Voting in the US ~ Should It Be For Everyone?

Accountability/Responsibility.  People banter around those terms (when it suits them) and conveniently make believe they don’t exist when it doesn’t suit them. 

I recently thought of those words in the context of our system of elections and I wondered why I should accept, while I’ve worked my whole life, paid my taxes and paid for a home ensconced in the hills of New Hampshire, hoping to quietly retire ~ in other words, been both (reasonably) responsible and accountable, that some drug addled individual, living in public housing who’s been on the government dole for the better part of their life, should be afforded an equal say in electing representatives who will chart the future of this once a great Republic.  Why, I wonder?

Since most don’t even know, I’ll point it out for them.  This country wasn’t founded as a “democracy”.  It’s never been a “democracy” in spite of what the oligarchs like their media shills to repeat endlessly.  Hopefully, it never will be a democracy.  The US Army published their definition of ‘democracy’  as a guide to our soldiers: “Democracy is the “direct” rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.  A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.  Only a democracy lets every damn fool vote~it should NOT be the case in a Republic.

Before we go any further here it needs to be noted that, in FACT, nothing in our Constitution explicitly guarantees everyone’s right to vote.  Rather, enfranchisement has ‘evolved’ since the founding of this Republic and will continue to “evolve” as time goes by.  For instance, crazy as it might sound to any ‘responsible’ adult, the democrats and and their queen Pelosi have pushed (in 2019/2020) to allow for all sixteen year olds (10th graders!) to vote and 53% of these leftists believe illegal aliens should also be allowed to vote (for them, presumably). 

In 2020, Kamala Harris, Biden’s running mate, said: “Young people ages 16-24 are stupid that is why we need more of them to vote.”   Leaving these 21st century leftists behind for a moment, when America was established only property owners were voters.  The belief being that those with something to loose, those who would have to ‘pay’ for government, perhaps even those with demonstrable “responsibility” and sounder judgement, were those enfranchised with voting for the people tasked with crafting the policies the government would implement.   

Oddly enough, some folks expect you to have some understanding of how to ‘reasonably’ drive a car before issuing a driver’s license.  Some folks expect you to have some level of competence to represent them in court or carry out surgery on their children.  When it comes to charting a path for a nation in debt up to its ass and sitting on thousands of nuclear weapons however, we don’t expect anyone to demonstrate any good judgement, responsibility or accountability.  Just be breathing (usually) and show up and you can decide our fate.  We don’t care who you are, where you live, if you can read, are sane or even if you’re a Citizen in this country.  As Bob Baker used to say “Come on down!”

Now, everyone can vote and, if the hopelessly stupid and ignorant leftists have their way (as stated above), sixteen year olds and illegal aliens ~ ‘foreigners’ (2019/2020) will be added to the electorate to those already non-working parasites, voting for leftists who continue to promise to pay them (from our tax dollars) to not work.  (Presumably if Vladimir Putin walks across the US/Mexico border, he can vote too, right?  If not, why not?  He’s no different than any Mexican/foreigner walking across our border.) 

Essentially, every breathing, narcissistic, post-pubescent, biped who can crash the gates will be granted the vote in America unless we begin reexamining limiting the franchise to those Citizens with demonstrable accountability and responsibility.  Before this nation disassembles or burns to the ground from the ‘demands’ posed by people with no skin in the game, I believe it’s time to ask do we ‘really’ value accountability and responsibility or do we simply give it lip service while accepting that no one gives a shit anymore?  Do you give a shit?

There are a couple of ways we might address this turd floating in the punchbowl, to save this country, before they ‘vote in’ the 21st century’s equivalent to Joe Stalin and create some monolithic communistic tyranny or force the country’s dismemberment into little socialist/communistic city-state dictatorships because, indeed, we’ve reached that Rubicon.  We could revert to a restrictive system where demonstrable accountability and responsibility earns a Citizen the Right to vote.  Those people would include property owners, serving military and veterans having been honorably discharged.   Anyone suggesting this would set us back to a time before the Andrew Jackson days where only ‘white’ property owners be allowed to vote is slinging BS.  Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age for those above 18 years of age.  Since anyone can own property (any race, any age, man, woman or even whatever), since anyone can also serve in our military, this first structural option doesn’t, in fact, discriminate under those Amendments.  It merely rewards sound choices, accountability and responsibility with the voting franchise that was never intended to be a ‘universal’ franchise.

The second structural option is we could simply lawfully disenfranchise anyone unable/unwilling to take care of themselves.  Anyone under the care or supervision of the states or federal government would lose the Right to vote.  My short list for disenfranchisement would include wards of the state (persons under the legal protection of some arm of the government), prisoners or any individual under the lawful ‘supervision’ of the state (probation/parole) until their committed term was fulfilled, people relying on the state/federal dole (public assistance), programs like SNAP (food stamps), subsidized housing, energy assistance and TANF (temporary assistance for needy families) until they rejoined the work force and were self sustaining.  Of course, leftist organizations will sue in court, but again, nothing in our Constitution explicitly guarantees our right to vote.  But, where Alexis de Tocqueville remarked, “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” coupled with the study done by the CATO Institute (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-get-welfare) which points out “Poor people aren’t stupid. If they can get more from the government than they can from a job, they aren’t going to work.  ~ These people will always vote for whatever (anti-Republic) oligarch caters to their being ‘taken care of’ regardless of national interest.  Accountability and responsibility and thus, forming good choices, are CRITICAL to the Right to vote rather than any arbitrary ‘one man (or child), one vote’ scheme.  We need to limit the franchise to Citizens demonstrating such “responsibility” or the consequence, articulated by Alexander Fraser Tytler (and the US Army paraphrased above) will be: “A democracy (our Republic) cannot exist as a permanent form of government.” 

Posted in Dictatorship, Domestic tyranny, History, police state, US Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Kamala Harris’ Illegal Candidacy

While the deep state shills try desperately to obfuscate the very simple question about Kamala Harris’ lawful ability to serve as VP none of their pronouncements can make her a compliant with our Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” clause ~ Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5.  The term was defined, when our Constitution was written, in § 212 of The Law of Nations, the seminal work of Emmerich de Vattel.  That primary legal source defined it saying that in order to be a “natural born citizen,” as opposed to a “native born citizen” or a “naturalized citizen,” both of one’s parents must be, at the moment of the person’s birth, citizens of the country where the birth occurs.  This was confirmed in our Supreme Court (Minor vs. Happersett) when they said “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens  Thus, since Kamala Harris’ mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, was a ‘Tamil Indian’, and her father a ‘Jamaican’ neither of which were ‘naturalized’ citizens  when she was born on October 20th 1964, she’s SOL.

