January 21, 2019

It’s A Bad Bad Bad Bad World

There’s a scorpion stinger right there on the globe earth, there is the stinger there’s the tail the tail wraps around the Scorpions body there are the legs and there is the claw of the scorpion and this guy at the head of the crowd that makes up the scorpion that’s running away, he is right in the claw that’s grabbing him and he’s running after the hugest distraction that is fake money that buys everything shiny that gleams in the human eye..It’s a mad mad mad mad world system.. Holly-Rude has been mocking the world with cleverly hidden truths for decades.. This of course is in relation to Rev. 9.. The Locusts with Scorpion tales coming out of the pit..



Thank You Lord Almighty for this message…
Share

Citizen Did And Still Does Mean Subject

CITIZEN = SUBJECT

AMERICAN = ENGLAND By The Informer

    Before getting into the case at hand you MUST understand a little known concept in English writing and the legal term and use of certain words by the court. Failure to understand will result in a poor reading of the case. And, in fact all other cases you read. That is why there is so much misunderstanding amongst people when they read a case. I can read a case and get an entirely different set of facts that most all people do not see. Most people are after a specific thing in a case to prove a point and miss a lot of good material.

Commas are a very important piece of understanding a sentence.

COMMA.n. A segment, to cut off. In writing and printing, this point [,]denoting the shortest pause in reading, and separating a sentence into divisions or members, according to the construction. Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary

RULES OF PUNCTUATION–COMMAS THAT SET OFF.

4.1.1 Commas usually set off words, phrases, and other sentence elements that are parenthetical or independent. Items of this sort are contrasting expressions. <Work, not words, is what is needed.>

4.1.2 Commas usually set off appositional or modify words, phrases, or clauses that do not limit or restrict the main idea of a sentence. <We leave at three O’clock, when the bell rings.>

4.2.2 Whenever in spoken English there is an enumeration of items, a rising or sustained pause separate and distinguishes each member of a series. In writing, a comma likewise separates words, phrases or clauses that occur in a series.<He opened the can, removed the contents, and replaced the lid.>

4.4.2 It is equally important to insert a comma to prevent misreading or ambiguity. <As the car struck, the utility pole fell with a crash.>

WEBSTER’S SEVENTH COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, 1970 PUNCTUATION

    So you can see just how important commas are and where they are placed in a sentence. You may want to refer to this when reading the case.

    Now we come to an all important word that when in law means something entirely different than what you think it means and the courts are well aware of this when they read legal briefs or write determinations. Something the average writ writer has no clue as to how he is using the word. That word is the simple word “OR”. Did you know that the word OR means AND unless a specific word is used in conjunction with it in LAW?

Standard definition Webster’s Dictionary.

OR. Conj.. Used as a function word to indicate an alternative.

So it is a conjunction.

CONJUNCTION. The state of being conjoined; occurrence together in time or space; connective.

Therefore, it can mean the word on either side of “or” are one and the same.

Ballentine’s Law Dictionary 3rd edition. 1969

OR. A conjunction normally in the disjunctive. A conjunction properly used with “either” in stating a proposition in the alternative.

BLACK’S LAW 4th ED

OR, conj.. A disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things. It is also used to clarify what has already been said, and in such cases, means ‘in other words,’ ‘to wit,’ or ‘that is to say.’ Or is frequently misused; and courts will construe it to mean ‘and’ where it is so used. However, where the word ‘or’ is preceded by the word ‘either,’ it is never given a conjunctive meaning.

    Now you are going to see how important that little word is, as well as the comma. Here I just gave you a prime example that the comma in the preceding sentence separated two independent things, word and comma. Look at punctuation rule 4.2.2 and 4.4.2. Apply it to all other law and you will be shocked that you have probably misread or misconstrued every law and case that you have seen. Now I have given you a second example in the preceding sentence where I used the word OR to mean AND. Since I did not use the word either in the sentence the word misread, OR means AND. And you wonder why these kids from age 35 back to age 18 have no concept of what they read and can’t understand a thing about the world today when it comes to a simple contract? And you wonder why I and only a few other researchers see what you don’t see in law or court cases and say we are wrong because you don’t understand punctuation or the word Or means AND?

    Hopefully I will not have to explain after you read the case. You will pick up on the fact that the term citizen of the United States was used well before the 14th Amendment was ever adopted, like pre 1824. You will see that the word ‘either’ NEVER appears in the decision. However you will see the word ‘neither’ used twice. Remember sentence construction from 6th grade where the “neither nor” rule applied like the “either or rule?” How many remember being taught that like I was?

    You will see that citizen subject is one in the same and is what I have been saying since 1990. So you are not and never were a sovereign. Also you will see that they, the sovereigns, your rulers, can naturalize every man woman and child when an area joins the Union in one fell swoop. The people did not join the Union as only fictions called States can join the Union.

