Dealing With a Megalomaniac ‘Parliamentary’ Dumdum’s Pseudo-Intellectual Dictatorship

ORION-MORON

 Politics (not partisan politics) is not for diploma-toting morons. It’s about battle of ideas! And it ain’t a country club, stupid!

I was having a weird yet hilarious informal debate with a megalomaniac, narcissistic ‘parliamentary’ dumdum via an anonymous (perhaps a fake Facebook account) mediator.

I learned one thing from this online squabble– that it is impossible to argue with a brain-dead, narcissistic wannabe ideologue, who’s willing and determined to distort facts, to concoct obviously erroneous historical narratives, and to shamelessly lie through his teeth.

This is why I diagnosed this guy as a “sociopath”, as he clearly exhibits signs of sociopathy, such as:

  • Grandiose self-worth: “I’m a genius”, “you lose because I’m right”, etc.
  • Pathological lying, which I’m going to prove here.
  • Conning and manipulativeness: sending a flurry of private messages (PMs, which contain lies and sinister agenda) to people in order to convince them to hate or attack a particular person.
  • Lack of remorse of guilt: It’s because he’s justifying his actions and that he convinced himself he’s the real victim.
  • Shallow effect
  • Callousness and lack of empathy: His determination to slander people with lies and made-up stories.
  • Poor behavioral controls: Typical!
  • Promiscuous sexual behavior: About to be proven.
  • Lack of realistic longer goals: His flawed parliamentary advocacy.
  • Irresponsibility
  • Refusal to accept responsibility for own actions.

I’m talking, of course, of a wannabe political ideologue named Orion Dumdum, the so-called founder of an absurd Facebook-based political group that advocates parliamentarism for the Philippines. [You may read my previous blog about him HERE]

I was informed that Orion Dumdum finally responded to my blog article entitled “Brutally Slapping a Megalomaniac, Sociopathic Parliamentary Dum-Dum With Bricks of Facts”.

He posted his reply on his personal Facebook site (I felt a little bit charitable so I’m providing a link). As usual he cried like an ugly girl and suggested that I be attacked by his attack-zombies.

Here’s a snapshot of his hilarious, cry-baby reply:

ORION-MORON

Here, I will focus my rebuttal on two points.

First, the linked blog article entitled “Did the Founding Fathers Screw Up?” written by a liberal and Obama supporter.

The short answer to the blog article is: NO, they didn’t. There are just a lot of stupid people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

I’ve addressed this issue a number of times in the past (here, here, here, here, here, here).

The author said: “While most democracies are governed by parliamentary systems, our Founders opted for a presidential system, which they consciously booby-trapped with multiple veto points to impede decisive legislative action and sweeping social change.”

The founding fathers did not create, nor called their system, “presidential system”. They were very specific about the political system they created, and they never developed or established what the author calls “presidential system”.

Obviously the author– like Orion Dumdum— wants speedy passage of legislation. History has it that most political crises or  cases of abuse of political power were caused by too much laws or by politicians’ capricious misuse of their legislative power. That’s what brought us Martial law and other oppressive legislation during the Marcosian era. Late strongman Ferdinand Marcos enjoyed a GRIDLOCK-PROOF regime via his rubber stamp congress.

Like Roman senator and political genius Tacitus said: “The more corrupt the state, the numerous the laws.” 

The founding fathers clearly understood that to protect individual rights they had to establish a small/limited government with delimited powers and authority. Limited by what? By the Constitution.

That’s why Thomas Jefferson said: “Most bad government has grown out of too much government.” And too much government means a government with numerous laws often contradicting one another and were designed to limit people’s rights.

Think of stupid laws passed by the Aquino administration, such as the Cybercrime law, the RH law, the 2013 budget bill containing pork barrel, among others. He was able to quickly pass his legislative measures because he enjoys a GRIDLOCK-PROOF authority and that we actually have an ersatz “presidential system”.

