March 20, 2018

Two Totalitarians Debate Guns

It’s what’s wrong with everything!

I’m reading this morning an article in the Bangor Daily News about a doctor and a sportsman debating guns. It became clear that both debaters were totalitarians and showed definite signs of ignorance of facts.

Here’s one example of the what was presented in this so-called debate: “During my time at the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, I was proud of SAM’s support for successful legislation that took guns away from those served with temporary protection orders. At that time only permanent orders gave the judge the option of taking away a person’s guns…

“Unfortunately it is very difficult for the police to get authority to enter that person’s house and make sure the guns are gone.”

This sounds like the talk out of the fascist President Trump’s mouth when he said he would confiscate guns and worry about due process later.

The irony and hypocrisy of the debate appear when the other side of the discussions says: “The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not absolute, but rather apply only if they do not deprive others of their rights.”

Both sides appear to want to disrespect a person’s granted and inalienable right to choose how they will protect themselves, one by taking guns and asking questions later (I guess that destroys any sense of innocent until proven guilty, i.e. Due Process) and the other by pretending that it is a just thing to deprive a person of a right so long as it fits conveniently into his narrative.

Ignorance in the debate shows in two ways. One, when one person suggests that gun ownership is all about hunting, and two, when the same person compares as equal a violation of a person’s constitutional and inalienable right to self-defense in the name of public safety to “lead in gasoline, sinkers and paint; mercury thermometers; dioxin in our rivers; asbestos in our ceilings and brakes; and smoking in public places, to name a few.”

I was reading another article posted on this website about social engineering, behavioral engineering for the purpose of belief engineering. In the Comments section was a post made about the Stockholm Syndrome. Defined as “feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor,” it is becoming more apparent that our society is loaded with victims (or willing participants) of this psychological phenomenon.

To fully understand how this applies to people, we must understand that “kidnapping or hostage-taking” can be either literal or figurative. There are many ways in which we are kidnapped or taken hostage over our free will. Feelings of affection and/or trust for those whose bent it is to diminish and eliminate our freedoms and individuality is being displayed on many fronts often without the awareness of individuals that they are lobbying for the rope that will eventually hang them.

To undergo debate that involves ceding rights as well as declaring that no right is absolute is eagerly playing into the hands of the hangmen. Denial of the intentions of the executioner is in and of itself a display of Stockholm Syndrome. We see this managest daily with trust for our government and the belief that this government has never, is not, and never will have tyrannical intentions toward placing you in slavery. We are slaves now and deny it. How much more difficult can it be to reach saturation?

Why are we even having this debate? To debate this issue is denying that anyone has an unquestioned right given them by their Creator to protect themselves, their family, and property. Willingness to remove that right is a call to place control over that right in the hands of a centralized authority. This now becomes a government-meted privilege, in which any authority with the power to parcel out rights has the same power to take them away. Our “syndrome” prevents us from that realization.

Is that what this is all about? Or is it just plain ignorance. Maybe it’s both!




To Be Or Not To Be Their Slave

The following is gleaned from a book called Cases in Constitutional Law, last published 1967, Library of Congress Card 68-18704, by Robert E and Robert F Cushman. It contains 159 cases and over 100 cases commented on or referred to in the 159 cases. The book is 1168 pages. The book tells you how the Bill of Rights was nationalized..

I conversed with a friend named Fred and wrote this to him concerning another patriot that debunked my findings when he would not let truth sink into his core beliefs. Since then he has capitulated and now sees it but it took him over 6 years to come to terms with the fraud, realizing it has been a fraud all along. All bold type in Part two is straight out of the Book. My comments are regular type.

Hopefully after reading these two parts you will come to realize Lysander Spooner writing to expose this in the 19th Century was right. The con job was just that, a con job of immense proportions. How the fraud lived so long is only due to the fact our family tree parents, going back to 1776/1787 were led by the nose as are the people of today. You have to have a core belief, and that, my friends is based on a lie. So as all foundations are either true or false, hopefully you will find what you have been brought up to believe is one huge fraud.

The Informer

Hi Fred, Well now that I let off some steam, here is more on Barron. It wasn’t just as someone we know said that, the supreme court brought it up in 2001. They brought Barron up way before 2001. I have a constitutional law book Titled Cases in Constitutional Law. It is ripe with cases on Barron and many more in its 1168 pages of knowledge. There are cases that they did not bring up that are just as important, one being Hepburn and Dundas v Ellezy, 2 Cranch 445. The heading of the case states:
“A citizen of the District of Columbia cannot maintain an action against a citizen of Virginia in the circuit court for the district of Virginia. A citizen of the District of Columbia is not a citizen of a state, within the meaning of the Constitution.”

Reading this, it goes way over people’s heads and they are not aware. As Montgomery found out, that President Washington created the states as districts in 1791, hence the phrase “district of Virginia” in the above case. It is an important case and you must get it because it is ripe with info that will wipe out the myth that people have had on the jurisdiction. A passage in the case so states after the Court gets rid of the notion that the people of the states are on the same footing as the people of the District of Columbia and said the plaintiff could not sue in Virginia. This is the defense position statement.
“Even if the Constitution of the United States authorizes a more enlarged jurisdiction that the Judiciary Act of 1789 has given, yet the court can take no jurisdiction which it is not given by the Act. I, therefore, call for the law which gives a jurisdiction in this case.” .

A response was given by Plaintiff to rebut the above statement. The court then gave it’s decision and sided with Defense when Chief Justice Marshall said,
“The opinion to be certified to the circuit court is, that that court has no jurisdiction in the case.”

So basically the Judiciary Act of 1789 gives what jurisdiction the federal courts have, NOT the Congress as so many people believe and as the Defense attorney said, if it’s not to be found (jurisdiction) in that Act the fed court does not have it. Here we have direct admission that lawyers back then were dictating the parameters in which the courts had jurisdiction. The Informer, in his new history, brought this up when he cited the History of The American Bar by Charles Warren. I believe you have that book of the Informer. Might pay to reread it in light of this “revelation” the guy I was talking about had.

