Chad Perrin: SOB

2 June 2008

follow-up links: music and politics

Filed under: Miscellaneous — apotheon @ 04:49

I have some follow-up links to recent SOB entries of mine for you. Note that all music downloads are entirely legal.

I think that's enough for now.

4 Comments

  1. Style, wit, intelligence, content... you're firing on all cylinders here, Mr. Perrin. I wonder what motivated you toward the political in the first instance. In my own case it has to be genetic. Some of my earliest memories are of getting in the face of local politicians in my neighborhood in Rochester, New York, back in the mid 1960s.

    Speaking of politics, I cannot recommend enough a book authored by a now-90 year old friend of mine, titled "The CONstitution that Never Was." Stunning eye opener, there's no arguing the truths he's assembled. Think you have an open mind? This book is the ultimate test.

    I used his research to successfully defend myself (by my lonesome) all the way through the U S "supreme court." Read the book and you'll understand those quotes.

    Here's a quick start: how many "justices" are called for to populate the supreme court mentioned in the judicial article (article III) of the constitution? What were the first two acts of the new "constitutional" government? How does that second act jive with article V of the constitution? Speaking of which, when was the first supreme court seated and what's with the timing of that event?

    I don't see how anyone can understand politics without knowing the facts of the establishment of the system under which we apparently labor. This, and the fellow's next book he's about to complete are essential to the survival of liberty, in my humble opinion. Lemme gno if you're interested...

    Comment by cat — 3 June 2008 @ 09:37

  2. I wonder what motivated you toward the political in the first instance.

    I think that'd be a very long story. I might try to condense it into an SOB entry in the near future, though, now that you've inspired me somewhat to tell the story. Of course, part of telling it will be to figure it out.

    Speaking of politics, I cannot recommend enough a book authored by a now-90 year old friend of mine, titled "The CONstitution that Never Was." Stunning eye opener, there's no arguing the truths he's assembled. Think you have an open mind? This book is the ultimate test.

    I'll keep an eye out for it. Thanks for the recommendation.

    I used his research to successfully defend myself (by my lonesome) all the way through the U S "supreme court." Read the book and you'll understand those quotes.

    . . . and that is a heck of a recommendation. I'll see if it's in the local library system. I've got a couple books in the queue ahead of it, but if it's at the library, I'll definitely get to it. Otherwise, I'll have to do some more research to see how easily I can acquire the thing (such as on Amazon, et cetera).

    Here's a quick start: how many "justices" are called for to populate the supreme court mentioned in the judicial article (article III) of the constitution?

    I'm pretty sure that's a matter of statute, and not of Constitutional law. At least, that's how I recall the matter in relation to FDR's attempt to expand the court to stack it in favor of a judicial decision he wanted with regard to the New Deal.

    What were the first two acts of the new "constitutional" government? How does that second act jive with article V of the constitution?

    I seem to recall the Hamilton Tariff was one of them, and the other was some procedural stuff. I'm not sure how either one of them had anything to do with the process for amending the Constitution.

    Speaking of which, when was the first supreme court seated and what's with the timing of that event?

    Dunno, off the top of my head. I guess it's something to look up.

    I don't see how anyone can understand politics without knowing the facts of the establishment of the system under which we apparently labor. This, and the fellow's next book he's about to complete are essential to the survival of liberty, in my humble opinion. Lemme gno if you're interested...

    I'm certainly interested so far.

    Thanks for commenting.

    Comment by apotheon — 3 June 2008 @ 10:22

  3. Looking forward to the insight into your (much appreciated) motivation.

    The first act of the congress was to establish an oath of office for the legislative... oops. Could they legitimately pass any law absent an oath? No, they should have amended the constitution. A minor fix.

    The second act of the congress was the killer. They planned this from before the constitution itself was ratified, and made article III intentionally vague in order to get the constitution approved, that's a big chunk of this book. If they'd let their intentions be known in the constitution itself they would have been shot down.

    Instead, they got what they wanted in that second act; the First Judiciary Act. It altered the entire form of the new government, which should have been done by amendment. They (declared by themselves in their own "founding documents") had no authority to make such a massive change by mere legislation, thus the act violates the constitution at article V. The act contained more words than the entire constitution. And there is no doubt they were working on it behind the scenes while they were out selling the constitution.

    There were a lot of people besides Pat Henry that "smell(ed) a rat," but they had no recourse, there was no venue to challenge the "constitutionality" of the First Judiciary Act, or anything they were doing, because they intentionally left the "supreme court" vacant for a time.

    This author, Ralph Boryszewski, is thorough, to say the least. He still had some original hand written materials from some of the attendees of the "constitutional convention" when I first met him. He was loaned and/or given access to much material that nobody else has ever been able to use, a lot of stuff most people don't know even exists.

    There is no disputing his conclusions. For one, a "supreme court" created by legislation is not an "independent judiciary." Jefferson knew this but played politics with the SC anyway.

    In my aviation days I used to bump into all manner of movers and shakers. It takes a long time to be elevated to the position of trust that the pilot enjoys. I was chief pilot and director of ops, treated by politicians and executives like family. You would be stunned by the kind of information these people would let fly in my presence, assuming I was "one of us." I got to know senators, congress-critters, folks inside the permanent workings of goobermint, governors, and far more important folk like insurance company executives. I have a lot of stories needless to say, I've been quite blessed in this life.

    One of my favorite moments was when I had to make a split-second decision; whether or not to pee on Joe Biden's leg. Of course I decided against, but then with the thought bouncing in my head while we stood side by side at the urinals, it was all I could do to keep from busting out laughing. But I had a plan, it would have seemed an accident. Here's this huge, empty bathroom, there's a dozen urinals and I'm the only one in the room, but two 'agents,' ear piece, shades, the whole image come in and scope the place out, open the door and in strolls Biden. All the empty urinals and he has to walk right up to the one next to me. In an instant the thought of turning toward him, still in mid-stream, and feigning excitement over his celebrity comes to me; "Oh my GAWD!! Joe Biden!! I can't wait until my wife hears about this!!!"

    I would have been jumped by the two goons guarding the door, no doubt...

    BTW the best way to get the book is direct from Ralph. Tho I think the "Idaho Observer" sells it as well.

    Anyway, thanks for the invite. If I start to bug ya just say so, I have thick skin when it comes to politics. I know what I know, and realize absent their going through all the experiences I have, and replicating the near 10,000 hours of research I've engaged over the years, no one else really has a basis to understand or even believe me. Ces't la vie.

    Comment by cat — 3 June 2008 @ 12:06

  4. I love the Biden story.

    Keep on talking. So far, it's all interesting, and you have so far tended to give me more things to research and think about. That's a good thing, by the way.

    Comment by apotheon — 3 June 2008 @ 01:44

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

All original content Copyright Chad Perrin: Distributed under the terms of the Open Works License