Manchin Deflates Democrats’ Hopes of Changing Filibuster, Passing Election Bills
West Virginia senator says changes to Senate procedures should include Republicans’ support
By Siobhan Hughes
And:
At This Point, Joe Manchin Is Just Torturing Senate Democrats With his Latest Remarks
By Matt Vespa
++++++++++++++
Can psychopaths be prevented from obtaining power?
Is there a way to prevent psychopaths from getting into positions of power?
By Brandon Smith
Despite a growing resurgence of interest in the science and psychology of narcissistic sociopaths and psychopaths, it seems as though society today has lost track of how these people can sabotage the very foundational fabric of a civilization or nation.
It is very easy to hyper focus on collectivist ideologies as the source of our problems and forget that these ideologies do not function in a vacuum; they cannot wreak havoc by themselves, they need psychopathic people directing them to do real damage.
There is something about collectivism that lends itself to projection and hypocrisy. I suppose when your ideology becomes your religion, it's easy to turn into a zealot. And while zealots find power in their single-mindedness and their cultism, they also tend to lack any self-awareness.
They literally go insane with devotion to their cause to the point that they lose track of whether or not their cause is fair and just. Their behavior becomes increasingly erratic and disjointed, and every person they run into who does not share their views is immediately seen as a traitorous enemy that needs to be exposed or destroyed.
To outsiders looking in, zealots are an endless source of comedy. You can't help but laugh because their ticks and cricks and outbursts are nonsensical and absurd. As long as they don't have any real power, these people act as a reminder of what happens when human beings abandon reason for madness. They are frightening, but they serve the purposes of entertainment as well as keeping the rest of us grounded. When they do gain power, however, that's when things stop being funny.
Civilizations throughout history have consistently dealt with the problem of zealots, but the greater threat is the existence of narcissists and psychopaths sneaking into positions of authority and encouraging zealotry among the masses. Generally, psychopaths are seen as an anomaly that is quickly identified and shunned in order to prevent them from climbing too high up the ladder of social influence. The problem is they are not as rare as one might hope and many of them have the ability to hide among the herd.
Around 1 percent of any given population is made up of psychopaths while another 1 percent are sociopaths. Around 5 percent are identified as having narcissistic traits. Narcissists are self-absorbed and view themselves as superior to everyone else. They believe they are entitled to adoration and authority. Sociopaths have an inability to feel empathy for others and this makes them impractical as leaders. Psychopaths also exhibit a lack of empathy and superiority but also have a propensity for emotional or physical violence. They take joy in the suffering of others and make up a large percentage of violent crimes.
Even though psychopaths are 1 percent of the population, they make up 15 percent to 25 percent of those incarcerated in prisons. The drag they exert on society cannot be overstated.
There is definitely some overlap among the various types, but in general, close to 10 percent of human beings exhibit dangerous and mostly inherent psychological malfunctions that are often not treatable. Think about that for a moment. Ten out of every 100 people are ticking time bombs waiting to make life miserable for the rest of us.
Dump Gold, Buy Bitcoin
It's a controversial call. But former Wall Street VP and hedge fund manager Teeka Tiwari said he "no longer expects gold to adequately protect your wealth against the money printing happening right now." But this is about more than just one coin... A new class of cryptos is on the rise, Teeka says. Coins he believes could do MUCH better than Bitcoin in the coming months. Even better... you can get the name of his next top crypto pick for free! Click here.
To be sure, some of them are still able to function in society. Sociopaths in particular can become valuable in fields where less empathy is required in order to accomplish certain tasks. They are particularly well suited as surgeons, EMTs, soldiers, firefighters and any other job where seeing other people in pain is not going to stop them from accomplishing their task. They don't necessarily take joy in seeing others harmed, but they aren't emotionally phased by it either. As long as they are never allowed into positions of influence over large groups of people, they can serve some good for the public.
History shows us that vetting and preventing psychologically broken individuals from slipping into institutions that offer power is not so easy. In fact, many monarchies and empires were built on systems that allowed psychopaths and narcissists to flourish because they relied on genetic succession. If a monarch had a son who was predisposed to psychopathy, it did not matter, that mad prince would one day become a king and there was little that could be done about it. There was no vetting process. Also, many such traits are passed on genetically, which means a power structure built on heredity could become progressively more destructive as psychopaths in royalty intermarry.