Now back to Barron. In the notes of the Constitutional Cases (BOOK) printed 1968, it states.
“While most rights in the Bill of Rights now do apply to the states, they do so only because they are essential to due process of law. The ruling in the present case that the Bill of Rights does not apply directly to the states has never been over ruled. ”

Brown v Walker (1896) Barron was again broached on self incrimination case. The BOOK had his to say;

     “In 1956 the Court reaffirmed the Brown decision in U1Imann v. United States . It rejected the defendant’s argument that “the impact of the disabilities imposed by federal and state authorities and the public in general-such as loss of ]ob, expulsion from labor unions, state registration and investigation statutes, passport eligibility, and general pubIic opprobrium–is so oppressive that the statute does not give him true immunity.” The statute, like the Fifth Amendment provision, protects the witness only from having to give “testimony which may possibly expose him to a criminal charge.”

Since Congress need not grant immunity from state prosecution in order to compel testimony, the question arises whether it may do so if it wishes. The control over evidence admissible in state courts is traditionally a question of state power, and even the Supreme Court in administering the due process clause has been reluctant to interfere with this state prerogative. In Adams v. Maryland (1954) the Court held that Congress could, under the supremacy doctrine, forbid a state to use testimony given before a congressional committee. Adams had been summoned before the Senate Crimes Investigation (Kefauver) Committee and had bared his soul concerning his boob making activities. The state of Maryland , which had been unable to get other evidence against Adams , read the transcript of the committee hearing into the trial record as a confession, and he was convicted of illegal gambling. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the ground that 859 forbade the use of such testimony “in any criminal proceeding against him in any court …. “While Congress could not compel testimony under the statute, such testimony as was given was protected; and the phrase “in any court” included state courts as well as federal. Forbidding such use of the testimony) was held to be a necessary and proper way of securing testimony. The Immunity Act of 1954 uses this same language, and the Adams interpretation was reaffirmed by the Court in the Ullmann case.

In the present case a federal grand jury was investigating charges against a railroad that it had granted discriminatory rates and rebates. Brown, who was an officer of the railroad, was called as a witness but refused to answer certain questions on the ground that the answers would tend to accuse and incriminate him. He was adjudged in contempt for his refusal to answer.

Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the Court, saying in part;

     It is true that the Constitution does not operate upon a witness testifying in state courts , since we have held that the first eight amendments are limitations only upon the powers of Congress and the Federal courts, and are not applicable to the several states , except so far as the 14th Amendment may have made them applicable. Barron v. Baltimore [1833] …. There is no such restriction, however, upon the applicability of Federal statutes ….[The Court here quotes the supremacy clause in Article VI.]
The act in question contains no suggestion that it is to be applied only to the Federal courts. It declares broadly that “no person shall be excused from attending and testifying . . . before the Interstate Commerce Commission . . . on the ground . . . that the testimony . . . required of him may tend to criminate him, etc. But no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify,” etc. It is not that he shall not be prosecuted for or on account of any crime concerning which he may testify, which might possibly be urged to apply only to crimes under the Federal law…; but the immunity extends to any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify, which clearly indicates that the immunity is intended to be general and to be applicable whenever and in whatever court such prosecution may be had.

But even granting that there were still a bare possibility that by his disclosure he might be subjected to the criminal laws of some other sovereignty, that . . . is not a real and probable danger, with reference to the ordinary operations of the law in the ordinary courts, but “a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character, having reference to some extraordinary and barely possible contingency, so improbable that no reasonable man would suffer it to influence his conduct.” Such dangers it was never the object of the provision to obviate.

The same answer may be made to the suggestion that the witness is imperfectly protected by reason of the fact that he may still be prosecuted and put to the annoyance and expense of pleading his immunity by way of confession and avoidance. This is a detriment which the law does not recognize. There is a possibility that any citizen, however innocent, may be subjected to a civil or criminal prosecution, and put to the expense of defending himself, but unless such prosecution be malicious, he is remediless, except so far as a recovery of costs may partially indemnify him ….

. . . While the constitutional provision in question is justly regarded as one of the most valuable prerogatives of the citizen, its object is fully accomplished by the statutory immunity, and we are therefore of opinion that the witness was compellable to answer, and that the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

Mr. Justice Shiras, with whom Mr. Justices Gray and White concurred, wrote a dissenting opinion. Mr. Justice Field wrote a separate dissent.”

In Powell v Alabama (1932) Barron was brought up again . Then in Palko v Connecticut (1937 Barron was again brought up and this is the BOOK’s comment .

     With the decision in Powell v. Alabama it appeared that the long struggle to nationalize the Bill of Rights might at last be bearing fruit. The Court had acknowledged that it no longer felt bound by the Hurtado reasoning; the application to the states of the Fifth Amendment right to just compensation and the First Amendment rights of free speech, press, religion, and assembly showed that some of the Bill of Rights guarantees could be applied to the states through due process of law. And now, in Powell, the Court for the first time had found one of the rights of persons accused of crime to be essential to due process.

‘The Palko case, printed below, made clear that the Court was not prepared to abandon earlier decisions such as Hurtado and Twining. Instead, it undertook to explain why some rights, such as the rights to counsel and free speech, are absorbed into due process; and why others, like jury trial and grand jury indictment, are not. It should be emphasized that the cases “absorbing” rights into the Fourteenth Amendment do not overrule Barron v. Baltimore (1820). The provisions of the federal Bill of Rights still limit directly only the federal government; it is the Fourteenth Amendment which limits the states. What the Court has done is to reverse the practical effect of the rule in Barron v. Baltimore with respect to part, but not all, of the Bill of Rights. Some of these rights are still not considered by the Court to be so fundamental as to be required by due process of law . The Court in case after case has been classifying the provisions of the Bill of Rights into those which are essential to due process of law and thus bind the states through the operation of the Fourteenth Amendment and those which are not essential to due process and by which ‘the states are not bound. In effect, the Court has established an “honor roll” of superior rights which bind both state and national governments. The opinion in the present case is important since it gives an official summary of this classification up to 1937 and states clearly the principles upon which the ‘classification rests.