America is failing not because the founding fathers did “screw up”, but because the American politicians turned their backs on the founding principles of their homeland.

For instance, during the progressive era, from 1880s up to 1930s, progressive politicians passed numerous destructive legislation and made a lot of political changes that substantially altered America’s political landscape. They ratified the 16th Amendment in 1913 that made personal income taxation a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. They passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which is the root cause of the ongoing financial crisis in the U.S., and which allows the Fed to print tons of paper money out of thin air. They passed a destructive tariff law that aggravated the Great Depression. And former President Franklin D. Roosevelt CONFISCATED privately held gold by every ordinary American citizen. These changes and draconian laws were passed by GRIDLOCK-PROOF American regimes.

The author is either a liberal or a leftist for wanting speedy passage of laws. Obviously, he’s just frustrated that his IDIOL BARACK OBAMA can’t do anything he wants!

I particularly like this brilliant, educated comment on the blog article:

What Meyerson [the author] describes as a screw-up I see as enduring proof of the Founders’ genius. 

The Constitution established a government of limited, enumerated powers, operating within a system of divided authority, not only laterally among the branches of the federal government, but vertically as well, in the relationship of the federal government to the states.  Among many other positives, this has made possible the enormous diversity, richness and individuality of organic cultures, communities and states across an entire continent and beyond.  

… Mr. Meyerson may believe that simple majority rule would solve all our current problems speedily and without fuss.  It would also mean, however, that the citizens of New York City’s 5 boroughs alone — numbering 8.2 million — would essentially be in charge of deciding how citizens in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, both Dakotas, and Alaska, with Vermont and Delaware thrown in for good measure (altogether numbering 7 million), should live their lives and run their communities.  Perhaps some New Yorkers believe that should be their prerogative; the citizens of those other 8, mostly farflung states certainly disagree.  I, for one, stand with the latter.

And these comments:

  • “Why is it that the first instinct of progressives who don’t get what they want is to immediately begin daydreaming about the day they can just make the rules and force all the rubes to do as their intellectual betters demand?”
  • “God spare us the mushy thinking of  “… smart, authoritarian elites.” Freedom and individual liberty is what our Founding Fathers wanted for this country.  Long live the Constitution of the United States of America!”
  • “I figured it was only a matter of time when the Obamabots, instead of looking at the failure of their president and his policies, would start blaming the constitution and it’s “failings”. I mean, if Obama can’t fix it, they reason, then it must mean the system can’t be fixed, thus a new Constitutional Convention needs to be convened and a new government formed.  Sorry, I’ll take the old government of Washington, Jefferson and Adams, thank you.”
  • “Why is it that the first instinct of progressives who don’t get what they want is to immediately begin daydreaming about the day they can just make the rules and force all the rubes to do as their intellectual betters demand?”

There’s a better term for what the American liberals– and Orion who simply parrots them– want: Legislative Parliamentary Dictatorship.

It’s good to know there’s a growing number of Americans who prefer the classical Republican Federal system, according to this very recent Gallup survey.

Second, lemme respond to Orion’s latest LIE and MADE-UP STORY.

I haste to say this: that guy is a pathological liar!

Orion Dumdum said: “And that crybaby kid will try to wiggle out of it by saying that “The USA is not a Presidential System” and that “Gridlock is a term invented by Liberals.””

Hilarious! That shows he doesn’t know anything about history.

First off, the founding fathers NEVER EVER used the term “presidential system”. I’d be glad if Orion can show me solid proof or evidence to support his baseless Facebook rant.

And by the way, who created the American system in the first place? The founding fathers. Which means they were in the right position to label their system. Who should we believe– the founding fathers or Orion? Only Orion the Moron’s sheep would pick the second.

The truth of the matter is, they never intended to establish “presidential system”. The term “presidential system” or “presidentialism” suggests that EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY (or the presidency) dominates. That’s not what they designed.

What the founding fathers established is a Republican Federal system.

