Arrest Soros & Seize His Assets

The Oligarchy that currently rules the united States likes to opine that “America is a nation of Laws not men.  But, alas, we have boatloads of ‘Laws’ that aren’t enforced or, more to the point, aren’t enforced when rich folks, who support the Oligarchy, are clearly breaking said Laws.  The most poignant contemporary example is Hillary who’s crimes and subversions are legion.  But let’s not pick on Hillary rather, let’s ponder the government’s pal, billionaire ($24.9 billion in March 2016) George Soros.

Soros (originally known as György Schwartz) is a dual national (Hungarian/US with a house in Westchester County, New York) who got his start in life as a boy helping the occupying nazi forces in Hungary confiscate the property of his fellow jews, friends and neighbors and upon reflection called those days the “best time of my life”.

Nowadays, Soros seems to be obsessing on bringing muslims into Europe to undermine western civilization (as they know it) and, essentially destroying the united States.  Too harsh an assessment?  Bull shit. 

As Chairman of the Open Society Foundations he’s openly funded the subversive group Antifa.  Antifa is little more than a communist front and if you’re so ill-informed that you don’t know that, compare today’s Antifa emblem to that of the communist party in Germany prior to WW2:

Yes, back then it was known as the Antifaschisthshe Aktion Group.  Today’s ‘Antifa’ being the illiterate morons that they are, so ignorant of history (perhaps cuz folks/media like to erase it) that they probably think they’re all original thinkers rather than the dupes that they are who can’t even make up their own logos.  They’ve simply translated “Antifaschisthshe Aktion” from German to the English “Antifascist Action” – They even have a flag now you can order on Amazon (can’t buy a Confederate flag though)…  Indeed, here’s the 1933 headquarters of the German Communist Party (KPD) in Berlin.  Notice the large banner on the building with the flags which represented the Communist’s ‘storm troop’.

Clearly these Antifa folks (terrorists) are nothing but Marxist/communist sympathizing ‘storm troopers’ intent on creating the same conditions that arose in Weimar Germany (anarchy) in their bid to implement a revolution and gain power.  With these domestic terrorists running in our streets I’m pretty sure we’re past elections ever being final again and folks ever claiming “We’re all Americans…”

He funds those twits from Black Lives Matter too who’ve been at the forefront of the Ferguson riots, the Baltimore riots, even up here in New Hampshire at Dartmouth College which just impressed the hell out of me while they were filmed screaming “Fuck you, you filthy white bitch!“ at some poor girl in the Dartmouth library and assaulted and denigrated people who didn’t bow down to their ethnocentric agenda ranting: “Stand the fuck up! You filthy racist white piece of shit!  Fuck you, you filthy white fucks!” “Fuck you and your comfort!” …  Give em an opportunity (paid for by Soros) and they’ll start a nice race riot anywhere you (leftists) need one.  He also supported/paid for that leftist Women’s March in January of 2017 in DC and now he’s paying 7,000 whining Hondurans, Guatemalans and Mexicans marching on our border scheduled to arrive by the election and a second group of marchers/invaders is forming up now.  Some (leftists) want to call this a “migrant caravan” but make no mistake, a goodly portion of them (80%) are military-aged men, not willing to stand up in their own countries but willing to come here to disrupt (at best) or plunder (worst) and that should not be lost on anyone who can still fog a mirror. ~ Can you say Red Dawn?

So, here we have a self-absorbed megalomaniac, an admitted, former nazi collaborator who’s funding and perpetuating domestic terrorists to attack our way of life and foment violent riots as well as getting hordes of military age illegals to attempt to penetrate (invade) our border and what do we do?  Apparently, absolutely nothing.

For the record, under Section 802 (Title 18), “domestic terrorism” was defined as involving “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;” which “appear to be intended–to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (or) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion”.  This is PRECISELY what Antifa and Black Lives Matter ~ sponsored by Soros ~ do every time they’re on the street.  Thus, were anyone remotely inclined to ‘enforce the Law’, Soros could be arrested today.  Once arrested, Section 806 would afford the government the authority to seize “All assets, foreign or domestic–of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism (as defined in section 2331) against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization;” Provisions of the aforementioned civil asset forfeiture laws would come into play such that our friend Soros, the leadership of his organizations, lobby groups and, their handlers and all who participated in the illegalities committed, would lose all bank accounts, real estate, stocks, inter-locking corporations and, in effect, all assets (controlled or owned – Soros = $24.9 billion) which could be seized by the government, in one fell swoop. Under the Military Commissions Act Soros could be stripped of his citizenship and held indefinitely.  All, PRESUPPOSING anyone in Washington DC were inclined to ENFORCE THE LAW. 

Additionally, you have 18 USC Chapter 115 relating to TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES:

18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

This clearly applies for sponsoring/organizing the little march on the border of the Hondurans, Guatemalans, Mexicans, et al putting little doubt that his days of starting social brushfires everywhere he dances around with his firebrand NGOs would be over were he popped for Sedition. 

As for the 7,000 provocateurs heading for our border I would inform the Mexican government that when our drones see them, inside Mexico, within range of our mortars in Texas, we will open fire.  They can either stop them or move their indigenous population beyond the range of our artillery.  Any that get through would be met with Claymores, tanks and bullets at the frontier.  I, for one, have had enough of this shit ~ how about you?

I believe the ‘Law’, such this it is, should be applied to Soros ~ when the shoe fits, the rich should be forced to wear it.  If the Oligarchy won’t enforce the Law then, perhaps, the Übermensch will.

For the record, this is how our border should look.  All 1,954 miles of it.

Posted in Domestic tyranny, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Our Preexisting, Irrevocable & Involatile Right of Self-Defense

“Laws that forbid the carrying of guns…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” ~Thomas Jefferson

The subject of the 2nd Amendment and our Right to “keep and bear arms” is never going to go away and there will always be a host of uninformed shills hoping to be interviewed by the statist media in order to state unequivocally that no one ‘needs’ the type of weapons that are popular today and that, indeed, there are people out there who are trained and qualified to protect you if the need arises.  Before any discussion of People’s ‘Rights’  the most salient point to make, at the offset, is that police, sheriffs, indeed ANY “law enforcement” folks have ZERO legal responsibility, or ‘duty’ (moral or otherwise) to help, protect or save any person (you) from any harm even if they are a material witness to violence being perpetrated.  Be VERY freaking clear on this!  It’s been litigated numerous times and the courts and the Supreme Court of these united States has ruled (more than once) that police have no legal or constitutional duty to protect you, or your children or your family.

Among the numerous decisions/rulings, Warren v. District of Columbia basically sums it up ruling that a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.  In other words, police have NO OBLIGATION to protect anyone.  Another seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County.  Other cases include but aren’t limited to Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Davidson v. City of Westminster, Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, Hartzler v. City of San Jose, Linda Riss v. City of New York, Susman v. City of Los Angeles, Zinermon v. Burch and South v. Maryland such that it’s established ‘law’ that, quite simply, judicial remedies are not available for the police’s failure to protect any Citizen. In other words, if someone is injured or killed because they expected but did not receive police protection they’re simply shit-out-of-luck as the saying goes because the courts, including the highest court in the land, have ruled again and again, that law enforcement has no legal or moral responsibility to protect ANY individual Citizen.  So, let’s put all this law enforcement “To Protect & Serve” fantasy land BS in the trash can where it belongs before we discuss anything regarding the ownership, possession or carrying of firearms.  Even if the police were obligated to protect us (which they aren’t), one only need reflect on Broward’s cowards (sheriff deputy Scott Peterson and his colleagues) hiding outside Stoneman Douglas High School in February 2018 while seventeen people, most of them teenagers, were gunned down to ask “How’s that (relying on the “Protect & Serve” crowd) working out for ya?”  With all due respect, law enforcement people are nothing more than armed and glorified stenographers, who’s job (let’s be honest), is FAR less dangerous than that of a chauffeur, a farmer or garbage men, according to ( insurance companies.  They (law enforcement) invariably arrive after something happened to fill in the blanks of a report that the media and insurance adjusters might read later.

So the aforementioned ‘realities’ dovetail right into the 2nd Amendment but rather than jump into the nuanced subject of ‘guns’, “assault” rifles or related legislation that the talking heads (lying heads) promise will “do something about violence” in our society I want you to realize and FOCUS on the fact that the 2nd Amendment is little more than an acknowledgement of everyone’s pre-existing Right to defend themselves and that the Amendment itself does not a grant the Right but RESTRICTS the government’s ability to, in any way, “infringe” on the Right to defend yourself and your loved ones.  I say again, the 2nd Amendment, like the First Amendment, doesn’t give anyone any rights. Rather, it prohibits the federal government from infringing on rights that are natural Rights preexisting the establishment of government itself.

Sadly, as we know, the statists will tell us that they have the legal and moral authority to ‘regulate’ the 2nd Amendment for the good of society.  They tell us that our ‘elected’ representatives (folks relying on donations from lobbyists and special interest groups, elected by hacked electronic voting machines, and, in some cases, votes from illegal aliens) are serving ‘the public good’ when they restrict just ‘who’ can possess or bear arms or what arms they might purchase and/or use or what fees they will charge you for the ‘privilege’ of bearing arms but what they’re really saying is that you don’t have the Right to defend yourself, your children and loved ones from violence. 