Of course, were there ANY proof that the parents (both) were naturalized prior to her birth they could easily produce it.  Instead, they call this question/point a “conspiracy theory” and “a distraction”.  They say she’s “been a citizen since birth” (which is completely true ~ “anchor baby”) but which has nothing to do with the qualification required to serve as VP and/or President as a “natural born Citizen”..  They say she’s a citizen under “the 14th Amendment” which has nothing to do with the qualification required to serve as VP and/or President as a “natural born Citizen”.  Indeed, the guy who wrote the 14th Amendment (John Bingham) defined the point via 3 requirements: “that you are born within the jurisdiction of the United States, that BOTH parents are citizens of the U.S. either by naturalization OR by being natural born themselves and that both parents must not owe any allegiance to any foreign country”

This is a cut and dry, black and white, question/answer ~ were Harris’ parents citizens at the time of her birth or not.  If not, once again, this candidacy, like Obama’s before her, is an utter mockery to our Constitution, our Laws and our country.

They let Obama get away with violating the exact same criteria (his father was a foreigner and NOT an American citizen) so they’ll whine about misogyny and racism in this case and they will get away with it again PROVING our ‘Laws’ mean nothing to the oligarchy running this country.  They ARE ANTIFA & BLM.  You though, better not run a Stop sign or not wear your required mask.  Just shut up, stop thinking, pay your taxes and do as you’re told.

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

Secession for New Hampshire and beyond

Back in 2010 I wrote a piece on New Hampshire seceding from the Federal union and it was published on the New Hampshire Executive Council’s web site.  Ten years have passed and we still have the seemingly endless federal screw-ups both domestically and in foreign policy.  We still have government official’s malfeasance accruing on daily basis that seems never to be prosecuted.  We have both parties (two sides of the same coin) actively working to subvert our Constitution and abrogating our Rights rather than any real fulfillment of their Oath of Office to “bear true faith” to the document that grants them the ‘limited’ authority to govern.  We have the leftists non-acceptance of the 2016 election result, their attempted soft coup by way of impeachment, their minions, embedded in the federal bureaucracy thwarting every attempt to not just rout them out but even govern.  Of late (summer 2020) the left’s shock troops, Black Lives Matter and the communist ATIFA terrorists demonstrating in major cities across our country over endlessly fabricated racial divisions, rioting, looting and initiating outright calls for violence.  Rather than putting down these insurrectionists we have LEOs and FLEAs standing down instead rounding them up as the domestic terrorists thus, they are insuring that this country becomes ungovernable in its current configuration.  Does anyone else (ANYONE?) see the handwriting on the wall here?  There is no “E pluribus unum” or “Out of many, one” anymore.  There is no “brotherhood~from sea to shining sea”, as was touted in the song ‘America the Beautiful’, anymore.  Those platitudes are no longer applicable here in the US; they’re gone now and quite likely gone for good.  Thus, responsible people need to start thinking about what comes next.  I honestly believe it’s time to, again, seriously consider what secession might mean to New Hampshire or some confederation of states from a practical (adults-in-the-room) standpoint.

Facts are, with the breakdown of any cohesive set of ‘national’ values, the breakdown of any semblance of real ‘national’ unity and after what we’ve watched with the leftist democrats manifesting after the 2016 election, there won’t be a peaceful transition of power when the other party wins some future Presidential election.  Just how many contested elections will the country go through before the anarchy we’re seeing today, in some of our cities, becomes the norm for ‘most’ of our cities?  The nations borders aren’t borders anymore by any definition used by modern nation states.  As such, illegals flow in with no end in sight.  Illegals are issued Driver’s Licenses in many states.  Illegals are allowed to vote, even hold political office in some places and our Senate votes to grant ‘illegals’ payments from your Social Security funds.  Many are beginning to see that ‘The Republic’, like Elvis, has left the building.  So, do we simply wait for the inevitable downfall of this country?  Maybe we wait for ‘a sign’ like a repeat of the sacking of Rome but only this time Washington DC?  No.  As responsible adults,  we need to start seriously exploring heading for the lifeboats.   Perhaps Maine, Vermont (God help us :-)) and western New York might go with us were we to put our heads together on a real ‘plan’.

The first hurdle before New Hampshire boards those lifeboats and flees the ‘union’ is something called “normalcy bias” which is very real, seemingly forcing you to remain asleep.  Wikipedia describes it thus:

“The normalcy bias, or normality bias, refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred then it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.”

This causes a condition know as “cognitive dissonance”.  The theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency and when inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals largely become psychologically distressed.  Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. Beliefs such as America is the ‘greatest country in the world’ while facts show America is far from the top of the lists when judged on such things as income, unemployment, levels of democracy, well-being, food security, life expectancy, prison population and student performance are demonstrably otherwise is an example of dissonance.  In fact, the United States is 33rd on the list of 33 countries falling below Portugal.  (http://www.geekosystem.com/us-compared-to-other-countries/)  Beliefs such as folks have ‘Rights’ in America when the actions of the government, through the Laws they’ve passed, clearly show that essentially all the Rights articulated within our Constitution have been negated is an example of dissonance.  Beliefs such as our country always being ‘the good guys’ while seeing that our government overthrows more countries and bombs/murders civilians in more instances than any other nation on the planet since WW2 is an example of dissonance.  Beliefs such as ‘we’re a nation of Laws’ when our government refuses to enforce Laws against their sponsors or themselves while having twice the number of people behind bars than the dictatorship of Communist China who has four times America’s population is an example of dissonance.  This ‘dichotomy’ between beliefs and the real world you’re living in causes the normalcy bias and cognitive dissonance.  The dissonance forces those experiencing it to misperceive the clear evidence of what they’re seeing, to reject the obvious interpretation of what they’re seeing and to refute the information that’s presented relative the real world or those who point out these facts.  Thus, we refuse to wake up from the far more pleasant dream rather than deal with the unfortunate reality of our house (America) burning down around us.  This pattern of behavior does NOT change the realities that face us, unfortunately.