The creation of democracy and democratic republics was in part designed to help weed out aberrant individuals using open elections and the voting process. In other words, let the people scrutinize candidates and remove the crazies from circles of power. Unfortunately, this doesn't work too well if all the candidates are psychopaths, and the public has no real choice. Beyond that, psychopaths have also found ways to circumvent the political process and control it without participating in it.
The corporate world and financial institutions allow psychopaths to influence politics from behind the curtain, buying off candidates and their loyalty or vetting candidates and only allowing those with similar sociopathic, narcissistic and psychopathic habits through the selection process and into the political arena.
In tribal and smaller, low-tech societies, the ability to identify and root out psychologically broken individuals and prevent them from becoming leaders was easier. In the midst of vast empires and technocracy it is much simpler for psychopaths to hide among normal people and blend in. I usually compare invasive psychopaths to mythological vampires for this reason. I really can't think of a better analogy. They insinuate themselves into a population, take up positions of influence that protect them from suspicion, and then systematically bleed the town dry. This is what they do. It is in their nature, and they cannot be fixed, they can only be removed as a parasite is removed.
These people are the top threats to any given civilization. They are moderators of chaos, and they actively conspire to supplant free society. They are what I would call primary organized psychopathy and they do indeed work together for mutual gain, much like a pack of wolves. They represent the 1 percent of the 1 percent.
Modern society and social media have created even worse circumstances because now the greater psychopathic community is no longer isolated. That 1 percent that used to be mostly relegated to quiet corners and the fringes of humanity are now able to organize into aggressive mobs of hundreds of thousands, leading millions of lesser sociopaths and narcissists. This is creating a subculture of what I would call communal insanity. As the old saying goes, the patients are taking over the asylum.
We see this specifically with the political left and the open promotion of narcissism as an acceptable way of life. These are people that once felt powerless because they were shunned for their mental derangement. The thing is, they were originally shunned from influence for a very good reason; they are not psychologically equipped to handle any measure of power. Now they are being handed institutional control and they are being whipped into a frothing fervor. They see themselves as the underdogs and the "revolutionaries," but really, they are just emotionally stunted and handicapped and they were put in permanent timeout to protect the rest of humanity.
But how is this danger dealt with, not just in the short term but the longer term?
Our culture has to be fundamentally changed with psychopathy and other aberrant traits in mind. We can no longer ignore the effect these people have on humanity as a whole. The first step would require separation from movements and institutions that promote psychopathic and narcissistic behaviors. In other words, we need to return to a model of isolation for the psychopathically deranged instead of treating them as if they are some kind of victim status group that needs special attention.
As noted, in many cases, these characteristics are inherent (inborn) and cannot be treated. There is no "fixing" the problem because it is not so much an illness as it is a completely different psychological structure. They might as well be a different species, and a predatory one at that. There is no mutual coexistence with them.
Candidates for positions of authority would have to be screened for psychopathy, narcissism and sociopathy. If they have too many of the warning signs, then they should not be allowed to pursue those jobs. This is the only answer beyond fundamentally changing the way our election system functions, which I'm not necessarily opposed to either. A random lottery system for government jobs along with strict term limits (not just for normal political positions but also in bureaucratic positions) would be far better than what we have now. I would rather risk the possibility of less qualified people being randomly chosen for government than have a system that attracts a concentrated culture of malicious parasites.
What better way to discourage psychopaths than to take away any long-term benefits of working in government? What better way to disrupt the influence of corporate elitists than to take away their ability to finance or choose the candidates that end up in office? And even if they were able to buy off some officials, with term limits they would have to start over and over again with the latest crop of new officials.
Some will of course point out that changing the system tomorrow will require getting rid of the psychopaths that run it today. I agree, it's a dilemma. Sadly, once psychopaths become organized and entrenched, history tells us they will not be moved without the force of violence. They don't care about protests, they are not moved by reason or logic, they don't care about the suffering of the masses, and they will always see themselves as the rightful rulers of us "lesser" peasants.
They derive supremacy from the mobs of the stunted that they lead and exploit; that 10 percent of the population that when organized becomes an army of raging mad hatters hungry for scraps from the table of power. We can and should continue to separate from the collectivist mob and the zealots, but all psychopaths view separation as defiance and will try to interfere. Eventually, there's going to be a fight.