James Madison said: “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”

They wanted the Legislative branch to dominate, not the Executive branch. That was their goal. But since systems do not have the magical or SUPERNATURAL features or capabilities to protect themselves against abuse or infraction, they could be easily subverted or distorted by the people who run or operate them. And that’s what happened during the progressive era, and from 1930s up to the present. Also, that’s what’s happening today in most parliamentary states of the European Union. That’s what brought parliamentary Greece to its knees.

Orion Dumdum should read the Federalist No. 51 to further educate himself.

But since he doesn’t have facts, all he can do is resort to lying and story-telling.

Now here’s why I said the term “presidential system” is a 20th century invention.

Let me quote George Athan Billias who published a book entitled “American Constitutionalism Heard Round the World, 1776-1989: A Global Perspective” (2009):

“The designation ‘presidential system’ DID NOT COME INTO ITS OWN until the TWENTIETH CENTURY when the president (with some exceptions) became the strongest feature in the system”. Scholars for generations had defined various kinds of governing systems along lines derived from classical times, that is, monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy.” (pp. 36)

Here’s a snapshot:

attachment.php

What he said simply confirms my argument that during the progressive era, from 1880s up to 1930s, America’s political landscape was substantially distorted, as this is the period wherein the term “presidential empire” or “imperial presidency” was used.

According to George Athan Billias: “In the twentieth century, with its two world wars, Great Depression, and rise of the GIANT BUREAUCRATIC STATE, the presidency has almost steadily acquired increasing power. In the nineteenth century, however, with the exception of the presidencies of Jackson, Pork, and especially Lincoln, the balance leaned heavily toward the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.” (pp. 35)

So, there you have it. I presented facts and history, whereas Orion the MORION presented made-up stories and lies.

As to the history of “gridlock”, I stated that the word was first used in 1980 to describe “a traffic jam in which a grid of intersecting streets is so completely congested that no vehicular movement is possible.” It was imported to politics by liberals. [You may read my take on this issue here]

Now, here’s Orion Dumdum‘s latest response, which I find utterly hilarious:

“Where does this weirdo get the thick face to claim that the USA is not Presidential when this is an irrefutable fact that the entire political science establishment upholds as fact? Does Bersamental think he is better than pol-sci PhD’s?”

The thing is, Orion Dumdum himself doesn’t have a PhD. Politics (not partisan politics) is not for diploma-toting morons. It’s about battle of ideas! And it ain’t a country club, stupid!

Plus, he doesn’t even know what he’s talking about. This shows that all he and his ilk are good at is APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. This is exactly what how the global warming alarmists attacked their critics.

Orion Dumdum‘s fallacious tactics– e.g., appeal to authority, appeal to expert opinion, appeal to political science consensus, and, here’s a new one, appeal to ‘pol-scie PhDs’– merely expose his own pitiful, delusional, hateful self as a pseudo-political nut-job and a pseudo-intellectual dictator.

REPUBLICAN-FEDERAL

 

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

  • More lies and propaganda peddled by Orion the Moron:

Everything Morion said exposes his incurable idiocy. All the lies and rhetoric he made are very easy to debunk. Only MORONS would believe a thing he said.

Orion Dumdum: “The US System (whatever crap you call it) is gridlock prone precisely because the Founding Fathers designed it that way. They thought (WRONGLY) that “gridlock is good.” They thought that a system that is prone to paralysis is ok. USA-worshipping fools like you, Frobobo Vincidiot Bersamental, keep thinking it’s a good thing. Yeah right. The SHUTDOWN is good for idiots like you.”

MY REPLY:

Wow! That’s worse than sob story fallacy. That’s what Morion is really good at. Fabricating things to prove he’s right. How many times did I say the founding fathers intended their system to make it difficult for politicians to pass laws. That’s part of the principle of separationism, checks and balances, and bicameral system. If they wanted to quickly pass laws, they’d have created a single-chamber Legislature and combine the Legislative branch with the Executive branch. They’d have established a socialist-type single party system, if their intent is to pass things very quickly! Read the federalist papers.