In another situation, and for a very different purpose, the Court classified the provisions of the federal Bill of Rights. In fixing the constitutional status of territories after the war with Spain, the Court held that in governing “unincorporated” territories, such as Puerto Rico and the Philippines, Congress was restricted only by those guarantees in the Bill of Rights which are basic and fundamental, and not by those which are merely “procedural” or “remedial,” such as the guarantee of trial by jury. See Balzac v. Porto Rico (1922). This classification is essentially the same as that in Palko v. Connecticut .

One question which the Palko case failed to answer satisfactorily was what was meant by “absorption” or “incorporation” of a Bill of Rights guarantee into due process. Did it mean that the right, as listed in the Bill of Rights and interpreted by the Supreme Court in federal cases, was made applicable to the states? Or was the right as applied to the states a more general right, less clearly defined and permitting more leeway and discretion on the part of the states? Clearly, incorporation of the First Amendment has meant its application to the states exactly as it is applied to the national government. Justices Brandeis and Holmes, in their dissent in the Gitlow case, suggested that the free speech applicable to the states perhaps “may be accepted with a somewhat larger latitude of interpretation than is allowed to Congress by the sweeping language that governs or ought to govern the laws of the United States .” The Court, however, has never acknowledged such a distinction, and the same rules for deciding such cases are applied to the states and the nation alike.

With the gradual extension of due process to include other rights, an important controversy developed as to how these rights would apply to the states. This problem is discussed in connection with the specific rights in the chapter below.”

Another case is United States v Lanza (1922). This is what the court stated then I will go to the BOOK comments and bear in mind what happened at the Ruby Ridge trial against the government agent and put into that what the BOOK states.

Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion:

     “We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject-matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the Amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.

It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both, and may be punished by each. The 5th Amendment, like all the other guaranties in the first eight amendments, applies only to proceedings by the Federal government (Barron v. Baltimore [1833]) and the double jeopardy therein forbidden is a second prosecution under authority of the Federal government after a first trial for the same offense under the same authority. Here the same act was an offense against the state of Washington , because a violation of its law, and also an offense against the United States under the National Prohibition Act. The defendants thus committed two different offenses by the same act, and a conviction by a court of Washington of the offense against that state is not a conviction of the different offense against the United States, and so is not double jeopardy ….

If Congress sees fit to bar prosecution by the Federal courts for any act when punishment for violation of state prohibition has been imposed, it can, of course, do so by proper legislative provision; but it has not done so. If a state were to punish the manufacture, transportation, and sale of intoxicating liquor by small or nominal fines, the race of offenders to the courts of that state to plead guilty and secure immunity from Federal prosecution for such acts would not make for respect for the Federal statute, or for its deterrent effect. But it is not for us to discuss the wisdom of legislation; it is enough for us to hold that, in the absence of special provision by Congress, conviction and punishment in a state court, under a state law, for making, transporting, and selling intoxicating liquors, is not a bar to a prosecution in a court of the United States, under the Federal law, for the same acts ….
Judgment reversed.

Now for the comment by the BOOK:

          It was one of the universal maxims of the common law that no man should be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offense. Protection against double jeopardy is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment against invasion by the federal government, while a similar clause is found in the bills of rights of most of the state constitutions. A person is held to be in jeopardy when his trial has progressed to the point where he actually confronts the jury. If convicted, he may waive his immunity from double jeopardy by an appeal to a higher court which may allow him a new trial; but if acquitted, further proceedings against him by the prosecuting authorities are barred, the government not even being allowed to appeal the case on the ground of error of law. See United States v. Sanges (1892). Moreover, if he appeals his conviction and is granted a new trial the defendant can only be retried on the charge of which he was convicted. Thus in Green v. United States (1957) a person who was indicted and tried for first degree murder but was found guilty by the jury of second degree murder could not, after successfully appealing the second degree murder charge, be retried on the original charge of first degree murder. He had already been once in jeopardy for that cr/me and had not waived his protection by appealing his conviction for a different crime.

In certain recognized circumstances a court can declare a mistrial and subject the accused to a second trial without violating the protection against double jeopardy. This is true where it turns out that a juror is disqualified, see Thompson v. United States (1894); and in United States v. Perez (1824) it was held permissible where the jury could not agree on a verdict; “The prisoner has not been convicted or acquitted, and may again be put upon his defense. We think, that in all cases of this nature, the law has invested courts of justice with the authority to discharge a jury from giving any verdict, whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. They are to exercise a sound discretion on the subject; and it is impossible to define all the circumstances which would render it proper to interfere.” The double jeopardy clause would prevent declaring a mistrial and ordering a new trial solely to permit the government more time to secure evidence against the accused. In Downum v. United States (1963) the government asked that the jury be discharged when it discovered two of its key witnesses were missing. Two days later a new jury was empanelled and Downurn was convicted. The Court conceded that a new jury could be empanelled after the discharge of the first where there is “an imperious necessity to do so,” or in “very extraordinary and striking circumstances.”

          Here the government had simply started the trial before it had located all its witnesses.
A move such as this does not, however, amount to a denial of due process when done in a state court. In Brock v. North Carolina (1953) the state court had declared a mistrial and ordered a continuance of the case in order to permit the state to deal with some of its own witnesses who had unexpectedly refused to testify on pleas of self-incrimination. Citing the Palko case, the Court held that the double jeopardy provision was not incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, and this particular action was not shocking enough to make the trial unfair. In 1967 the Court declined to decide whether or not the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment would be extended to the states. Although it had granted certiorari to decide the question, on a full hearing of the case it agreed that the state action did not amount to double jeopardy and dismissed the writ as improvidently granted. See Cichos v. Indiana .

Since one is not in jeopardy until his trial actually begins, indictment for crime does not put a person in jeopardy, and therefore repeated indictments do not constitute double jeopardy. Moreover, the government can appeal the dismissal of an indictment, and such an appeal gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to pass upon the constitutionality of criminal legislation which a lower court holds unconstitutional. See discussion in the note to Muskrat v. United States .

It does not constitute double jeopardy to try a person each time he commits the same offense over again . Thus a conscientious objector who has sewed a prison sentence for refusing to register for the draft may be tried and convicted again if he continues in his refusal. The same is true of a person who is punished for contempt for refusing to give testimony. Where, however, a witness is asked to identify a person as a Communist and in reply refuses to so identify “anyone,” she is guilty of only one contempt, despite a refusal to answer the same question asked 11 times with regard to other persons. See Yates v; United States (1957). Where Congress has made conspiracy to commit a felony a separate crime from the commission of the felony itself, a person may be tried for both crimes. Whether the second trial constitutes double jeopardy in cases like this depends on the nature of the evidence needed to convict. The Court in Morgan v. Devine (1915) quoted with approval from Bishop on Criminal Law: “The test is whether, if what is set out in the second indictment had been proved under the first, there could have been a conviction; when there could, the second cannot be maintained; when there could not, it can be.”

One of the obvious results of living under our federal form of government is that every person is subject to the criminal jurisdiction of two separate governments, the state and the national. It is entirely possible, therefore, for a single act to constitute an offense against the statutes of the United States and at the same time to be punishable under state law. This is true in the case of counterfeiting the national currency, corrupt practices in the conduct of congressional elections, assaults against federal officers, the larceny of goods moving in interstate commerce, violations of the former Prohibition Amendment, etc. In these cases it has long been held that a person may be tried and punished by both governments without violating the protection against double jeopardy. That guarantee is violated only by a second trial for the same offense against the same sovereignty, not by a trial /or the same act when it constitutes a separate and distinct crime against another sovereign. This doctrine had, of course, considerable practical effect in connection with the enforcement of the Prohibition Amendment, under which concurrent jurisdiction rested in the state and national governments. Note the similarity of this rule to the one applied to the self-incrimination cases.

In the present case Lanza had been convicted by the state courts of Washington for violating the state prohibition act. He was then indicted in a federal court for the same act, which also violated the Volstead Act. The district judge dismissed the indictment on the ground of double jeopardy and the government appealed. The Lanza rule, though sharply criticized, sti11 stands. Abbate v. United States (1959) held that a man convicted of a crime in Illinois could later be tried for the same act (dynamiting telephone communications) under a federal law. Lanza was specifically reaffirmed by a six-to-three decision. On the same day the Court held, five to four, that one acquitted in a federal court of robbing a federally insured bank could later be tried and convicted in a state court for the same robbery. See Bartkus v. Illinois (1959).

While the Lanza rule has a logical persuasiveness about it and the Court has done nothing to weaken it, it has not been given wide application. It is not, for example, followed in international law. As early as 1820 the Supreme Court recognized that while all states could try a person for piracy, “there can be no doubt that the plea of autrefois acquit would be good, in any civilized state, though resting on a prosecution in the courts of any other civilized state.” See United States v. Furlong. Nor has the Court felt the rule should apply in cases where two states have concurrent jurisdiction, as on the Columbia River where Washington and Oregon both have jurisdiction over the entire river so as “to avoid any nice question as to whether a criminal act sought to be prosecuted was committed on one side or the other of the exact boundary in the channel” “Where an act is . . . prohibited and punishable by the laws of both states,” the Court commented, “the one first acquiring jurisdiction of the person may prosecute the offense, and its judgment is a finality in both states, so that one convicted or acquitted in the courts of the one state cannot be prosecuted for the same offense in the courts of the other.” See Nielson v. Oregon (1909).

The manifest unfairness of the Lanza rule has been widely recognized, and following the Abbate and Bartkus decisions the Attorney General of the United States ordered that “no federal case should be tried when there has already been a state prosecution for substantially the same act or acts without the United States Attorney first submitting a recommendation to the appropriate Assistant Attorney General in the Department.” And in Petite v. United States (1960) Petite, a lawyer in deportation proceedings against the same man held in both Philadelphia and Baltimore, induced his client to swear falsely that he had been born in the United States. For this suborning of perjury he was convicted and punished in the federal district court in Pennsylvania , and later in the federal district court in Maryland . When the case came to the Supreme Court the Solicitor General moved that the second judgment be vacated and the indictment dismissed. He contended that the double jeopardy clause had not been violated, but stated that “the initiation of the second prosecution in this case was contrary to sound policy and that for that reason, and in the interests of justice, the indictment should be dismissed.” The Supreme Court, without passing on the double jeopardy question, granted the motion.”

Thanks goes out to the INFORMER and others who were the reason for the legalism cleverness used to trap us all into bondage.. Because these real truth seekers and freedom fighters fought to expose this treachery.. To a mass society with deaf ears and blind eyes..

So there you are citizen, the real story. Now I think you citizen[s] have a lot of cognitive dissonance and ego to get rid of. After all, I would say you dear citizen are several years behind the actual truth and knowledge of this great corporate  legal con in your core beliefs mythical thinking. Well, if you ever obtain the level of competence that we have obtained then you can be onto better things and won’t be so ego centered in the future with that mockery you’re so trained in.  It is nice to be eating humble pie once in awhile, really, its not so bad. I think everyone has a lot to learn from reading this and the cases if they so choose. But they need interpretation like this BOOK gives, because after all it’s what “they”  the citizens sovereign owners who established this politically charted nation/state who interpret as ruling, to manage us, not how we interpret these laws they wrote. We are only citizen slaves by contract, remember?

A Bill of Privileges was never a Bill of Rights…

Have a nice day.



Presumption of Innocence Has Been Missing For Decades

In America, there is no longer such a thing as Presumption of Innocence. Any high-profile crime allegation is tried in the Media and whoever controls the power determines a person’s guilt or innocence – often determined according to political ideology.

