Left Wing Vs. Right Wing Yes Two Wings of the Same Bird All Politicians Are Corruption

The Left/Right paradigm isn't only exposed by race and immigration issues. The Left and Right are in lockstep on every issue that really matters: The IRS. Income tax. Federal Reserve system. Endless wars. Endless expansion of tyranny and ever contracting liberty. Chronically wide-open borders. Suicidal immigration policies. Don't you see? The democrats and republicans exist only to provide the illusion of choice. A strong "us versus them" simulation in every election. It's ritualized tribalism. But the joke is, it doesn't matter which team wins, because both sides have the same agenda. God, guns and gays are phony "issues" to bolster the illusion of "difference" between the parties. The only thing that makes all this possible is that people aren't aware of the scam. Just knowing they are either "Team Red" or "Team Blue" liberates them from the responsibility of having to actually know or think anything. Then they feel righteous when their team wins, or despondent when they loose. It's no coincidence that the system works exactly like sports. There comes a point when ignorance and apathy become treason. We are past that point, people.Show more

To a point I agree and disagree with this video; that both the left and right are almost entirely anti-white. At this point I believe that "pro-whites" are now considered "far right", because our views are not common among today's average lefts or rights. Things leftists fight for further white genocide, things such as easier immigration policies, gay marriage, multiculturalism (diversity) etc. Rights are a lot more liberal today its true, but that is because the left is pushing harder than the right these days, and that is why we are now considered " far right", so the concept cannot be ousted.

Whether you vote for a Republican or a Democrat, you're voting on the Same Bird! Instead, vote for an Independent... There are some ways to stop the genocide. You can develop the DNA technology to select/modify the DNA of your babies before they are born. If you want a baby with white or dark skin color, golden or dark hair, and blue or black eyes, you can do it by DNA technology. or for Here are several Google and YouTube searches to check out:

"false flag terror" - "false flag operation" - "9/11 truth" - "new world order" - "bilderberg group" - "council on foreign relations" - "trilateral commission" - "illuminati" - "secret societies" - "globalism" - "federal reserve" - "central bank" - "world bank" - "IMF" - "Rothschild" - "Rockefeller" - "Warburg" - "J.P. Morgan" - "Jekyll Island" - "america freedom to fascism" - "fall of the republic" - "terrorstorm" Here are some additional websites to visit to further your education: https://rumble.com/v2b2zqq-a-must-see-video-what-on-earth-happened-parts-14-all-13-parts-together-woeh.html - A Must See Video What On Earth Happened Parts (14) All 13 Parts Together !

It’s getting harder to prosecute politicians for corruption The high-profile corruption case against New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez was recently dropped by federal prosecutors after a five-year investigation into gifts and campaign contributions given to the senator by a friend who wanted political help.

The trial had ended in a hung jury. Prosecutors then decided they did not have enough evidence to prove corruption and decided not to try Menendez again.

That decision had its roots in another failed corruption case against a prominent politician, former Virginia Republican Governor Bob McDonnell – a case whose resolution before the U.S. Supreme Court has made it manifestly more difficult for prosecutors to prove political corruption.

The Supreme Court described the events that sparked McDonnell’s 2014 bribery prosecution as “distasteful,” comprising “tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns.”

Nevertheless, the justices struck down McDonnell’s convictions in a lower court for accepting over US$175,000 in gifts from a businessman who wanted help from the state. They unanimously found that the Justice Department had overreached in prosecuting him.

How could actions that look so corrupt not be a crime?

The answer lies with the Supreme Court’s increasingly narrow definition of public corruption, including the crimes of bribery and extortion.

Constituent services or bribe?
I teach at Wayne State University Law School and wrote “The Prosecution and Defense of Public Corruption: The Law and Legal Strategies,” a comprehensive volume on the federal law of corruption.

The McDonnell case signals an erosion of federal corruption laws. I contend that this ruling effectively allows elected leaders to do favors for donors while raking in bountiful campaign contributions or gifts from them – with little fear that they might cross the line into illegality.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court in the McDonnell case. He explained that the real concern was not McDonnell’s tawdriness. It was “the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

Roberts warned of the danger of viewing too broadly what constitutes an “official act” that can be exchanged for a bribe. That broad view, he wrote, could mean elected officials risked being convicted of crimes when they simply help out people who contribute to their campaigns.

Not every act that helps donors is corrupt, wrote Roberts.

“Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time,” he wrote. “Representative government assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns.”

A new, limited standard for corruption
What’s the net result of the McDonnell decision?

It is that buying access to elected officials is, in most cases, not a crime.

To prove a bribe after the McDonnell decision, federal prosecutors must show more than just general efforts to aid a favored contributor. A conviction requires proof that the official committed an act that goes to the core of their office, like voting on a bill or approving a new policy. An official act, wrote Roberts, “must involve a formal exercise of governmental power.”

Short of that, steps like arranging a meeting or passing along recommendations to an agency head will not be enough to constitute corruption. That’s because these are not considered “official acts,” according to the Supreme Court ruling.