+++++++++++++++++
Is it possible Biden becomes so unpopular he is re-elected by sympathy vote as his low goes to new high?
Overturning the Next Election
If the concern is stealing the Presidency, fix the Electoral Count Act.
By Editorial Board
The anniversary of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot is Washington’s theme of the week, and waves of righteous anger will roll across the Mall. We agree the riot was disgraceful, but then why not rewrite the law that encouraged Donald Trump’s supporters to think Congress could overturn the 2020 election?
We’re referring to the Electoral Count Act, the ambiguous 19th-century statute that purports to allow for a majority of Congress to disqualify a state’s electors after the Electoral College has voted. Congress’s certification of presidential election results should be a technicality, but Mr. Trump misled supporters into believing Vice President Mike Pence and Congress could overturn Joe Biden’s victory, leading to the Jan. 6 march on the Capitol.
The effort wasn’t close to succeeding, with only eight Senators objecting to the results in any states, though 139 Republicans did in the House. No Senators voted to object to enough states to deprive President Biden of the 270 electoral votes he needed to win. Presiding over the Senate, Mr. Pence properly understood his limited constitutional role and resisted Mr. Trump’s pressure to intervene. He was one of the heroes of that day.
Still, Jan. 6 was the most significant abuse of the law to date and part of a growing trend. A smaller number of congressional Democrats used the Electoral Count Act to object to both of George W. Bush’s victories as well as Donald Trump’s in 2016.
The Electoral Count Act was an attempt to avoid the mess that followed the contested 1876 Hayes-Tilden election, but its ambiguous language has made it open to abuse. In these polarized times, both parties could use the law in the future as an excuse to attempt to overturn an election in the House and Senate.
Congress shouldn’t have even the appearance of this power. The Framers didn’t want the executive branch beholden to Congress, which is why they designed an Electoral College to elect the President. They gave state legislatures the power to certify electoral votes, as they do according to the popular vote count in each state. Though the Electoral Count Act has never been tested in court, in our view it is unconstitutional.
We first endorsed repealing the Electoral Count Act last Jan. 27, and we’re happy to see some others on the right have recently followed. Even Politico has finally noticed.
Democrats run both houses of Congress and they are in the best position to put the Electoral Count Act on the agenda. But they have preferred to press for partisan advantage through their various bills to overturn state election laws. Those bills would require breaking the Senate’s filibuster rule to pass, which seems unlikely. They’d also erode confidence in the electoral process.
But there would be Republican support for ending Congress’s increasingly destabilizing role in presidential elections. Seven conservative GOP Representatives wrote in a Jan. 3 statement last year: “The text of the United States Constitution . . . is clear” that “Congress has one job here: to count electoral votes that have in fact been cast by any state, as designated by those authorized to do so under state law.”
New statutory language could clarify that once legal challenges are over and the Electoral College votes, Congress can’t change the outcome. Disputes in the states would be settled in the states with the judiciary as the best forum to adjudicate. This is what happened in Florida in 2000 in Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court would probably have intervened in 2020 as well, if there had been competing slates of state electors.
Rewriting or repealing the Electoral Count Act leaves neither party with a partisan advantage. Now is also a good time to pass such legislation, since no one knows who will control each chamber of Congress in 2025.
Democrats keep saying Jan. 6 must never happen again, but their main goal seems to be to use the memory of that day against Republicans in 2022. If they’re honest about “never again,” they’ll grab the Electoral Count Act issue. Or Republicans could turn the electoral tables on Democrats by grabbing it first. If Congress does nothing, Americans are likely to conclude that Jan. 6 has become one more political prop for partisan gain.
+++
Disapproval of Biden Hits New High
By James Freeman
President Joe Biden’s popularity in the early months of his term proved to be transitory. Now surging inflation is among the reasons that more voters are expressing disapproval than at any point in his presidency. Adding ingratitude to injury, the progressive activists Mr. Biden has been indulging since the moment he took office are now talking about canceling him before the 2024 general election.