    This case shows where one can be a subject (citizen) of a state and still not be a citizen of the United States despite the 14th Amendment. All the 14th did was to put all under the military rule and was designed for corporations as evidenced by the fact the first time it was used to defend a black man was in the early 1930’s. Come on now, from 1868 to 1933 that no case ever used it for a man, either white or black, should tell you something. In here you will see that those sovereigns give subjects (citizen) only privileges and it is considered a GIFT. Yes you will catch it when reading. Keep searching for the word RIGHTS as you read the case. Are they natural or conferred? Also, if all the so-called “Christians” use the definition as a follower of “Christ,” then they are not “Christians.” When you read what you have to give up to become a SUBJECT (citizen) of another sovereign and renounce all allegiance, I dare say we have no “Christians” in America whatsoever, save a very, very, few. It is all hype as they are all fence sitters. And they wonder why the Lord Almighty doesn’t come down and clean the mess up? Because they are a big part of the mess. Look how many call themselves citizens of the United States or a citizen of the political subdivision of the corporate United States, namely a State? Look for the dates April 14, 1802 & March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 731,) and see what they declared way before the 14th Amendment. Yes dear reader, read this case well especially since I highlighted those words and punctuation for clarity. Now after reading this, do you think all those tons of cases you read have to be reread because the courts are not taking them with any seriousness because you misread them? I wonder what they really said in all those cases? Especially since after reading this case you will immediately see where you placed yourself, by claiming the Constitution is yours. And you probably said, I took an oath to defend it, even though it is not protecting me like I thought it said and by golly, as a citizen of this great state of the Union I am not a United States citizen, even though I voted either for or against Clinton. Now look what the court stated it had claiming jurisdiction over this alien because of what he did, not whom he said he was. Make sure you find the word “contract” in the decision. Every time you see “or” replace it with “AND”. As I have said all along, especially in my New History of America, we are nothing but slaves on the Plantation, never were the sovereigns you thought you were, and have no control over any State officer of the corporation although they like you to think you do. The Constitution they speak of is all rhetoric and meaningless. Plantation does not mean a farm either. So with all this knowledge of English and punctuation lets read what I scanned.
 

THE

FEDERAL REPORTER.

VOLUME 56.

CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND CIRCUIT
AND .DISTRICT COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES. PERMANENT EDITION,
JULY–OCTOBER, 1893,

WITH TABLES OF FEDERAL REPORTER CASES PUBLISHED IN VOLS. 3, C. C. A. REPORTS; 4, U.S. APPEALS REPORTS
 

A TABLE OF STATUTES CITED AND CONSTRUED IS

GIVEN IN THE INDEX

ST. PAUL:
WEST PUBLISHING CO.
1893.

Pg 576 FEDERAL REPORTER, vol 56.

CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS v. REUM.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 29, 1893.) No. 211

1. ALIENS–Who Are–EFFEC’T OF STATE LAWS.·
A foreign-born resident of the United States, who has merely declared his intention to become a citizen, but has never complied with any other provision of the naturalization laws, is none the less an alien because of the fact that the constitution and laws of Minnesota, wherein he resides, have conferred the elective franchise and other privileges of citizenship on foreign subjects who have declared their intention to be naturalized, and that he has actually voted for member of congress and state and county officers.

2. SAME–Naturalization Laws. ·
Nor is his status altered by reason of the fact that, when he so declared his intention, he was entitled, by reason of length of residence, to be naturalized, under Rev. St. § 2167, for that section merely dispenses with the two-year delay between the declaration of intention and the actual admission to citizenship which is prescribed by section 2165.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. Affirmed.
Statement by SANBORN, Circuit Judge:

On October 7, 1891, Frederick Reum, the defendant in error, brought this action against the city of Minneapolis, the plaintiff in error, for a personal Injury that resulted from its negligence. He recovered Judgment, to reverse which this writ of error was sued out. In his complaint he alleged that he was an alien, and a subject of the King of Saxony, and this allegation was denied by the defendant. The evidence disclosed these facts: The plaintiff was born in the kingdom of ‘Saxony in 1859. His father and mother were natives of that kingdom, and the former resided there until he died, in the Infancy of the plaintiff. In 1863, after his father’s death, the Plaintiff and his mother came to the state of Minnesota, where they have since resided. In 1885 he was married, and has since that time owned and occupied a farm in that state. On October 25, 189O, he made a declaration of his Intention to become a citizen of the United States in the circuit court for the district of Minnesota; but he has never been admitted, or applied to be admitted, to citizenship under the second and third paragraphs of .section 2165 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or under any provisions of the acts of congress. The state of Minnesota has conferred upon all foreign subjects resident within its borders who have declared their intention to become citizens the elective franchise, the privilege of holding any office within its gift, and practically all of the privileges of citizenship in the power of that state to confer. In November 1890, the plaintiff voted for a member of congress and for state and county officers in Minnesota. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved the court to dismiss the action for want of Jurisdiction, on the ground that the evidence failed to establish the allegation that the plaintiff was an alien. The court denied the motion, and this ruling is the supposed error assigned.

David F. Simpson, (Robert D. Russell, on the brief,) for plaintiff in error.
John W. Aretander, for defendant in error.

Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and THAYER, District Judge.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge, (after stating the facts as above.) In Lanz v. Randall, 4 Dill. 425, Mr. Justice Miller, who was then presiding in the circuit court for the district of Minnesota, held that a state could not make the subject of a foreign government a citizen of the United States, and that a resident of Minnesota who was born a subject of the grand duke of Mecklenburg, had declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States many years before he brought his suit, had resided in the state of Minnesota for 15 years, had several times voted at elections held in that state where the constitution of the state authorizes such residents to do so without naturalization, but had never applied to be or been admitted to citizenship under the federal naturalization laws, was still an alien, and a subject of the grand duke of Mecklenburg. This decision has been followed by the courts, and acquiesced in by the profession. It is now vigorously challenged by counsel for plaintiff in error.
    Section 2, art. 3. of the Constitution of the United states, provides that the judicial power of the nation shall extend to “controversies between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects;” and the acts of Congress of March 3, 1887, (24 Stat.552,) and of August 13, 1888, (25 Stat. 433,) confer jurisdiction of all these controversies in cases involving over $2,000 upon the circuit courts. Every person at his birth is presumptively a citizen or subject of the state of his nativity, and where, as in the case at bar, his parents were then both subjects of that state, the presumption is conclusive. To the land of his birth he owes support and allegiance, and from it he is entitled to the civil and political rights and privileges of a citizen or subject. This relation, imposed by birth, is presumed to continue until a change of nationality is proved. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167; Vatt. Law Nat. p. 101; Morse, Nat. 61, 125. A change of nationality cannot be made by the individual at will. Each nation has the right to refuse to grant the rights and privileges of citizenship to all persons not born upon its soil, and, if it determines to admit them to those rights and privileges, it may fix the terms on which they shall be conferred upon them. Naturalization is the admission of a foreign subject or citizen into the political body of a nation, and the bestowal upon him of the quality of a citizen or subject.
    The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” As the plaintiff was born in the kingdom of Saxony, of parents who at the time of his birth were subjects of the king of Saxony, he is not a citizen of the United States unless he has been naturalized therein. The United States, in the exercise of their undoubted right, have prescribed the conditions upon compliance with which an alien may become a citizen of this nation. The act of Congress of April 14, 1802, (2 Stat. 153, c. 28, § 1; Rev. St. § 2165,) provides that “an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner, and not otherwise. First. He shall, two Years at least prior to his admission, declare before a proper court his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce his allegiance to the potentate or sovereignty of which he may be at the time a citizen or subject. Second. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare, on oath, before some one of the courts above specified, that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty; and particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he was before a citizen or subject, which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. Third. It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting such alien that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held one year at least and that during that time he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; but the oath of the applicant shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence.”