Prosecutors had evidence that McDonnell got gifts and loans from a businessman who wanted special treatment from the state for a nutritional supplement he was developing. But, after the Supreme Court’s decision, the Justice Department decided it no longer had enough evidence to retry McDonnell on the corruption charges.

The McDonnell decision directly affected the corruption prosecution brought against Menendez.

Menendez denied the prosecution’s contention that he had put pressure on federal agencies to take actions to benefit a friend and donor to his election efforts, saying he and the man, physician Salomon Melgen, were just friends. Over the years, Melgen had given Menendez many valuable gifts. Charges against Menendez were dismissed after a jury could not reach a verdict in his first trial. Prosecutors then decided not to try Menendez again.

Political system run by money
Our election system revolves around campaign contributions, both in Congress and increasingly at the local and state level. And politicians doing favors for donors is not new.

The Supreme Court recognized as much in McCormick v. United States, a 1991 decision. A West Virginia state legislator had faced prosecution after demanding campaign contributions from a lobbyist who wanted help for his client.

Justice Byron White wrote, “Money is constantly being solicited on behalf of candidates, who run on platforms and who claim support on the basis of their views and what they intend to do or have done. Whatever ethical considerations and appearances may indicate, to hold that legislators commit the federal crime of extortion when they act for the benefit of constituents or support legislation furthering the interests of some of their constituents, shortly before or after campaign contributions are solicited and received from those beneficiaries, is an unrealistic assessment of what Congress could have meant by making it a crime…”

But the power of money to get donors political access and influence has expanded with the whittling away of corruption laws. I believe that because of the Supreme Court’s erosion of limits on many kinds of campaign contributions, our current means of financing campaigns has devolved into a form of legalized bribery. Donors pour money into races to get officials who will support their favored goals.

When the officials deliver, the money keeps rolling in. One example: After passage of the tax bill in December, conservative billionaire Charles Koch and his wife gave nearly $500,000 to House Speaker Paul Ryan’s PAC.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court majority’s decisions on corruption have demonstrated little concern about the corrosive effect of the decisions on the public’s faith in their government. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, the court struck down limits imposed on corporations to make “independent expenditures” on behalf of candidates because they “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

According to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion, “the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.”

After years of the Supreme Court narrowing even minimal protections against public corruption, the U.S. now has a system where what looks like bribery and corruption to the public is, in most cases, not illegal. Our political leaders are no longer kept in line by federal corruption law. They do not need to worry that if they bend over backwards to accommodate a donor’s wishes, it could spark a bribery charge.

Majority Of Americans See Congress As Out Of Touch Politicians Are Corrupt ?

However the likely drama over how to fund the government past Sept. 30 unfolds, most Americans appear to have little faith in most lawmakers to do the right thing. Majorities believe that most members of Congress are "out of touch with average Americans" (79%), "focused on the needs of special interests" rather than the needs of their constituents (69%) and corrupt (52%). Americans are less critical of their own representatives, but substantial percentages say their own member of Congress is out of touch (48%), focused on special interests (47%) and corrupt (32%). These results come from Gallup's annual Governance poll, conducted Sept. 9-13. By any measure, Congress is not a popular or trusted institution among Americans. The body's current approval rating, 14%, is typical of its ratings over the past several years. Earlier this year, Gallup found that fewer than one in 10 Americans (8%) have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress.

Traditionally, Americans have been less critical of their own members of Congress, but last year the percentage of U.S. adults saying their own representative deserved re-election dropped to a record low. These uneasy feelings Americans have for Congress may be exacerbated in the coming days, as the prospect of a government shutdown looms. House Speaker John Boehner's unexpected resignation on Friday highlights how acrimonious congressional divisions have become, leading the House speaker to step down well before his term ends. Speculation is rampant that Boehner's resignation may actually be the action that prevents a government shutdown this week. But if this is true, it could confirm some of Americans' worst impressions of Congress, as it would suggest that simple legislative functions, such as funding the federal government, are enough to thrust the House into leadership turmoil.

Majorities of Americans view most members of Congress as corrupt, beholden to special interests and out of touch. This is not new and perhaps not even surprising, given the low esteem in which Americans hold the institution. But this cynicism is beginning to influence Americans' views of their own federal representatives, not just the national legislature. Record or near-record numbers of U.S. adults say their local representative is out of touch and focused on serving special interests rather than their constituents.

Congress is under greater-than-usual stress, with the House speaker's abrupt resignation and a possible government shutdown. Numerous members of Congress have cast this battle as a principled one, even if it results in disruptive outcomes such as a shutdown, or, as is apparently the case, the abrupt resignation of the top lawmaker in the House. But given the large proportion of Americans who believe members of Congress have far less altruistic motives, it is doubtful many Americans will see the showdown as a dispute over how best to serve the nation's interests.

Are All Politicians Liars ? - I can’t tell you how many times I have been assured by people on my conservative side of the political spectrum that “all politicians are liars.” It’s a common riposte when I encourage people to get involved in the political process and vote or when I flag the flagrant untruths uttered by the Democrat pantheon of political liars (the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, Kamala, the Bidens, Schiff, Pelosi, Schumer, the MSM, etc., etc.) to my friends on the Left. For many, it seems, it is an excuse to accept the status quo and embrace inaction.