No wonder Senate Democrats want to talk so much about the last days of the Trump presidency. There’s precious little for them to celebrate about the current one. Nearly 54% of Americans express disapproval of the job Mr. Biden is doing in the Oval Office—a new high for his term in the RealClearPolitics average of public opinion polls. Meanwhile just 42.3% of Americans approve of the president’s work.
This column will offer the usual caveat that polling is not an exact science, if it’s even a science. But the bad Biden news across the survey landscape has to concern partisan Democrats.
Thomas Franck reports on the latest CNBC/Change Research poll, which finds 56% of respondents disapproving of Mr. Biden:
Frustrations over the economy are the main culprit behind Biden’s flagging popularity as nearly every demographic declared it their No. 1 issue.
The economy was the top priority for men and women, every age cohort, Latino and white voters, and those with and without college educations. Black respondents, who named racism their chief priority, said the economy takes second place.
Sixty percent of the survey’s 1,895 respondents said they disapprove of Biden’s handling of the economy, marking a six-point decline in approval from September.
On personal economic issues, voters are even more likely to criticize the president. Some 72% disapprove of his handling of the price of everyday goods, while 66% disapprove of his efforts to help their wallets.
Even more ominous for Mr. Biden—and the congressional Democrats who will face voters in November—few respondents see inflation as transitory or offset by wage increases. According to Mr. Franck:
Some 84% of those surveyed said the prices they see for everyday goods are higher than they were a year ago, while just 19% report earning more income over the same period. And only 23% say they believe inflation is starting to come down or will begin to decline soon.
Susan Page reports similar findings in the latest Biden survey from USA Today:
His job approval rating in the poll is 40% approve vs. 54% who disapprove, a slight improvement from the 38% approval rating he had in the November poll but still lower than any other modern president at this point in his term except for Donald Trump.
This may be one reason: By 62%-33%, those surveyed say Biden isn’t a strong leader...
What worries Americans about the economy? It’s not even close. By 3-1, 71%-24%, those surveyed are concerned more about inflation than jobs.
Speaking of weak leadership, the president is now meekly accepting the latest effort by the left wing of his party to trash the rules of his beloved Senate in an effort to seize partisan advantage via a federal takeover of election law. This follows his indulgence of the long, unsuccessful 2021 effort to enact trillions of dollars of progressive priorities via a partisan reconciliation process.
Yet the activists who should be his steadfast allies after a year of offensive federal overreach are now openly turning on Mr. Biden. Holly Otterbein notes in Politico that “liberals are talking about treating him like former President Jimmy Carter. .. and mapping out a Democratic primary challenge in 2024.” She reports:
“Will there be a progressive challenger? Yes,” said Jeff Weaver, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ former presidential campaign manager.
Weaver stresses that he is not advocating for such a primary campaign. But the chatter about a left-wing challenge to Biden, which was virtually nonexistent weeks ago, has suddenly burst into public view in the wake of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) killing the president’s climate and social spending bill.
“He’s deeply unpopular. He’s old as [expletive]. He’s largely been ineffective, unless we’re counting judges or whatever the hell inside-baseball scorecard we’re using. And I think he’ll probably get demolished in the midterms,” said Corbin Trent, co-founder of the progressive No Excuses PAC and former communications director for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). “People will smell opportunity, and D.C. is filled with people who want to be president.”
++++++
Not sure I agree the actions/comparisons are comparable. One was against property and public commerce. The other was against government and the election process. Both tragic and not the way to respond.
| ||
Jan 4 Abedaleyla Almaala Why did Abdullah II not receive the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia when he visited Jordan yesterday, Monday 3-1 2022? Abdullah II under house arrest Why Jordanian media publish old news about Abdullah II. Abdullah II congratulates the new German chancellor today, and he became chancellor for nearly a month. Abdullah II is still under house arrest History repeats itself in Jordanian history |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As if they ever did.
Iran's "Nuclear Blackmail": Iran Has No Interest in Negotiating a New Nuclear Deal
by Con Coughlin
++++++++++++++
SOROS scores again. Anarchy is his goal!
Soros-linked Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg: No Incarceration Except for Homicide and a Few Other Cases
By JOEL B. POLLAK(Breitbart News)
Newly-installed Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg instructed staff on Monday that his office will not seek pre-trial detention or prison sentences for crimes other than homicide, public corruption, and a few other exceptional cases.