Beyond the ever growing list of persons not entitled to equal Rights under the Law such as veterans who, for whatever reason, were assigned a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf, who are summarily declared “mentally defective” and their Right to defend themselves or their loved ones is taken from them and old folks, collecting social security where their kids handle their affairs (maintain the check book) are similarly deemed by the government incompetent and suspends their Constitutional Right to defend themselves and their loved ones, the latest citizen disarmament plot being hatched (March 2018) will raise the minimum age for rifle purchases to 21 which gives me a Déjà vu of the days of Vietnam when eighteen year olds were expected to suck-it-up and die for their country but couldn’t vote or even buy a beer in the pub. 

Ponder for a moment the fact that New Hampshire says it’s legal for a fourteen year old boy to marry a thirteen year old girl while the statists are saying eighteen year olds aren’t responsible enough to acquire a rifle.  The 26th Amendment was passed to resolve that by establishing an 18 year old ‘age of majority’ (full citizenship) to address that and yet, here we are again, in spite of being “Citizens” they’re still unable to have a drink in the pub like other Citizens, unable to purchase a sidearm until they’re 21 years old like other Citizens and now, if the statists get their way, the government will restrict rifles until one achieves 21 years of age.  Illinois just passed their law depriving their 18-20 year olds their Right to own a rifle, ordered them to surrender them, making it a felony charge when they don’t.  We’re back to 18 year olds being old enough to be used as cannon fodder in the statist’s wars but being just as discriminated against as they were before the passage of the 26th Amendment ~ so much for Equal Protection under the Law.

Finally, of course, you also have the tried and true “convicted felon” group,  ever since 1968, as having been the poster children of selectively stripping of Rights from People who ran afoul of the law at some point in their lives.   Now, before any of you get on your high moral horse about “felons” give some thought to just how easily you could find yourself becoming an “evil felon” like, in Washington state, engaging in on-line poker or in West Virginia by (for whatever reason?) teaching a bear to wrestle.  Hell, poaching lobsters is a ‘felony’, improperly importing artwork is a ‘felony’, and sending spam email are now felonies in various states and, as a “felon” you loose your Right to defend yourself, your children or your loved ones in spite of the 2nd Amendment’s restriction that the government “shall not infringe” on that Right.   Yup.  You probably hadn’t noticed that becoming a ‘felon’ is real easy in America.  You can even become a felon by calling in to work ‘sick’ so you go to a ballgame or hit the beach on a nice day.  Under 18 U.S.C. Section 1346 such a heinous act is “[f]or the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.”  Thus, calling in sick when you’re not is defrauding your boss under Federal Statute (a felony) but don’t believe me.  Believe US Supreme Court Justice Scalia who stated, it criminalizes “a salaried employee’s phoning in sick to go to a ball game.”  So, in spite of the government’s own studies showing that only a third of folks who found themselves convicted of a serious crime (31.7 percent) were reconvicted of ‘another’ crime, and about a quarter (24.6 percent) were reincarcerated the statist use this 24% statistic to strip the Rights for 100% of the folks previously in trouble with the law.  This 24.6% of a ‘group’ could be statistically counted on to be ‘bad’ thus they justify depriving the entire group of their Rights that our Constitution instructs the government not to infringe upon.  So much for the very foundation of American jurisprudence that, under our Constitution people are “presumed innocent”.  What they’ve established now is some system of McCarthyistic “presumption of guilt” which is right out of Mexican law.

If you’re okay with that and feel that the government’s statistics and percentages should be more than enough to deprive someone of their Rights under our Constitution then, since blacks commit 52% of crime then you should be perfectly fine with stripping blacks (as a whole group) of their Rights too.  Indeed, according to the 2016 Revised Edition of The Color of Crime, blacks are six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race thus, as a safety precaution, based on those statistics and percentages ‘blacks’ should rightfully be declared to be not “law-abiding” and thus all should be deprived of their Rights, right?  I think not.

I wonder what ever happened to Thomas Jefferson’s public statements such as “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”   Of course now they take your Rights away if someone (angry girlfriend, neighbor, whomever) takes out a ‘temporary’ restraining order against you (not even a crime) or if, God forbid, you’re convicted of the misdemeanor (not felony) of domestic violence or, indeed, any “misdemeanor” which attaches a one year hitch in the house of many doors you’re also stripped of your Rights.  Cancer patients holding a medical marijuana card in a state where it’s legal are Federally Denied Persons and loose their Right to defend themselves, their children or loved ones from possible violence.  Heck, even some convictions for drunk driving qualify you for permanent loss of your Constitutional Rights.  None of these People are, what the statists like to quaintly refer to as “law-abiding”.  Rather than a Citizen, they become a lesser citizen.  What we’re allowing to happen is the creation of a tier system and codifying that there are degrees of citizenship in our society.  Some Citizens will be ‘permitted’ to have  Rights and other groups of lesser citizens who will be denied certain Rights at the discretion of their betters on an evolving and increasing basis.  If these criteria aren’t enough Seattle Police, Broward County, Florida (and other states) have started seizing firearms under some “red flag” law “allows the courts and law enforcement to take away guns from individuals they deem are “dangerous” without any laws at all being broken or charges filed.”  (Google it)  This blatantly removes Rights from people without even any ‘illusion’ of ‘due-process of law’.

So the various folks described above are like the folks below back in their day

in that they are having their Rights of Citizenship expunged.  Our government, like the totalitarian government running Germany at that time, that enacted laws codifying tiers of citizenship and changed what Rights those tiers could expect, are creating American ‘tiers of Citizenship’ just as the nazis did in the 30s.  Back then there were Rights of “Aryans” and then there were rights of jews and other ethnically non-German people.  These “tiers of citizenship”, this depth and breadth of discrimination against people that Germany’s statists enacted are something we like to say, are appalling to us, that in our position of moral superiority, we would never permit or tolerate (here) and yet, today, you have entire swaths of American Citizens who, thanks to the evolving (some might even say ‘arbitrary’) gun laws, are having their Rights of self-defense taken from them by the stroke of the pen in much the same manner.  As Clinton aide Paul Begala said in 1998 “Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.”  It’s okay to create these ‘lesser’ Citizens because the government has made you scared.  If you’re scared (or if you’re a STATIST) it’s perfectly okay to say this person or that person (or whole groups of persons) aren’t deserving of or can’t be trusted with the same Rights that other people have.  In this way we legally (but not ‘lawfully’) create a neo-apartheid state.

How did we get here?  Pretty simple really.  Folks have really short attention spans, they have few, if any, real principles they’ll stand for (like bearing “true faith” to our Constitution) and generally don’t give a damn about anyone’s Rights except their own.  Without getting into what ‘events’ (shootings) are contrived and what events are real, the short story is that EVERY TIME there’s an “event” the statists push to curtail liberties of people who had nothing to do with the event.  They hurry forth and propose more limits on just ‘who’ can have or utilize their Right (under the 2nd Amendment) to defend themselves and/or what means of defense they’re comfortable with ‘allowing’ you to possess.  For the past few years it’s been semi-automatic rifles and/or semi-automatic pistols and their magazine capacity.  Not surprisingly, the statist won’t admit that regulating a firearm’s bullet capacity is meaningless as evidenced by President Garfield being killed using a five shot Webley revolver, President McKinley being killed using a six shot .32 caliber revolver, Lincoln being killed with a single shot derringer and Kennedy (purportedly) being shot with a bolt action rifle having a six round capacity.  There’s absolutely no need for more than 8-10 rounds in a magazine they’ll say when they want to outlaw standard magazines (even though the Columbine shooters had mere 10 round magazines ~ 13 of them, in fact and the Virginia Tech shooter had mostly 10 round mags ~ in both cases, they just brought a bunch of them and it takes less than 2 seconds to change out a spent mag for a full one.  Limiting magazine capacity (they say) doesn’t infringe on your 2nd Amendment Right. Which is kind of like saying that they’re not taking away your Right to ‘travel’ rather they’re simply restricting you from using anything with wheels.   The fact is, as the sun rises over the asylum (US of A) these statists hope that no one will notice or openly ‘say’ that these laws are nothing more than a capriciously and maliciously hatched back door method to confiscate guns and disarm the Citizenry.  They accomplish it by repeating again and again : “We have the legal authority to do this.  We just can’t show you.  Trust us. We wouldn’t lie to you; we’re the government!” and people continue to drink that Koolaid.

The narrative goes something like this: They frame all their proposals claiming they would never infringe on the Rights of “law abiding” Citizens.  By the use of the term “law-abiding” they’re manipulating you into agreeing with their premise that anyone who ever ran afoul of the law, at any time in their lives, isn’t (currently or ever will again in their lives ‘be’) a law-abiding Citizen and thus, needs to be disarmed and rendered defenseless.  To accept this, as stated above, you have to totally disregard our Constitution’s emphatic mandate that people are “presumed innocent” in favor of the antithesis which is tyranny’s “presumption of guilt”.  My ass, I reply. 