To put it in perspective, imagine you’re ensconced in your home, fast asleep and enjoying a wonderful dream.  For whatever reason a fire starts and your home is becoming engulfed.  Would you hope you might awaken and respond to impending threat to your family and yourself or would you prefer to remain asleep enjoying that dream(normalcy bias & cognitive dissonance)?  That’s the state of the current united States today.

Normalcy bias makes you want to imagine some America from the Andy Griffith show but with hi-tech.  Yeah, we have some problems but everything will work out ~ it always does, right?  Instead, our reality is that the ruling class (our political leadership) of this country can best be summed up rather nicely in a fictional work ‘The Liar’ by Bobby Adair when he said:  …all of those politicians worked for anonymous American oligarchs and the mega-corps anyway. Elections and the endless news cycles packed between them had long ago ceased being the conduit through which self-governance flowed from the masses. Elections were a nationwide coliseum with a bloody floor spread from shore to shore, pitting every citizen against his neighbors so none of them would ever see that the hero politicians they rallied behind weren’t truly their choice, and weren’t going to Washington to do their work.  All those gray-haired fat men and loudmouthed faux patriots, kowtowing to a flag they’d draft-dodged their way out of fighting for, were either ring-kissing tools beholden to their deep-pocketed patrons, or eventually would be. That was what the evolved disease of American-style democracy did—it twisted idealists into narrow-minded blabbermouths who forgot every reason they ever picked up a mic and stood starry-eyed in front of their neighbors sincerely promising to make lives better.  Essentially our country’s leadership (such that it is) seems in lock-step with the popular legend of Emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burned. 

Hell, these clowns currently running this country can’t even figure out what bathroom to use, which doesn’t surprise me in the least since these same bozos, having seized the Mustang Ranch, (for back taxes in 1999) a legally licensed whorehouse in Nevada, found, with all the government’s expertise, they couldn’t even run a profitable brothel so had to sell it for pennies on the dollar.  With this continuing, there simply won’t be any America left and, contrary to what the addled ‘nationalist’ idealists believe, this won’t be ‘fixed’ with the next election, or the next, or the next.  In fact, a new poll, just released in October (2019), conducted by Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service finds that 7 in 10 Americans believe the country is nearing civil war.  It’s survey found that 67% of Americans think the nation is on the way to such a scenario.  According to the Institute’s executive director, Mo Elleithee, “The majority of Americans believe that we are two-thirds of the way to being on the edge of civil war.

So, beyond waking up to the fact that everything ‘isn’t’ alright in the neighborhood and that that awareness can not be ignored indefinitely, what other hurdles remain?  Primarily one of those hurdles would be food.  Can a state (New Hampshire) or a group of states feed its population without asking for support from the emerging third world state it broke away from?  Another would be how do we keep the lights on ~ power our power generation industry?  Clearly we would need to create an independent power grid (as Texas did) so we wouldn’t be subject to economic and physical blackmail by the states (or the federal elephant in the room) around us.  How do we keep them fueled?  How many are oil fired vs biomass power plants and what are the outputs and what to we do with Seabrook generating 57% of the state’s power in 2018?  How do we handle foreign ownership of New Hampshire businesses.  At what rates would we tax foreign owned business versus New Hampshire owned businesses?  How do our citizens purchase imported gasoline and oil pr other stuff?  Would we tax foreign and/or dual nationals an income tax on revenue earned in New Hampshire (I would)?  How do we handle points of entry?  (Airports/roads/ports)  A good read might be: http://portofnh.org/  What about currency & foreign exchange rates?

All these points (and many more) would greatly benefit from some moderated discussion.  Expert opinions might be garnered, solicited and shared.  Through feedback and discussion, policy positions might be formulated and honed.  In this way a true process of ‘educating’ the public on the benefits of independence and sovereignty might take place and support for the cause be earned.  The ‘discussions’ need to take place to prove to possible supporters or interested individuals that independence is possible.

If you’re willing to write a thoughtful, in-depth opinion on these hurdles or other subjects relating to going off on our own, I’m willing to put them up for all to read and respond to.  I would either keep identities confidential or quote you directly were you not bashful about stating such opinions.  Your call…  In any event, I’ll add to this piece, as time permits, some of my thoughts on what might need to be ‘thought out’ further but, I look forward to hearing from you.

************************************************************************************

20.06.25 posted ~ CURRENCY:  First thing many are going to concern themselves with (beyond their next ham sandwich) is ‘money’.  They want/intend to keep what they have and make more so, how might the New Hampshire Republic carry out a transition from the debt certificates of the US ‘federal reserve bank’ and a real indigenous currency?  This subject needs to be worked on by smarter people than me.  Perhaps someone who understands the mess that Keynesian economics has gotten the US & world into financially and Ludwig von Mises’ Austrian School of economic theory.  (Keynesian equals “spending drives economic growth” vs Austrian equals “savings and production drives economic growth.)

New Hampshire would establish a state bank like the Bank of North Dakota (established in 1919) to promote agriculture, commerce and industry in the state just as the BND does.  Regulations would be adopted for the (initial) creation of credit needed by the state (which is known as ‘sovereign credit’ ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_credit) to carry out its functions, just as the US Constitution authorizes the Treasury to create money rather than “borrow” it from private banks, at interest (federal reserve) and, said bank would offer reasonable interest (return on investment) to its depositors.  Imagine for a moment our state bank (the Bank of New Hampshire) offering 5% interest on savings and 2% interest on checking accounts.  Almost every dime in New Hampshire’s private banking system earning less the 1% return on investment would flow to the state bank and thus a huge pool of loanable capital would be available to promote agriculture, commerce and industry in the state.

I would envision the conversion of US dollars to New Hampshire greenbacks (we’ll make up a neat and catchy name for them later) to be on a one-to-one basis for assets and responsibilities (paychecks) within the state.  All US debt notes would be converted through the Bank of New Hampshire to New Hampshire greenbacks and the debt notes would be used by the state to source materials needed by New Hampshire in the US until a recognized exchange agreement was in place with our neighbor.  The goal, of course, is an economy free from foreign (out-of-state) capital.