Also, all destructive laws in the USA (e.g., Federal Reserve Act, Community Reinvestment Act, Patriot Act, ObamaCare law, etc.) were passed by a GRIDLOCK-FREE Congress, supported by a GRIDLOCK-FREE Senate, and signed by a GRIDLOCK-PROOF president.

What Morion calls “gridlock” is, in fact, a very recent phenomenon in American politics.

Orion Dumdum: “They thought (WRONGLY) that “gridlock is good.””

MY REPLY:

Who said so?By Morion? Ain’t that funny? They didn’t even say “gridlock is good”, that idiot! They’re not that stupid to use that term. Again, political gridlock is a very recent phenomenon and a very modern invention. 

It is intellectually dishonest and wrong to invent things up to support one’s lies and propaganda. He should provide us his imaginary sources to prove his non-factual, anti-history claim.

Orion Dumdum: “The Philippines copied the Separation-of-Powers President-dominated system of the USA, except that we did not copy everything. We did not copy the Electoral College. We did not fuse the voting of President and Vice President. We did not adopt Federalism. And we didn’t have a regionally-elected Senate.”

MY REPLY:

No. Except that the real political system of USA is REPUBLICAN FEDERALISM, not presidential system, that moron! This is how the founding fathers called their system. They knew very specifically the kind of system they implemented.

The truth of the matter is, and this is what Morion doesn’t know, is that the term “presidential system” is a 20th century invention. That’s the term used by political commentarists and government leaders when several countries established governments with their heads of state designated or labeled as “president”.

Now Morion is admitting he doesn’t know what talking about and that he’s simply attacking a “presidential” strawman. That which he attacks DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL!

Orion Dumdum“The Separation of Powers FEATURE is why the Philippines was prone to gridlock, Frobobo, especially before the creation of the Mega-Pork Barrel known originally as the Countrywide Development Fund which Cory created in 1990, NOT in 1989, you dumb-ass!”

MY REPLY:

LMAO! Not 1989? LOL! My source is a government document called COA REPORT, you moron! The COA Report says, “The practice of providing certain amount for projects of the legislators started in 1989.” There you have it! Suck it, or shove it down your throat! — You may see the SNAPSHOT here.

The thing is, there’s NOT EVEN A SINGLE PERIOD or time or year in Philippine political history since 1973 or 1986 wherein regimes were saddled with gridlock.

If the system is indeed gridlock-prone, then regimes following Cory Aquino’s rule should have been affected by “gridlocked” crisis. Rather, all post-Cory regimes were GRIDLOCK-PROOF!

Now Orion Dumdum can’t argue “it’s because of our pork barrel”, because America also has its own pork barrel system, which is entirely different from ours. In fact, USA’s pork barrel is not that prone to abuse. You may want to read Winnie Monsod’s take on RP’s and USA’s pork barrel system here.

Here’s one question for Orion Dumdum: Name at least a single regime after 1973 that faced what he calls “political gridlock”.

I am sure he can’t name one because he’s obviously lying and that he’s a certified IGNORAMUS. LOL!

Orion Dumdum: “Cory created the CDF (later known as PDAF when Erap renamed it) in 1990 precisely because she was prone to gridlock at a time when many people were turning against her and she was so prone to getting hit by coups.”

MY REPLY:

Oh, the lying buffoon story-teller. That’s simply story-telling and propaganda-making. The truth is, Cory had almost absolute political control. Why? It’s because she presided over a REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT! Know this term and concept! In fact, as a revolutionary president, she could have REFUSED TO PAY MARCOS’ or her predecessors’ accumulated debt. She did not face any POLITICAL (not military) opposition at all! She was very popular among the country’s elites and civic groups.