    By the act of May 26, 1824, (4: star. 69, c. 186, § 1; Rev. St. § 2167,) it is provided that:
    “Any alien, being under the age of twenty-one years, who has resided In the United States three years next preceding his arriving, at that age, and who has continued to reside therein to the time he may make application to be admitted a citizen thereof, may, after he arrives at the age of twenty-one years, and after he has resided five years within the United States, including the three years of his minority, be admitted a citizen of the United States, without having made the declaration required in the first condition of section twenty-one hundred and sixty-five; but such alien shall make the declaration required therein at the time of his admission, and shall further declare on oath, and prove to the satisfaction of the court, that, for two years next preceding, it has been his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the United States; and he shall in all other respects comply with the laws in regard to naturalization.
    There is no other provision of the acts of congress under which this plaintiff could have been naturalized. The counsel for plaintiff in error, however, alleges that he became a citizen of the United States (1).because at the time he declared his intention to do so he might have been admitted to citizenship, under the provisions of section 2167; (2) because various acts of congress have conferred certain privileges, and some have conferred all the privileges, of a citizen upon foreign-born residents who had declared their intention to become citizens; and (3) because the state of Minnesota has granted to such residents practically all the privileges of citizenship in its power to bestow.
    Before this plaintiff could become a naturalized citizen, the contract of allegiance and protection that the relation of a citizen to his nation implies must be made between him and the United States. The United States have prescribed the conditions under which such an alien may make this contract, the place where, and the manner in which, it shall be made, and have declared that it can be made on those conditions, and in that manner, and not otherwise. Rev. St. § 2165. The conditions are that he shall declare on oath, that he will support the Constitution; that he does renounce all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to that one of which he was a subject; that it shall be made to appear to the court that he has resided in the United States five years, and in the state where the court is held one year; that he has behaved as a man of good moral character during all of this time, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. The place where these conditions must be complied with is in one of the courts of record named in the acts of Congress, and the method by which the contract is to be made is by plenary proof to that court of a compliance with these conditions, which must be evidenced by its judgment. The plaintiff has complied with none of these terms. He has not even applied to any court to be admitted to citizenship. He has not consented to become a citizen of the United States on the terms they offer to him, or on any terms, but he still insists he is not a citizen, and that he is still a subject of the king of Saxony. On the other hand, the United States have not consented to accept the plaintiff as a citizen, on any terms, much less to waive all the essential conditions without a compliance with which Congress has declared an alien cannot be naturalized. The minds of both parties must meet to make a contract, and, where neither party consents, there can surely be no agreement.
    That the plaintiff, on October 25, 1890, had resided in Minnesota, as boy and man, long enough to qualify him to become a citizen under section 2167, is not material. The conclusive answer to the argument here urged is that the declaration of an intention to enter into a new relation for whom parties are qualified does not establish the relation. A man and woman who declare their intention to be married at some future time do not thereby become husband and wife. On the other hand, a declaration of intention to enter into a relation or to do an act at some future time is very persuasive evidence that the relation was not entered upon, and the act was not done, at the time the declaration was made. It must be borne in mind that the only effect of section 2167 was to relieve the plaintiff from waiting two years after filing his declaration before being admitted to citizenship. That section expressly provides that in all other respects he shall comply with the laws in regard to naturalization. The plaintiff’s declaration on October 25, 1890, when he was qualified to be naturalized, that he intended at some future time to become a citizen, coupled with the fact that he did not then apply to be admitted to citizenship, nor comply with any of the conditions prescribed by law for his naturalization, compels the conclusion that he did not then denationalize himself, but that he still remained a foreign subject. That Congress, in various acts, has conferred certain privileges and imposed certain burdens upon “persons of’ foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens,” at the same time that it conferred like privileges or imposed like burdens upon our own citizens, as in the act of March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 731,) where all able-bodied male citizens of the United States, and “persons of foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens under and in pursuance of the laws thereof,” between certain ages, are declared to constitute the national forces, and as in the patent laws, (Rev. St. § 4904,) the pre-emption laws, (Id. § 2259,) and in the mining laws, (Id. § ,2289,) where certain privileges are conferred on citizens of the United States, and “those who have declared their intention to become such,” in no way militates against, but strongly supports, the correctness of our conclusion, because, if foreign-born residents, by declaring their intention to become citizens, could ipso facto become such, it would have been futile to name them in all of these acts as a class distinct from our citizens. That Congress has, by various special acts, many of which are referred to in the opinion of Chief Justice Fuller in Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 158, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375, naturalized certain classes of persons who had not complied with the terms of the general laws on this subject, is not important here, because the plaintiff is not a member of any class thus naturalized. Nor is the decision in Boyd v. Nebraska, supra, in point in this case because Gov. Boyd was there held to be one of a class of foreign-born residents that was naturalized by the acts of Congress admitting the state of Nebraska into the Union. These acts conferred the rights of citizenship upon foreign-born residents of Nebraska who had declared their intention to become citizens. The plaintiff was a resident of Minnesota.
    A single argument remains to be noticed, and that is that the state of Minnesota has conferred on plaintiff the elective franchise, the right to hold any office in its gift, and, in reality, all the rights and privileges of citizenship in its power to bestow; and therefore it is said he is a citizen of that state, and not a foreign subject, and the federal court has no jurisdiction of this action. It may be conceded that a state may confer on foreign citizens or subjects all the rights and privileges it has the power to bestow, but, when it has done all this, it has not naturalized them. They are foreign citizens or subjects still, within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the jurisdiction of the federal courts over controversies between them and citizens of the states is neither enlarged nor restricted by the acts of the state. The power to naturalize foreign subjects or citizens was one of the powers expressly granted by the states to the national government. By section 8, art. 1, of the constitution of the United States, it was provided that “the congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Congress has exercised this power, established the rule, and expressly declared that foreign-born residents may be naturalized by a compliance with it, and not otherwise. This power, like the power to regulate commerce among the states, was carved out of the general sovereign power held by the states when this nation was formed and granted by the Constitution to the Congress of the United States. It thus vested exclusively in Congress, and no power remained in the states to change or vary the rule of naturalization Congress established, or to authorize any foreign subject to denationalize himself, and become a citizen of the United States, without a compliance with the conditions congress had prescribed. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 405; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Minor v. Happersett, 21 How. 162; Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135, 160, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375,
    In like manner, the states granted to the judiciary of the nation the power to determine a controversy between a state or citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects, (Const. U.S. art. 3, § 2,) and Congress conferred that power upon the circuit courts. The extent of the jurisdiction of those courts is measured by the Constitution and the acts of Congress. A foreign-born resident, who has not been naturalized according to the acts of Congress, is not a “citizen” of the United States or of a state, within the definition given by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, but remains a foreign subject or citizen; and any controversy between him and a citizen of a state which involves a sufficient amount is thus clearly within the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, under any fair construction of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The jurisdiction thus conferred it is not in the power of any state, by its legislative or other action, to take away, restrict, or enlarge, and the action of the state of Minnesota regarding the citizenship of the plaintiff was not material in this case. Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300, 328; Cowless v. Mercer Co. 7 Wall. 118; Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270, 286; Phelps v. Oaks, 117 U.S. 236, 239; 6 Sup. Or. Rep. 714; O’Connell v. Reed, 56 Fed. Rep. 531.
    The result is that the power granted to Congress by Article 1, § 8, of the Constitution of the United States, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, is exclusive; and the naturalization laws enacted by Congress in the exercise of this power constitute the only rule by which a foreign subject may become a citizen of the United States or of a state, within the meaning of the federal Constitution and laws. It is not in the power of a state to denationalize a foreign subject who has not complied with the federal naturalization laws, and constitute him a citizen of the United States or of a state, so as to deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction over a controversy between him and a citizen of a state, conferred upon them by article 3, § 2, of the constitution of the United States, and the acts of Congress.
    A foreign subject who is qualified to become a citizen of the United States, under section 2167 of the Revised Statutes, does not become such by filing his declaration of intention so to do. That section requires that he shall renounce allegiance to the sovereignty of which he is a subject, take the oath of allegiance to the United States, and comply with the other conditions prescribed in the second and third paragraphs of section 2165 of the Revised Statutes, in order to become naturalized; and until he does so he remains a foreign subject.
    The court below was right in denying the motion to dismiss this action for want of jurisdiction, and the judgment below is affirmed, with costs.

    Well I hoped you learned something from reading this case with the correct understand of punctuation and the word OR. Karl Granse gave me this case when we were researching citizenship way back in ‘93 or so. I just decided to dig this out when I saw this type argument posted on the internet the first week in February that was close to this. Wow, just think, the word “either” never appeared once in the decision therefore every time the word “OR” was used it is a conjunction meaning AND. Since all citizens of the United States have renounced allegiance to the Sovereign Lord Almighty and given up His citizenship, Eph. 2:19, for another king/sovereign they are neither Christians for they gave up following the Lord nor sovereign with any unalienable rights, only conferred rights by the political establishment. It is that simple. Notice that nowhere were The Lord’s unalienable Rights ever mentioned, only conferred political Rights which are always inferior to Natural rights and is the only reason the country runs, on political rights. Ever hear either the term “politically correct” or “this court cannot decide your tax case argument because it is a `political issue’?”
    Nothing is an unalienable right because the Crown’s corporation of England still rules American “citizens” as it did its “subjects” in England. Only the term changed, i.e. we still are slaves to the feudal (federal) system.

