중앙일보 尹 “민주당 점조직 전체주의”, “운동권 자녀 끼리끼리 이권” 고강도 비판 윤석열 국민의힘 대선후보가 “운동권 족보의 자녀까지 다 끼리끼리 자리 나눠 먹고 이권 받아먹지 않냐”고 주장했다. 또 민주당을 “점조직 전체주의 정당”이라 저격했다. --->의심이 가지만, 윤석열의 발언은 어쨌든 시원하기도 하고 충격적이기도 하다 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 컴퓨터 프로그램 활용 분석 전문가의 대선부정 방지 최대 핵심 포인트. BJ톨 https://youtu.be/oMpr3fJ6V2Y -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (충격) 캐나다 백신강요에 맞서 데모한 사람들 은행계좌를 동결시킨 방법 눈작은남자 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11395932172 저기 기사에 자세히 나왔는데 간단히 요약하자면 캐나다 정부는 저 데모에 참가한 사람 전원을 "테러리스트"로 규정했고 캐나다 법에 따르면 "테러리스트"로 규정된 사람들은 군법으로 처단가능해서 계좌동결은 물론 전재산과 모든 시민권리를 정부가 몰수해도 합법이라고 발표함. 즉, 지금은 계좌동결만 시켰지만 정부가 맘만 먹으면 걍 모든 재산 다 몰수하고 테러리스트로 지정된사람들을 일반법이 아니라 "군법"으로 처단해서 평생 감옥에 보내버릴수 있다는 뜻.... 존나 미쳤노... ㅎㄷㄷ... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 서울신문 2026년 나랏빚 OECD 비기축통화국 3위… 韓 ‘부채대국’ 된다 IMF 세계경제전망 분석해 보니 채무비율 증가속도 비기축통화국 중 최고 5년 뒤 채무비율 70%… 7년 새 27%P 올라 신용등급 7계단 낮은 헝가리보다 많아져 韓, 세계적 재정긴축에도 확장재정 유지 저출산·고령화에 성장률 저하도 불가피 기축통화국보다 채무비율 낮게 유지해야 --->작년 기사인데, 같은 기사가 올해도 나왔다. 연합뉴스 "2026년 한국 국가부채 급증…OECD 非기축통화국 중 3위" 한국경제연구원, 재정건전성 분석…코로나 이후 재정 적자 지속 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 문화일보 풀뿌리 민주 선거에 ‘간선제’ 불지핀 정부 지방의원이 단체장 선출 특별법 추진 행안부, 주민동의시 도입 전제 기존 방식+3개案 중 선택 제시 학계 “32년 지방자치근간 훼손” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 조선일보 “정부가 방역 실패했는데, 책임은 왜 우리가 지나… 24시간 영업하겠다” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 조선일보 [단독] 김명수, 대법 재판연구관에 민노총 활동 전과자 채용 집회 질서유지선 치려던 경찰을 20m 끌고가 유죄 확정된 변호사 이재명 사건엔 무죄 탄원 서명도 대법서 노동사건 검토·보고 역할 법조계 “재판 공정성에 영향” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 매일신문 이재명 "자영업자·소상공인 신용대사면…코로나 빚 국가가 인수" --->허경영의 선거 공약을 보면 황당해서 웃음이 나오는데, 이죄명의 공약 역시 헛웃음이 나온다. 英더타임스 “한국 대선, 민주화 이후 35년 역사상 가장 역겨워” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 조선일보 ‘탈석탄’ 文정부 5년, 발전량은 7.2% 증가 탄소 줄인다고 했지만 되레 늘어 美·EU도 석탄 눈돌리는데… 우린 명분뿐인 “탈석탄 lmw0**** 탈원전 한다면서 온실가스 펑펑배출 석탄화력발전소 풀가동하고 전기생산도 제대로 못하는 중국제 태양광패널에 국민세금 나라빚으로 50조 쏟아붓고 멀쩡한 농지 염해피해 농지로 둔갑시켜 콘크리트 부어서 식량부족유발 풍력발전소 주변 어업활동금지 법과 원칙에 따라 철저하게 수사해서 관련자 싹다 감옥으로 보내야됨 miyu**** 원전은 없애고 석탄은 늘리고 코메디네 ㅋㅋㅋ ahnj**** 임기초 북한석탄 수입해온건 아닌지 하는 정황들 있었죠? 공해상에서 환적한 일들 북한국적 신분세탁한 배들이 한국에 들락날락한 정황들 탈원전하고 러시아 가스관 북한을 통해 에너지 수입하자는 희대의 개소리 그리고 전기도 중국통해 수입해오자고 지껄이던 특등머저리겸 삶은소대가리 문재인 정권이 지난 5년동안 대한민국을 에너지 볼모로 만드려 했던 이적행위들을 정권교체후 반드시 낱낱이 파헤쳐 그 죄를 물어야합니다 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 이재명 측근 이 사람 주목? 이봉규 티비 https://youtu.be/250-9UCaLCM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Money and Savings Are Not the Same Thing Frank Shostak Savings are about consumer goods production in excess of the consumption of these goods. Saving is not about money but about final consumer goods that support the lives and well-being of various individuals that are engaged in the various stages of production. It is not money that funds economic activity but the saved pool of consumer goods. The existence of money only facilitates the flow of savings. Any attempt to replace savings with money ends in an economic disaster. 저축이란 소비하고 남은 잉여 생산품이다. 저축은 화폐가 아니라, 다양한 생산의 단계에 종사하는 사람들의 생활과 복지를 유지해주는 최종 소비재를 가리킨다. 경제 활동에 자본을 공급해주는 건 돈이 아니라, 저축된 소비재들이다. (돈을 먹고 사용할 수는 없으니까) 만일 이런 저축을 화폐로 대체한다면 경제적 재앙이 닥칠 것이다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 정의롭지 않은 법률은 법이 아니다. 언론이 캐나다의 트럭운전사들의 항의는 불법이라고 매도하지만, 과거 블랙 라이브즈 매터BLM 데모는 명백히 격렬한 폭동을 평화적이라고 감쌌다. 정권이 적법성을 이용해 인간의 행동을 판단하는 이유는 그들이 바로 법의 제정자들이기 때문이다. 역사는 비도덕적이고 파괴적인 법률의 사례로 가득 차 있다. 노예제만 하더라도 역사의 대부분의 시기에 합법이었다. 코로나 기간에 선출된 행정부의 수장과 보건 관료들의 자의적인 법률 행위가 더욱 눈에 띄게 드러났다. 도덕과 적법성의 괴리는 서구 문명의 기본적인 양상이었다. 초기 크리스천들은 범법자들이었기에, 성 아우구스티누스는 정의롭지 않은 법은 법이 아니고, 왕들은 해적들과 다름이 없다고 설파했다. 정부 관계자들은 그들이 혐오하는 것들을 언제나 불법이라고 규정해왔다. 