The only problem is, some power-grabbing, adventurist military groups wanted to take over. They all failed, and Cory was able to finish her term. The biggest proof that Cory was popular and that she was very powerful was FIDEL V. RAMOS, who she “anointed” as her successor.

Know the facts, Morion, and stop making stupid, non-factual stories! You’re funny!

Orion Dumdum“The Pork Barrel fund (CDF later PDAF) was created in order to avoid GRIDLOCK.”

MY REPLY:

Hilarious! Unless you could support that stupid conspiracy theory with facts and citations! Although I’ve been telling people, through my blogs, that pork barrel can be used to CONTROL POLITICAL POWER, I don’t think Cory and her minions were that smart or strategic-minded. The truth of the matter is, pork barrel was not abused during Cory’s term. It was only abused during Ramos’ term that’s why its constitutionality was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Court said, “it’s constitutional.” READ— https://vincenton.wordpress.com/…/

THERE WAS NO GRIDLOCK AT ALL during the time of Cory. In fact, there was no need for her to allow pork barrel because she was popular and powerful! She controlled the legislature. Her enemies were not the legislators, but some enterprising military personnel.

So, Orion Dumdum, how did PORK BARREL IN AMERICA prevent what you call gridlock?

EXTERNAL LINKS:

Power, Parliament and the Prime Minister

Canadian prime ministers have too much power

In the House, the prime minister and government have considerable control over day-to-day operations. This allows governments not only to set the agenda, but to carry it out with ease. The prime minister commands the steadfast loyalty of his MPs, largely through a carrot-and-stick approach; co-operative MPs might be rewarded with cabinet posts or coveted committee positions, while rogues can be — and at times are — punished with removal from caucus or even barred from running as a candidate for the party in future elections. All of these are vestiges of prime ministerial power. The party caucus has little leverage with which to counterbalance the prime minister’s power because party leaders are chosen (and replaced) by the party at large, rather than by the caucus. Thus, the government’s MPs have no effective mechanism through which to stand their ground against a very powerful leader or effectively represent his or her constituents.

Rather than becoming more like a system of presidential executive authority, this situation has left Canadian prime ministers in a position more akin to historical monarchs.

5 thoughts on “Dealing With a Megalomaniac ‘Parliamentary’ Dumdum’s Pseudo-Intellectual Dictatorship

  1. Don’t underestimate Cory’s survival instinct and genius in being an utterly self-serving public figure. After all, she was able to fool the whole nation into believing in her saintliness despite the fact that all she did was protect the interests of her family and her class!

  2. What’s more, you are wrong in saying there was no need for Cory to use CDF as a carrot to the legislators because she was powerful and strong. This is clearly false, Cory was popular initially yes, which was why she could have used her revolutionary powers to implement popular social reforms, but she lacked the confidence to exercise the full extent of this power, except to promote the interests of her class. This lack of self-confidence made her a pawn in the hands of vested interests, and thus, negating her promises to the Filipino masses who supported her. The continuing series of coup d’etat against her administration must have made her even more insecure, and thus, she resorted to making sure she consolidated her control over the legislature with the power of the pork. Her revolutionary power lasted only until the ratification of the 1987 constitution, after that, she was open to attacks of her political opponents.

    Frankly, I don’t understand your unwarranted attempt at discrediting our clamor for a shift to parliamentary system of government. Clearly, quoting a paragraph or two from somewhere critical of this system of government does not render it an undesirable form of government, when a huge body of scholarly work has unquestionably pointed to the merits of a parliamentary system of government.

    • “What’s more, you are wrong in saying there was no need for Cory to use CDF…”

      Someone gave me the same comment an hour ago… I included that statement to simply tell Orion that if avoiding what he calls “gridlock” is the objective/target, there was no need for Saint Cory to create CDF because, like I said and you said, Cory was powerful.

      I stated two theories why Cory Aquino had to create the CDF:

      1. Because she’s a welfarist do-gooder. Which means it may have been done in good faith, or that she merely relied on her advisers’ “expert” advice… Perhaps they thought, America and other countries have pork barrel, then they should also implement it here.

      2. A possible attempt to control power. But this theory is pretty weak because she held absolute power.

      I must add: a mixture of the two.

      In regard to the gridlock issue, even without pork barrel, PH regimes would remain gridlock-free because of our multi-party system, which actually breeds– or is the cause of– the culture of turncoatism in Philippine politics. There’s no strong incentive for legislators and politicians to stick and remain loyal to their party. That’s why political parties in the country are like Napoles’ fly-by-night NGOs or foundations. They don’t last long.

      I can even argue here that the source of pork barrel is not what Orion calls “presidential system”, but our Constitution’s disregard of classical Republican and Federal principles.

      If we adopted Classical Federalism and its ELECTORAL COLLEGE mechanism, there would have been very, very strong incentive for our politicians to build strong and formidable parties. This will prevent politicians to jump from one party to another. Also, this will prevent the concentration of too much political power in the hands of the president.

      Observe that in America, pork barrel does not have any impact on legislators’ voting behavior. Why? It’s because they ought to remain loyal to their parties. Pork barrel in USA is not being used to bribe politicians to support a particular program or bill.

      However, the absence of these Classical Federal principles is a great INVITATION for the Executive branch or the PRESIDENCY and his party-mates to try to subvert the law and reward themselves with pork barrel. This will give great political advantage to the ruling party and the president to CONTROL POLITICAL POWER, which is what B.S. Aquino is currently doing. Aquino can easily use pork barrel to get non-allied legislators to support his pet projects or vote for his suggested bills. And as we all know, Aquino allegedly used pork money to bribe some senators to vote to convict Corona.

      Thus, any power-hungry President is encouraged by our LACK OF CLASSICAL FEDERALIST PRINCIPLES to create and use pork barrel as a carrot and stick approach to control political power and to make sure his plans and programs are passed and enacted.

      Observe that pork barrel in USA is entirely different from ours. They’re not that prone to abuse, and cases of bribery are very rare. I suggest that you read Monsod’s column because she somehow laid down the basic differences between PH pork and USA pork.

      And like I said, pork barrel is also rampant in parliamentary countries.

      “Frankly, I don’t understand your unwarranted attempt at discrediting our clamor for a shift to parliamentary system of government.”

      — I don’t understand why you think your advocacy is above or beyond reproach! That’s dictatorial! That’s cultist as well.

      Do you even understand the many contradictions and fallacies in your arguments?

      You begin by attacking PH’s protectionism, economic sluggishness, lack of investment, etc., and then claim they’re all caused by our so-called presidentialism.

      I agree. We need to change the system. I am for limited government. I want pork barrel abolished. I want lower taxes. I want federalism. I also want eminent domain power of the state abolished. Etcetera, etcetera. But I can’t just fathom your fallacious arguments, folks!

      Because if that’s how you argue, then America, which was the first FREEST ECONOMY ON THIS PLANET, should have started as a PROTECTIONIST, restrictive economy. But that’s not the case. Which means that presidentialism did not invent protectionism and all the perceived problems and dangers, which you guys associate with it.

      Again, the political system of USA is REPUBLICAN FEDERALISM.

      You want to sustain your attack on “presidential” strawman? GO AHEAD!

      Like I said in the past… For Orion to support his ceteris paribus, he needs to:

      1. Objectively define presidentialism
      2. Identify the strict principles/doctrines of presidentialism
      3. Set the strict parameters or tests that establish presidential system.
      4. Differentiate countries according to their constitutions

      I think I answered that rhetorical question of yours here, days ago… https://vincenton.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/no-pork-barrel-under-parliamentarism-says-a-facebook-propagandist-then-gets-kod/comment-page-1/#comment-1057

  3. Pingback: Parliamentarism: The “Democratic” System Founding Fathers Warned Americans About | vincenton

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s