Sincerely,
The Informer

Share

Infringe Did and Still Does Mean “INFRINGE”

Everyday is the season to infringe upon the Second Amendment. It never ceases and newly-elected politicians love to jump on the totalitarian gunboats, armed for bear, gunning (no real pun intended) for any chance they might get to further infringe (destroy) the Second Amendment. The current political season is no different than others.

The far Left’s staging of events to instill fear, hatred, and anger in the masses have set the stage they hope will carry them over the threshold (that threshold being private gun ownership) that will win them a victory that will end in defeat for all…just you wait and see. But will we even be able to recognize such defeat?

Back in January of 2016 I wrote an article about how Americans consider the Second Amendment to be essentially the only right, inalienable or constitutional depending on how you choose to view it, that is worthy of complete and unrestricted infringement. They don’t necessarily see all the other “rights” in the same way. Surely destruction of those rights is just as potentially dangerous as keeping and bearing arms – if only honesty could admit that.

Of course the original words of the Second Amendment state that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

It has always been argued, never with much conviction or honesty, that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment they didn’t mean that citizens, i.e. the people (small “p”), had a right to arm themselves and/or to keep arms in their possession.

An honest assessment of the intent of the the Second Amendment has been made clear through endless examination of historic documents. To support the historic significance of the right of the people (small “p”) to keep and bear arms, the U.S. Supreme Court, in it’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in 2008, declared that the Second Amendment did guarantee the right to keep and bear arms to the people (small “p”).

Of course the downside to the Heller decision is that the majority opinion, given by the late (probably murdered) Justice Antonin Scalia, said nothing about “reasonable restrictions” or infringements to the Second Amendment. And so, even though the Supreme Court ruled that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, there has never been any ruling to determine if any “infringements” can be levied on this right, even though the Second Amendment clearly is written that the right shall NEVER be infringed. What is it here that we are not getting? Therefore, the infringement battle train continues to roll and, no doubt, will never end.

In part of the honest examination of the historic facts that drove the Second Amendment creation, I am going to look at and share with readers the etymology (origins) of two words found in the Second Amendment – “arms” and “infringed.”

Let’s start with “arms.” According to Etymonline.com, since around 1300 a.d. the root word for “arms” meant weapon. This root definition has never really changed. In examining the etymology of many words, over the span of history, the meanings of words change, and sometimes drastically. In this case arms still mean weapons…period.

Argument might be made in this research that the use of the word “arms” may have referred to “military” weapons. I realize that in some cases those who have chosen to use the history of words in their defense of the claim that the Second Amendment applied to “militias” and not the general public, too much history exists that proves the intent of the Founders was to give the people (small “p”) the right to keep and bear arms.

If one is willing to accept that historic research as a true fact, then further argument could be made that the Second Amendment should not restrict that right by prohibiting “military” weapons from those which can be kept and bared.

Regardless, there is no mistaking that when the Founding Fathers used the word “arms” it clearly meant weapons, arms, military tools. They understood the importance of a means to deter a tyrannical government. I wonder if they envisioned a tyrannical people (small “p”)?

The second word to examine is “infringed.” Like the word “arms”, since its creation, infringe has always meant what we today consider the meaning of infringe to be.

Once again, if we look at Etymonline.com, we see that since the 15th century, use of the root word meaning infringe, i.e. “enfrangen,” to violate, or from Latin, “infringere,” damage, break, has never changed in any real meaningful way

When the Founding Fathers selected the two words, “arms” and “infringe,” wasn’t it exactly clear that they were talking about “weapons” and the popular definition of infringe to mean that this right shall NEVER BE violated, damaged, or broken?

Why then do we brainwashed Americans insist on infringing upon this right? Even those claiming to hold dear the Constitution, often claiming how all others tread on it and ignore it, and yet these same mindless folks work tirelessly day in and day out to destroy the Second Amendment, some thinking they are saving it by infringing upon it?

Regardless of what can be presented as evidence, I hold out no hope that the people (small “p”) will ever understand that they are working toward their own destruction.

Oh, what have we done, and what are we doing?

Share

Insanity Is Illogical

Yesterday I received an email that contained a bunch of stuff intended to show the reader how illogical certain modes of thinking, or lack thereof, make little sense and actually brings to light the insanity on display in this country today. I thought instead of just copying and pasting what I received, I would enhance the discussion a bit in hopes that instead of asking whether certain beliefs are logical or contain any common sense, a reader might realize the insanity of it all. Here goes.

I have no idea if any statistics presented in this email are true or false nor do I intend to waste my time trying to figure it out. This is about insanity not about man’s truths.

The email began by stating that 11 teenagers die everyday as the result of texting while driving, suggesting that gun control freaks who have sought to have the age of gun ownership raised to 21, should consider the same for cellphone ownership. There is a difference, evidently between a willingness to die or cause someone else to die so long as that choice is theirs. Odd that people can’t see that all people want a choice, not to be dictated to. Insane.

The email also suggested that if “gun control” actually worked, then Chicago would resemble the mythological TV show The Andy Griffith Show located in the fake town of Mayberry. We know this comparison is just too far out. Mayberry RFD has but a few thousand people, those raised to be respectful and care about all other people, careful not to impose on others and trample their rights. Chicago has a few million people, the bulk of which couldn’t give two rat’s behinds about you or anything about you. And we haven’t even talked about guns. Ridding Chicago of guns will not change Chicago. It’s the people stupid!

The Third Scenario presented is as follows: The Second Amendment makes more women equal than the entire feminist movement. As it is written, I guess I’m just too stupid to understand what it means. On to the next.