Let’s put this into perspective for you.  In 2014 around 8.6% of our population had a felony conviction which means we’re over 10% today.  Cops, after-all get promotions for felony arrests and most felons never even see a jury rather, they get offered lesser plea bargains instead; which, ensures a conviction for the DA.  Indeed by age 23 nearly one in three Americans will have been arrested for ‘something’.  Using the ten percent figure, looking at the photo below, were there only one person in each car, you’re looking at eleven (11) felons that you have to walk past to get to Wally World represented by the cars herein.   Are these eleven people (once having gotten in trouble with the law) ‘criminals’ and, in-fact, not “law abiding” and apparently here for nefarious purposes?  Or, are they going about their business and their lives as they park here to shop, go to work, or whatever behaving in a perfectly “law abiding” fashion?

The fact is that, one is either  ‘actively’ breaking the law or they are “law-abiding”.  If someone is breaking the law they’re subject to investigation, prosecution and punishment at which point their Rights and liberties are rightfully curtailed.  Unless you’re some statist, if people have not been subject to due process (prosecuted) or found guilty of breaking a law and placed under the control/restraint of governmental authority, they are presumed innocent in America and entitled to ALL Rights and protections under the Constitution.  Either you ‘believe’ in the most basic American article of faith ~ the presumption of innocence ~ or you don’t.  If you don’t then you’re a statist and you ARE the problem.

With such short term memories, what the statists also don’t want you to remember with regard to their latest focus on “assault rifles” is that, once upon a time, there were a hell of a lot more military grade weapons available then there are now but there were no “events” such as those that occur with sufficient regularity to raise any Las Vegas odds maker’s eyebrow.  

In fact, prior to 1934, machine guns were as perfectly legal as any other firearm. You could quite literally order a machine gun from a mail order catalog… and people did.  Thompson Arms and Auto Ordinance were only two manufacturers supplying machine guns to the American public (see the typical period ad below) and there was NOT ONE CASE of anyone shooting up a school.  Absolutely ZERO cases of school shootings while it was completely legal for regular folks (you, me, anyone at all) to purchase and own fully automatic machine guns with 100 round drum magazines. 

After WW2 anyone could buy, own and shoot a 20 millimeter anti-tank gun, be it the surplus German model for under two hundred bucks or the Finnish 20 millimeter anti-tank gun (see ad below) for under a hundred.  Heck, one could even buy/own a 25 millimeter Hotchkiss cannon for $125.00 ~ As with the availability of fully automatic machine guns these anti-tank cannons were available through mail-order to the general public and no one ever used one to shoot up a school, sink a yacht or shoot down an airliner.

So (clearly) it’s NEVER been the availability of military grade firepower or standard capacity magazines that made ‘certain’ Americans run around shooting up schools and neighborhoods.  As you can see from the magazine ad above, not only were anti-tank weapons available to John-Q-Public without any license but one could even buy 50mm ~ 60mm mortars for $20.-$30. and, oddly enough, no one ever laid down a mortar barrage at a school either.  

A sidebar:

Reality aside, statists claim more laws are needed and, of course, their lying press agrees with them.  More limitations set upon the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution; more ‘perfectly acceptable’ regulations set down on your possession of the means of self defense.  Be it the ‘color’ of the weapon ~ black is more dangerous even though guns were always black or blued/parkerized ~ the only thing that’s changed is the use of ‘plastic’ as a material for a weapon’s stock and/or grip where they used to use nicely finished wood.), the configuration of its ‘handle’  or the number of rounds it contains, just pass some more restrictive laws and wait for the next event/shooting to go for some more.  The problem for the statists (if the People remember their ‘Civics’ class from school) is when Rights or  liberties are guaranteed by our Constitution, ‘limiting’ or ‘removing’ them through mere Legislation is unConstitutional.  The Highest court in the land has said in the case of Miranda v. Arizona:   Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.   Thus, the legislature can not simply ‘pass a law’ that strips the Rights of a minority and have it be lawful or Constitutional.

The fact is there is a BIG difference between ‘legal’ and ‘lawful’ and to understand the your Rights and the government’s (legislature’s) limitations you need to clearly understand the differences.  I’ve written on this elsewhere but, it’s important so I’ll say it again risking beating a dead horse.  The legislature (federal or state) can pass any law they want, saying anything they want and that’s perfectly “legal” for them to do.  (That’s why they enjoy doing it so often.  It makes a great sound-bite for the evening news.)  Having said that, the Supreme Court ruled in Norton v Shelby (never overturned) that: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed” What that means is merely passing ‘laws’ doesn’t make them binding on the public or “lawful”.  A ‘law’ needs to be Constitutional to be effective.

As I said, the legislatures can pass any damn thing they want but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s “lawful”.  Let’s imagine everyone in Congress loves Trump so much (I’m using him versus Obama because the statists seem to run around with their hair on fire when thinking of Trump) that they sit down on Monday morning and pass a Law Titled “Term Limits” wherein they state “There shall, after Friday, be no term limits placed upon the Office of the Presidency.”  This is clear and to the point.  The term of the Presidency will no longer be limited to two four year terms.  Simple, right?  Lawful, no.  Why?  Because the terms allocated to the Presidential tenure are articulated, governed and ‘limited’ by the 22nd Amendment to our Constitution which says: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.”  “No person shall be” doesn’t lend itself to ‘interpretation’  by a bunch of legislators or some ‘court’ to mean some people shall, or black guys shall or women shall.  It means “No person shall”.  Sort-of reminds you of the phrase: “shall not be infringed”, doesn’t it?

How about the House & Senate pass a ‘law’ Titled “Executive Office Ascension Bill” wherein they state that the office of the Presidency will be transferred, every four years, to the highest bidder, in an open and public auction on eBay.”  This is clear and to the point.  The office of the Presidency will no longer be attained by some quasi-democratic election but transferred to the highest bidder. Simple, right?  Lawful, no.  Why?  Because how a President attains office is governed by  Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 4 of our Constitution and, in order to change it, one must ‘Amend’ the Constitution.

How about ‘regulating’ the justice system and trials?  What if the House & Senate passed legislation saying anyone having once been convicted of something that thereafter the only hearing such a previously convicted person could expect would be a panel of three police officers and their judgement would be final?  The public interest would be to cut the expenses within the legal system.  They could claim they were “regulating” access to the courts.  I mean, these folks were convicted once already (for … something);  why should they expect the same treatment or equal-protection under the Law as “law-abiding” Citizens?  Problem is to take away someone’s (anyone’s) Right to a public jury trial one must ‘Amend’ the Constitution.

What do all these goofy examples have in common?  The Legislature can certainly pass them but as Norton/Shelby said, they would be “as inoperative as though it had never been passed” because they run contrary to any rational reading of our Constitution and thus, are unconstitutional acts.  How can they be unconstitutional if they were passed by Congress?  As stated above, the Supreme Court said in the case of Miranda v. Arizona:   Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.  

Reflect for a moment on the Volstead Act.  Our enlightened legislators, bowing to special interests (of the time) voted to pass the National Prohibition Act which effectively banned alcoholic beverages in the United States.  In the case of ‘booze’ they couldn’t just pass some goofy Law (but they can with firearms, right?), they needed to amend our Constitution by way of passing the 18th Amendment otherwise the Law would’ve been blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional.  Likewise, if a statist wanted to make Trump President-For-Life you would need to LAWFULLY amend the 22nd Amendment rather than pass some goofy ‘law’.  If you wanted to auction the position of President on eBay you would need to LAWFULLY amend our Constitution and if you wanted to subject People to Star Chamber justice at the hands of police tribunals rather than give them a fair trial by jury you would need to LAWFULLY amend the 6th Amendment rather than pass some ‘law’ just like they had to amend the Constitution to make a cold beer illegal.  Why?  Because “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Contrary to popular (statist) belief, in order to ‘change’, ‘amend’ or ‘augment’ the power of government as limited by our Constitution, BEFORE they legislate to abridge its contents, regardless of their reasoning as to why they want to, before violating the Constitution as it’s currently written, one MUST go through the formal Amendment Process described within Article V of the Constitution.  

Why then do statists believe they can go around the Article V Amendment process when it comes to our Right to defend ourselves, our children or families?  Somehow (apparently?), they contend when Congress passes a ‘Law’ directly inhibiting, limiting, licensing, taxing or even stripping the Right protected by the Constitution with the words “shall not be infringed” from the People that their ‘Law’ infringing on this Right amends the Constitution and must be universally respected by you and I. 