정권을 위협하는 사람들은 늘 범법자로 낙인 찍혔고, 정부의 그런 사기술은 수천년 동안 성공해왔다. In the Age of Covid, We're Reminded an Unjust Law Is No Law at All Ryan McMaken It has become something of a habit in both the American and Canadian media to insist that the Canadian trucker protest against vaccine mandates is an "illegal protest." They are "illegal border protests" one American news affiliate proclaims. Canada's National Post dutifully refers to the protests in its headlines as illegal acts. The term "illegal" has been used a multitude of times by Liberal Party politicians in the House of Commons. The premier of Ontario province in Canada—one of Canada's most hysterical politicians—not only paints the protests as illegal but as a "siege." Other opponents of the protests refer to them as an "occupation" and as an "insurrection." "Lawbreaker" as a Political Slur So why the obsession with labeling the protests illegal? The idea, of course, is to cast suspicion on them and portray them as harmful and morally illegitimate. We could contrast the rhetoric surrounding the trucker protest with that of the Black Lives Matter protest. In the case of the BLM protests, illegal acts were downplayed and ignored, with one obvious riot labeled a "mostly peaceful" protest. when it comes to protests and other acts of which the regime approves, legality is never an issue. The regimes of the world, of course, likes to use legality as a standard for judging human behavior because the regimes make the laws. Whether or not the laws actually have anything to do with human rights, private property, or just basic common sense is another matter entirely. Thus history is replete with pointless, immoral, and destructive laws. Slavery has been lawful throughout much of human history. Temporary slavery—known as military conscription—is still employed by many regimes. In the US, the imprisonment of peaceful American citizens of Japanese descent was perfectly lawful under the US regime during World War II. Today, employers can face ruinous sanctions for hiring a worker who lacks the proper immigration paperwork. Worldwide, people can be jailed in many jurisdictions for years for the "crime" of possessing an illegal plant. During covid, the reality of arbitrary law came very much to the fore when unelected health bureaucrats and lone elected executives began ruling by decree. They closed businesses, shut people up in their homes, and imposed vaccine and mask mandates. Those who refuse to comply—and businesses who refuse to enforce these edicts—are condemned as lawbreakers and subject to punishment. The Moral Limits of "Law and Order" All of these legal provisions, acts, and sanctions represent mockeries of basic natural rights rather than protections of them. The notion that laws can be perversions of true justice has long been obvious to many. In fact, the disconnect between morality and legality is a fundamental aspect of Western civilization. The basic notion is very old, but idea's endurance in the West was reinforced by the fact that Christianity began as an illegal religion and early Christians were often considered to be criminals deserving of the death penalty. It should be no surprise, then, that Saint Augustine declared an unjust law to be no law at all and compared kings to pirates: the decrees of pirates, of course, are not worthy of obedience or reverence. And if kings are like pirates, kingly decrees of are of equal respectability. This same tradition fueled Saint Thomas Aquinas's support for regicide (in certain cases). Needless to say, regicide has been always and everywhere declared illegal by the would-be targets. Yet, unfortunately, declaring something to be "illegal" remains an effective slur. There is no shortage of people who proudly consider themselves to be blind supporters