Fourth, there are more than 300 million legal gun owners in the US and a trillion rounds of ammo. Remember, I don’t know if this is true. I would guess it’s not. I’m quite sure there are more guns than this and along with it more ammo. The email suggests that if legal gun ownership was THE problem, we wouldn’t have any trouble knowing about it.

This is quite misleading but I guess we are supposed to overlook that and not miss the point. You see, most legal gun owners are of the character that they mind their own business and seldom turn to violence in order to force their choice of lifestyle onto others. (hanging by a thread)

Five, nobody blamed the gun (rifle) when JFK was assassinated in Texas in 1963. They didn’t? Perhaps the question might want to be asked if it was a rifle that killed him. Again, we shouldn’t miss the point. The real point here is that in 1963 the people of this nation were not yet ready to be mass brainwashed into being fearful of honest people having guns. The mass media, as the echo chamber for the Global Power Structure, have done a masterful job of creating an insane attitude about guns. Had this programed event been in place in 1963 you can bet your bottom dollars insane people would have blamed the gun. Had that worked, I’m sure Ronald Reagan would have been attacked with a wet noodle instead of a “automatic revolver” as the press so intelligently told the people at that time.

Here’s a good one. According to whoever devised this email, the NRA murders nobody each year and receives no federal money to not do that. Planned Parenthood murders 350,000 unborn babies using a half a billion dollars of yours and my tax dollars.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say the NRA kills nobody. I read some of the crap they say and do and it’s killing me. Too bad there weren’t more people who felt the way I do about the NRA and the government-controlled instigators that they are – disguised of course as fighters for your Second Amendment rights. I might add, BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

The email says it has no problem with background checks when it comes to being able to own a firearm. They insist that the same should be required for immigrants and voting. That’s where they are all wrong. The Second Amendment does not state the right to keep and bear arms is contingient upon passing a background check, neither was it stipulated that immigrants needed a background check (provided that went through the legal process of immigration), nor did you need one in order to vote.

We can thank all the moron, fake “right-to-bear-arms” promoters for ushering us further into tyrannical rule and the destruction of inalienable rights who promote those deceitful “reasonable” limitations on rights. Refer to Scenario Number Four above. Where once the country consisted of millions of people of good character who would never dream of pleading for laws to limit the freedoms of all. That character that I wrote of above is dwindling away as fast as cellphones are destroying our very existence.

In number eight, it begins to get a bit contrived. They say for those people who claim we don’t need smoke-detectors in our homes; that’s what fire departments are for, they say that’s how they feel when someone tells them they don’t need a gun. Don’t miss the point…if there really is one. I can still choose (at least where I live) to have a smoke detector or not. I’ve pretty much lost the choice to own and use a firearm the way I want to. Again we need to refer to Scenario Number Four. The disintegration of any moral character paves the way for insanity and the forcing of idealistic beliefs and perverse lifestyles onto all others.

The email ends with the most idiotic comparison imaginable…that is if you are an honest and intelligent person. I’ll copy it here just as it came to me in the email: “Folks keep talking about another Civil War. One side knows how to shoot and has a trillion bullets. The other side has crying closets and is confused about which bathroom to use. How do you think that’s going to end?”

To accept this comparison, one has to believe that only gun owners are sane and will line up on one side of a civil war, and anyone without a gun is insane and will man the other side. I’m not even sure there is a point to be made here other than the author ain’t too bright.

There’s just a whole bunch of confusion displaying itself as insanity. We have become insane because we have taken our eyes off our CREATOR OF ALL THINGS! Man has no answers. Man, and his filthy flesh is the problem. If there need be legitimate talk of civil wars, then try to understand the real reason there would be one. It isn’t about gun rights or abortion rights. It’s about your relationship with your CREATOR.

Share

Trump To Open Some National Wildlife Refuges for Hunting?

As regular readers might expect, this is where I will insert, “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!”

According to some media stories, the Trump Administration is intending to allow certain National Wildlife Refuge employees to go back to work during this FAKE “Shutdown.” And of course, some think it’s for hunting and others think it’s so that the public won’t feel so much strain and stress from the Government’s FAKE SHUTDOWN.

The upside to this orchestrated, quasi shutdown, is the criminal bastards in D.C. are not so active destroying this country by making fake laws for fake reasons.

Personally I think every last one of the evil slime-balls should be recalled and sent to the Antarctic where they are the closest they can get to Hell before actually being in it.

Share

Hipsters Are The New Hunters?

A group of veteran hunters set out last month in a forest northeast of Atlanta with apprentices. Among them, a former vegetarian, a Haitian-born grad student and a farmers-market manager. They wore camouflage and carried crossbows.

They were aiming to kill white-tailed deer.<<<Read More>>>> (Subscription required)

Share

Frustrations In Dealing With Rigged Systems

Most fail to even recognize that our trapped existence takes place within a politically rigged system – at all levels – designed by man for man. Those of us who completely understand this presence avoid it like a wicked plague. Most get frustrated by failures in getting their idealisms pushed through governmental agencies that don’t operate on the same plain as our captive existence.

I was reading a piece the other day from someone exemplifying this very reality. The frustrations where spelled out in disheartening text, sharing such depressing news of how, in his opinion, our government – legislators and administrative departments – don’t do as the people ask, even extolling misguided beliefs that our legislators, as commissioned by their vote, are required to bring to the Legislature all proposed rules and regulations all of which are designed, either purposely or ignorantly, to further repress a once freer society.

Of course our government institutions don’t do as the people want. They do as the People want, but few understand that concept.

We’ve been trained to believe we live in a democracy…as though a democracy was a good thing. The best known definition of democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for lunch. And somehow this is sought after by some? The wolves no doubt.

The frustration exhibited in the piece I’ve referred to is that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) won’t have public hearings and full panel discussions on every proposal any person has ever thought of. The writer exclaims the system is, “…not as it should be.

I might agree with such an assessment however, it appears that according to this writer the way it should be is more personal idealism than realism. In this case the frustration might be more fueled by a person not getting his way most of time rather than the system “not as it should be.”

Then things get confusing. The frustration with the system, described as “the antithesis of democracy, as well as the undermining and ultimate suppression of citizens’ rights,” turns to resentment and whining because the system won’t do things his way. The writer then begins to blame everything on the special interest groups – those groups of course he does not support – and how such special interest groups represent a minority. Is this what his idea of democracy is? That only the majority have a “right” to complain? When we don’t get our way, it seems to be quite normal to blame it on everything but what it is. Blaming special interest groups – in this case hunters, trappers, and fishermen – is a much easier task than learning about and then explaining why our system is rigged and does not operate the way we have all been taught, and then discovering what can be done to change this reality.

In frustration, the author writes, “Let’s not forget that Maine’s wildlife is a vital part of the public domain, not some group’s private preserve to do with as they wish. Just as motorists don’t own public roads, boaters and swimmers don’t own public lakes, hikers don’t own public land, anglers don’t own the fish who [fish should not be referred to as a who. They are not people.] live in public ponds and streams, so hunters and trappers don’t own the state’s wildlife.”

I understand the frustration…really, I do, but, on the same token a voter does not own every proposed piece of legislation. The writer makes it sound like hunters, motorists, boaters, swimmers, hikers, and anglers enjoy unfettered access to any and all wildlife and lands and waters. I believe the argument could honestly be made that those special interest groups experience just as many frustrations as this writer. There is no need to suppress the frustrations and desires of one group over another so that a rigged system might operate as one might suggest it ought to in order to get their way.

It’s difficult to take the complaints seriously from those who stand up in support of democracy and in the same breath speak out against the symptoms of democracy. That makes little sense. If democracy is the form of servitude rule you desire, then your only recourse is to be subject to the rigors of democracy. In other words, sometimes you are the sheep.

Perhaps if the writer, instead of saying the system isn’t working the way he thinks it’s supposed to, had said the system isn’t working the way HE wants it to, would have been more accurate.

We all experience the same frustrations. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and sometimes the squeaky wheel is not the wheel we choose. One thing is for certain. You can’t change a rigged system by employing the rigged system to fix itself. Insanity dictates it’s time to change.

Share

Statistics Prove Statistics Can Prove Anything

I’ve used this line before. It’s difficult to pin down exactly where or from whom specifically this quote came from, but the real problem lies in the understanding of statistics. I like the explanation found on Quora.com. It reads: “Statistics is only the representation of an empirical fact, a connection between abstract representations of real world concepts. By itself, it can prove nothing except the dry statement of an idealized probability. What the public often overlooks is that correlation does not imply causation.”

Some in Maine seem to be upset by some numbers recently published in a local newspaper’s opinion column that Wildlife Watching in Maine generates $1.3 billion in revenue to the state. Can this be so?

Not exactly, if you have a basic understanding of how the numbers (statistics) are manipulated by anyone to prove anything.

In December of 2017, the Portland Press Herald published an article that stated that according to the Maine Office of Tourism, the state took in revenues of $8.8 billion from general tourism. Keep in mind here that we are not working on any set definition of “tourism.” That is the first problem. I’ve spent a great deal of time over the years examining and researching surveys, questionnaires, polls, etc. and there exists a lot of gray area…by design. This allows for anyone to use those “statistics” to prove anything their little heart desires. I do not have time or space to write the book required to cover the dynamics of surveys and statistics.

But for the sake of this discussion, let’s go with the $8.8 in tourism revenue. According to the same Portland Press Herald (PPH) article, of that $8.8 billion, 28% of 1,407 tourists surveyed said they preferred wildlife watching “to all other touring activities, such as enjoying ocean views or fall foliage or sightseeing.” (is this a scientific survey?)

What does that mean? Not much really, for two very basic reasons. One, we don’t know what constitutes “tourism” as it pertains to the Maine Office of Tourism. Two, given no other statistical data, we don’t know how many of whom preferred what, when, where, and how. Is 28% of the total tourism revenue generated average nationwide? Below average? Above average? Who conducted the “query” the Office of Tourism refers to and who paid for it.? Just what exactly is represented by this 28%????

Are you following along?

If 28% of Maine tourists, preferred wildlife watching over all others, did 100% of those 28% participate in Wildlife Watching which contributed to the $8.8 billion? Who knows. 28% of those surveyed may “prefer” wildlife watching but perhaps only 2% actually did it. By the way, what constitutes “wildlife watching?”

Anyone can do anything with these numbers. Taken at face value (if that fits my narrative), 28% of $8.8 billion dollars is nearly $2.5 billion. Therefore, I could say that wildlife watching in Maine generates around $2.5 billion a year in tourist-generated revenue. Is that accurate? Is that honest?

For the numbers nerd, you can take any of these base numbers and percentages and create anything you wish.

A few years ago, I spent a great deal of time studying, in order to fully and honestly understand, how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts their surveys in which they dazzle us with all kinds of statistics about hunting, fishing, wildlife watching, etc. for each and every state. I believe this is done or used to be done, every 5 years.

Aside from the muddled information I’ve given you above used to manipulate statistics, the biggest takeaway I got was how questions were asked and then how answers were handled according to their application in compiling data.