Imagine New Hampshire needed a couple of food/produce plants for processing locally raised/grown produce.  The state’s bank would fund the construction, staffing and start-up of the facilities.  These facilities could be private enterprise or a mix of private/state ownership (say 80/20 split) in which case, the more industries the state developed, the larger it’s revenue stream from the derived profits it could count on (independent of ‘taxes’) to further fund state government operations.  Now imagine the state funding the development of private/state ownership of a refinery, or the construction and operation of ‘greenhouse’ farms for continued food production during inclement weather or anything else the state doesn’t have (currently) that would further self-sustaining itself and its Citizens.

Again, smarter people than I should hone the subject of finance & currency because I’ve never passed a math course in my life.

************************************************************************************

20.06.28 posted ~ FOOD:

I’m no farmer, just a committed meat & potatoes guy so a big question is can we feed the projected 1.35 million (2020) people in New Hampshire.   I’m ‘guessing’ we have the agricultural acreage to support our population (and then some). What’s needed to be developed locally is (as mentioned above) the processing facilities to can it, freeze it & get it on the grocery shelves.  Sure, for a while, we may have to do without our Honey Nuts & Oats cereal until we get our foreign exchange off the ground but hey, you’ll have to ‘cook’ your kids bacon & eggs or pancakes with (local) maple syrup for breakfast – what a trauma… but it’s the price of Liberty. self reliance & self determination.

The fact is, New Hampshire’s Department of Agriculture’s site, states: “Some 4,100 individual operations qualify as commercial farms in New Hampshire, managing 425,000 acres including crop, pasture, maple and Christmas tree production, conservation and other agricultural uses.”  The individual farms figure was ‘up’ from 2004 where there were only 3,363 farms recorded in New Hampshire who’s land totaled 444,879 acres 59% was woodlands, 30% cropland and 11% “other uses”.  According to the NH Farm Flavor site New Hampshire agriculture has “around 4,400 farms, each about 100 acres in size, produce a variety of crops in the Granite State. Both milk and greenhouse/nursery crops account for more than half of the state’s agricultural sales receipts. Livestock includes cattle, sheep, hogs and poultry. Hay is largely grown in support of livestock. Maple syrup production is strong, too, with New Hampshire producing 4 percent of U.S. maple syrup.  According to the state “New Hampshire ranks 48th nationally for agricultural exports.”

Were we setting a goal of relying on ourselves to feed New Hampshire rather than relying on those trucks rolling in from New Jersey or other states, farmland, right here, would become far more valuable overnight.  Food producers would be critical employers overnight and food processing facilities (Stand Alone Industries) would become hugely profitable employers overnight.  A good source of information (or to find someone with a clue on this subject) would be Food Solutions New England University of New Hampshire, Office of Sustainability 107 Nesmith Hall, 131 Main Street in Durham.  The short story is that yes, we could feed our population.  Were Maine (and/or Vermont) to join us in our exit from the “union” there would be a huge comfort zone regarding feeding the new Republic.   

************************************************************************************

20.07.06 ~ ELECTRICAL GENERATION:

With all its flaws, Seabrook produces almost all the needed electricity in the state.  The trick would be to generate that level of electricity more safely.  Given the fact the 2016 (government) figures show that 17% of electricity generated in New Hampshire was from renewable resources. It immediately makes you ask what we might do to increase that.  Small, private hydroelectric facilities as well as whatever alternate (solar) energy systems folks or the state) wanted to (privately) invest in and REQUIRE the electric distributor (these days Eversource but later could be a state & private consortium) to buy back unused energy generated by these private systems at 65% of retail value rather than the pittance they now offer us.  Property tax incentives/credits could be offered to prompt such investment ~ who wouldn’t invest five or ten grand in a personal/private renewable energy system if the amount they invested came right off their property taxes?

Solar panels can be manufactured right here in New Hampshire ~ it’s not rocket science.  (a DYI guide:  https://www.instructables.com/id/How-To-Build-A-Solar-Panel/ or https://www.wikihow.com/Build-a-Solar-Panel)  How to get the manufacturing off the ground?  How to start up a major producer of such panels within New Hampshire?

TAX INCENTIVES FOR HI-TECH FIRMS TO SUPPORT STATE PRODUCTION:

New Hampshire technology firms could be offered state tax incentives for producing ‘components’  for and assembly of solar arrays.  Those arrays might be deployed anywhere there’s open space owned or controlled by the state.  Ponder the essentially wasted space over median strips of our state highways which is open to the sky as just one spot for deployment of the arrays and tying them to the grid.  State investment in manufacturing said arrays means the state getting the return on investment.  Sales of the array’s output would go into the state coffers.

Imagine all the electronics assembly outfits in the state (https://www.thomasnet.com/new-hampshire/printed-circuit-board-pcb-assembly-services-97000560-1.html) assembling ‘some’ solar arrays for the state and getting tax credits as a result.  They could decide how much of their production to dedicate to this effort.  Said production could ‘fill’  any gaps from the usual work they support for their client base.  Imagine a local outfit like Dover Flexo Electronics, Acculex Components (and others) accepting state contracts for inverters and other controllers to manage solar arrays.  Again, they could be compensated via tax credits or NH issued currency and would reflect production being an adjunct to their current/existing business.

Then there’s micro-hydro turbines.  A real interesting outfit/technology which (I think) would be perfect for use in New Hampshire is Waterotor out of Canada. (https://waterotor.com/)  Raging in size from that of an SUV to a home size unit that could fit in an SUV this technology seem tailor made for our state given the number of slow moving rivers all over the place in the Granite State and, from what I gather, a one kilowat unit replaces 125 barrels of diesel oil in generating electricity.  How many of these could be dropped in the Connecticut River or any other New Hampshire river or stream (https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nh/nwis/current/?type=flow) with a flow rate as slow as 2 mph?  That could make a dent.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OspTIBQIq2Q)  

Another outfit producing inexpensive turbines for small river deployment is Smart Hydro out of Germany (https://www.smart-hydro.de/renewable-energy-systems/hydrokinetic-turbines-river-canal/)  I’m sure there are a bunch of similar firms but here’s an interesting vid worth watching of one of their units.  This thing costs only twelve thousand Euros or $13,500 dollars and powers three homes 24/7.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMlUvVhM42k)  Something this inexpensive with the rivers and streams all over New Hampshire would certainly significantly augment power to our grid.