of "law and order" and who insist "lawbreakers" are axiomatically in the wrong. Their simple-minded refrain is "if you don't like the law, change it" and many of these people naively believe that acts of legislators and regulators somehow reflect "the will of the people" or some sort of moral law. The opposite is often the reality. Thankfully, in the United States, the value of lawbreaking is so "baked in" to the historical narrative that it's difficult to ignore, even today. The American Revolution was fundamentally a series of illegal acts. The Declaration of Independence was little more than a declaration of a thoroughly illegal rebellion. In response, the king sent men to the colonies to enforce law and order. The American response to this attempt to enforce the law was to kill the government's enforcers. Less violent acts committed by American rebels were equally criminal, ranging from the Boston Tea Party to a multitude of assaults on tax collectors committed by Samuel Adams's Sons of Liberty. Modern shills for the regime have unsurprisingly tried to redefine this conflict as one of a tussle over democracy. "Those American revolutionaries fought for democracy," the claim goes. Thus, by their definition, no one is ever allowed to rebel in a jurisdiction that has occasional elections. (The reality is that the American rebellion was about the protection of human rights. Elections had little to do with it.) Fortunately, it will take more than cheap slogans about democracy to undo the fact that the national origin story is about having contempt for the laws of one's political leaders. In much of the world, however, rebellion against unjust laws is not regarded with equal amounts of reverence. In Canada, for instance, the national origin story is largely about following the rules and politely asking one's overlords for autonomy. This is bound to affect how one sees the roles of law and disobedience. It Is Often Prudent to Follow Unjust Laws This isn't to say that open rebellion is necessarily wise. Avoiding illegal acts is often—if not usually—the prudent thing to do. We often follow the law simply to stay out of jail and avoid attracting the attention of regulators and government enforcers. For those who prefer spending time with their families to spending time in prison, this only makes sense. Moreover, disobeying unjust laws can often bring even more unjust laws as a result. It is one thing to follow the law for prudential reasons. It is another thing entirely to assume the law brings with it some sort of moral imperative. Few laws do. Yes, there are laws against murder, but murder is just one case where the letter of the law happens to often match up with what is fundamentally moral and right. Countless laws lack such solid standing. When we hear government officials or media pundits refer to something as "illegal" or unlawful, all this should really do is cause us to ask if the defense of these laws is actually prudent or moral or necessary. Some laws are well founded in basic protections of property rights and other human rights. But many laws are nothing more than the fruits of political schemes to help the regime maintain power, or to reward the friends of the regime at the expense of others. We can always expect the regime and its supporters to try to outlaw things they don't like. And once such things are illegal, we'll hear all about the evils of the "lawbreakers" any time those lawbreakers threaten the prestige or power of the regime. (Lawbreaking in favor of the regime, of course, is always tolerated.) It's a highly successful trick they've been using for thousands of years. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------