This is what’s called “the color of law”.  Interestingly however, Section 241 & 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting “under color of any law” to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

So, let’s get back to our eighteen year olds being legislatively deprived of their Rights protected by the Constitution.  Here’s how you ‘lawfully’ take the the eighteen year old ‘Citizen’s’ Right away.  First someone (presumably a statist) writes the text of the amendment that you get BOTH Congress & the Senate to AGREE on.  They must agree to the exact wording of and approve the amendment by a minimum of two thirds of each house.  Then you send the proposed amendment to all fifty states to have their legislatures agree to the EXACT wording of the amendment and then approve it (IF their state’s population doesn’t want the change, the chance of passage is almost nil), then they (the states) vote yes or no on the amendment.  Out of the fifty states, the process requires that the states themselves (three fourths of them) need to ratify or approve the amendment.  That’s thirty eight (38) states being required to agree to amend the Constitution.  Not thirty five states, not twenty states (as in the ratification of the 16th ~ income tax ~ Amendment) and certainly NOT merely the legislative branch of the federal government.  The foundational “contract” of our government can only LAWFULLY be changed by this method.  Thirty eight state legislatures have to agree – to take away an eighteen year old’s Right to acquire a firearm.  In New Hampshire alone this means you have to get a majority of 425 people in the state legislature to agree on stripping these Citizens of their Rights.  Good luck with that. 

The statists continue to claim they have the legal authority to ‘regulate’  certain folks and the Rights they’re entitled to… “no rights are absolute” they say.  What pisses me off is this modern,  ~the ends justify the means~ progressive tendency to claim that the court’s duty is “interpreting the Constitution” and that’s where we get into trouble because the job of the court is to insure that laws, regulations and the wielding of power by the government is not in “conflict” with the Constitution rather than twisting words and desires into what you want the Constitution to say ‘today’.  Interestingly, John Adams (our second President) said “Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.”   As pointed out within the US Court’s own site (, “Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand.”   The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.  Notice there’s no mention of their job being “interpreting the Constitution” just making sure laws aren’t “contrary to the Constitution.

A sad fact of life is that the government statists and their (deep state embedded) media shills can manipulate a goodly number of unthinking sheep with jingoistic nonsense into ‘feeling’ like they should run right out and support the legislature’s “doing something” about violence by restricting the Rights of folks who had nothing to do with the violence they ‘feel’ so terrible about.  I unflinchingly use the words “unthinking sheep” because you absolutely need to be “unthinking” and a “sheep” in order to accept the premise that you can “do anything” about an idiot misusing a tool by restricting non-idiots who don’t misuse the tool from using said tool.  But, as Ron White has said on many occasions: “You just can’t fix stupid.”

What’s far more troublesome than unthinking sheep or even statists is the seemingly sane and thoughtful people out there that ‘accept’ the contorted and convoluted premise that the government’s legislatures are somehow empowered to amend  our Constitution with legislation while ignoring the Amendment process under Article V of the Constitution.  Many people seem ‘okay’ with the government  totally ignoring the Supreme Court again and again and again as in (Norton v Shelby) that instructed quite plainly: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed” or, when the the Supreme Court in (Miller v. U.S.) instructed “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime.”  or, when the the Supreme Court in (Sherer v. Cullen) instructed “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of the exercise of constitutional rights.or, when the the Supreme Court in (Murdock v. Pennsylvania) instructed: “No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.” or, when the the Supreme Court in (Miranda v. Arizona) instructed so damned clearly that: Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.or, when the the Supreme Court in (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham) instructed:  “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”  Essentially, when the government/statists ignore all of these very clear instructions and gets away with amending our Constitution by legislative fiat rather than the Constitutionally ‘lawful’ process they feel (probably rightly) that they can look at words such as “shall not be infringed” and go about openly infringing without any fear of repercussions or blowback from the public who feel they must keep their comments or reaction in the ‘politically correct’ sphere.  Why ~ I wonder?  

How, does one nuance or ‘interpret’ “Thou Shall Not”… or “shall not be”?  Indeed, how does one change the word and meaning of NOT into ‘can’ because the government wants to say they “can” have the authority?  Honestly, one can’t without pulling some ridiculous interpretive legal gymnastics while disregarding not just the original intent of our Constitution but wholly disregarding logic and the instruction/guidance of the Supreme Court in MANY other cases involving protected Rights.  Thus, I completely agree with Robert Emmet Connolly when he wrote in his work Armalite & The Ballot Box that:

“The courthouse is the final sanctuary of justice in a free society because any wrongs which are perpetrated in society, be they electoral wrongs, violations of property rights, matters of equality, or violations of personal rights, are ultimately and finally adjudicated in the courts.  When that sanctuary is violated, free society ends because there is no justice..”

Everyone recognizes there’s something called the “Equal Protection Clause” that’s fundamental within our law.  They might not know it stems from the 14th Amendment, they might not be able to define “substantive due process” but they know there’s something visceral in the phrase.  Simply put, everyone must be treated the same under the Law.  The government can not ALLOW laws to be passed or enforced which protect some Citizens while expunging the Rights of other Citizens.  In fact the 14th Amendment details the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, Citizenship Clause and substantive due process, in united States constitutional law.  It is a principle wherein the courts are to protect rights deemed fundamental from government interference.  How does one claim that there exists a firm foundational concept of “equal protection under the law” when the statists create (by legislative fiat) classes of Citizens whom they ‘entitle’ with certain rights while other Citizen’s Right are taken away; again, by legislative fiat under the whim of political correctness?  Imagine reinstating a system of institutionalized slavery where the government allows for and/or enforces Rights for some and a lack of Rights for others.  Imagine living under Apartheid.  Apparently, it’s okay for America to claim it’s a public safety issue and within their legal authority for the government to ‘legislate’ the Right of self-defense away from certain groups of people.  It’s okay for the US but it’s BAD when Dr. Werner Best, Chief Legal Advisor and second in command of the German Gestapo issued a directive in 1935 sayingArms in the hands of Jews are a danger to public safety” and they went about disarming them.  Go figure.

According to the FBI’s ‘Uniform Crime Report’, there were 374 people shot and killed with rifles in the entire US in 2016. This number, 374, is what all the hub~bub for gun control is about these days.  Four times as many people were stabbed to death and no American statist (yet) is proposing outlawing knives.  The government’s Department of Transportation confirmed that ten times as many people (3,477) died and an additional 391,000 were injured from drivers being distracted by texting and cell phones yet no American statist are advocating outlawing cell phones in vehicles.  There were 10,497 people killed from drunk driving in that same year but no American statist is suggesting reinstating the Volstead Act/18th Amendment banning alcohol or even banning automobiles which are ‘tools’ no different than any firearm.  I wonder why no statist is suggesting depriving the more than one million people arrested for DUI and operating a vehicle impaired (OVI), who might very likely kill someone (some time in the future), of their Right to travel just like they deprive folks who’ve run afoul of the courts their Right (under the 2nd Amendment) to defend themselves and their families. 

Not wanting to be repetitive but let it sink into your head ~ there were 374 people shot and killed with rifles in 2016.  Statists claim this is a riotous profuse use of rifles taking place such that there’s an outrageously disproportionate number of bodies (374) strewn around the countryside (out of a population of 325 million souls) but lets look at the other side of the coin or, as ABC’s radio host, Paul Harvey used to say during his thirty year career: “The Rest of the Story.

Under the Clinton Administration, the Center For Decease Control carried out an exhaustive study on firearms use in the united States.  They (the CDC), the Clintons and the statists didn’t like the results so they never released the outcome or findings of the study to their fawning media.  They found that the annual number of cases of “defensive gun use” or DGU (the government loves their acronyms) was 2.46 million per year.  Almost two and a half MILLION times per year folks like you and me use firearms in a defensive manner to protect lives and property.  That equates to 3.6 times that of offensive gun use.  So, when the statist sound-bites express the idea that their efforts to disarm you are for your safety and the safety of society as a whole ponder how being disarmed would effect the outcome of those 2.46 MILLION cases of defensive gun use (DGU) and how the inability to defend lives and property would’ve turned out for the families of the victims.

So let’s sum this up shall we?  Because bad people, acting illegally, occasionally threaten and/or kill innocent people, statists claim “something needs to be done about gun violence” and the availability of the tool (sidearm/rifle) that the nut job used during his illegal act.  Their convoluted logic is that to “do something” about the bad people, acting illegally it’s appropriate to pass laws that either take away the Right of self defense from people (not the nut job) or to outlaw the tool (sidearm/rifle) from from folks who had nothing to do with the illegal act (mayhem & murder) that got the statists wound up to begin with.

They develop an ever expanding list of (according to them) bad or generally irresponsible folks that maybe, sort-of, sometimes ‘could be’ statistically said to have a propensity toward being ‘bad’ (not that they were but that they ‘might be’) at some time in the future and, in spite of the fundamental American rule-of-law being one of “presumed innocence” they declare them second class Citizens unworthy of ‘equal protection under the Law’ as dictated by the 14th Amendment such that their basic Right of self-defense, protected from infringement under the 2nd Amendment is taken from them.  They implement this social policy even though no where in our Constitution is there any provision for lesser tiers of citizenship where some are granted Rights and others are denied Rights.