In a memorandum obtained(LINK) by the local CBS News outlet, Bragg declared:
Growing up in Harlem in the 1980s, I saw every side of the criminal justice system from a young age. Before I was 21 years old, I had a gun pointed at me six times: three by police officers and three by people who were not police officers. I had a knife to my neck, a semi-automatic gun to my head, and a homicide victim on my doorstep. In my adult life, I have posted bail for family, answered the knock of the warrant squad on my door in the early morning, and watched the challenges of a loved one who was living with me after returning from incarceration. Late last year, during a stretch of multiple shootings within three blocks of my home, I had perhaps the most sobering experience of my life: seeing ––through the eyes of my children–– the aftermath of a shooting directly in front of our home, as we walked together past yellow crime scene tape, seemingly countless shell casings, and a gun, just to get home.
In large part because of these experiences, I have dedicated my career to the inextricably linked goals of safety and fairness.
There is a presumption of pre-trial non-incarceration for every case except those with charges of homicide or the death of a victim, a class B violent felony in which a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument causes serious physical injury, sex offenses in Article 130 of the Penal Law, domestic violence felonies or charges of PL § 215.50, public corruption, rackets, or major economic crimes, including any attempt to commit any such offense under Article 110 of the Penal Law. For any charge of attempt to cause serious physical injury with a dangerous instrument, ADAs must obtain the approval of an ECAB supervisor to seek pretrial detention.
The Office will not seek a carceral sentence other than for homicide or other cases involving the death of a victim, a class B violent felony in which a deadly weapon causes serious physical injury, domestic violence felonies, sex offenses in Article 130 of the Penal Law, public corruption, rackets, or major economic crimes, including any attempt to commit any such offense under Article 110 of the Penal Law, unless required by law. For any charge of attempt to cause serious physical injury with a dangerous instrument, ADAs must obtain the approval of an ECAB supervisor to seek a carceral sentence.
Prosecutors can only request incarceration in “extraordinary circumstances” and must first receive approval from a supervisor.
Bragg was elected in November 2021 with indirect backing from left-wing billionaire George Soros, who gave $1 million to the Color of Change PAC, which spent to elect Bragg.
“Soros also donated $1 million to Alvin Bragg’s successful DA campaign in Manhattan, funneling the cash through the Color of Change political action committee, according to public filings,” the New York Post reported.
Soros has spend millions in recent local prosecutorial elections, often backing left-wing radicals against incumbent or moderate Democrats. His involvement has coincided with a massive rise in violent crimes in Democrat-run cities.
New New York City Mayor Eric Adams took office Jan. 1, amid promises to stop the city’s ongoing crime surge.
But Bragg, who won a staggering 83% of the vote, has other ideas about criminal justice, though the two campaigned together.
As Breitbart News noted last November:
Bragg ran a campaign centering around his pro-jailbreak agenda that seeks to end prosecutions for what he calls “minor offenses” such as marijuana misdemeanors, turnstile jumping, trespassing, driving with a suspended license, prostitution, resisting arrest for non-criminal offenses, and obstructing the work of the New York City Police Department.
Likewise, Bragg has said he will reduce “mass incarceration” by recommending no more than 20-year maximum prison sentences “absent exceptional circumstances.” Bragg, notably, plans to ensure jail release for all suspects accused of crimes in Manhattan except in homicide, assault with a deadly weapon, and felony sex crime cases.
In June, Bragg was linked to Soros after it was revealed that the far-left Color of Change PAC which endorsed his candidacy was receiving millions from the billionaire investor.
At the time, Soros had donated about $1 million to the Color of Change PAC which was spending their funds to drive up support in Manhattan for Bragg.
Numerous arrestees, some of them accused of violent crimes, were released in 2020 and 2021 in New York City as a result of state bail reforms. Some allegedly went on to commit crimes that shocked the public, such as an antisemitic attack(LINK) in Brooklyn.
The White House has refused on comment on the effect that Democrats’ “criminal justice reforms” have had at the state and local level in fueling a national crime wave.
Instead, Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki boasted Tuesday of the many executive actions that President Joe Biden had taken in 2021 to stop “gun violence,” without noting the contemporaneous rise in violent crime.
+++
Manhattan’s ‘progressive’ new DA Alvin Bragg just gave a green light for anarchy
By Bob McManus
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment