS?

Judge

There is no question that Florida’s judicial model is somewhat unique, but the question remains: is it based on laziness, and can it be dangerous?

Florida’s judicial model, where judges sometimes ask parties to submit their own versions of rulings for signature, is relatively unusual in the United States but not entirely unique. While other states have practices that delegate some decision-making tasks to attorneys, the specific practice of judges relying heavily on party-drafted orders is more pronounced in Florida.

Some states may allow attorneys to draft proposed orders, especially in routine or uncontested matters, but it is less common for judges to sign these without significant review or modification. Florida’s model stands out due to how frequently this practice is employed, especially in civil and family law cases, and how often judges may sign the version submitted by one party rather than writing a comprehensive opinion themselves.

This practice is part of a broader trend in judicial systems across the U.S. for managing heavy caseloads. Still, the reliance on party-submitted rulings is more pronounced in Florida than in most other states.

There is no doubt that this is an unusual practice that has sparked both curiosity and controversy.

The Tradition Explained

In many states, a judge takes time to write their own opinion after hearing a case. This opinion, whether a ruling on a motion, a summary judgment, or a verdict, represents the judge’s independent assessment of the law, the facts, and the parties involved. However, in Florida, particularly in certain civil and family court cases, judges sometimes take a different approach. Rather than writing their own ruling, they ask the attorneys for each party to submit proposed orders or judgments.

Once these submissions are reviewed, the judge will choose one, usually without making significant changes. The order is then signed, filed, and becomes part of the public record. This practice can expedite the decision-making process and relieve judges from the burden of drafting lengthy opinions. Still, it has significant implications for the fairness and integrity of the judicial system.

The Case for Efficiency

Advocates of this practice argue that it improves efficiency in an often overloaded court system. Judges are busy professionals with heavy caseloads, and writing detailed opinions for every case can be time-consuming. By delegating the task of drafting orders to the attorneys, the judge can move through cases more quickly, which helps clear dockets and reduce the backlog many courts face.

Additionally, lawyers with specialized knowledge of the case at hand are often better equipped to draft orders that reflect the legal arguments and facts of the case. They have access to all the relevant documents, evidence, and legal precedents, which may allow them to craft rulings that are more precise than a judge might be able to on their own in a short time. This can lead to a more streamlined process, allowing the court to focus on resolving disputes rather than spending time drafting legal language.

Concerns Over Fairness and Accountability

However, this practice is not without its critics. One of the major concerns is that it undermines judicial accountability. Judges are appointed to their positions because they are trusted to make independent, impartial decisions based on their knowledge of the law. By relying on lawyers to write the rulings, the judge may appear to be abdicating their responsibility to apply the law fairly and thoughtfully. If a judge signs an order without carefully considering it, they may be leaving too much power in the hands of the attorneys, who may have an incentive to draft orders that favor their clients.

This process can also be especially problematic when there is a lack of transparency. While attorneys may submit their versions of the ruling with their arguments clearly outlined, there’s no guarantee that a judge will have thoroughly scrutinized every detail. If a judge signs an order written by one party’s lawyer without a deep understanding of the legal arguments, this could lead to biased or even legally flawed rulings.

The Potential Dangers

The most dangerous consequence of this practice is the potential for injustice.

If judges do not fully engage in the decision-making process and sign off on the motions drafted by attorneys, there’s a risk that the ruling might be based on an incomplete understanding of the law or the facts. Legal issues might be overlooked or misunderstood, leading to unfair rulings. This is especially concerning in complex cases or those involving vulnerable parties, where a judge’s expertise and careful analysis are critical to ensuring a just outcome.

The stakes are even higher in cases involving self-represented litigants or individuals with limited access to legal resources.

These parties may not have the same level of expertise as lawyers and could be disadvantaged if their lawyer-drafted motion is given preference over their arguments. The judge’s role should be to ensure that all parties are treated fairly. Still, if the judge relies too heavily on one side’s submission, it may inadvertently tip the scale of justice in favor of the more privileged party.

Will this practice expand to other states and destroy justice?

While the Florida judicial model of asking parties to submit their own versions of the ruling may have some benefits in terms of efficiency, it is not without grave risks for parties that lack the resources to research the law, examine the facts, and craft an elegant ruling that exhibits fairness over the paid advocacy of the issue.

Bottom line…

As we have seen in the various cases involving Donald Trump, essential questions about the role of judges in ensuring justice are unresolved as activist judges pervert the law and introduce their own partisan politics into the proceedings.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


NAVY SHOOT DOWN: IS IT REALLY "FRIENDLY FIRE?"

It’s a bitch when our Commander-in-Chief, President Joe Biden, has checked out, the Secretary of Defense, Lloyd J. Austin, is a liar and checked out for a week without anyone knowing, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Charles Brown, was a diversity promotion, and the White House National Security Communications Advisor, John Kirby, is a liar.

Two US Navy pilots shot down over Red Sea in ‘friendly fire’ incident

Two U.S. Navy pilots were shot down Sunday over the Red Sea in an apparent “friendly fire” incident, the U.S military said, marking the most serious incident to threaten troops in over a year of America targeting Yemen’s Houthi rebels.

Both pilots were recovered alive, with one suffering minor injuries, but the incident underlines just how dangerous the Red Sea corridor has become over the ongoing attacks on shipping by the Iranian-backed Houthis despite U.S. and European military coalitions patrolling the area.

The U.S. military had been conducting airstrikes targeting Yemen’s Houthi rebels at the time, though U.S. Central Command did not elaborate on what their mission was and did not immediately respond to questions from The Associated Press.

The F/A-18 shot down had just flown off the deck of the Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier, Central Command said. On Dec. 15, CENTCOM acknowledged the Truman had entered the Mideast, but hadn’t specified that the carrier — and its battle group — was in the Red Sea.

The guided missile cruiser USS Gettysburg, which is part of the USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group, mistakenly fired on and hit the F/A-18,” Central Command said in a statement.

From the military’s description, the aircraft shot down was a two-seat F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jet assigned to the “Red Rippers” of Strike Fighter Squadron 11 out of Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia.

It wasn’t immediately clear how the Gettysburg could mistake an F/A-18 for an enemy aircraft or missile, particularly as ships in a battle group remain linked by both radar and radio communication. <Source>

So, who can we believe?

The story is that one of our ships launched a missile that hit one of our fighters, despite IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) systems and countermeasures in an act of accidental friendly fire.

However, this is now being questioned. Was it an act of war that called for a significant retaliatory strike? Was action delayed because the President “was unavailable” and the puppeteers were afraid of scrutiny this close to Trump’s inauguration?

SHOOT-DOWN

Bottom line…

Who to trust?

The honest answer will lie in who the Navy holds responsible for the shootdown. Will they martyr the Captain of the USS Gettysburg? 

We are so screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


ANOTHER "TROJAN HORSE GOVERNMENT SURVEILANCE PACKAGE?"

SPIES1

A parting present from Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) and the deep state…

Senate Bill S. 5616: A bill to establish the Artificial Intelligence Safety Review Office in the Department of Commerce, and for other purposes.
Introduced on Dec 19, 2024

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to dramatically improve and transform our way of life, but also presents a spectrum of risks that could be harmful to the American public, some of which could have catastrophic effects. Extremely powerful frontier AI could be misused by foreign adversaries, terrorists, and less sophisticated bad actors to cause widespread harm and threaten U.S. national security. Experts from across the U.S. government, industry, and academia believe that advanced AI could one day enable or assist in the development of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and cyber weapons.
The Preserving American Dominance in Al Act would establish the Artificial Intelligence Safety Review Office, housed within the Department of Commerce. The Office would be responsible for working with frontier Al companies, large datacenters, and infrastructure-as-a-service providers (IaaS) to: (a) prevent exploitation of these industries by adversaries; and (b) ensure pre-deployment evaluations similar to CFIUS for the most advanced frontier Al models that pose chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and cyber risks.

