Wake the F*** Up

Campus Reform

I love this site  CampusReform.org  Well, that's not quite right,  I find the site to be sort of depressing in a very insightful and informative way.    Do you know anyone getting ready to head off to college?  Parents with kids that they're about to turn over to the worlds most expensive indoctrination centers?

Make sure they take a look - it might save them a lot of money, and keep their kids from being committed to a mental health facility.

From the Weekly Roundup.

Emory student gov. approves ‘emergency funds’ for students ‘triggered’ by Trump chalkingsSo, if Trump is elected president, should we just go ahead and have the student body committed to a psychiatric institution?

Why wait? They're clearly going to need years of therapy and deprogramming before they become functional members of society. 

Trump maybe?

The one thing that keeps me thinking Trump might be a reasonable alternative is his ability to stifle the mainstream media.   He just doesn't care about what they think, or what they say.   Which is the ONLY way to deal with the relentless river of abuse they heap on anyone who challenges the Progressive Narrative.

You can't use logic because they dismiss facts as irrelevant.  The Progressive mechanism for coping with the never ending cognitive dissonance created by the huge difference between their world view and reality is to simply ignore reality.   They dismiss it without a second thought because thinking about it causes actual pain.   Watch some videos of Progressives talking about Trump's hate, and intolerance. They are a fascinating study in what psychologist call projection.

Israeli Agression

Israeli agression.   I'm hearing that term a lot.  It would seem that the left is in dire need of a dictionary.

Self Defense, is NOT aggression - it's response to aggression.   How do you know which is which.   The side that uses force first - is the aggressor.   I don't care if they're smaller, or not as well armed, or if they're losing - they're still the aggressor.  In this case that aggressor would be Hamas.

You'd think it takes a friggin Phd to figure this out but... Oh wait - these morons all have Phd's

Come to think of it - so do most of the liberal academia professors who are vocally anti-semeitc.  Hmm  Makes you think maybe more education just makes you less capable of logic - then again, with the left being so happy about common core - I suppose it must.

More States, better representation?

This article references a current attempt to split up California.   There has been a State of Jefferson movement for years, I’ve heard of plans for three states, this is the first I’ve heard of six.  

There is I think a need to re-evaluate the boundaries of several states as populations centralized in to fewer bigger cities.  Cities tend for a number of reasons to head down the path of Socialism - it never works, but they keep trying.  I’ve felt for a while now that Splitting eastern and western Washington, and Oregon would be beneficial to some extent.  The downsides need to be examined in some considerable detail before that happens.  As things stand, in WA there are seven counties around Puget Sound that control the fate of 39.  To say that most of counties outside the Puget area are getting represented by their government is either terribly ignorant or disingenuous.  California is much worse.   

While I don’t think the split will succeed - it might, things are bad -business are moving out as fast as they can, looking for tax relief and slightly less insane regulatory restrictions.  

You can tell that the plan was developed by a Silicon Vally type, they’ve taken the most expensive, and most financially powerful section of the state and spit it off on it’s own.   The upside, is that they will get to pay for their own social engineering experiments.  Sadly, it leaves one city to wag each state, except Jefferson, and wag them they will.  Bakersfield/Fresno are similar enough that they’ll act in concert, it’s possible that they’re small enough still to realize they’re only there because of the surrounding agriculture. Sadly, they’re going to be in a financial tight spot, yes, they can dump all of the Socialist crap, but they’re going to have a fight on their hands with illegal aliens. 

Jefferson would have opportunity to become the free state that a lot of people dream about.  They’ll have a hard start but with the right laws and tax structure, I could see a lot of companies moving in that direction.  They’ll just need to be careful about which they allow in. 

Ultimately, they may end up with more conservative (red) states than they think.  

Fire them all and start over.

It appears that our government has allowed the following:

Chinese Steal Plans to our newest Joint Strike Fighter, PAC-3 and lots of other highly classified military projects.

But don't worry, cause we're trading partners and they would never use that stuff against us.   Really?  we're that friggen incompetent?   They've hack our Power Grid, they steal everything we produce.

We've filled our National Defense technology with Counterfeit Chinese parts.

So  just what the hell are the following groups actually doing with their time?

Pentagon / Military Intel, FBI, NSA, CIA, Trusted Defense Contractors.   Apparently either having Sex with Chinese honeypots or Spying on U.S. Citizens because, why the hell would we want to keep people out of our National Security infrastructure? We're worried about who might want us to actually not violate our Oaths of Office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".    We don't have time to worry about the Chinese, or Islam.  We gotta protect our jobs!

Fuck!  - Fire everyone and start over.   And when I say Fire - I'm pretty sure I mean Firing Squad.   At least charges for Dereliction of Duty, Violations of National Security, Gross Malfeasance, and if I knew more about the law I'm sure I could come up with a few dozen pages of things.  

From the FBI's own Priority List

National Security Priorities:

1. Protect the United States from terrorist attack    FAIL

2. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage  EPIC FAIL
3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes  EPIC FAIL

Criminal Priorities

4. Combat public corruption at all levels  EPIC FAIL

5. Protect civil rights  EPIC FAIL

6. Combat transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises 

7. Combat major white-collar crime  EPIC FAIL

8. Combat significant violent crime   

A little experiment

I honestly don't think it would be possible, but it would be interesting.

I was talking to a few young men about politics, political systems, and why our system is broken only slightly less than the other systems.  What I'd like to see is a little experiment.  Let's split up the US and give each major faction an area of control.  Each area needs to have sea ports or access - canals under joint treaty, rivers, some way to allow sea based transport.

Let's give Southern California to the Progressives (state socialists/communists) mostly because they already have it.

Then we'll take WA, OR, Northern CA (above 40ºN), ID, MT, WY and create a new country with a much tighter Libertarian version of the Constitution and Bill of rights.  It needs to spell out that the Government can ONLY do what is allowed by the Constitution, if it's not spelled out in black and white - they don't get to even think about it.

Give Utah to the Mormons - since they already own most of it, plus a right of way down to the Gulf

Give Arizona and  New Mexico, and probably Nevada plus a corridor between Mexico and the Peoples Republic of California out to San Diego to the Re-conquistadors.
Give the Fly-over States to the Religious Right.
Give the North East to the Democrats. 
Give Michigan, Iowa, and Illinois to the Unions.
Leave the South as it is. 

Not sure what to do with Alaska or Hawaii, let them pick one?  Might have to give the Union State a bit more territory. 

Now, sit back and watch for about 50 years and see what happens.

I predict:

Southern CA will be absorbed into the Re-Conquistador State, after they go completely bankrupt - 10 years tops,  all the beach front and high end property will be reserved for the Party Elite. 

The Re-Conquistador State will be Socialist/Communist, have a very low GDP, high crime and corruption, and be essentially broke.   This will end up being a good example of a corrupt Democratic Socialist country.

The Union States (Michigan et al) will be the new standard for corrupt government.  They will essentially become a National Socialist state were all production is owned by the state.

The North East will be Socialist and essentially under the control of the U.N.

Texas will be Texas

The South will be the South, quite a bit like it is today.

Utah will be, well... Utah

The Fly-over states will be a Theocracy with the largest exports of grains in the world.   They will have a Heavily monitored and censored populace.   

The New North West will be the new center for space exploration, technology, and health care, munitions, and banking.  Have the lowest crime rate of any place on the planet out side of Singapore. The highest GDP in the world.   Mostly self sufficient, a foreign policy of - Leave us Alone and we won't smack you. 

- Just a guess.

The finest given on the floor of the Senate

Ron Paul gave what I believe is the finest political speech ever given.

-edit-

Actually that's a bit overstated - the delivery was not great, the content was exceptional. 

Stupidity on so many levels

First it's Mourdock's political suicide attempt suggesting that rape is all part of "God's Plan" 

Then my (I'm sorry to say) fellow Washingtonian; John Koster, slams both feet into his mouth, past his knees.  

It's just so stupid I can't let it go.   Neither of these individuals have ANY chance of having ANY effect on the issue, so why on earth would you shoot your big mouth off.   Oh sure there are a bunch of religious folks who might agree, but there's a lot of independents who don't.  

So, you shot off your big mouth to give a warm and fuzzy feeling to some people who were already going to vote for you and pissed off a lot of folks who were either undecided or leaning in your direction.  They are now looking for any possible alternative.  If either of these victims of verbal diarrhea where on my ballot I'd have voted for the other guy just on principle.

Normally I don't mention my preferences in this area because it's MOOT - as in DECIDED by the SCOTUS.  Past tense, done - get over it.   But I'll make an exception this time.

I'm not a fan of abortion as a means of birth control, but it's not my body - I can't get pregnant so I keep my frakking opinion to myself.   I do Absolutely believe it's a woman's RIGHT to make that decision for herself.   This is based on the apparently tired and trite view that we are not slaves to either government or society (regardless of how much they want us to be).    I'd prefer the woman choose a different option (like adoption) but again - It's not my body so it's none of my business.

What the hell is it with people that makes them think it's OK to push their beliefs on everyone else.

It's not really about that.

There are all sorts of proposals in the wake of EPS1 attack on Aurora.   There's one by Lautenberg and McCarthy that will supposedly make it harder for ciminals to anonymously purchase ammo on-line.   Bitter over at Shall Not Be Questioned has more info.

Normally I agree with those guys 99+%

This time I'm going to take exception; minor, but and exception.

It's not about Gun Control - it's about CONTROL.  They're not trying to control guns, or ammo, they're trying to control people.  That's what governments do - if you let them.   They eventually reach a point where they control every aspect of your life.   Every law is there as a means of controlling people.  If you control the people you win.  Granted it's a long term loosing proposition, but folks like Pelosi and Obama are incapable of seeing beyond they're own desires.  Hell most politicians are incapable of even realizing they're short sighted.

At times it seems like they do it because they think we're too stupid to make our own decisions. I've got to admit having elected Obama - they may have a point - a lot of people are apparently too stupid.  On the other hand, my internal Wookie says: "It's their life to screw up, we must allow them to make their own bad decisions."  Then the Objectivist voice in my head says - but they're inflicting their stupid decisions on me!

Sad but true - it's the way we let the system evolve.  The reality is worse I think.   They know if they tell the right lies, and scare people enough, the people will beg them to take control.  And they will, every chance we give them.  Doesn't matter if it's about Guns, or Finance, or Freedom of Speech.  They want to control it.

The laws aimed at guns are really just the most insidious of the lot, the ultimate goal is to remove our ability to defend ourselves, which makes us nothing more than another dependent of the system.

What's the difference between a progressive and an adolescent

The adolescent is looking forward to growing up and doing things on their own.  The progressive still wants their nanny.

Of Course They're Our Friends

So  Pakistan tribal courts just found the doctor guilty of treason.   On the upside if he were tried in Pakistan federal court, the penalty is death - this way he's just completely screwed for helping the world rid itself of Osama.   What message does that send?

Let's see:

• No charges against anyone harboring Bin Laden.
• The guy who helps locate him gets convicted of treason.   

Yeah they're fully onboard with antiterror agenda.


I really want to just walk away from them and let them reap what they sew - sadly much like our own elections this country - when the idiots get what they deserve, we rational few get to reap it too.

I think it's time to apply my standing rule on foreign governments - you NEVER get what you pay for, so stop giving them money, and we'll just have to take our lumps.

Dumb or Dumber

We're going to get one or the other.   Why? Well there's just not enough of us to elect Ron Paul (R) or Gary Johnson (L).  The GOP lackeys are going to Vote for who ever the RNC tells them to vote for - that'll be Mitt.  And the progressives will vote for BO.   Either way we'll get what they deserve for a government - possibly what we deserve for not beating the GOP into submission 30 years ago and turning them into the Small Government Party.   I suspect we failed not so much from a lack of trying (although there was a fair amount of that) but lack of foresight as to just how screwed up the GOP would become.  In my case it was an absolute refusal to vote anything but Libertarian - knowing full well I wasn't going to win - but I could sleep at night knowing I hadn't sold out to the GOP. 


Would Ron be better?  Yeah, not ideal but better - except he'd get little or no support from the GOP congress.  Which means he could fix Communist Czar problem that BO created.  He'll probably put us in to seclusion mode for foreign policy - in the short run, as long as we keep up HumInt funding that might not be tragic.  But congress is unlikely to do the rational stuff we want to see until his second term - after we've ousted the idiots that didn't get the message the first time around.   Gary Johnson would be my first pick but he'd be even less effective than Ron Paul for everything but Regulatory appointments (Very important), Supreme Court appointments (Critical), Foreign Policy (serious).   Getting congress to behave - Nah, since neither one is the official candidate for the BIG and BIGGER government parties, congress (except the TP'ers) will be as uncooperative as possible. 


Now Borepatch makes an interesting argument for voting for the unrestrained reign of National Democratic Socialist/Communist/NWO terror that Obama supporters seem to want (of course they're not going to much like what they get but they're convinced they want it and there's no changing their minds). 


I understand the logic - I really do, I'm just not sure we'll recover from what an unrestrained BO will do to us - we may not get another election without a fight (literally a fight as in with weapons).   Maybe I'm over reacting - maybe he'll just really screw things up so bad that the TEA Party gets a huge boost - which means a lot more congress-critters get the boot.    I don't think the Tea Party trusts  Mitt anymore than I do, and they really do want smaller government, controlled spending, and lower taxes so I don't think they'll give up. 


I absolutely agree that Mitt, if elected, will sway in which ever breeze seems most likely to blow him into a second term.   The trick then is to make sure that breeze is fairly strong - dumping every incumbent and putting in a TP'er or Libertarian candidate.  My preference would be any libertarian - and I don't agree with a lot of them but they all want a Small (tiny, damn near non-existant government) which is what I want.   What's the difference between a TP'er and Libertarian - TP'er are still a little to ... Not Democrats rather than even Libertarian Light.   Still a little too willing to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt.  If I think a TP'er has a shot where a Libertarian wouldn't I'd go for the TP'er. 


It will either be BO or MR, both are worst choice, but at least we have a small chance of steering the Mittwit as he sees what we do to congress bit by bit.  Right Now - I just don't know. Either go all in with Borepatch, or hope you draw to that inside straight.   It's either completely screwed or completely screwed only slower.  Me I'm going to vote my conscience, if that means doing a write-in for Gary Johnson - I'm OK with that.  

Really? It's not a Joke?

I'm pretty sure if I were a woman I'd be some kind of pissed off by The Life of Julia.   Are women really so mentally challenged, so incapable that they need the governments help with every step of their lives?    None of the women I've known and respected needed any of this help.   They all managed to make their own choices, pay their own bills, live their own lives.

Sad, apparently Obama thinks women of today just aren't capable of living life with out a nanny.

Occupy Confusion

This feels a little bit like putting my foot in my mouth - since I'm going to say some things that I might regret later. Oh well.

I keep thinking about the Occupy movement, trying to understand the message, the goal, the idea. I'm not a lot closer to getting it than I was when it started. - Actually, I understood the concept behind Occupy Wall Street just fine - it was the execution that was completely wrong. Since then it's gotten more confused and even less effective in delivering a message - well except perhaps - Lynch the 1%!

So far the Message seems to be:
Corporations are not People
Something about immigration
National Heath Care is broken
Rich people should pay more taxes
Greed is the root of all evil, therefore you should give us what we want because it's not fair for you to have it when we don't.
I just want to destroy stuff because.

Any sales trainer or marketing person will tell you, keep your message clear and simple. Apparently there are no marketing or sales people involved in the occupy movement. If there are other messages they're so lost in the noise I'm not seeing them.

So let's take a look at these messages one at a time.

Corporations are not People - True, they are a legal fiction that management hide behind so they can blame their actions on the Share Holders. I have more than a few problems with the legal fiction of the corporation. I understand the need to sell shares to capitalize, and the benefit to investing, that's the good side of a corporation. The bad side is the way they get used. The company builds a product they know is faulty, but they do it anyway because the potential profits outweigh the potential costs of lawsuits, and there is no personal liability - so why not. Small corporations operate in a fraudulent manner, file bankruptcy, fold up, and start over with a new name and the same criminal practices.

I much prefer the Limited Liability Partnership. At least in this case the major players are actually subject to the consequences of their actions.

If you look at companies like Exon, or JPMorgan, or BofA you can see the dark side of the corporation and they are far from the only examples. In the case of BofA it's so extreme I'm sort of surprised the asshats are still alive.

Something about immigration This has gotten way too emotional - if they are illegal - send them home. If they're not - then treat them as if they were citizens of the U.S.A. It's not that hard. Sure there are lots of ramifications. If you send the illegals home, it will have an impact of prices. If you don't send them home, you basically saying - It's OK to exploit them as cheap labor. If your saying make them all citizens, I'd ask who the hell is going to pay for it? And if you say - the government I'm going to smack you upside the head with a 2x4. California tried that - they're bankrupt.

National Heath Care is broken
Yep. Broken pretty much everywhere it's been tried, with the possible exception of Denmark, maybe Sweden - but I say that out of a profound ignorance, it might be just as bad there as say in England where it's going broke, and it takes months to have critical issues treated.

I have no idea how to fix this. Perhaps if our expectations weren't quite so high... A good portion of the problem lies with our legal system - which is broken beyond repair. Part of it is the sense of entitlement. I've yet to hear any solution that I think has a chance in hell of working.

- Well actually I have some vague notions that I need to think on - they probably won't work, but...

Rich people should pay more taxes
I think I'd like to revise this. How about a corporate business tax on salaries and bonuses (including stock or stock options) in excess of say, $500,000 a year. - Say a 1000% tax, be kind of hard to sell that $10,000,000 bonus to the shareholders wouldn't it :). If you own the company, or it's a limited partnership, no extra tax - because it's YOUR company, not the shareholders. (yeah that's my anti corporate economy thing showing itself - but I really do think the thing that ruins the free market is government intervention and creating a legal fiction like the corporation is definitely interference.)

Greed is the root of all evil, therefore you should give us what we want because it's not fair for you to have it when we don't.
Blah Blah Blah - you want it - go work for it. Greed is a basic part of human nature - yeah it can be controlled, and if you believe in enlightened self interest, you probably do control it to a major extent. But that does not entitle anyone to the fruits of your labor. We had a word for people who's labor was exploited for the benefit of others - I think it was Slave.

I just want to destroy stuff because.
Classify them as looters and shoot them on sight. (Too harsh?)

Yes, I think the economy sucks, yes I think members of the 1% profited from creating the situation that made it possible. Yes I think the 1% profited again from their influence in government. No I don't think the changes made have been very effective, why would you expect them to be? It's not in the governments best interest to piss off their biggest donors - getting reelected (the only real concern of elected officials), is mostly a money thing, voters opinions are much to fickle and easy to change with sufficient funds.

So, one of the reasons I don't like the Occupy movement is the lack of a clear message, it seems to be a case of mass whining with no articulation. The other reason I don't like it is how they behave when they get together - it's the kind of thing I'd expect to see from a similarly sized group of baboons.

I think a more effective approach would be to focus on one company at a time, and have everyone purchase as many shares as possible - then go VOTE at the shareholders meetings. Vote for ethical behavior, reasonable salaries, Elect a board of directors with a conscience - then move on to the next company - sooner or later they'd get the idea. (Yeah I know, takes too long, too much dedication to principle, a clear goal.....)

- Posted from the pad

I'm confused

The "demonstration" in Seattle is reported to have a group of black clad anarchist  - which seems to be a fairly standard tactic for these demonstrations - same thing happened back in 99 WTO conference.

So here's where I'm confused,   The Occupy movement seems to want bigger government - you know to put the screws to that greedy 1%  And yet they have Anarchists?   WTF?   These people aren't looking to have a form of government that has no monopoly on the use of force, or ability to apply force - they're looking for the Government to coerce the wealthy in to giving up their wealth (at least that's my take on it).

Is it the media that's getting this wrong?   Apparently it's happened in Cleveland -  a plot to blow up a bridge, again Anarchists and Anti-business - which I guess in this case means National Socialist rather than anarchits?  I think they use the term unadvisedly - perhaps they should stick with criminal.   It's sort of like Terrorist - at this point Terrorist really doesn't mean anything because it means pretty much anyone for any reason that someone else doesn't approve of.

My definition of Terrorist?  A person or group with a shared ideology, involved in or plotting violence against civilian targets for the purpose of causing harm and fear, with the idea that this will somehow prove beneficial to the terrorist in the long run.    So maybe these kids in Cleveland could be classified as terrorists but it would require that they have some goal other than just blowing shit up.  I doubt any of them are bright enough to have a long range goal.