This ever expanding group of second class, less-than-Citizens consisting ~(for now)~ of eighteen year olds, retired people, war veterans, people having gotten in trouble with the law at some point or, nowadays, anyone law enforcement (in their infinite wisdom) deems “dangerous”, in any number of States, without any laws at all having been broken or charges having been filed, are disenfranchised and expected to rely on others (law enforcement) to protect them and/or their loved ones, even though, as stated above (with citations) that it’s been long established that police or any government agency has no legal obligation or responsibility to protect anyone (let alone second class citizens) from any harm or violence that might befall them and, even were they inclined, national statistics show the average response time for them to even show up is between 8.5 and 11 minutes, when the average interaction time between criminal and victim is 90 seconds such that you or your loved ones are dead or raped 7-9.5 minutes before the armed stenographers even show up.  

As posited above, they do this by making an ‘end-run’ around our Constitution and take away the People’s Right to self defense.  They pass ‘laws’ which they claim amend the Constitutional protections that are the foundation of ‘lawful government’ in contravention to what it says and what the Supreme Court has declared in Miranda~”there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them” and no one seems to ‘react’.  I would note that the lack of reaction or outrage does NOT translate to these actions being less than treasonous to the founding principles of our country.

These groups of well established ‘second class citizen’ above are, of course, only the beginning.  The statists goal, the ‘end game’ as it were, has always been complete disarmament of the civilian population just as they’ve done in other countries, at other times which has proven, again and again to be historically tyrannical or genocidal in their purpose.  Indeed, in his work “Death by Government” R.J. Rummel noted that prior to the 20th Century, 170 million civilians were murdered by their own governments.  Historians tell us that during the 20th Century perhaps as many as 200 million civilians were murdered by their own governments.  As such, a prudent man might want to retain his Right of self-defense.  Just saying…

These ‘elements’ ~ call them statists, leftists, fascists or just plain idiots ~ keep floating the same disarmament nonsense again and again and again, the goal of which, as stated, is to render the population defenseless.  They claim it’s their right to have these positions and to act towards implementing these goals.  They say they have the moral high ground.  Well, this is America so people can decide, with zero evidence, to believe in all manner of utterly stupid things having no basis in fact.  Our Constitution protects people from being denied their opinions.  I may believe they’re boobs, idiots, statists and a threat to the very country but they have the RIGHT to speak like nitwits but do they have any right to enforce such nonsense against the rest of us?  My position is NO.

Let’s say I’m a racist nitwit.  I  have an absolute Right to have racist ‘beliefs’ most everyone would agree.  Once upon a time merry bands of xenophobes (racist nitwits) could even ‘advocate’ racism openly.  Some racist twits even went so far as to say that “niggers”, “jews” and maybe even “catholics” should be gotten rid of.  Regular folks may have looked at them as assholes but, in America, Freedom of speech used to let them get away with that.  Today, calling niggers, jews and/or catholics subhuman or advocating doing something about those beliefs is called “hate speech” and it’s a Federal offense that can and should land you in prison.  Why?  Because open racism and advocating doing something about those beliefs is a clear and present danger to someone else’s Rights to exist free from fear, oppression and persecution and in this country and your Rights can be rightfully curtailed when you’re saying or doing something interferes with someone else’s Rights.  These statist’s right to their beliefs should similarly be limited when coupled with continuous ‘actions’ because there’s a principle in interpreting belief and action that goes something like this:  Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.”  This comes from the political and legal philosophies of Jefferson, Madison and John Stuart Mill’s work: “On Liberty”.  These were enshrined in our Declaration when it proclaimed all men are created equal with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

The fact is that EVERY civil liberty is protected by and reduced to Second Amendment. This was recognized by our Founding Fathers, especially by Thomas Jefferson, and it was completely understood by William Blackstone, England’s greatest jurist.  Blackstone wrote that whenever government broke free of the constraints placed on it by civil liberty, the “last right of the subject is having arms for their defense.”  But these statists intend to see your Right of self-defense is taken from you.  They may look like you and me but these people are extremists actively working to legislate away the foundation of a once great Republic and they’re accomplishing it through writing ‘laws’ not founded on our Constitution and totally disregarding the ‘Lawful’ means of changing our country which is Article V ~ the Amendment Process.

So, I ask you, would a cop wait for an armed assailant, brandishing a weapon, appearing ready to fire to actually shoot him or his partner before acting in self preservation?  Would any government wait until an anarchist group burns the Capital, brings down the government and actually overthrows it and our Constitution before acting in self preservation?  If you’re reasonable and your answer to these questions is NO then ask yourself if the Citizenry (us regular folks) need to wait for some rogue statist element to completely disarm them in obvious contravention of the Constitution prior to totally trampling our Constitution or should they ‘act’ against any proposed usurpation of their Right of self-defense before they’re marched into cattle cars?   These people, by advocating and actively working towards your disarmament, are directly threatening you, your children and your family while those tasked with protecting your Rights and those of your children, complete idiots who couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel, do nothing.  If you think the People of the united States, for some misbegotten reason of ‘political correctness’ or because some bootlicking media misanthrope tells you these ‘people’ have some right to their opinion, that good People need wait for the hammer to fall then clearly you’re some Moonbeam who needs to put down the Tide Pods and stop snorting the condoms long enough to Google Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge’s Killing Fields.  People like you believed they could ‘go along’ in order to ‘get along’ back then too.

While a charge of treason may be a stretch (legally) for these scum, Sedition and ‘betrayal’ of our nation and her People is a moral certainty.  Certainly they openly violate the intent of the aforementioned Title 18 of the U.S. Code § 241 (Conspiracy against Rights) as well as § 242 (Deprivation of Rights) carrying a penalty of ten years to a death penalty.  Dante’s Inferno reserved the Ninth Circle for those who betrayed their loved ones, their country and their God.  Sadly, we Americans have no Ninth Circle to cast these people into.  Nor, since they, in fact, control the levers of power in this country, the police, the courts and the media, do we have access to the Federal prisons within which to put them for the remainder of their lives in order to finally STOP this relentless and on-going effort to usurp our Republic.  What are the options open to us?  Personally, I don’t see they deserve any better than the “armed assailant” facing the cop mentioned above or a fate any different than any armed “anarchists”, because, when our Constitution is no longer the foundation of our system of government, when Oaths sworn to “support and defend the Constitution” and “that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same” are blithely disregarded, then truly, the Barbarians are at our gates.   Will it really take the statist revolutionaries burning your homes, rounding up your family members and putting you/yours in cattle cars before you realize you can’t afford a further step ‘back’?People have a moral Right and obligation to defend themselves and their families from such barbarians at the gates…

For the record, I apologize for being long winded here but in order to understand the blatant illegality of what’s being perpetrated/done with regard to the People’s (everyone’s) Right to defend themselves and their loved ones requires more than a four paragraph sound-bite piece.






Posted in Dictatorship, Domestic tyranny, History, police state, Propaganda, US Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Our ‘Politically Correct’ Nation

Since Trump got in we’ve been barraged with such blatant lies and utter nonsense from the media that most ‘normal’ people throw up their hands and ask themselves and their friends “how can these bozos get away with this crap?”, while the other half of the only acceptable political party in America have been relentless in opposing The Donald, instructing their stalwart sympathizers to resist the new administration to the point of open and armed rebellion.  Never have we seen a larger, more organized gang of cry babies and hand wringing whiners than we are witnessing now in America.  George Carlin was right when he said: “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

It’s gotten so ridiculous that not just the folks who supported Trump, but even those who didn’t, are now almost daily hoping that the shooting starts soon such that Darwin can rid us of all these Snowflake, liberal, Millennial, democrat, safe-zone requiring nitwits before they breed any further.

Yes, where we once had ‘principles’ there are none now.  Where once our schools and parents taught ‘values’ today there are none.  And, where we once had a proud Republic it’s now mere legend.  All that’s here now are ‘sides’; you need to take one or you’ll be labeled some misbegotten misanthrope whom eventually someone or other will devise a final solution for.

I, for one, am quite tired of the absurdity of it all.  Certainly tired of the ‘sides’, tired of the endless argument, tired of the same old claim of victimhood by one side or the other and tired of the make believe theater that most of the boobs around me seem to buy into.  None of it passes any scrutiny for any thinking human who actually looks into any of the positions.  For me, hanging on to my belief system, still futilely loyal to the old (dead) republic, I’ve decided that the most liberal thing I can do is to reciprocate, in kind.  I’ve decided that I hate everyone. 

I hate the retarded liberals, the right wingers and the Trumpites too.  I hate those goofy MAGA hats since, for the record, America hasn’t been ‘great’ since they shot Kennedy.  I hate the gays, I hate the straights and anyone else finding it more important to talk about sexual proclivities than to just have fun and keep it to themselves.  I hate transgenders and transracialists.  I hate the muslims because they’re freaking whacked, I hate the christians because they’re pussies and hate the jews because they clearly hate everyone who’s not a jew.  I hate white racists as readily as I hate the blacks who think ‘black lives matter’ über alles or insist I call them “African-Americans” even though they have no more in common with Africa than I do with eastern Prussia.  I hate dreadlocks because one can’t help but wonder ‘if’ the Rastafarian wannabe wearing them even bathes regularly.  I hate people who even mention pet and smoke free homes.  I hate feminists wearing pussy hats.  I hate any dingbat who wears their baseball caps backwards.  I hate the ‘press’ and the media who’s mission is supposed to be to inform the public but either spins events solely for the benefit of the financial benefactors or makes shit up out of whole cloth just to ruin the CIA’s enemies.  I hate the analysts and writers who pontificate endlessly trying to fathom what it all means when ‘it’ doesn’t really ‘mean’ shit beyond what’s obvious, in fact, “it” might not have even happened.  Hell, I even hate NASA who, in their endless quest to mislead those who’s taxes pay their salary, continue, in the 21st century, to pawn off black and white imagery without any kind of reference scale in a photo seemingly forgetting (or expecting we’ll forget) that mankind has had color photography since before Hitler was Chancellor of Germany.