For example: If John Doe decides to take a lifelong big game hunting trip to Western Montana, and while he is there is confronted with a survey taker, he might be asked questions like: Why did you come to Montana?; Did you visit Yellowstone Park?; Did you see any wolves?; Did you go fishing?; Did you stay in a motel?; Did you hire guide services?; Did you go hiking? etc.

As you can see, the sky is the limit on what questions could be asked of a “Tourist.” In this case, if John Doe answered yes to all of these questions, after being discovered he came for a hunting trip, then the data would be recorded that he participated in all those activities. If John Doe spent $50,000 on his trip, then the data could, and most often is, manipulated to state that John Doe spent $50,000 hunting; that he spent $50,000 to visit Yellowstone Park to watch wolves and go hiking; that he spent $50,000 to go fishing, stay in a motel, hire guides, buy gas, buy food. I think you get the picture.

This is how it all works. This is why I take a very vocal stand against governments or any other organization using surveys and the like to draw conclusions. That’s a form of Scientism and outcome-based VooDoo Science. The results presented are dishonest and politically driven.

When addressing the comments of people with political agendas, recall the simple statement that statistics used to make such claims can prove: “nothing except the dry statement of an idealized probability.” 

It might even be more accurate to call it an “idealized POSSIBILITY.”

And, just remember. More than likely the person parroting the numbers is only repeating those given them by other echo-chambers who know no better. That’s why it pays to know and understand your resource for information. There’s more to it than it just sounds good.

Share

Should Maine’s Newly Elected Governor Put Black Bear Management in Hands of Planned Parenthood?

I was reading just yesterday a comment left online by a reader about bear hunting practices. The comment, as a plea to newly elected governor, Janet Mills, said something like, no animal has a chance when up against humans and their man-made weapons. They also added that Maine has no laws to protect animals.

Think about that for a moment. The plea is for protection of animals, so that no animal can be killed by humans for any reason…it appears. If the plea goes out to Governor Janet Mills, perhaps Gov. Mills might consider placing the management and protection of black bears in the hands of Planned Parenthood…or maybe not.

Planned Parenthood gave Janet Mills a 100% rating for her support of abortion of human infants. What does this tell us? Many things I would suppose. The first being that she might just value the lives of bears over those of humans. Of course the argument would be that an unborn child is not a living being and thus I am comparing apples with oranges.

If that is the case, then perhaps Maine should consider taking up the practice of aborting unborn bear fetuses while in hibernation. After all, if human fetuses and not human lifeforms, certainly bear fetuses are not bear lifeforms. Maine has an extensive bear study and management program where bear dens are visited on a regular basis. Before any bear cubs are born, biologists could drag the female bear from the den and kill her unborn cubs. Surely that would reduce the bear population. We can’t have more and more bears living on the landscape that are becoming a burden on society and taking away other bear’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of junk food.

There is something seriously wrong with a society that would advocate for more laws to protect animals but at the same time support the evil practice of murdering unborn babies. Maine’s new governor supports that practice. By comparison, those who support abortion “rights” also support animal rights.

SICK!

Share

Spooner Say’s

“As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret governments are necessarily only secret bands of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, the general fact that our government is practically carried on by means of such voting, only proves that there is among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, whose purpose is to rob, enslave, and, so far as necessary to accomplish their purposes, murder, the rest of the people. The simple fact of the existence of such a band does nothing towards proving that “the people of the United States ,” or any one of them, voluntarily supports the Constitution. This is the most that any member of Congress can say in proof that he has any constituency; that he represents anybody; that his oath “to support the Constitution,” is given to anybody, or pledges his faith to anybody. He has no open, written, or other authentic evidence, such as is required in all other cases, that he was ever appointed the agent or representative of anybody. He has no written power of attorney from any single individual. He has no such legal knowledge as is required in all other cases, by which he can identify a single one of those who pretend to have appointed him to represent them. No one can come forward and say to him: I appointed you my attorney to act for me. I required you to swear that, as my attorney, you would support the Constitution. You promised me that you would do so; and now you have forfeited the oath you gave to me. No single individual can say this.”

“No open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, [*37] can come forward and say to him: We appointed you our attorney, to act for us. We required you to swear that, as our attorney, you would support the Constitution. You promised us that you would do so; and now you have forfeited the oath you gave to us.

No open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, can say this to him; because there is no such association or body of men in existence. If any one should assert that there is such an association, let him prove, if he can, who compose it. Let him produce, if he can, any open, written, or other authentic contract, signed or agreed to by these men; forming themselves into an association; making themselves known as such to the world; appointing him as their agent; and making themselves individually, or as an association, responsible for his acts, done by their authority. Until all this can be shown, no one can say that, in any legitimate sense, there is any such association; or that he is their agent; or that he ever gave his oath to them; or ever pledged his faith to them.

On general principles of law and reason, it would be a sufficient answer for him to say, to all individuals, and to all pretended associations of individuals, who should accuse him of a breach of faith to them:

I never knew you. Where is your evidence that you, either individually or collectively, ever appointed me your attorney? That you ever required me to swear to you, that, as your attorney, I would support the Constitution? or that, I have now broken any faith that I ever pledged to you? You may, or you may not, be members of that secret band of robbers and murderers, who act in secret; appoint their agents by a secret ballot; who keep themselves individually unknown even to the agents they thus appoint; and who, therefore, cannot claim that they have any agents; or that any of their pretended agents ever gave his oath, or pledged his faith to them. I repudiate you altogether. My oath was given to others, with whom you have nothing to do; or it was idle wind, given only to the idle winds. Begone!”

End of Spooner says…

Nothing has changed..

Share