Part of the problem is the Left seems to like to appropriate words and change the meanings - For example if this were the late 1800's and into the mid 1900's I'd be a Liberal - and a liberal would be a progressive (see they grabbed progressive because it sounds good, and used it for their own agenda).   Go read The Road to Surfdom by F.A. Hayek   He was there and explains it better than I do.

Student Loans

So there's Obama, talking up discount student loans to collage kids as if ANYONE was going to tank them in an election year - yeah sure.    Never mentioned just how beek the job market is for them - so how exactly are they going to pay those loans that are going to cost us something like 6 billion a year.

Obama's take?

"Anybody here can afford to pay an extra thousand dollars right now?" Obama asked to jeers from the crowd. "I don't think so."


OK, so don't spend the money?  NO - print some more money and we'll all pay extra for it later - much better. 

Splain it to me Lucy

How the hell did gas prices become a Presidential race issue?

Unless we're going to nationalize the oil companies, and give up foreign oil all together, how does anyone begin to think the President is going to lower gas prices?     There is NO historical precedent for the idea - it's a WORLD oil economy, we don't get to make anywhere near enough of the decision to radically lower prices.   Even if opening new drilling would lower the price (which it won't), it sure won't happen just because we said - yeah go ahead and drill - it takes time to bring that production on-line and have any effect on the U.S. production levels.

Frankly I'm in favor of opening ANWR and I'm more or less a environmental supporter - I like wilderness, I like parks, I like clean water, and clean air and I'm willing to pay for them.    The negative ANWR arguments are bogus from one end to the other - the wildlife take advantage of pipelines as access to feed during the winters, as a means of making travel easer - they don't care about the pipes.    Why the hell would anyone talk about running a pipeline from ANWR across Alaska to the south - when you can run a MUCH shorter one to Prudhoe Bay?  you wouldn't.  

We keep talking about dependance on foreign oil - but not doing anything about it.   Like most issues that are serious - we make noise and do nothing.

Constitution - we don't need no stinking Constitution

At least that's what Obama seems to think - Warning the Supreme Court - no arrogance there...    Just absolute distain for the Constitution.

Voting Depression

I generally vote for whom ever I think represents my views the best - usually it's not a (D) or (R).   I rebel against the idea of voting for a Republican just to keep a Democrat out of office, or vice-versa.   So here I am feeling sick to my stomach because I can't in good conscience do something that might lead to Obama getting re-elected.   He and his people are trying to bury the Constitution.   They despise gun owners.  And I believe their policies are going going to destroy our economy.   I will grant that he started off with a next to impossible situation that I believe started with Clinton (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) and was made considerably worse by the ill advised war waged by Bush - Oh and the IDIOT tax breaks they passed.   There was that brief moment when we had a surplus (OK Not really - but based on the fantasy accounting used by the government).  We could have used that to pay down the National Debt - you know the same thing they keep telling all of us to do - pay down your debt....


Nope Bush decides to give it back to the rich folk - oh sure the rest of us got a tiny bit too - then he goes and starts a massively expensive war and yep - cuts taxes again.   Now don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of Taxes.     At the very least taxes give government types the idea that they have money to spend.   They don't - they spent it all a long time ago.   


OK enough history.    So here I am faced with Voting my Conscience (my usual choice assuming there's anyone at all on the ballot that fits that bill) and voting against Obama - it Damn it to Hell - they stuck me with MITT.  None of the four contenders where really worth a damn to begin with.   I really like about 60% of Ron Paul - the rest is.... not good.   Santorum scares me - he's a big government type - no real track record for protecting the Constitution and he believes some people have the right to tell other people what's right and wrong - despite what the courts have said.    Not interested in living in a Theocracy - thanks Rick.   Newt - well, at least I have an idea what to expect from him - more of the SAME.  but I don't think he'd trample our rights as fast as Rick or Mitt.  And I don't think he'd get us into the same problems with our allies that Ron would.


So now - after all the preaching I've done about not voting for a Republican or a Democrat - I'm thinking I'll have to vote for one - and it SUCKS. 


George was right - the two party system is a bad idea.

     I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
     This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
     The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

(George Washingtons Farewell Address)