************************************************************************************

Posted in statehood, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Black Lives Matter ~ ANTIFA, Riots, Arson & Looting ~ Oh my…

It’s hard to watch the news these days without seeing the riots, the looting, the assaults against innocents and the burning of building starting in our cities and moving progressively outward.  It’s impossible to miss the frantic slogans like “black lives matter” and “white privilege” sprinkled with “defund police” and even “kill cops”.  The media would have you believe you should be supporting the foundational premise of these bozos but let’s think for a moment.

Just WTF is this nonsense with “white privilege” they’re barking about?  Privilege implies that someone’s handing you something unearned but any privilege (if you could call it that) I have I earned, by working all my life to get, and I can assure you there ain’t much privilege here.  Sure as hell, no one ever handed me anything.  These alleged ‘victims’ are lumping all white folks into some false paradigm (collective guilt) which, itself, is inherently racist.

Applying the Latin phrase “ceteris paribus” meaning “all other things being equal, if it’s fair to lump folks (whites) all together without the least bit of analysis, that can go both ways, can’t it?  Let’s look at ‘black privilege’ from the standpoint of someone being handed something unearned.

A rather large number of blacks are given an income without having to work for it like other folks have to.  Instead, the government (the oppressors of blacks) provides an income to them at the expense of us taxpayers.  This same large number of blacks don’t have to pay rent or a mortgage like other folks have to.  Instead, the government (the oppressors of blacks) provides them with paid housing at the expense of us taxpayers.  This same large number of blacks don’t have to pay for food for themselves or their offspring like other folks have to.  Instead, the government (the oppressors of blacks) provide them prepaid EBT cards to feed themselves at the expense of us taxpayers.  This same large number of blacks don’t have to pay for healthcare for themselves or their children like other folks have to.  Instead, the government (the oppressors of blacks) provides them free medical care for themselves and their offspring at the expense of us taxpayers.  These blacks, thanks to their hero, Obama, don’t even have to pay for a cell phone like us whites have to.  Instead, the government (the alleged oppressors of blacks) provides them phones & service at the expense of us taxpayers.  Combining federal and state budgets for such ‘assistance’ totals upward of a trillion dollars that the government redistributes from taxpayers to these other people.

So, I ask you, who, exactly, has “privilege” in this country?  Is the white slob who works all their life, pays their taxes, cares for their kids, pays their mortgage and insurance bills and gets to retire at 65 years old (if they live that long) with around fifteen hundred dollar social security benefit “privileged”?  Or, are the aforementioned blacks “privileged” who, generation after generation since 1963, are paid NOT to work, have NOT had to pay their rent, have NOT had to pay for theirs or their children’s food, have NOT had to pay theirs or their children’s healthcare insurance?  Sixty seven percent of black children grow up in a single parent home and they learn how to play the system early on.  Get knocked up (but don’t get married) and you get a guaranteed income for twenty years.  Need a raise?  Have a few more with another undocumented father and the gravy train just keeps on giving.  Call me silly but having everything handed to you sure seems more “privileged” to me than having to bust your ass working for everything, like I have to.

Then, there’s this whole BS leftist narrative called Black Lives Matter.  God forbid someone points out that ‘all lives matter’ because then we cycle back to the Black Lives Matter terrorists alleging the speaker’s premise is based on “white privilege”.  Claiming exclusivity of just ‘who’ “matters” is inherently racist just in case one hasn’t figured that out.  Logic and cognitive thought, however, are beyond these bozos.  Rather than being some kind of ‘social justice’ activists, (for the record, the Black Lives Matter organization includes the Nation of Islam, the New Black Panther Party and it’s ‘network’ is currently working in coordination with the ultra-violent ~communist~ ANTIFA domestic terrorist groups) they’re merely a shock troop, organized and directed by deep state leftists to destabilize society with their own racial intolerance.

This is what they’re ‘allegedly’ bitching about~

This is their ONLY contribution~

I know, I know, it’s no doubt “racist” of me to point out that almost every gathering of these professional agitators (BLM/ANTIFA) have resulted in rioting, looting, arson & assaults.  But, no where have I found documented positive action that these barbarians can take credit for, in spite of the $33 million dollars that, top democratic donor, George Soros has gifted them through his Open Society Foundation.  That said, they always do quite a bit of shopping, although they don’t use Soros’ money for that.

So what’s really going on here beyond a bunch of animals, loose in the street, rioting, looting and committing arson and assault?  First and foremost I would ‘follow the money’. 

Where does that lead? 

George Soros

What do you call someone who allows themselves to be used for money?  The black’s colorful vernacular calls that person “a hoe”.  What the definition of a “hoe”?  Someone who lets any color pencil into their sharpener.

Now, were I a person of color I sure wouldn’t want to affix myself to any ‘movement’ that was funded by some Hungarian jewish guy, who’s never been bashful about having worked with the nazis back during WW2 (google it), who’s ‘using’ black folks like a “hoe” in order to simply destabilize America so that his minions (not black folks, mind you) can seize the levers of power in this country.  Can you say “played like a fiddle”.

Oh well.  They say they’re ‘victims’ of white oppression (even though slavery ended more than 155 years ago).  They say they’re ‘victims’ of “white privilege” (even though boatload of privileged? blacks have been provided a living, free rent, free healthcare and free food for generations).  They say they’re ‘victims’ of being murdered by whites in disproportionate numbers which is just plain bullshit.  Civil Rights Veteran Shelby Steele (a name these blacks should know) said: blacks ‘Have Never Been Less Oppressed’ In America.  But, black lives matter ~ presumably mattering more than any other lives?  Sorry folks ~ you’re racists, you’re idiots and you’re barbarian animals.