In our brainwashed circumstances, we unwittingly go out of our way to make sure not everyone is afforded their inalienable rights or the rights under the law of this law. It amazes me how many work toward their own destruction.

Yesterday it came out that during the Obama administration, the Department of Justice removed around a half-million names from the National Criminal Background Check System (NICS). That, of course, sent the Left into another tailspin but not as severely as one might expect because it was a Leftist administration carrying out the act.

According to the information I have been gathering, it was determined by Obama’s DOJ that anyone on the NICS list who was a “Fugitive of Justice” and were determined to not have crossed any state lines to flee from justice were dropped from the list. This interpretation was upheld in court (not that that matters anymore).

The Fugitive Felon Act makes it a felony to be a Fugitive From Justice and cross a state line. Because only convicted felons can be a candidate for the NICS list, those not considered to be felons were rightfully removed from the list.

I might remind people that simply because you have been labeled a fugitive from justice does not necessarily make you a convicted felon and have certain of your rights denied you. Anyone who skips a court date appearance is considered a fugitive from justice. If a person skips a court date because he or she must answer to the failure of child support, for example, are they to be automatically made a felon (a dangerous one)?

We have become so programmed to react just as the programmers want us to react, it is scary. Due to our blinded anger and hatred of almost anything with political strings attached, we willingly and gleefully destroy what is left of our rights under the law.

Is there no end to this madness?

Protection of our rights is so fundamental and necessary for any thoughts of Life, Liberty, and Property, that sometimes the act of protection places us in odd and uncomfortable situations. That is why Presumption of Innocence is so vitally important. When that internationally recognized right is completely gone, your individuality and the rights that go with it, are also no longer a part of your existence.

For eight years I didn’t have a lot good to say about President Obama (not that I do about any of them) but perhaps this is one thing he did that was the right thing to do.


The NRA Are Hypocrites

Perhaps doing a slightly better job of pointing out the insanity of the newly-signed bill in Florida than the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the NRA shows their hypocrisy on their NRA-ILA website (surrounded by “Donate Now” buttons).

Evidently, the NRA completely supports parts of the new bill (as does the NSSF and others) including the blanket approval of actions to “educate” and “rat” on anyone “suspected” of having mental issues and ceding more fascist authority to the police to confiscate guns and ask questions later. As Trump stated, he preferred to confiscate guns first and worry about Due Process later. Nice…real nice! Leadership? Hmm!

This and a plea that states: “Contact your members of Congress and state lawmakers today and ask them to oppose all gun control schemes that would only impact law-abiding gun owners.”

Maybe the NRA should take a lesson out of their own playbook. If we lined up all the “gun control schemes” the NRA has been promoters and supporters of, it might make a fairly large book.

And it’s time to ask why the NRA thinks giving more power to cops to confiscate your property and at the same time allow governments to decide what is mental illness in the context of gun buying/ownership and what it is that is to be “educated” upon the people, isn’t supporting “gun control schemes” that impact law-abiding gun owners?

Wording is everything. The NRA states (above) that: “…oppose all gun control schemes that would only impact law-abiding gun owners.” (emboldening added) Are they saying that it is okay to support “gun control schemes” that impact gun owners and criminals together? Their historic record seems to indicate that, which in turn makes them an anti-Second Amendment organization. So, keep sending them money! MONEY-MONEY-MONEY!!!

The NRA also says that: “If we want to prevent future atrocities, we must look for solutions that keep guns out of the hands of those who are a danger to themselves or others, while protecting the rights of law-abiding Americans.”

According to how the NRA operates those solutions all involve giving up some of your rights. I guess they call that compromise. Either it’s a right or it’s a meted out privilege. Have we already forgotten that a previous administration in the White House believed that GIs returning from war who sought any kind of emotional assistance should be banned from owning a gun? Apparently so! What could possibly go wrong when Government decides your state of mind? Who decides theirs?

And is the NRA suggesting that we take away a person’s right to “innocent until proven guilty” and “Due Process” as a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist; a fairytale that it will prevent further crimes by “mental” people?

The answer appears to be yes. It is obvious (to me anyway) that the NRA pisses on the Second Amendment and then tells people it’s raining, so why wouldn’t they be willing to offer to give up even more of your rights to the sacrificial lamb (money and power)?

But if forget. You think the NRA is your best friend. He ain’t much of a friend, but he’s the only one you have…right?


Why Is the Parkland, Florida Shooting Different?

Or is it? One has to wonder, or ought to anyway, why, only hours after the staged Parkland, Florida school shooting, anti-gun bills were systematically introduced in state legislatures across the country, and now in Washington.

There was a lot of grumbling about gun hating after the Las Vegas shooting and after the nightclub shooting in Orlando, but there wasn’t this seemingly planned event to bring to the lawmakers all these anti-gun bills.

Was it because it was all a part of a bigger planned event?

Whatever you do…



It’s What’s Wrong With Those Pretend Second Amendment Advocates

I tire of reading and hearing idiots say that they might realize groups like the NRA and the NSSF aren’t perfect but they are better than nothing. Are they? Is it better to be slowly eaten to death by ants than to just have it over with in an instance? The end result is going to be the same.

Perhaps some don’t want to talk about the realization that all of these fake Second Amendment groups are no different than any other group – they’re in it for the money. Yeah, that’s right. It’s the money stupid.

You see, groups like these can’t be real supporters of the Second Amendment because there is not so much money in it. The broader the base of their support the more money. So, instead of simply standing up and saying I have an inalienable right to choose how I will defend myself and my property and that choice might involve a gun, a hatchet, a golf club, or a Bible, they appeal to where the most money is. You know, those “reasonable” limits to what God gave you even before you were born?

They want your money…period!

Do you need more proof? Or is it more comfortable to just pretend they are on your side? Your choice.