So, right, left, middle of the road, I hate them all.  Every one of those ditzes who allege I must care what they think even though they don’t, or I must give them a voice, even though they have nothing of any value to say or allow them to breath my air when they are complicit in the total retardation of American intellectual progress and, to coin a globalist phrase, are: “useless eaters”.  I hate any who attempt to manipulate and I especially hate those too stupid to see they’re being manipulated which probably means I hate you too. 

The entire political ‘theater’ in this country is prevarication and its people, apparently, quite willing to carry on a meaningless debate on gender equality or about the color of the curtains inside a burning building rather than live within reality.  Nothing’s getting better and nothing ‘will’ get better.  The us/them paradigm coupled with the sky is falling is nothing more than the bleating of sheep, ruled by people who don’t give a shit about the sheep’s bleating.  It all rather reminds me of an Atlantean, eleven thousand years ago, watching the spectacle of lava and ash rain down, as their continent explodes and sinks below the waves, arguing with their neighbors over who’s job it was to build the dykes higher and insure the roads had a firmer foundation.

Perhaps you’ll surmise that I’m overreacting, that I’m a nut.  Then again, maybe you too are standing slack-jaw. troubled by his or her country’s decent into the abyss regardless of which ‘side’ is running things.  Let’s face it, if we weren’t significantly fucked up in this country then answer me why we put Braille on the drive-through bank machines?  Tolerance of utter nonsense should not be acceptable. When confronted with these mindless, valueless, principle-less, lying meat-sacks who bleat endlessly of their ‘needs’ or even those who claim their ‘side’ will restore our Rights and/or our Republic in spite of their side’s ‘actions’ being virtually identical to those of the neo-cons whom they replaced and/or ran against.  (I’m sure it’s all part of the secret plan to ‘fool’ the deep state which is little more than a variant of the quip “god moves in mysterious ways” we’ve all heard before.)  Please! 

Total derision is the LEAST they should expect from anyone with a brain since, sadly, we can only fantasize about clubbing them like baby seals while hysterically screaming “whack-a-mole!, whack-a-mole!”.

Posted in Domestic tyranny, Propaganda | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Observation on the Trump Administration

Is anything changing under Trump?  Once elected, the chanting “Lock her up” was answered with notion the the Clintons were good people and should be left alone.  Once elected the statements about uniting with Russia to “get ISIS” ceased; while our Special Forces are helicoptering into Mosul (March 2017) to extract ISIS commanders under threat by Iraqi military forces.  During the campaign he said again and again “it would be great if we could get along with Russia,” yet his senior cabinet people (Mattis, Tillerson and UN Ambassador Haley) have done nothing but state the complete opposite since taking their chairs.  Their statements and actions, in fact, have been unequivocal provocations to the Russians so, ask yourself, is Trump such an incompetent bungler that he allows his staff to openly and publicly oppose his will and stated positions which were, in many ways, the foundation of his victory in the election?  Is he really afraid of saying “You’re Fired!”  Apparently so.  One also may ask, how honorable or trustworthy are men like Mattis and Tillerson that in less than a month they’re outwardly preaching the subversion of their President’s publicly stated agenda?  He called NATO “obsolete” but promptly expanded American participation in NATO prevocational maneuvers right up to the Russian border.  He was quick to (rightly) say Clinton was “owned by Wall Street” and “bought and paid for by Wall Street” yet as soon as he was President he stacked his senior staff with Wall Street insiders.  If things are changing I’m sure as hell missing it.

I think apologists for The Donald might think up some silly excuses for the stagnating forward momentum of his crusade but I might respond that if the administration actually ‘wanted’ to make a gesture to the Russians in order to dial back the neo-con nonsense, how hard would it be to take a reasonable position on Ukraine that would cost us nothing and yet calm the Russian Bear?  A simple ‘public’ acknowledgement that the government of Ukraine has NOT complied with the Minsk agreements would be all it would take.  Indeed, virtually no attempt has been made to comply while violations of the agreement, by Kiev, occur daily.  As such the administration could say, there’ll be no funds approved and any/all US missions (advisory, training or otherwise) end today.  With regard to firing a shot across the bow of Trump’s critics (the deep state), how hard would it be to rein in or leash (if not destroy) John McCain who, along with his republican sidekick Lindsey Graham, continues to oppose The Donald at every turn?  Simple public disclosure of the circumstances of his POW ‘adventure’ would retire McCain whom we would never hear from again.  The message would be clear – we’re prepared to ruin you by letting your skeletons out of the closet if you choose to oppose the administration.  Instead Trump allows this cockroach to nip at his pant-leg like a yipping chiwawa demonstrating his lack of control over any narrative or his own party.  Were he intent on ‘showing’ Americans his resolve on the border would he embroil his agenda in Congressional legislation or simply ‘deploy’ the Army Corps of Engineers to the southern border to build the wall?  We’re paying their salaries every day already as the engineering branch of our Army and they have ALL the requisite construction equipment and Trump alone commands them.  He could call the action a ‘training exercise’ testing the rapid response of the Corps in ‘fort construction’.  From a domestic tranquility standpoint, how hard would it be to charge Soros under the Patriot Act for funding all those left wing NGOs who are organizing riots and demonstrations throughout our county.  Indeed, once the Patriot act was engaged, Section 806 of the act would afford the government the authority to seize “All assets, foreign or domestic–of any individual (Soros), entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism (as defined in section 2331) against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization;” In addition, provisions of the aforementioned civil asset forfeiture laws would come into play such that Soros and the leadership of any of his surrogate operations, NGO or charities would lose all bank accounts, real estate, stocks, inter-locking corporations and, in effect, all assets (controlled or owned) which, seized by the government, in one fell swoop, would render these people and their corporations penniless and powerless. With an alleged net worth of 25 billion dollars, Soros’ fortune would make a significant dent on the annual budget of the Veteran’s Administration.    Thus would ‘end’  much, if not all, of the domestic unrest going on in the united States.

The bottom line is talk is cheap yet I see zero evidence, that anything’s changing under The Donald.  The neocons still have their people in place.  Wall Street still has control of their strings.  There remains, as far as I can tell, a complete vacuum within government where ‘principle’ should reign.  And Americans continue to spend most of their time inspecting the insides of their eyelids inherently knowing they are as sharp as marbles.  Anyone thinking there’s a ‘revolution’ happening to bring back America is, I’m afraid, a little “dinky-dau” as they used to say in Vietnam.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Russian “Aggression” – Really?

US foreign policy can be summed up by stating (and accepting) unequivocally that we are the ‘good guys’ and everyone else is the bad guys.  The United States (TPTB) has decided that the Russian Federation, led (today) by that evil and murderous Vlad Putin are the bad guys (again).  For the American oligarchs Vlad Putin is the synthesis of Boris Badenov (Борис Баденов) and the rarely seen ‘Mr. Big’ or “Evil Leader” who flashed across our TVs from 1959 to 1964 under the auspices of the Rocky and Bullwinkle show.  Simply put, Vlad’s the text book, cliché ‘Bad Guy’ who’s socks smell, who’s mother wears army boots and who (if you believe John McCain) probably steals the identifying signs off transgender bathrooms.


We know this guy Vlad is Boris Badenov because he’s resisting the ‘will’ of the democratic and peaceable people of America.  We (US State Department) arraigned a perfectly good coup d’etat in Ukraine (costing US taxpayers 5 billion dollars) over throwing the elected government after which (among a host of other actions demonstrating that the west was going to ‘harvest’ Ukraine’s wealth and resources) we were going to help manage their economy, wherein 42.3 tonnes of gold bullion in the Ukrainian Central Bank up and vanished “in a mysterious operation under the cover of night, Ukraine’s gold reserves were promptly loaded onboard an unmarked plane, which subsequently took the gold to the US.  We were going to help them farm and manage their lands  and now 2.2 million hectares [or 5,436,318 million acres] of land in Ukraine found itself under the control of foreign-based corporations, insuring they would buy Monsanto’s best GMO seeds even though nineteen European nations have banned these GMO foods which will preclude Ukraine from selling the product of Ukrainian agriculture to them. -They still have to buy our seeds though.-  Anyway, sponsoring bloody riots in the capital, overthrowing the elected government, banning the Russian language (used by half the country), oddly enough, it seemed half the folks of Ukraine weren’t thrilled yet Putin got blamed for the reaction.