There may come a time when the police are forced to act against you.Your handlers are looking forward to the ‘optics’ when police reaction results in your bodies in the street.  That said, there are plenty of you so there’s no real loss, eh?  On the other hand, there may come a time when the Governor of the state your rioting, looting and burning in calls in his National Guard because the local police appear unable to neutralize you.  Then the ‘optics’ might include you finding yourselves looking down the barrels of .30 caliber crew served weapons atop US armored vehicles.  That will be fun (I sure have my popcorn ready) but again, there are plenty of you so there’s no real loss, eh?  Your real fear though shouldn’t be the police or even the Guard.  What you dumb-assed predators need to factor in is what the reaction of the real people might be, because if the general population gets real tired of all this racist/leftist nonsense, rioting, burning and looting and decides to face down these animals, there will be no more arrests, no more Miranda warnings, no more ‘Rights’.  You’ll be sniped at from rooftops, bridges, cars, alleys, and anywhere else an American with a gun is standing.  There are 100 million armed American citizens.  They have more firepower, per capita, than the police and Guard combined and they don’t give a fuck about ‘optics’ because someone else will have the job of picking up the bodies they leave behind in the street and dumping them in mass graves.

So BLM/ANTIFA, enjoy all that camaraderie of the rioting, burning and looting while you can.  When the time comes, we’ll be there for you.

 

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

New Hampshire Dog Licenses ~ WTF?

It’s interesting what you get when you mix a fair amount of ‘disinterest’ in being remotely ‘aware’, with a good amount of apathy and couple it with government’s natural tendency to overstep its ‘lawful’ authority and its law enforcement’s utter disregard for acknowledging what the ‘written law’ actually says in their pursuit of applying their ‘authority’.

Let’s look at dog licenses.  Have you ever received a postcard from your town requesting (perhaps reminding you) that you must “license” your dog or be (I’m quoting the postcard) in “violation of RSA 466:1?”

While I know that custom and tradition in America suggests that mere citizens should never question the ‘Authorities’ (we sheep should simply obey) I’m just cynical enough to ponder the fairness of my having to pay fees to own my pets while the family down the street with three cats or the man down the street with three goats or the woman down the street with three horses don’t have to license their pets.

Having a bit of anarchy in my blood, I actually looked up the “Law”  (http://nhctca.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/RSA-466-Dogs.pdf) to see what it said and for your edification, I quote the New Hampshire RSA below for your consideration: Licensing of Dogs Section 466:1

Procuring License; Tag. -Every owner or keeper of a dog 4 months old and over shall annually, cause it to be registered, numbered, described, and licensed for one year in the office of the clerk of the city or town in which the dog is kept, and shall cause it to wear around its neck a collar to which shall be attached a metal tag with the following information thereon: the name of the city or town, year of issue of license and its registered number. The tag and license shall be furnished by the clerk at the expense of the city or town. Regardless of when the license is obtained, the license shall be effective form May 1 of each year to April 30 of the subsequent year. Source. 1891, 60:1. 1925, 96:1. PL 150:6. RL 180:6. RSA 466:1. 1957, 217:1. 1995, 298:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1996. 1996, 67:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1997. 1997, 273:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1998.

Interestingly the post card from the town refers to paying “license fees” as something, no doubt, a responsible citizen (dog owner) should do. Oddly enough, this dumb Irish lad sees nothing in the referenced statute articulated by the town and written by the state, indicating I had to pay a “fee”, nor, am I guessing, did you? Rather, I see clearly referenced in the statute that (and again, I quote directly) “The tag and license shall be furnished by the clerk at the expense of the city or town.

Before I get into the legalistic nonsense of the misapplication of ‘466:1’ it might help if the reader had a clear understanding of the legal concept of a “license” which is defined as:
1]
A legal document giving official permission to do something
2]
The act of giving a formal (usually written) authorization
3]
freedom to deviate deliberately from normally applicable rules or practice

Why do you need the State’s “official permission” to own a dog when your neighbors don’t need official permission to own their cats, horses, goats or birds?  Why do you need “formal authorization” from the State for your ‘pet’ when your neighbors don’t?  Just how are you “deviating” from anything by owning your pet any more than your neighbors who own theirs such that you’re liable to a financial penalty while they are not?

Ponder for a moment that Article 2 of New Hampshire’s Constitution – specifically guaranteeing us the Right to “acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property” as well as “Equality of rights under the law”.  Would the State argue that our own Article 90 of New Hampshire’s Constitution states that the laws of our State remain in full force “except where repugnant to the rights and liberties contained in this constitution” doesn’t apply to “pets”?  If not, then why, I wonder, are we dog owners being treated differently than the people with three cats, the man with three goats or the woman with three horses?  Acquiring their animals is a Right under our Constitution however when any of us acquire a dog we’re (apparently) “deviating deliberately” from normal practice and must beg “formal authorization” and “official permission” and pay a fee/tax to keep our chosen pet even thought humans have kept pets since they lived in caves.   

Just how obviously absurd would this be if we were applying the same criteria to property taxes versus dog licenses wherein they taxed everyone with a two story home while charging no property taxes to anyone who’s taste ran to a double wide or a three story home? Would such a tax be construed as being ‘equally’ applied to the state’s property owners? Would I be expected to pay my fair share of property taxes without argument while my neighbors were not asked to shoulder an equal burden because they preferred a ranch style home? Perhaps only smokers of Marlboro cigarettes should have to pay State excise taxes on this product while Camel & Winston smokers get a pass on the tax or only beer drinkers be taxed on their drink of choice while those who prefer single malt scotch or Chardonnay not be taxed on their libation? These comparisons reflect the absurdity of the ‘application’ of this statute and its discriminatory enforcement within the State.  Or, perhaps, someone would like to explain how this is “fair”.

Leaving aside the discriminatory “application” of this statute, lets delve into another judicial doctrine used by the courts, when interpreting any Law’s illegitimacy, know as the “void for vagueness” doctrine.  Simply put, if you’re confused by how it’s written then that’s one of the problems with the statute.  The Federal Court of Appeals summarizes this doctrine as follows: “A law is void for vagueness if persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application . . . .  So, if you perceive the wording above to mean the town has to cover the cost of the license yet town officials claim to believe the opposite then it’s because the statute was written vaguely and, according to judicial doctrine, it’s void for vagueness! 

The fact is that you’ve been paying “fees” for tags that, by LAW (go ahead, read the statute again), are to be “furnished by the clerk at the expense of the city or town” for the simple reason that it’s become ‘custom’, over the years, that the towns interpret this statute to mean you must cover the expense of the tag (damn convenient, eh?) when the Law says they must.

Interestingly, the United States Supreme Court ruled (in Murdock v. Pennsylvania) that “No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore.  In Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama the Supreme Court ruled that “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.  Both these decision seem to indicate that New Hampshire’s statute (RSA 466:1) is attempting to convert a liberty into a privilege; to, indeed, license, tax and charge a fee for a Right protected under Article 2 of New Hampshire’s Constitution.

One might also ponder if a State should be able to (legally) discriminate against one group of its citizens by taxing them for the same behavior (a Right) as another group of its citizens not subject to the tax? Once upon a time, southern states used to tax black citizens to vote in elections while giving whites citizens a pass on the tax. The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional and illegal to do so. In the present instance to force one group of Citizens (dog owners) to ask permission of the state and be charged a tax while other Citizens (owning different species of pets) are not equally having their property rights affected, is discriminatory and presumably unconstitutional.  Why does no one bitch?

The unenlightened might make a knee-jerk response that the state has the authority to force compliance with this discriminatory tax scheme because of the health risk of rabies.  (good intentions)  Bullshit.  The fact is that the CDC says that rabies can be carried by all domestic animals such as horses, cows, pigs, sheep and goats as well as dogs and cats.  Indeed, the CDC says that cats have rabies about three times as often as any other domestic animal.  So if all these domestic animals (pets) can get, carry and transfer rabies, why is it that I, as a dog owner, am the only pet/livestock owner being charged a fee and forced to “license” my animal while others don’t?

So, in the case of New Hampshire’s dog licensing scheme, we start with the goofy premise that, unlike everyone else in New Hampshire, who’s guaranteed, under Article 2 of New Hampshire’s Constitution, the Right to “acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property”, the unfortunate dog owner has no such Right like their fellow Citizens because, unlike their peers (the owner of any other animal), a dog owner needs to ask the state’s “official permission” or get “formal authorization” to own their animal (seek a ‘license’) while their neighbors don’t need such “permission” or “authorization” (license) for their animals.  Then we proceed with further goofiness wherein the Law is written, ordering that the license is to be furnished “at the expense of the city or town” but the cities and towns, in their dystopian reading of the RSA, the towns ‘interpret this’ to mean that the licenses will be furnished at the expense of the dog owner.  The very fact that the towns act as though they are unclear at who’s expense the license will will be provided, means that the law itself is void for vagueness.

I’m sure some will just roll their eyes and say to “pay the damn fee – it’s the law” but if the federal courts say that states can’t convert a Right into a privilege and charge a fee for it, why the hell should anyone roll over for a law that’s illegal and unconstitutional on so many levels? 

Posted in Domestic tyranny, US Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

11 September ~ ho-hum… fugetaboutit

Ever notice how something you read or see triggers a memory or makes you think about something you haven’t thought about in a while?  I read something the other day that turned on the ‘way-back’ machine in my head and got me thinking about September 11th again.  Likely it was some goofy remark about ‘who-done-it’ that got me thinking and I asked myself, “Are people so freaking stupid that they can’t string together a few simple facts in order to arrive at a logical conclusion?”  Most people think they know what happened that day, but do they?

While I’m sure it’s racist and neo-fascist these days to look at facts and actually draw a conclusion I hazard to posit this to you.  If you want to reach a factual conclusion about September 11th you need to put aside the conflicting claims, contradictory testimony, confusing speculation and outright deceptive information that powers-that-be’s put out there to muddy the waters of any real understanding of what may have really befallen us on that day and simply only look at the photo below to cut through all the bullshit in one fell swoop.

The truck (above) was stopped and occupants arrested on 9/11.  The truck was festooned with a mural depicting an airliner flying and exploding into the World Trade Center.  The paint wasn’t wet so obviously, this truck was painted prior to September 11th.

The truck wasn’t owned by Palestinians, not by Iranians, Iraqis, Libyans or even Afghans.  The truck was owned/operated by ‘Urban Moving Systems Inc.’ an Israeli (Mossad) owned front company operating in New York who’s owner fled to Israel before the FBI could question him about the truck’s mural, his operation, employees or the trace elements of explosives found in the truck.

The Israelis owned and were driving that truck on September 11th.  The Israelis (former Israeli Defense Force operatives arrested with socks stuffed with cash.) were seen celebrating, photographing and videotaping the aircraft crashes as they happened, holding up their Bic lighters and ‘high-fiving’ each other as the building burned and Americans died.   Clearly the Israelis had the prescience of what was going to happen on September 11th to paint that perverse mural on the sides of their truck as (apparently) a means of graphically, yet subtly, saying “fuck you” to the American goy who got attacked that day.  Sort-of like if were Lee Harvey Oswald caught wearing this sweat shirt (below) that morning in Dallas that Senator John McCain wasn’t bashful about calling an “intervention”.

If you find  it a ‘mere coincidence’ that some Israeli ‘company’ had the miraculous clairvoyance to paint their moving truck with the events of the day of September 11th and drive it around New York that day, you won’t even blink at the fact that all three of the September 11th airports that allowed the alleged 19 hijackers through their security screening protocols with box-cutters, mace, and even a gun, were all contracted with the same Israeli ‘private’ security firm, ICTS, who’s security personnel are mostly ex-Shin Bet officers.  (Shin Bet is, of course Israel’s internal security service known as “Sherut ha’Bitachon ha’Klali”)  Either you can believe the Israelis were ‘clairvoyant’ in their precognition of the events of September 11th sufficient to (for some sick reason) paint their trucks, prior to the event, with this in-your-face mural and send their operatives out to (in their own words) “document” the event and that the Israeli security professionals ‘accidently’ let 19 questionable people board the various aircraft that day or you can believe (correctly, I believe) that the Israeli foreknowledge of the attack might just indicate they were participatory in its execution and thus the ones who attacked us, just like they were on the day they bombed, torpedoed & strafed our naval ship the USS Liberty, killing 34 of our Naval officers and sailors and wounding 171.

Then, of course, there’s the Israeli Odigo instant messaging service with offices in New York and Herzliya, Israel. (Herzliya also happens to be ~ SURPRISE! ~ the home of the Mossad Headquarters)  Oddly enough, two hours before the attack on September 11th, messages went out to Israeli subscribers ‘predicting’ the attack on the Towers.

On that fateful day it should be noted that out of the 4000 Israelis believed to have worked in and around the Towers and the Pentagon only FIVE died.  Imagine that…  This isn’t to say only five American Jews died on 9/11 but five ‘Israeli citi   zens’.  Two of those five were aboard the allegedly hijacked flights.  Thus only three Israelis died in the Towers themselves on 9/11 which, given the numbers that worked in and around them it’s, shall we say, a statistical anomaly but pointing that out is, I’m sure, anti-semitic and racist. 

Back in 1964, in the 007 film Goldfinger, the bad guy pointed out:  Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: ‘Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.”

1. An Israeli truck (linked to their intelligence services), prepainted with scenes depicted the actual attack on September 11th…

2. Airport security allowing the alleged bad guys through to the planes were all controlled by the Israelis (linked to their intelligence services)…

3. The Israeli company Odigo (linked to their intelligence services) warning Israeli citizens of the attack prior to its taking place…

These are not ‘conspiracy’ “theories”, these documentable facts are “evidence” of a ‘conspiracy’ that you would need to be a nitwit to write off as happenstance.

The current Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, commented on the attack, to the New York Times, back then:  “It’s very good…”  “Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.” (for Israel)  He then predicted, that the attacks would “strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.”

All of this (for me, at least) brings to mind another apt movie quote: Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.

What does the fact that Americans can’t seem to string these three ‘facts’ together to arrive at a logical conclusion about who attacked us on 9/11 say about us?  Either:

Or… 

Posted in Dictatorship, Domestic tyranny, Foreign Affairs, Greater Israel, History, IDF, Israel, police state, Propaganda | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Kerch Strait ~ for Dummies

International Law recognizes the countries bordering oceans and seas have, by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, ‘territorial waters extending 12 nautical miles.The Kerch Strait is (at it widest) a tad over nine (9) miles wide and runs between two land masses that are both Russian territory.As such, for any vessel to pass into the Sea of Azov, they must traverse through Russian territorial waters and within five (5) miles of Russian coastline.Russia thus controls the Sea of Azov ~ it is, for all intents and purposes, a Russian lake with Ukraine across the lake.

There are those, such as the oligarchy running Ukraine and my country as well as the west in general, who continue to ‘contend’ that Crimea belongs to Ukraine regardless of the People voting to rejoin Russia but that contention doesn’t make the facts on the ground any different.  Crimea is just as ‘Russian’ now as it was before the Ukrainian dictator Khrushchev “decreed” he ‘gave it’ to Ukraine in 1954.  If Ukraine still has a right of sovereignty over Crimea as is their fantasy then, presumably Puerto Rico & Guam still belong to Spain?  Perhaps the united States, or Australia still belongs to Britain?  Or maybe Alaska still belongs to Russia?  You simply can’t have it both ways.  ‘Wishing’ it were so doesn’t make it so folks.

The concept of ’freedom of navigation’ does not apply to a circumstance where a hostile country’s (or their pal’s) waships can ‘force’ their way through another country’s territorial waters into an inland sea or lake.  To do so, risks war.  Pure and simple.

Before folks decide to hose the sidewalks down with testosterone insisting the Russians should allow hostile (NATO) nation’s navies to pass through their waters, within five (5) miles of their coasts, to enter the Sea of Azov ask yourself if ‘freedom of navigation’ works both ways?  If yes, I guess you would agree the Russian or Chinese or Iranian warships should be allowed to motor up the Saint Lawrence river into Lake Ontario with a ship, perhaps the Russian missile cruiser Moskva, armed with Kalibr (Tomahawk like) cruise missiles…?  How many US cities/targets would be within the 200 mile range of those Mach 3 missiles?  Would you be hearing a resounding “HELL NO” from the Americans living in New England?  What goes around comes around, eh? 

Posted in Foreign Affairs | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

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 (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-dangerous-jobs/) 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.

SIDEBAR:

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.”  (oops ~ they killed him so I guess you can’t ask him after all)  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, 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.  

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.  Out of a population of 330 MILLION people in the US, 374 were killed with rifles ~ are rifles the issue?

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.

People need to be clear that 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 (http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about), “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 totally 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. 

Allowing legislatures to selectively remove the Rights of groups/people they have ‘selected’ or ‘targeted’ is, simply put, a breach of the “Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th Amendment.   The government can not ALLOW laws to be passed or enforced which protect some Citizens while expunging the Rights of other Citizens and still maintain it is a “nation of Laws”.  It’s okay for the US statists to “regulate” the Rights of certain groups of its Citizens but it’s BAD when, in 1935, Dr. Werner Best, Chief Legal Advisor and second in command of the German Gestapo issued a directive sayingArms in the hands of Jews are a danger to public safety” and they went about disarming them.  Go figure.

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 are lawful but 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.   These statists have attempted to undo the protections provided by the Second Amendment for years and always, there’s someone telling us we should remain civil, discuss the ‘differences of opinion’, entertain some kind of ‘give and take’ by accepting some of their positions and proposals as acceptable in the hope of a negotiated ‘reasonable’ settlement with these people who are adamant in their belief that they have the right & authority to disenfranchise you unConstitutionally. 

Let’s replace the subject matter being negotiated (your God given Right to defend yourself and your loved ones, not to mention defend ‘Liberty’) with the concept of pedophilia where your son or daughter are the specific target of the of the people advocating for the other side.  You’re expected to remain civil, discuss ‘differences of opinion’, entertain some kind of ‘give and take’ by accepting some level of access to your son or daughter.  Perhaps they promise not to have actual intercourse with your son or daughter if you allow for their “reasonable” access to them.  Would you entertain such a “reasonable” position or would you shoot the SOB in the face?  What sane individual (with children) would tell you that you should’ve been reasonable or that the twit with the .45 caliber hole in his/her face had a  right or authority to insist upon such access to your kid? 

Your Right (everyone’s Right) to self defense (bearing arms) involves the very same cut and dried decision.  You’re either willing to let these people have their way with you and your loved ones or you’re not.  If you’re not, then you need to make very clear that there will be NO negotiation, NO ‘reasonable’ infringement of your Rights, NO give and take and NO acceptance of their ‘authority’ to “regulate” the Right of self defense.  Isn’t the popular phrase these days “No means No”.  If they insist ~ then DEFEND yourself and your loved ones.

Simply put, 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, (satatists) 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.

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 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