Today the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) sent out an email asking that you contact Florida Governor Rick Scott and ask him to veto the recently passed bill that demolishes your inalienable rights and those granted to you by your government.

Yesterday I reported on the passage of SB7026, a bill that would place your mental status in the hands of some government agent who is, perhaps, more insane than you are. This bill would rebuild the school in Parkland where the latest shooting took place – I suppose to make sure to remove any evidence that might incriminate the bastards who actually did the shooting. In addition, insane propagandized automatons are going to “educate” more and more of you to teach you how to rat someone out you might think is mentally deranged because…GASP… they own a gun.

If you are in favor of this fascist government deciding whether or not you are insane, then you’ll love the idea that this bill gives YOUR heroes, the cops, more power to confiscate your property because some fascist/totalitarian has determined that you shouldn’t possess a gun. I’m sure while they are taking your guns, they’ll pause for a moment and gun down a few of you who they THOUGHT was armed and dangerous. You and 9/11 created them.

And there’s more, much more but I won’t bore you with such insignificant details because I know you don’t care. Trust your heroes!

So, back to the NSSF. They ask members/readers to contact the Florida governor for a veto because of the age restriction included in this bill. The new law raises the age to 21 as a minimum age to buy a gun. With that and a 3-day waiting period, what’s to complain about?

The NSSF writes: “The National Shooting Sports Foundation supports measures to increase school security and ensure that the mentally ill and prohibited persons are unable to obtain firearms; however, we strongly oppose any proposal to increase the age from 18 to 21 for the purchase of long guns. Raising the minimum age to 21 to purchase a shotgun or a rifle for lawful purposes is an infringement on the constitutional rights of young adults between the ages of 18 and 20. In the United States, you are an adult when you turn 18. Your constitutional rights are fully vested, including the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms. This unconstitutional age-based gun ban would deny young adults their right to self-protection.”

Evidently, they are NOT, I repeat NOT, supporters of the Second Amendment or your right to be able to defend yourself how and when you choose. To the NSSF, evidently, all they care about is the age limit of when you can buy a gun. Is that because this would severely cut into the profits of the gun manufacturing industry who are probably heavy supporters (give gobs of money) to groups like the NSSF and NRA? Don’t tell me you never thought to that.

They tell us they support school security and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (they discount themselves of course) but instead of reading and listening to the lying, cheating, frauds in the Media and from these political groups, why not take some responsibility and go read the damned bill that just passed. There’s nothing in it that will do any of what they say they support…nothing! But the rhetoric and talking points of the bill appeal to a broader base of people = more money, more money!

Upon discovery, an honest person would then ask why is the NSSF only speaking out asking the governor to veto the bill because of the age restriction? Why aren’t they asking that the entire bill is vetoed and never brought up in the Florida Legislature or any other legislature in this country? It’s because if they did, they would lose the financial support from all those who simply love to give the government all their rights and turn them into meted-out privileges. Got to think about the salaries and retirement benefits.

If the NSSF and the NRA whittled their membership down to only the true understanders of inalienable rights and government-issued rights, there would be virtually nobody left to pay their big salaries.

Oh what, you thought it was only those Leftist (wink-wink) groups that paid out big salaries to help do the bidding for the Government? Ha!

If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m pretty much completely fed up with the country and the world in general. I’m fed up with morons who thrive on their own efforts to hang themselves, to whittle away at their own existence, incapable of thinking beyond the end of their modeled noses. Soon Artificial Intelligence will tell them when to wipe when they are finished…you know what.

There are zero reasons to place an ounce of trust in any man-made government…ZERO, ZERO, ZERO. And yet, it’s exactly what you do. I just don’t understand.

But forget about what I say and write. You know better than I do. You have come to love and trust your servitude. Now live with it. Don’t look for me there.

Someone one day asked me what I had to fear because I supported the Second Amendment. I told them they had it all wrong (which is typical). I fear nothing. I have no reason to fear anything. “For the Lord is my Shepherd. I shall not want….”

It’s not so much about my love affair with a gun or guns. I worship but only the True Yahweh who gave me a long time ago, real liberty, real freedom, and real rights. For now, I have to live in this world and as long as I do, I will do what I can to expose the wrongs, the fraud, the corruption, the evil, the Satanic, and protect those rights given to me by my Creator.

If my words have offended you that’s too bad. I would rather that you woke up than went down with the ship you are on.

None of us can protect our rights when we work so hard to give them all away.

I just don’t get it.



Deliberate Legal Jury-rigging in Maine’s Right to Hunt Proposal

At the onset of the discovery, one might ask how can any government entity be so damned stupid. But if we could only be honest with ourselves, we might just discover that the stupidity is deliberate, dishonest jury-rigging by some with the knowledge that the ignorant casting the votes don’t know the difference…or not.

I’ve often commented that we live in a “Post-Normal” world – down is up, left is right, black is white, etc. It is nothing new to discover that law proposals contain confusing language. I say confusing as it only applies to the lazy, automatons that don’t take time to read and understand what they are voting for. In many instances, it doesn’t matter anyway. Ballots will be cast according to how the representatives were told (threatened) to vote…or else.

Some in Maine have been trying to pass an amendment to the Maine Constitution sold as a means to guarantee a Maine citizen the right to hunt, trap, and fish. Even though I have said this effort comes years too late, it hasn’t stopped some from trying to get something passed even if it is mostly a worthless amendment. With each passing year, voters become more deeply brainwashed into the Environmentalism’s way of thinking, complete with animal perversion perpetuated by misguided scientism and an immoral, off-track society.

It now appears that the proposed vote on the amendment went to both the Maine House and Senate but was presented with different wording in each case. I.e in one instance a “yes” vote meant no and a “no” vote meant yes.

In a “clarification” sent out by the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, it reads: “The majority report for the House is “ought not to pass”, a yes vote means you are against the constitutional amendment a no vote means the legislator was for the amendment.  Confusing I know. 