So, seeing the government of Ukraine violently overthrown by a western (US) coup d’etat in February (2014) who’s lawful “autonomy” was established in 1991, the people of the ‘Autonomous Republic of Crimea’ (pop quiz – what’s “autonomous” mean in the context of ‘belonging’ to Ukraine?) decided in March (2014) that they would put to their People the question of their staying an “Autonomous Republic” within Ukraine or, if the People chose it, petition the Russian Federation to reincorporate Crimea back into Russia to whom and with whom they belonged from 1783 to 1954 when a Ukrainian dictator gave the Russian Crimea to Ukraine as a gift.  It only took the citizens of Crimean a month to see the hand writing on the wall with Kiev’s neo-nazi paramilitaries roaming the streets. 

The plebiscite resulted in 96.77% of the vote reflecting a desire to return to Russia.  The voting was monitored by 135 international observers from 23 countries, including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia and Poland.  Polish Member of Parliament Mateusz Piskorski, the leader of the European observers’ mission, told journalists: “Our observers have not registered any violations of voting rules.  He added that the voting was held in line with international norms and standards.

So, while ‘Boris Badenov’ Putin didn’t roll any tanks into Crimea or Ukraine, the basis for the current 21st century war-mongering, military/industrial complex’s attitude towards not playing nice with the Russians is the catch phrase: “Russian Aggression”.    This aggression stems from the alleged ‘illegal’ annexation of the Crimean peninsula that the People of the Republic of Crimea voted for, under international supervision, who found no irregularities and approved of.  So, apparently, according to the neo-cons, you don’t need any Russians to actually have “Russian Aggression”; you just need the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to hold an election.

Now Washington’s puppet dictatorship in Kiev has not only lost Crimea but the Oblasts (states) of Luhansk and Donetsk have declared their independence from the Ukrainian dictatorship and their people (militias) are holding their own against the might of the Ukrainian armed forces and para-militaries who fire mortars and missiles into their neighborhoods on a daily basis.  The rebellion is spreading and before it’s done Ukraine may loose the Kharkiv, Zaporizhia, Zakarpattia and Odessa Oblasts as well.  Yet, the DC chicken-hawks continue their fear mongering hoping that if they repeat the mantra: “Russian Aggression”, “Russian Aggression”, “Russian Aggression” often enough, sooner or later enough fools will believe them that they can have their Gulf of Tonkin moment and kick this world war off.


If “Russian Aggression” is the result of allowing Crimea to return to Russia then I’m forced to reflect on The Donald’s comments to Bill O’Reilly on Fox:  do you think our country’s so innocent?  Well, do you?

Having a passing acquaintance with ‘history’ and ‘political science’ I would point out that long before Putin hacked the 2016 elections, kicked my dog, stole lunch money from poor homeless (gay) black children hanging around the Manhattan Salvation Army center and annexed Crimea, the United States sent the heavy cruiser U.S.S. Boston into Honolulu Harbor to effect a military coup d’etat against the internationally recognized government of the Kingdom of Hawai’i, on 17 January 1893.  Queen Lili’uokalani was placed under house arrest and on 7 July 1898, Hawai’i was annexed by the United States government.  This is a FACT.  Indeed, 1898 was a good year for the US because as a result of a fire in her hold near its ammunition stocks, the battleship U.S.S. Maine exploded and sank in Havana harbor on 15 February 1898.  Between the government and the Hearst newspapers the event was ‘spun’ (can we say: false flag) as a deliberate act of Spain whom we had decided to screw with and the sinking of the Maine was the cause célèbre for the commencement of the Spanish American War.  We won and promptly ‘liberated’ Spain’s colonial holdings.  On 10 December 1898 the US annexed, among other places, Puerto Rico and Guam whom we still hold as ‘territories’ rightfully “belonging” to the United States.  This too is a FACT.

So, applying an absolute minimum of intellectual acuity, if I understand the United States’ position correctly, over 95 percent of voters in the Crimean referendum have answered ‘yes’ to rejoining Russia and their historical and ethnic homeland since 1783 no more than a month after seeing Ukraine/Kiev coup government begin to implement fascist policies towards their ethnic group and this is interpreted by the west (the good guys) as being some kind of “Russian Aggression”.  This perception, being in direct antithesis to the founding principles of the United Nations articulated in their ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ which states that: “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.  It further flies in the face of the UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 which states: “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  The desires of the People of Crimea are (we can see) utterly meaningless to the US mindset which means the very foundation of the United Nations is likewise meaningless.  This claim of “Russian Aggression” should/must be accepted as true even though we mustn’t speak of the United States committing outright CONQUEST and annexation of the aforementioned Kingdom of Hawai’i as well as Puerto Rico and Guam with not the least bit of guilt.  These (US) actions or ‘possessions’ no one can call into question unless they’re willing to be called an unhinged crack smoking lunatic.  Maybe if the President and the House of Representatives forces independence on Puerto Rico, Guam and the Kingdom (State) of Hawai’i allowing them to go their own way in the world, Putin and the Russian Duma would force the People of Crimea into independence against their collective national ‘will’?  You can, I’m sure, envision the US, The Donald and the Pentagon gleefully letting these annexed territories go along with Pearl Harbor and all the other bases, right?  If not, do you think it’s ‘equitable’ to play with the idea of global war over Crimea given the FACTS stated above?

I would strongly advise a homework assignment for any of you interested in the aforementioned international relations.  In 1966 a comedy was filmed based on a fictional novel by Nathaniel Benchley called: ‘The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming’.  The tale depicted the chaos resulting from a Soviet submarine accidentally running aground off “Gloucester (Martha’s Vineyard) Island” Massachusetts, during the Cold War.


It’s hilarious even by today’s standards, demonstrating the preconceived illusions of our enemy of the day, the total misinterpretation of the other’s actions/intentions and the ease with which events can get away from us.  The point being, missteps, like those portrayed in the film as well as the blustering going on today are the way wars begin; usually with an “Oh Shit!” rather than an Evil Leader or Boris Badenov or even Vlad Putin.

I had rather thought that with The Donald being hired to run the show in DC that he would see fit to dial it back a bit with the Russians.  To my chagrin, we have Mattis calling out Russia as the biggest threat to the US and continuing to ‘augment’ NATO with troops, tanks and missiles right on the borders of Russia.  We have US warships continuing to ‘patrol’ the Black Sea as if it were Lake Superior rather than 5,300 miles away.  We have both Tillerson and Mattis rattling sabers against China regarding islands, that were lawfully returned to China after WW2 by the international (accepted) peace treaty.  We have Trump’s UN Ambassador still citing nonexistent Russian aggression in Ukraine and calling Crimea an “annexation” rather than self determination and demanding its return to Ukraine.

I’m beginning to worry that America’s hope that the election of Trump was going to kick the neo-cons in the teeth and refocus our attention on our country rather than everyone else’s business was, perhaps, a drinking the Kool-Aid moment.  I’m disappointed because as I listen to my nine year old daughter vacillate (this week) between going to an art college and being a Youtuber when she grows up, I ponder what the future might bring just as I did growing up in the sixties and seventies.

Posted in Foreign Affairs, History, International Law, Nukes, Propaganda, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s Missile Tests


According to Reuters and a bunch of others, Ukraine has announced its intent to launch (“test”) missiles into Russian Crimea’s airspace on December 1st and 2nd.  Indeed, the airspace over Simferopol, Crimea where Ukraine has announced they intend to launch the missiles is a civil aviation corridor for commercial carriers.  What could go wrong, eh? 

I mean, the US government wouldn’t have a problem with Cuba or Venezuela launching missiles through US airspace, perhaps across the Florida panhandle and Miami, or, how about Mexico launching missiles into Texas or California airspace contending that once upon a time those places ‘belonged’ to Mexico so they had rights to the airspace.  

The arrogance of the twits currently running Ukraine boggles the mind.  Presuming to hold military “exercises” above Crimea – in Russia’s sovereign airspace – threatening international civil aviation is one hell-of-a volatile decision.  It rather reminds me of the Polish dictatorship’s policies that kicked off the last world war.  Thinking they had powerful ‘friends’ and unbeatable ‘allies’ they went about ethnically cleansing the German minority stuck in Poland.  First in 1921 (Upper Silesia) then the anti-German pogrom of 1927 in Rybnik, ending with the final 1939 open extermination program announced by their  government news and radio who messaged: “daß im Kriegsfalle kein einheimischer Feind lebend entrinnen wird” (translated: “In the case of war, no ethnical enemy {Germans living in Poland} will escape alive.”).  Their powerful friends and allies left them hanging when German panzers finally rolled over their border to stop them and it didn’t end well for the arrogant fools running the country at that time.  ((An interesting historical sidebar here is the Poland’s ethnic Ukrainian minority suffered the same fate as ethnic Germans under the Polish pogrom.))

The best case scenario for the idiots ruling Ukraine, when they launch their missiles in December will be that Russia’s Air and Space Defense Command will have placed a few S-400 systems within Crimea which will knock the in-bounds out of the sky with the Russians remaining stoic over it.  A more unfortunate possibility is the Russian counterbattery radars locate the launch points and initiate retaliatory strikes against the Ukrainian missile batteries.