Well, in fairness, we Republicans have hardly been without sin, especially now that we must deal with an obscure, newly elected-fabulist congressman from Long Island, George Santos. Because Santos is a Republican, his lies aren’t as acceptable to the Left as those of a Democrat would be for Democrats and their media flacks. But should they be acceptable to us on the Right? I admit to a certain degree of schadenfreude seeing a Republican capture high office using the same tactics used by our Democrat opponents; as Saul Alinsky noted in rule #4 for radicals, “make the enemy live up to their own rules.”

Here is the problem, though: once we accept the premise that “all politicians lie”, we lower the bar for all politicians; we establish lying as an acceptable criterion for politicians. I don’t accept that premise: I know plenty of politicians that are stand-up individuals and not liars.

Now, by a “lie,” I don’t mean the Democrat definition thereof as it applies to their opponents, which is basically anything they don’t agree with, along with exaggerations, and honest mistakes uttered in order to gain ground against one’s opponents. Come to think of it, the Democrat justifications for lying track closely with the Islamic concept of “Taqiyya,” where dissimulation is deemed perfectly okay as long as it advances the faith.

No, by “lie,” I mean a material lie uttered deliberately to hide malfeasance or advance one’s agenda. We should never accept this.

The late psychiatrist, M. Scott Peck, author of People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil, devoted his career to understanding the roots of evil. He concluded that, starting with the Biblical story of Genesis, at the core of all human evil rests a lie. Peck described a dynamic whereby people begin as small children telling small lies that, if not called out, metastasize into bigger and bigger lies.

Liars, like all criminals, eventually justify their vice by claiming that “everyone does it,” so why shouldn’t they lie? And, because “all” people lie, no one can trust what other people say.

At some point on this trajectory, liars begin to lie to themselves, and that is where their worldviews depart from reality. There are all kinds of lies…lies of commission; lies of omission; lies of deflection, gaslighting….

Look around our country today and note the scale of damage that a culture of lies has done to our once-healthy Western society. Look at our social, news, and entertainment media and note how lies are celebrated for their brazenness.

Consider how much humor is wrapped into celebrating the brazenness of lies. Just look at our youth entertainment, even in such iconic youth movies like Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (to cite just one example).

What on earth have we been teaching our kids? In much of our society today, lies are celebrated…as long as you get away with it. Really good liars become cultural and political icons.

Only 75 years ago, the United States, like most of northern Europe, was viewed as a “high-trust” society, where a high level of social trust allowed for healthy transactions between individuals to occur, buttressed by robust legal, political, and informational systems. This was a big factor that helped fuel our economy.

While some countries (e.g., the Nordic countries, Switzerland) still qualify as high-trust societies today, the past decades in the U.S. and many European countries have witnessed a breathtaking collapse of trust in our most important public and private institutions. I live in an area of our country where many transactions are still done with a handshake. Sadly, my county and others like it are the exception in America, not the rule.

Our moral and ethical collapse will continue as long as we accept that it is okay for others, especially politicians and institutions, to lie. The consequences are serious: low-trust countries and economies usually qualify as global laggards plagued by poor economies, social and political oppression, and internal conflicts.

Want an example? Look at Russia and the disastrous decisions it made vis à vis Ukraine, decisions that were founded on the web of lies interwoven throughout its security establishment. Russia faces disaster because it lied to itself and created an alternate reality built on falsehoods. We cannot hope to maintain our global leadership as a country if we devolve into a society of liars that lie with impunity.

The right response to our continued decline is for Republicans and conservatives once again to stand athwart our road to perdition, as conservative icon William F. Buckley once did, and yell, “Stop!” We should never allow ourselves to accept that lying is OK. If we do, then we become complicit in a long and painful decline to third-world status.

It is not for Democrats to pass judgment on Rep. George Santos; they have no standing to do so. Neither is it the purview of Congressional Republicans to remove Santos, as he was duly elected by his constituents. But he can be sanctioned in other ways: shunned, humiliated, and otherwise disgraced. The sanctioning of Santos should be done very publicly, in-house, by Republicans and other conservatives, as an example for all the world to see because there is so much at stake.

Russia spoke clearly about what it would do if the US used its proxy state, the Ukraine, to threaten it with NATO membership. The US continued so Russia did what it did. If the author wants to see how lies played a part, look at the US lying and scheming via Victoria Nulled to install a non democratic government that we wanted in 2014. And then look at all the vast corruption the US has participated in Ukraine, including in this amazingly phony war which is really just a money laundering scheme for the Democrat Party. If the author wants to reform the lying, he should have a better understanding of who is lying, who is not. At this moment in time, the US government is the HQ of Lying, and Russia is just trying to survive the US/Globalist/WEF mammoth tsunami of lying all done to establish the New World Order.

We have 435 Representatives in the House. We elect Kings. The reason they lie is because if they didn't, we wouldn't elect them. They say, "I will do this" or "I will do that" when they know they don't have the power to do it. The problem is when they have no intention of actually doing anything like what they say. That's why I've given up on the system IN TOTAL. The RINOs have had ample opportunity to limit government and spending, but they don't do it. I vote against incumbents unless I see a real reason to think they are trying to move things in the right direction. In the meantime, I wait to see what they will make worse next.

Lies, lies, lies, that's the world of today. All meant to help confuse and numb the complacent minds of the sheeple. Straight from the Saul Alinsky playbook. What better way for the Media to help break down the Western Civilization than to normalize lies? We are constantly bombarded with them. The destruction of the West is rolling along at a good clip.

BUT, only CONSEQUENCES will stop the madness, and the Politicians have proven over and over that they believe there are no consequences for anything they do. And so far, that has proven to be true.

Because the Globalists/WEF/Elites led by Klaus Schwab will stop at nothing to achieve their goals of a totalitarian One-World Government led by the Elites. And nothing they have done has had any consequences, either. And they know there won't be any. The lies are all part of the Great Re-Set and it's working.

YES, WE’RE CORRUPT A LIST OF POLITICIANS ADMITTING THAT MONEY CONTROLS POLITICS

It’s a relief to hear politicians acknowledge the obvious reality that all Americans see in front of their faces. One of the most embarrassing aspects of U.S. politics is politicians who deny that money has any impact on what they do. For instance, Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania’s notoriously fracking-friendly former governor, got $1.7 million from oil and gas companies but assured voters that “The contributions don’t affect my decisions.” If you’re trying to get people to vote for you, you can’t tell them that what they want doesn’t matter.

This pose is also popular with a certain prominent breed of pundits, who love to tell us “Don’t Follow the Money” (New York Times columnist David Brooks), or “Money does not buy elections” (Freakonomics co-author Stephen Dubner on public radio’s Marketplace), or “Money won’t buy you votes” (Yale Law School professor Peter H. Schuck in the Los Angeles Times).

Meanwhile, 85 percent of Americans say we need to either “completely rebuild” or make “fundamental changes” to the campaign finance system. Just 13 percent think “only minor changes are necessary,” less than the 18 percent of Americans who believe they’ve been in the presence of a ghost.

So we’ve decided that it would be useful to collect examples of actual politicians acknowledging the glaringly obvious reality. Here’s a start; I’m sure there must be many others, so if you have suggestions, please leave them in the comments or email me. I’d also love to speak directly to current or former politicians who have an opinion about it.

• “I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.” — Donald Trump in 2015.

• “[T]his is what’s wrong. [Donald Trump] buys and sells politicians of all stripes … he’s used to buying politicians.” — Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in 2015.

“Now [the United States is] just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congressmembers. … So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors …” — Jimmy Carter, former president, in 2015. (Thanks to Sam Sacks.)

• “[T]he millionaire class and the billionaire class increasingly own the political process, and they own the politicians that go to them for money. … we are moving very, very quickly from a democratic society, one person, one vote, to an oligarchic form of society, where billionaires would be determining who the elected officials of this country are.” — Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in 2015. (Thanks to Robert Wilson in comments below.) Sanders has also said many similar things, such as “I think many people have the mistaken impression that Congress regulates Wall Street. … The real truth is that Wall Street regulates the Congress.” (Thanks to ND, via email.)

• “You have to go where the money is. Now where the money is, there’s almost always implicitly some string attached. … It’s awful hard to take a whole lot of money from a group you know has a particular position then you conclude they’re wrong [and] vote no.” — Vice President Joe Biden in 2015.

• “[T]oday’s whole political game, run by an absurdist’s nightmare of moneyed elites, is ridiculous – a game in which corporations are people and money is magically empowered to speak; candidates trek to the corporate suites and secret retreats of the rich, shamelessly selling their political souls.” – Jim Hightower, former Democratic agricultural commissioner of Texas, 2015. (Thanks to CS, via email.)

• “People tell me all the time that our politics in Washington are broken and that multimillionaires, billionaires and big corporations are calling all the shots … it’s hard not to agree.” — Russ Feingold, three-term Democratic senator from Wisconsin, in 2015 announcing he’s running for the Senate again. (Thanks to CS, via email.)

“Lobbyists and career politicians today make up what I call the Washington Cartel. … [They] on a daily basis are conspiring against the American people. … [C]areer politicians’ ears and wallets are open to the highest bidder.” — Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in 2015.
• “I can legally accept gifts from lobbyists unlimited in number and in value … As you might guess, what results is a corruption of the institution of Missouri government, a corruption driven by big money in politics.” — Missouri State Sen. Rob Schaaf, 2015. (Thanks to DK, via email.)

• “When you start to connect the actual access to money, and the access involves law enforcement officials, you have clearly crossed a line. What is going on is shocking, terrible.” – James E. Tierney, former attorney general of Maine, in 2014.

• “Allowing people and corporate interest groups and others to spend an unlimited amount of unidentified money has enabled certain individuals to swing any and all elections, whether they are congressional, federal, local, state … Unfortunately and rarely are these people having goals which are in line with those of the general public. History well shows that there is a very selfish game that’s going on and that our government has largely been put up for sale.” – John Dingell, 29-term Democratic congressman from Michigan, in 2014 just before he retired.

• “When some think tank comes up with the legislation and tells you not to fool with it, why are you even a legislator anymore? You just sit there and take votes and you’re kind of a feudal serf for folks with a lot of money.” — Dale Schultz, 32-year Republican state legislator in Wisconsin and former state Senate Majority Leader, in 2013 before retiring rather than face a primary challenger backed by Americans for Prosperity. Several months later Schultz said: “I firmly believe that we are beginning in this country to look like a Russian-style oligarchy where a couple of dozen billionaires have basically bought the government.”

• “I was directly told, ‘You want to be chairman of House Administration, you want to continue to be chairman.’ They would actually put in writing that you have to raise $150,000. They still do that — Democrats and Republicans. If you want to be on this committee, it can cost you $50,000 or $100,000 — you have to raise that money in most cases.” — Bob Ney, five-term Republican congressman from Ohio and former chairman of the House Administration Committee who pleaded guilty to corruption charges connected to the Jack Abramoff scandal, in 2013. (Thanks to ratpatrol in comments below.)

• “The alliance of money and the interests that it represents, the access that it affords to those who have it at the expense of those who don’t, the agenda that it changes or sets by virtue of its power is steadily silencing the voice of the vast majority of Americans … The truth requires that we call the corrosion of money in politics what it is – it is a form of corruption and it muzzles more Americans than it empowers, and it is an imbalance that the world has taught us can only sow the seeds of unrest.” – Secretary of State John Kerry, in 2013 farewell speech to the Senate.

• “American democracy has been hacked. … The United States Congress … is now incapable of passing laws without permission from the corporate lobbies and other special interests that control their campaign finances.” — Al Gore, former vice president, in his 2013 book The Future. (Thanks to anon in comments below.)

• “I think it is because of the corrupt paradigm that has become Washington, D.C., whereby votes continually are bought rather than representatives voting the will of their constituents. … That’s the voice that’s been missing at the table in Washington, D.C. — the people’s voice has been missing.” — Michele Bachmann, four-term Republican congresswoman from Minnesota and founder of the House Tea Party Caucus, in 2011.

• “I will begin by stating the sadly obvious: Our electoral system is a mess. Powerful financial interests, free to throw money about with little transparency, have corrupted the basic principles underlying our representative democracy.” — Chris Dodd, five-term Democratic senator from Connecticut, in 2010 farewell speech to the Senate. (Thanks to RO, via email.)

“The banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.” – Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., in 2009.
• “Across the spectrum, money changed votes. Money certainly drove policy at the White House during the Clinton administration, and I’m sure it has in every other administration too.” — Joe Scarborough, four-term Republican congressman from Florida and now co-host of “Morning Joe,” in the 1990s. (Thanks to rrheard in comments below.)

• “We are the only people in the world required by law to take large amounts of money from strangers and then act as if it has no effect on our behavior.” — Barney Frank, 16-term Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, in the 1990s. (Thanks to RO, via email.)

“… money plays a much more important role in what is done in Washington than we believe. … [Y]ou’ve got to cozy up, as an incumbent, to all the special interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members, and that kind of a relationship has an influence on the way you’re gonna vote. … I think we have to become much more vigilant on seeing the impact of money … I think it’s wrong and we’ve got to change it.” — Mitt Romney, then the Republican candidate running against Ted Kennedy for Senate, in 1994. (Thanks to LA, via email.)

• “There is no question in the world that money has control.” — Barry Goldwater, 1964 GOP Presidential nominee, just before retiring from the Senate in 1986.

• ”When these political action committees give money, they expect something in return other than good government. … Poor people don’t make political contributions. You might get a different result if there were a poor-PAC up here.” — Bob Dole, former Republican Senate Majority Leader and 1996 GOP Presidential nominee, in 1983.

• “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.” — Jesse Unruh, Speaker of the California Assembly in the 1960s and California State Treasurer in the 1970s and 80s.

• “I had a nice talk with Jack Morgan [i.e., banker J.P. Morgan, Jr.] the other day and he seemed more worried about [Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Rexford] Tugwell’s speech than about anything else, especially when Tugwell said, ‘From now on property rights and financial rights will be subordinated to human rights.’ … The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson … The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United Stated — only on a far bigger and broader basis.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt in a 1933 letter to Edward M. House. (Thanks to LH, via email.)

• “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.” — 1912 platform of the Progressive Party, founded by former president Theodore Roosevelt. (Thanks to LH, via email.)

• “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can’t remember what the second one is.” — Mark Hanna, William McKinley’s 1896 presidential campaign manager and later senator from Ohio, in 1895.

Again, please leave other good examples in the comments or email them to me at any time — I’ll keep updating this indefinitely. I’m looking specifically for working politicians (rather than pundits or activists) who describe a tight linkage between money and political outcomes (as opposed to something vaguer).

Narcissism is characterized by extreme self-involvement and disregard for the needs of those around them. People with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) tend to be cocky, manipulative, selfish, patronizing and demanding in all areas of their life. The Narcissism Of Politicians With the current state of politics, it’s easy to believe that all politicians are narcissists. They are always seeking attention and validation, they are self-absorbed and have a sense of entitlement, they lack empathy and are often manipulative. But are all politicians really narcissists? It’s important to remember that not all narcissists are bad people. Some narcissists are actually quite successful and charming. And not all politicians are narcissists. So, are all politicians narcissists? No, but many of them are. And that’s why we need to be careful when we vote for them.

Politicians are frequently associated with narcissism in some circles. In fact, calling them “narcissists” technically violates the law. People with a high level of narcissistic tendencies may exhibit a variety of other personality traits, but the complexity of their personality makes them inappropriate for such traits. Presidential candidates, their staff, and their advisors are the mirror images of everything they do in a positive way. Each has a large staff of do-bees, security detail, and press entourages, as well as children and grandchildren who admire them. Their ability to reach the top of their parties without succumbing to narcissism will be impossible. Politicians’ primary motivation is to avoid embarrassment or to be treated as ordinary as possible. A 1995 article in a social work journal suggested that the narcissistic bubble was born. Let us show our forgiveness by forgiving a politician for a single mistake.

According to one of the most significant findings from the study, executive leaders exhibit narcissism, a personality trait characterized by an inflated sense of self-worth, a strong desire for power, and a high level of manipulative behavior.

Narcissists are characterized by a strong ego and a desire to be powerful and powerful. Those at the top of the corporate ladder are more likely to seek out job positions, in large part because they can exert influence over others.

In narcissistic behavior, you are dominant, hostile, and arrogant. When a person’s leadership style is driven solely by the need for power and admiration and approval from others, it can quickly become destructive. narcissistic behavior that makes good leadership qualities

Despite their flaws, she says narcissists frequently manage to thrive in the workplace. Because of their charisma, extreme self-confidence, and willingness to take big risks, they stand out.

Are Narcissists Politicians?
narcissistic people appear to be more involved in early politics than those who are not narcissistic, such as contacting decision makers and publicly expressing their opinions. Those with narcissistic tendencies were more likely to vote in the midterm elections.

Narcissistic traits are those that combine selfishness, entitlement, and a need for admiration. Individuals with narcissistic tendencies are more likely to engage in political activities. Contacting politicians, signing petitions, donating money to political causes, voting in elections, and participating in political forums and discussions are all examples of civic engagement. Those with narcissistic tendencies can be harmful to democracies in a variety of ways, including shifting the emphasis from civic responsibilities to their own self-interest. narcissistic people are more likely to be involved in conflict and civic unrest, according to studies. If those who are most entitled are the ones who are most engaged in democracy, the future of it may be in jeopardy.

The number of leadership positions has clearly increased in recent years. narcissistics are highly motivated to rise to power and status because they receive positive feedback on their achievements, such as having power or being noticed. Despite the fact that 5 percent of the U.S. population is estimated to be narcissistic, this figure is likely to be much higher among leaders.
It is critical to recognize and manage narcissism in leaders, but it is also critical to remember that not all are narcissists. Many of them have an air of confidence, charisma, and charm to them. A leader’s charisma, confidence, and charm are not always related to their success; instead, they should be viewed with caution because they are not exclusive to narcissists.
It is important to remember that not all leaders exhibit narcissistic tendencies, even though narcissism is on the rise in leadership positions.

Who Is A Famous Narcissistic Leader?
Adolf Hitler: According to experts, Adolf Hitler was a pathological narcissist who believed that everyone else should be executed because he was superior. The Holocaust resulted in the deaths of millions of Jews, and he was responsible for his country’s demise.

Who Is The Biggest Narcissist In History?
People who suffer from narcissistic personality disorder have an overwhelming and persistent sense of self-importance, a lack of empathy for others, and an inability to recognize their own worth. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), this is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own abilities, power, and importance, as well as a lack of empathy. Despite the fact that there is no single definitive answer to the question of who is the greatest narcissist in history, there is mounting evidence to suggest that Alexander the Great is the greatest narcissist. Alexander the Great was a man with enormous ambition. He was determined to be the best, and he believed he would be the best. Furthermore, he was extremely self-centered and lacking in empathy for others. It is clear that Alexander the Great was a fierce foe. narcissistic behavior may have been to blame for the greatest harm. His lack of empathy for his troops, as well as his belief that he was above the law, resulted in a slew of deaths. Despite the fact that it is impossible to know for certain whether or not Alexander the Great was a narcissist, the evidence suggests that he displayed a wide range of narcissistic characteristics.

Do Narcissists Make Great Leaders?
They are the operational managers of your team: highly critical and cautious. narcissists, on the other hand, come closest to capturing the image of great leaders we all share. They are attractive to followers because of their compelling, even gripping visions for companies and their ability to draw attention.

Why Narcissists Make Great Leaders
narcissists are also dependable and self-assured. They are free to make decisions and to take risks. As a result, many successful groups have been formed under their leadership.
Are narcissists natural leaders? It is true, in my opinion.

Are Most Executives Narcissists?
There is no definitive answer to this question, as it largely depends on the individual in question. That said, it is generally believed that a majority of executives display narcissistic tendencies to some degree. This is likely due to the fact that successful executives often need to have a high level of self-confidence and self-belief in order to succeed. Additionally, many executives are driven by a strong desire for power and control, which are also common narcissistic traits.

Researchers and the public are interested in determining how a CEO’s personality influences how they act. A narcissist exhibits an inflated sense of self-importance, an excessive need for attention and admiration, and a lack of empathy. narcissists are known to have a variety of traits that contribute to workplace advancement. It refers to a tendency to prefer one set of statements over another. Other scales, such as the NPI and the Dark Triad, can be used to diagnose narcissism. In recent years, scientists have attempted to develop short-term methods for identifying narcissistic CEOs. The term “unobtrusive” is applied in these measures because narcissism is linked to observable characteristics.

The CEO is typically rated on the basis of conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability. Our study found that a typical CEO earned a 2.1 out of a possible 7 on the Narcissistic Personality Index scale, with 7 representing high narcissism and 1 representing low narcissism. According to this analysis, CEOs are more likely than the general population to be narcissistic. narcissistic CEOs are significantly less likely to achieve better stock price performance than non-narcissistic CEOs. Companies with higher ESG scores are more likely to have narcissistic CEOs. To assess governance quality, we created a set of seven charter or bylaw features that appear to protect minority shareholders in line with the corporation’s policies. According to our analysis of corporate data, narcissists are more likely to lead businesses that have a single-class share structure and a smaller board size.

Other characteristics, such as favorable and neutral ratings, are more beneficial or neutral to a narcissistic CEO. The salaries of narcissistic CEOs are higher, but their counterparts in the C-suite are also compensated more. A good number of CEOs appear to have a well-developed personality profile that includes agreeableness, sociability, conscientiousness, and humility. Those with an NPI rating of at least 3.5 have a higher NPI rating than those with one or fewer of the following conditions. To be more personable, the CEO tends to overemotional. In this case, governance features that are desirable versus those that are undesirable are popular perceptions.

According to a new study, one of the reasons some people excel is that they are more successful than others. As a result, it appears that personality traits, not just talent or hard work, determine who succeeds. Narcissists, for example, have a higher success rate than their less self-assured peers.
This is not surprising given that it appears. Narcissists are frequently drawn to professions in which they can control people and elicit admiration. They are more likely to work in politics, finance, or medicine than in shoemaking.
Understanding why some people succeed more than others is critical in this study because it sheds light on why some people succeed more than others. It shows that personality traits more than talent or hard work determine who succeeds.

Narcissism May Be Good For Success In A Leadership Role
There is no new evidence to suggest that narcissism is beneficial to leadership success. narcissistic personality traits have been shown to be better suited for positions such as CEO, which can be risky and difficult to manage. Despite the fact that narcissism is often regarded as a negative trait, the findings of this study suggest that it has some advantages. For example, increasing narcissism is associated with a higher chance of becoming the CEO of a large corporation. As a result, it is possible that narcissism is a component of the success of a leader. It is not always easy to work with a narcissist, but you may be better suited for certain positions, such as CEO, where the narcissist has a better chance of succeeding.

Which Politicians Are Narcissists
There are many politicians who are narcissists. They believe they are better than everyone else and they deserve to be in power. They are often very manipulative and will do whatever it takes to get what they want. They may lie, cheat, and steal in order to get ahead. These politicians may also have a sense of entitlement and believe that they are owed something. They may be difficult to work with and may not have the best interests of the people in mind.

You are narcissistic if you have selfishness, entitlement, and an urgent need for admiration. The more narcissistic a person is, the more likely he or she is to support politics. You can petition politicians, sign petitions, and make donations if you want to. It is possible to gain insight into the political successes of specific candidates based on their findings. Researchers at Penn State discovered that narcissism leads to increased involvement in early political participation, such as contacting decision makers and making public statements about their opinions. The midterm elections saw an increase in the number of people who were narcissistic. Those who are less self-sufficient are less likely to participate in politics.

His grandiose self-worth was emphasized to a large extent by Alexander. He believed he was superior to everyone else due to his exceptional talent and abilities. He also believed that he could do whatever he wanted with his life because he believed he was invincible.
Alexander himself was also a self-promoter. In his approach, he did not back down from being a powerful and successful leader. It was also known that he was extremely self-centered, putting his needs first.
Alexander did not show compassion toward others in addition to his lack of empathy. It was common for him to be cold and withdrawn. He didn’t care what people thought of him, and he didn’t care what they thought of him in return.

All politicians are the same. All politicians have zero interest and zero time to fix the system in which they’re flourishing. All politicians eventually come to relish working in a system which seems to incentivize corruption. All politicians have a propensity to demonize the other side. All politicians use power to eventually make themselves wealthy. All politicians have mistaken wasabi for their contact lens solution and ended up in the ER. All politicians want to have sex with Paul Rudd. All politicians have taken a shit in an unlocked Ford Aerostar when they could not locate a port-a-potty. All politicians secretly want to start chanting “Donna Martin Graduates” at every one of their rallies. All uncircumcised politicians like to see how many Skittles they can shove inside their foreskin. All circumcised politicians wish they could do this. All non-cis male politicians tend not to like Skittles.

All politicians would like Jim Davis to testify before Congress as to why Garfield likes lasagne so much as their experience with felines would indicate that cats typically do not like Italian food. All politicians have listened to Pet Shop Boys’ and Dusty Springfield’s 1987 hit “What Have I Done to Deserve This?” and wondered if it might be the closest thing to perfection they have ever heard. All politicians believe that with the right lighting, they could make black skinny jeans and a black leather jacket look as good as Justin Theroux does.

All politicians seem repulsed when you say that all politicians are the same. It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario. Are politicians corrupt going into office or do they get corrupted once there? Power or access to power will inevitably draw corruption to it. Also, all politicians like chicken wings. While some may have a preference for the drumette to the wingette and while they may disagree with regard to the right amount of heat for the Buffalo sauce, they all like chicken wings. Also, all politicians had grandmothers who made deviled eggs for potluck suppers. All politicians eschew the existence of boneless wings. All politicians, if Kelloggs gave them enough money, would happily introduce legislation to replace the bald eagle with Froot Loops’ Toucan Sam as the national bird. All politicians periodically attempt to reenact Stevie Nicks’ “Stand Back” by donning a flowy robe and pointing the hair dryer at their face. All politicians sometimes wonder why Skittles is the candy of choice for uncircumcised politicians to shove inside their foreskin and why not Reese’s Pieces or M&Ms or Tic-Tacs.

All politicians have a great aunt that smells like Jean Nate bath splash and mothballs. All politicians wonder what Aaron Rodgers smells like. And Ethan Hawke too. Even politicians who have met Ethan Hawke wonder if they got close enough to him to really ingest his aroma. All politicians have watched the video for Pet Shop Boys and Dusty Springfield’s “What Have I Done to Deserve This?” and wondered how Dusty could get such a near-perfect smoky eye while singing such a near-perfect song. All politicians are comforted knowing Rosa Parks lived long enough to see Daniel Craig become James Bond and Christian Bale become Batman. All politicians fill up their bathtubs with marinara sauce, hop in, and pretend they’re a meatball.

All politicians would like to give the FDA funding to cross-pollinate an apple and an orange to create the orple. All politicians fear losing, becoming irrelevant, getting eaten by a shark, accidentally hitting “share” on one of their regular porn sites like that fuckstain Ted Cruz did that one time, making eye contact with one of those giant f*cking furry moths you see on National Geographic now and again, and being shoved off the top of the Burj Khalifa while making a secret deal with some sketchy Saudi oil guy who said, “let’s meet in Dubai—it’ll be fun!” All politicians have dared an uncircumcised politician to see how much Pop-Rocks (or some other carbon dioxide gasified candy) they can shove inside their foreskin.

All politicians would like to see a little less Civil War reenacting and a little more Stevie Nicks reenacting. All politicians find the spoken word interlude in Taylor Swift’s “We are Never Getting Back Together” beautiful as it really reveals her authentic self. Same with the spoken word interlude in Britney Spears’ “Oops…I Did It Again.” They also all love the spoken word interlude in Michael Jackson’s “The Girl is Mine” between Michael and Paul McCartney. All politicians love a good spoken-word interlude. Furthermore, all politicians love the spoken word intro to Prince’s “U Got the Look.” All politicians love when a power ballad has a rousing gospel chorus for a bridge. Like Foreigner’s “I Wanna Know What Love Is.” All politicians love the PT Cruiser, Panda Express, and instant pudding.

All politicians get misty-eyed when they hear the story of how Pet Shop Boy Neil Tennant—in defiance of his record company—insisted that Dusty Springfield sing the duet part on “What Have I Done to Deserve This?” and created magic. All politicians wish they could have Neil Tennant's conviction. All politicians wish they could be part of Scooby Doo’s gang. All politicians have secretly wondered how many medieval troops a secret alliance of Darth Vader and Yoda would be able to take on before Darth and Yoda would be vanquished.

All politicians practice making faces in the mirror so they know how they look when pretending to be surprised, moved, sad, happy, interested, or kind. All politicians have drunk their own piss after taking shrooms in an effort to get re-shroomed. All politicians periodically wrap themselves up in a deer carcass and scare neighborhood dogs. All politicians yearn to dance like no one is watching. All politicians sometimes sit on the floor when no one is home and pretend to be a crumb.

‘We The People’ vs. ‘Us The People’

Q: Populists often stress democratic values by invoking the phrase “we the people,” but lately they’ve taken to using it not just as a subject but as an object as well. Thus: “We must never allow [insert villain] to trample on we the people!”

A: “We the people” is a subject; “us the people” is an object. Here’s how they look in sentences:

“We, the people, elect our leaders. Our leaders are elected by us, the people.”

In both of those noun phrases, “the people” is an appositive. It identifies or explains the preceding noun or pronoun by using a different term (like the name in “My son, John”).

We’ve written on the blog before about appositives, which are sometimes surrounded by commas, as in our examples above.

An appositive never changes the case (that is, subject or object) of the pronoun it follows. That’s why the entire phrase “we the people” is always a subject and “us the people” is always an object.

The words “we the people” resonate with Americans because they introduce the Preamble to the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” If ever a phrase deserved proper handling, it’s “we the people.” It’s demeaned when misused as a grammatical object (as in, “Don’t trample on we the people!”).

Show less