Specifically, the bill would:

  • Establish the Artificial Intelligence Safety Review Office, led by a Senate-confirmed Under Secretary of Commerce for Artificial Intelligence Safety.
  • Direct the Office to:
    • Develop a take-home test for frontier Al model developers to evaluate their models for extreme risks prior to deployment;
    • Collaborate with the Al Safety Institute to provide industry with best practices and technical assistance; and
    • Study future Al-related risks and report findings to Congress.
  • Require the most advanced data centers that train the most advanced Al models to report the owner and location of the facility to the Office.
  • Protect industry from foreign adversarial actors by tasking IaaS providers to implement know-your-customer standards for transactions with foreign persons.
  • Safeguard frontier Al models from cyber breaches and intellectual property theft by requiring developers to implement cybersecurity standards.
  • Help frontier Al model developers identify red-teaming best practices to test for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or cyber risks.
  • Provide the Under Secretary a 90-day window to review a frontier Al model’s safeguards against chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and cyber risks.
  • Ensure a presumption of approval to prevent unnecessary roadblocks to deployment.
  • Establish penalties for developers that fail to comply with the Act.

Full text of the Preserving American Dominance in Al Act can be found here and a one-pager can be found here.

It’s all in the definitions., fine print, and rules and regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats.

IaaS Infrastructure as a Service is a cloud computing model that provides virtualized cloud computing resources over the internet.

Know-your-customer standards are the enabling legislation that allows private entities to intrusively investigate you and your business to compile profiles that are easily accessible to the government, specifically intelligence and law enforcement agencies, without a formal subpoena or showing of probable cause.

Know-your-customer standards are the stratagem that led to the de-banking and de-platforming of political organizations and dissident individuals that displeased the regime in power--and all without due process and means for redress. The very definition of fascistic behavior is a corporatist political system allowing for the regulatory capture of private industry by government entities.

We have seen past legislation requiring developers to implement cybersecurity standards, and it has proven ineffective in significant government and civilian cases. There are few protections from malignant actors with the keys to the digital kingdom who have been compromised, coerced, or have a malevolent intent.

Mentioning chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or cyber risks is a fear tactic. Nobody knows or can project how AI can impact chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or cyber risks beyond researching or answering questions about potential vulnerabilities.

Allow the government to examine all technology, possibly reinforcing the monopolies of existing government-compliant technology giants and stifling innovation by allowing corporatized theft of technological secrets without any cost-effective redress.

Penalties? This is the regime criminalizing unspecified behavior at their political whim. As we saw with the Obama and Biden Administrations, governments cannot be trusted not to weaponize their formidable forces against dissident organizations and regimes.

The Dangers of Eliminating Anonymity in the Cloud

As more individuals and businesses move their data and operations to the cloud, the issue of anonymity is becoming increasingly important. Removing anonymity can enhance security and accountability, but significant dangers must be considered.

  • Privacy Erosion: Anonymity in the cloud allows users to interact without revealing their personal identities. Without this layer of protection, sensitive data—like browsing history, online purchases, or personal communications—becomes vulnerable to surveillance. A loss of anonymity could lead to mass data collection by governments, corporations, or hackers, undermining personal privacy.

  • Freedom of Expression: The ability to communicate anonymously online is essential for free speech. In oppressive regimes, anonymity can be the only safeguard against retaliation for voicing dissent. Removing this protection can stifle political activism, whistleblowing, and sharing controversial ideas without fear of repercussion.

  • Increased Targeting by Malicious Actors: Eliminating anonymity can make individuals more susceptible to cyberattacks, harassment, or fraud. Cybercriminals often target identifiable individuals for identity theft, financial scams, or physical threats. Anonymity in the cloud offers a vital layer of protection against such risks.

  • Chilling Effect on Innovation: Anonymity encourages experimentation and sharing ideas without fear of personal or professional consequences. If users know they are constantly being tracked or identified, they may become more cautious, reducing innovation and creative collaboration in digital spaces.

Bottom line…

The Preserving American Dominance in AI Act of 2024 is a trojan horse, giving the government immeasurable new powers while purporting to be legislation aimed at addressing the intersection of national security concerns, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, and American leadership in the global AI race. 

Even if Executive and Congressional Oversight Mechanisms for oversight and accountability are included, with provisions for regular reviews by Congress and dedicated AI oversight bodies to ensure the law’s goals are being met, we have seen these activities stone-walled or subverted by malignant actors and committees such as the sham January  Committee.

Ask yourself if the government has prevented the theft of technology by our Communist Chinese enemies or overlooked the fact that they purchased significant political influence, including up to the level of the President of the United States.

This is legislation effectively targeting Americans, not our enemies.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS