A Bartender's Guide to Politics
A framework for retooling government to work for its citizens:
Changing the faces in Congress will not be enough -- for they will soon be corrupted. Learn how we can change the rules of government.
Download Free:
Abridged Version (pdf)
... or Purchase The Book Here
Contact: sales@bartendersguidetopolitics.com
Table of Contents (pdf) // First Seven Pages (pdf) // Chapter Six: Campaign Finance Reform
Never before has a book
- Explored limitations of government spending.
- Shown how to put lobbyists out of business.
- Shown how to limit government spending.
- Identified the privilege/opportunity equilibrium
- Shown how sale of privileges is against the law, and unsound public policy.
- Described how legislature of a republic must operate
- Described and defined effective campaign finance reform
- Explored limitations on administrative power.
- Described why administrative law have been designed to fail in delivering due process.
- Analyzed how the President delivers the privileges political parties sell.
- Identified corporate sovereignty (corporate tyranny) and traced its evolution.
- Defined how to reform income taxation.
- Described how to effectively reform the financial world.
- Show the way out of this mess.
A Note from the Author:
Apology
This work began with my inability to understand elementary economics in college. It always seemed so removed from the reality of my Midwest life experience. I could not understand how there could be so many forms of money. And while lecturers seemed sophisticated, what they presented never seemed to add up. When I asked questions of my professors, I was met with looks of puzzlement, bewilderment and discomfort, even terror. Their answers were evasive, non responsive and not satisfying. Finance seemed to be a combination of criminal conspiracy and frauds of many colors. Political science seemed nearly as bad.
It was my wish to write a book that explored the science of political science. To reduce the economic, historical, legal and political ideas that make up political science to the “fundamental particles” and to discover the forces that bind politicos and repel their constituents. It was my wish to write a book that was politically neutral so that no one might say this text is republican, democrat, socialist, communist or a "balmy utopist". In remaining strictly neutral I sought to discover the very nature of the laws that govern political science. It was my hope that by looking closely at politics I might discover forces and ideas overlooked by the founding fathers and the great thinkers of yesteryear.
Because of my experience in litigation, I found I was on occasion able to communicate with juries with a special clarity that defense attorneys found quite unnerving. It was my hope that this skill would enable me to communicate any discoveries in a clear and compelling manner both to folks of common experience and to justices of our supreme courts -- and all found in between.
My editors have limited my stereotyping and name calling to only the truly deserving. Against editorial advice I have occasionally indulged: it wouldn’t do to have a book of this nature become too boring to hold attention! My sincerest apology for the detail and depth of Chapter Nine, Executive Branch. It was rewritten 71 times, and still remains a bit detailed and convoluted. Time spent thinking on the tyrannical nature of the administrative process is so critical to any change of government, that it is worth a bit of study and reflection.
My apology is for the repetition of certain terms and conclusions. Each theme occurs in an historical concept, then should be reviewed from the perspective of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Then it again appears in the conclusion. To omit each perspective is intellectually unfair to the reader.
Finally the paucity of footnotes, which prompts my editors scorn and their conclusion that this book is “ not a scholarly treatment” of its subject, deserves explanation. All of history is hearsay. Politicians lie, political scientists know little. Generally historians were not there to see the events they recorded. On the rare occasions they were present, they viewed only a small bit of the panorama that unfolded. Their perceptions were biased and usually based upon recollection. They often form opinions in areas where they are not experts. To dignify their words with footnotes is hard for me.