*The opposite is true for the Senate.  The motion in the Senate was the minority, ought to pass report.  A yes vote in the Senate is for the constitutional amendment.”

Deliberately confusing I would say.

Perhaps there is lots of stupidity to go around to the fact that someone(s) couldn’t do a better job with how a proposal was worded. And then again, maybe it was intended to be that way.

The truthful question is, who can be trusted anymore? Governments are worthless. Governments are corrupt – at all levels. And you put your faith and trust in them? Shame on you!

You decide whether this “failure” is due to ignorance, stupidity, laziness, ineptitude, corruption or a combination of any and all. One thing is certain, it didn’t have to be handled this way. Would the vote have been different? We may never know.

Shame on the many!!


“The Truth is More Important Than Civility”

I was reading a Kurt Schlichter article sent to me from Townhall. It’s about civility and truth and the battle that rages between the liberals and conservatives (wink-wink). From my perspective, a perspective that is far from the “normal,” the author appears to use different terms to mean the same thing. For example, is there a difference between Left, liberal, and democrat? Definitely!

But I’m not interested so much to debate the ups and downs of this article, but only to address two statements made. To keep my discussion also in context with the article, let me say that the author, as I interpret things, is confusing a bit to me.  While preaching “civility” he also says that giving in to the demands of the Left should never happen and in the end says that if civility means surrendering, forget it. There seems to me anyway that there is great conflict between truth, civility, violence and the need to never back down from such things as defending one’s inalienable rights. More on this in a bit.

The first statement made is the following: “And truth is more important than civility.” 

As is usually the case, it’s important to examine the definitions of two keywords here – truth and civility.

An examination of “truth” from Webster’s shows us there is already confusion that comes from the meaning and use of the word. We find the number one definition as “the body of real things, events, and facts.” But we also find “…a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true.” Uh oh! And, …“fidelity to an original or to a standard.” Uh oh again! Then, let’s throw this in just to put the finishing touches to it – sincerity in action, character, and utterance.” (emboldening added)

Before we get into a further discussion about “truth,” let’s look at “civility” as also found from Webster. As the word applies to civilized conduct, Webster says the word means, “courtesy and politeness.” That’s pretty straightforward I would say.

It may not come as a surprise to anyone to discover there are real issues in the use of the term truth. Once again from my perspective, there is only one source of Truth (note the capital “T”) and that is what is found the Scriptures of our Creator, YHWH. Man’s “truth” as you can see, is confusing with indistinct, muddied and not well-defined meaning, as though it was crafted by lawyers. And that is much the root cause of many problems that exist in our society.

It is a simple task to call upon “truth” as something you have that nobody else does. But when you examine what man’s ideas of truth are you see that essentially it means whatever a person chooses to accept as their foundation of beliefs. Therefore truth and not Truth is a worthless instrument.

Some might ask why I didn’t choose to use the definition of truth as, “the body of real things, events, and facts.” We live in a post-normal world where there is no such thing that exists anymore that resembles real things, real events, or real facts. To deny it means you’re in serious trouble. I suggest help.

When we look at the original statement of “The truth is more important than civility,” what only exists in today’s world as a definition of “truth” tells us that it is pretty much impossible that any discussions or debates about anything can any longer be civil. When both sides, or multiple sides, claim to hold the truth, civility soon departs. Any form of civility is an exercise in compromising one’s well-crafted “truth.” Only politicians do that.

The second statement the author makes is this: “Civility is not a sign of weakness when a system of reasoned debate is in effect. But it is a sign of weakness, and will be taken as such by our enemies, when we cling to civility because we are too weak and afraid to admit the awful truth, that we are no longer a society ruled by reason but by power.

“You want a civil society again? Good – so do I. But the way to get it is not to surrender. It is to defeat those who want to crush you with lawless rulings by leftist judges, with economic warfare launched by woke corporations, and by the steady erosion of the rights your Creator granted you.

“If civility means submission, the hell with it.”

Putting this in the context of injecting man’s truth into a discussion of civility, shows how conflicting the statement becomes. Where both sides hold the “truth,” reasoned debate and thus civility, have taken a permanent vacation. The focus then becomes who will become the weaker of the two sides.

(Note: Were we ever ruled by anything other than power?)

In war, those more determined to win and never surrender are not operating within a theater of civility. No war is civil, whether physical, emotional or political.

The author calls upon the Right to rise up against the Left and not be weak by never surrendering, or allowing you to be “crushed” with “lawless rulings by leftist judges.” Is it that we should expect the Left to surrender or are we to beat them in a war? Remember, in the Left’s minds, just as the Right’s, they have dibs on the truth.

There is some truth in the statement that by the nature of conservatives, to live and let live, the Right has silently acquiesced to a more Leftist world/society. With constant cries to “go along to get along” and what appears to the Right as the only side that ever compromises (surrenders), perhaps the time has finally arrived (arriving with the onset of Artificial Intelligence which will become the new holder of man’s truth) that some on the Right see the end to their peaceful existence and are now just learning how to fight back.

It’s obvious as well that they are struggling with the concept.

So, what is the answer? The only answer is to seek the Creator’s Truth and to hell with man’s truth. It’s up to you. Government and party politics (Artificial Intelligence) are your enemies. It’s time to recognize and accept that.


Rural vs. Urban: The Growing Divide

It is often talked about how the “Red States” make up much of rural America and the “Blue States” are comprised of the urban dwellers. I know an entire book could be written about whether such a divide is a planned event or one of evolutionary happenstance. I’ll leave that debate for another time.

State by state we constantly hear of political and economic activities surrounding demographic differences. The reality of our existence shows that people of different ideology choose to live in areas best suited to them. This is a natural occurrence and the end result is a separation of oftentimes distinctly different cultures.

In what I believe to be a false paradigm of Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative, or Democrat vs. Republican, the “True Believers” as they become more easily convinced of political and ideological values it fuels the fire which further inflames the anger and hatred associated with political and cultural differences.

The false paradigm is in the belief that one political party is actually separate and different from the other while looking out for your best interest. While one’s own conscience, character, and personality may give us our political and moral persuasions, it is a false belief that one political party operates autonomously and isn’t controlled by higher powers, nor are they interested in your’s or my best interest short of what it takes to steal your vote.

We can easily see the results of the efforts, programmed or otherwise, in the creation of a distinct divide in this country. Not only are we subjected to more outright verbal floggings and sometimes physical ones due to our political or cultural differences (I guess we can throw in religion as well) but the segregation or the desire for such is welling up, shown in different ways, within the several states.

Because these political and cultural differences exist, suggestions on how to deal with or find a solution to this problem vary considerably.

I have written in the past some about one particular issue in the State of Maine. David Trahan, executive director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, has been pushing for several election cycles to change the process for public initiatives being placed on the ballot. The current process only requires a percentage of registered voters according to the number of ballots cast in the last election. These signatures can come from anywhere within the state boundaries.Trahan’s bill would require that the petition signature process obtain an equitable number of signatures from each of Maine’s two Congressional Districts -rural vs. urban.

Trahan, in testimony before the legislative committee, said, “For decades, many Mainers have argued that there are two Maine’s, North and South. Many in the North feel as though they have no voice in Augusta politics. In March of 2012, State Representative, Henry Joy of Crystal even proposed Legislation that would have allowed Aroostook, Piscataquis, Somerset, Franklin, Penobscot and parts of Washington, Hancock and Oxford counties to become their own State called Maine. Southern and coastal Maine would be renamed the state of Northern Massachusetts.”

It is no secret that the notion that “Many in the North” feel they have no voice in Augusta, is due to political and cultural differences based on a different value system. Historically, ballots cast in the State of Maine clearly reflect that there exists a distinct political difference between Northern Maine and Southern Maine.

Instead of Trahan calling for a secession from Maine by the North, he is actually suggesting one condition in which both “parties” are forced to seek out political and cultural adversaries as a means of accomplishing distinct political and cultural opposing proposals as a way of making things more equitable when it comes to the promotion of political and cultural dogma. Not only does one have to ask if this will accomplish what is intended in making the system more reasonable, but is it really possible?

Maine also has those proposing a constitutional amendment believed to guarantee and protect a Maine citizen’s right to hunt and fish. Regardless of whether you or I agree or disagree with such a constitutional reformation isn’t part of the point to be made here. What is the point is that conditions exist in this state where it is felt, due to political and cultural differences, that a threat exists because of one ideology opposing the other.

The majority of people who live in Northern Maine want to protect that right, while the majority of those to the South, find the need to protect that right as being unnecessary.

Do we then attempt to force one side to work with the other side by requiring an effort to place initiatives on the ballot, such as banning bear beating, to get a fair and honest representation of the state’s population, both north and south, or would it be better to create two states or some other remedy?

This dilemma is not endemic to the State of Maine. I was reading an opinion piece today in the USA Today Online. Written by Glenn Reynolds, he shares information about other states attempting to deal with these political, economic, and cultural differences.

Reynolds begins his piece with: “We’re starting to hear more about secession…wanting to separate from the population-dense urban areas that essentially control state decision-making…that they are governed by people in distant urban centers who know little, and care less, about their way of life.” 

This is the common theme throughout. I’ll guarantee it exists at some level in every state and perhaps every nation in the world. Can this be changed?

What is not so common is how to deal with it. In California, some are calling for a total secession and creating other distinct states. Others suggest turning the entire region into six separate zones, each recognizable due to their defined political, economic and cultural ideology.

New York is another example of how New York City seems to dominate and dictate all things to the remainder of the state, many of whom completely disagree with the rulings of the higher population.

We find the same problems in Washington State and Oregon, between the east and the west parts of each state, as well as in Illinois between the north and the south.

Is there an answer? Is this an idealistic pipe dream? Aren’t the suggestions of separation and secession nothing more than a reversal of ideology back to segregation? If so, then is segregation natural and more workable?

The author suggests some form of a stronger Federal Government presence that prohibits the states from making stricter laws than what the Feds mandate.

What could possibly go wrong?


So You Want To Be A Person?

Person – The Revised Code of Washington, RCW 1.16.080, (I live in Washington State) defines a person as follows: “The term ‘person’ may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual.” Person – Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines ‘person’ as follows: “In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.”

Person – Oran’s Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as: 1. A human being (a “natural” person). 2. A corporation (an “artificial” person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word “person” includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other “being” entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). – Person – Duhaime’s Law Dictionary. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are “persons” in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity.

Many laws give certain powers to “persons” which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. – Person, noun. per’sn. – Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.] legal person – Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.

A person according to these definitions, is basically an entity – legal fiction – of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Isn’t it odd that the word lawful is not used within these definitions?

Well….. I am not “the United States, this state, or any territory, or any public or private corporation”. I am not “labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.” So, I cannot be a ‘person’ under this part of the definition. Wait, unless I contract with the system, worse at birth my parents registered me with the system.. So the system owns me. Because if you have something and you register it with their system that legally means you gave it to them.

It belongs to the system. Ah, slavery is illegal they say.. But voluntary slavery is legal. Such as the systems term for application legally means you are a beggar and it is presumed you know what you’re giving up in order to get what you’re begging for, ready to submit yourself for..

The systems term submit means you bend to another’s will, so if you submit an application to register what you’ve done in terms of legal is you’ve given up all your rights voluntarily because remember there’s laws against slavery but there isn’t any law against voluntary slavery we’ve been deceived and it is a great deception it’s an immaculate deception, with privileges of course..

Don’t forget those privileges.. The systems term for privileges means they determine what rights are. You the person subject has no rights, no property, the system has rights.. Thats how it gives you some.. Ah then the rest of the person human being story is defined by human beings are animals appearing to be man.. But they’re really monsters..

Well then, the Synagogue of Satanist Talmudist Kabbala Mishna folks behind all of this systems terms don’t think so highly of us do they..