Then, of course, we can listen to neo-cons and their western press bleating about “Russian aggression” for months to come while the thugs in Ukraine cry like a bunch of sissy school girls over getting their asses whopped. 

These are dangerous games being played by nitwits.  Just saying…

Posted in Foreign Affairs, History, International Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Heroin, ‘Victimhood’ and hand-wringing


The heroin problem in New Hampshire (indeed, the country) is not just rampant but (we’re told) almost pandemic in its scope.  Every night the news brings us more sound bites from State politicians and law enforcement asking for more funds to “battle” the problem.  In 2014 Vermont’s governor was quoted in Rolling Stone (how appropriate) that: “What started as an OxyContin and prescription-drug-addiction problem in Vermont has now grown into a full-blown heroin crisis.”… Since 2000, Shumlin noted, Vermont has seen an eightfold increase in those seeking treatment for opiate use, with an almost 40 percent spike in the past year for heroin alone…”  According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)  “During the period investigated, the researchers found an average increase in heroin-related drug-poisoning deaths of 6% per year from 2000 through to 2010. From 2010 through 2013, the average increase was a staggering 37% per year.”  If only we made more money available (to the state) these poor “victims” of heroin could be treated or saved.  And so goes the government’s narrative.

While the users of heroin (those folks choosing to stick a needle in their arms) achieve victimhood status, apparently over those who choose to use crack or cocaine or some other potential poison of choice to actively and intentionally destroy their lives, the closest you might come to a government plan to stop this flood of narcotics is our agencies “communicating” with other states and federal agencies to thwart distribution.  Seemingly, not included in the government’s narrative is killing the ‘source’ of the drug. 


For the record, heroin/opiates don’t grow in Massachusetts or New York.  Perhaps folks should broaden their awareness just a bit to understand why these drugs are getting here in the quantities they are, making them the most affordable ‘high’ that our Citizens can partake in.  Only then can anyone honestly do something about the heroin epidemic in our state and country.

The primary ‘source’ of heroin to the United States and the state of New Hampshire, is Afghanistan.  Ever think that perhaps it might behove us to look there to BEGIN to solve our epidemic/pandemic/crisis of drug distribution and usage?

Of course, the Communists had a huge problem with the opiate/heroin trade when they had the poor taste to attempt the occupation of Afghanistan back in the day.  A heroin “epidemic” hit Moscow as well as most significant Soviet cities just as it has here.  Then came the Taliban, those muslim nut jobs who were the bane of the Soviet army.  With our weapons they kicked the Commies out of Afghanistan (the Ruskies were happy to leave) and the Hadji consolidated their control over the country.  The Taliban took on the drug trade in Afghanistan and ENDED it.  Indeed, by July 2000 were able to claim that they had cut world opium production by two-thirds.  In a New York Times piece written by Barbara Crossette on 20 May 2001 titled Taliban’s Ban On Poppy A Success, U.S. Aides Say  it was related that “The first American narcotics experts to go to Afghanistan under Taliban rule have concluded that the movement’s ban on opium-poppy cultivation appears to have wiped out the world’s largest crop in less than a year, officials said today.  Essentially, they executed everyone they could lay their hands on who grew poppies, processed the opium or attempted to smuggle any drugs.  The drug trade took a nose dive.  During their tenure, running Afghanistan, the world had to find and get their heroin elsewhere and prices rose. 

Then, we came.  Back into the hills goes the Taliban and guess what?  Suddenly the opium trade explodes in Afghanistan once again.  So, SURPRISE! – we get a heroin epidemic!  NOTE:  We invaded in 2001 ~ graph:


The government and their media shills would have you believe that the very folks who, due to their religious fanaticism, destroyed the drug during their reign “suddenly” (now that we showed up) are the one’s growing it, taxing it and exporting it (to America).  That’s rather like drugs being a non-issue in the Amish community due to their strict religious beliefs then, the US government occupies Lancaster Pennsylvania and all the resident Amish start growing dope and shipping it to Concord in those little black horse drawn wagons on theirs.  If you believe that you should be willing to buy the Brooklyn Bridge!


The facts are that the growers, refiners and distributors no longer have to worry about the crazed, anti-drug Taliban muslims anymore because US troops are keeping them in the hills rather than in a position to interdict the manufacturer’s fields.  The opium growers LOVE the American occupation.  Business is booming.  In an August 2007 report by the United Nations found that Afghanistan’s opium production doubled in two years and that the country supplies 93% of the world’s heroin.   Heck, even transporting the drugs to market (America) gets way easier (for the Taliban) although I can’t imagine how.  Can you?



Of course, a prudent man might leave the burning house rather than complain, after the fire, of burns and smoke inhalation he suffered while standing in the livingroom as it burns.  So, where I’m just the product of a public school education, again I’ll ask – what can we do about the ‘supply’ ?  Since we seem unable to ‘beat’ the bad guys after a decade or more of touring the Afghan countryside with our Ray Bans on (one should ask if that was ever our mission), shouldn’t we, at least, resolve the ‘supply’ problem by destroying the Afghan opium fields while our military is there with zero restrictions on what they do?  Shouldn’t we, at the very least, be napalming these fields that are growing this crap and exporting it to the States?  Presupposing you weren’t going to contend that if we destroy the opium fields, the terrorists will win, there is little doubt that in a few short weeks we could lay waste to these opiate operations. Come on, you gonna tell me you didn’t crack a smile when Robert Duval spoke his famous line in Apocalypse Now:  I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It seems like . . . victory!”  Napalm’s as American as apple pie.


Those issuing the orders however, those who’s Oath is to protect America, regardless of the public hand wringing, are totally unconcerned with the poison (opiates) being cultivated there or the drug pandemic afflicting our country which their troops are seeing and walking though every day.  The fact is that if they ‘wanted’ it to end, it would end but it might be posited that “no situation, is so absolutely beyond hope, or desperate, that it can not be made worse by the interference of a politician” so no one’s going to dry up the world’s primary source/supply any time soon.  There’s money being made!

Contrary to what governments (federal/state) or their media shills tell you, you need to recognize that the “heroin epidemic” and the drug trade in general, here at home, is little more than a government sponsored ‘business model’ with money to be made though law enforcement subsidies, courts, prisons,  treatment, counseling and most importantly the pharmaceutical manufacturers of Narcan that ‘saves’ an addict who’s overdosing so he/she can go on to do their drugs again without consequence.

According to Politico, the list price of Kaleo Pharma’s auto-inject version – specifically approved for a people without medical training to use in a life-threatening crisis — soared from $575 to $3,750 per two-dose package in just two years, according to Truven Health Analytics. Amphastar’s product cost $66 for two syringes at the end of 2014, nearly double the price a year earlier. Two vials of Hospira’s generic, which cost $1.84 in 2005, shot up to $31.66 by 2014.  States are clamoring to deploy these antidotes to all ‘first responders’, health centers, schools, etc.  Hell, New Hampshire’s Governor (Hassan) has written a universal prescription for anyone in the state to access Narcan.  I’ll leave it to your imagination who foots the bill for these drugs to get into the hands of addicts who don’t want to risk an overdose (culpability/consequences) resulting from their actions.  Just an idea, crazy as it sounds, perhaps we should see if there’s a correlation between politicians who vote to supply these antidotes to their State’s drug addicts or allow the Executive branch to keep our military in the Stans and if their stock portfolios happen to hold stock in these pharmaceutical manufacturers/suppliers.  Just wondering…

Of course, being the cynic that I tend to be, I won’t discuss the ills of the world that might contribute to the addict’s developing suicidal tendencies like the bleeding hearts will.  Their irresponsibility, their weakness and their self-centered, narcissistic lifestyle results in their not giving a rat’s ass about anything or any one.  Apparently we need only concern ourselves with the need to ‘save’ these poor folks by supplying an unlimited supply of Narcan to mitigate their overdoses.  Of course, while they’re living their perilous lifestyle of “victimhood” we probably need to feed them, clothe them, house them and pay them a living so as to sooth our guilt.  Myself, I don’t have any such “guilt”.  Most of us enjoyed Cheech and Chong’s Up In Smoke and somehow got through the 70’s being Dazed and Confused, finding ourselves, like Ashton Kutcher, asking “Dude, Where’s My Car?” probably on more than one occasion.  Still we were able to transition to adulthood such that we hold a job, raise kids, keep a roof over our families heads and pay our bills without willfully sticking needles in our arms. 

Nah, I won’t get into the whole ‘eugenics’ discussion about these folks either. 

Suffice it to say they decided their lifestyle and a society, can’t follow or intervene with folks for their entire life because they’ve decided to jump off a bridge.  Eventually, they’ll find a bridge when they have no guardian so our concern, more realistically, needs to be towards those under the bridge when these folks jump.

We can napalm the poppy fields in the Stan or make heroin dealing a capital crime subject to execution, but please stop with the ‘victimhood’ crap lest I have to choke myself with a spoon.  

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment