States independence, not constitutional convention

Mark Levin is a smart guy, but…

Please think before accepting a new constitutional convention.

One, if all three branches of the federal government have acted illegally and unconstutionally with impunity the entire history of the Republic, beginning with Hamilton’s execrable central bank, the Marbury v. Madison decision, then banning post office competition, and even an abominable war to overthrow state sovereignty, the claim that the income tax was ratified, and the rest, then rest assured, it is a useless exercise.

SCOTUS and gang could wait until you expend all that effort and money to then declare the effort itself unconstitutional. Then, you representatives would start backing off.

Two, it’s a Pandora’s box. You get scoundrels lying to get in, with betrayal and payoffs in mind. Think central bank. Think RINOs on steroids.

Three, there are two much better tactics for the goal of liberty.

Tactic one. Repeal of the 17th, to put the Senate back in the hands of the state legislatures. That returns some sovereignty to the states and even the people. Because you can tear into your state reps and senate easier than the U. S. Senator.

Tactic Two. Frame everything within the 10th Amendment.

Tactic Three. Make your state refuse federal strings attached money. It’s a stupid excuse for giving up your sovereignty for 30 pieces of silver. Call it that.

Four. Finally, yell and scream secession! The looney Left Coast have now made it even pc to talk about it. Advocate Calexit for starters. Secede. Free Florida. Georgia for Georgians. The Cajun Republic.

 

Advertisement

Reuters spins fake news on Supreme Court nominee Garland

Lawrence Hurley writes this article on Reuters about the refusal of the Supreme Court of a lawsuit that sought to force the Senate to vote on the confirmation of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-garland-idUSKBN14824O?il=0

In Hurleys’ first nod to fake news spin, he calls Garland a “a moderate appeals court judge“. When a Mockingbird Media organ says somebody is “moderate” or a position is “moderate”, they are speaking a foreign language, they are not speaking English as in standard English. “Moderate” is a subjective word, besides, and so it says nothing about whether a court appointee is truly moderate.

Moderate, according to the most relevant Merriam-Webster definition:

“professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme”

Garland’s past decisions show how Mockingbird Media and the Mockingbird Education Complex has abused the language to try to promote Orwellian Newspeak.

Senator Pat Toomey-PA points out that in cases involving the EPA that came before his court, Garland ruled in favor of the usual EPA unconstitutional over-reach in 90 percent of those cases. In the few times he ruled against the EPA, he said it was not enough abuse [my word] of regulatory powers.

In one such case, the court ruled that a rational cost-benefit comparison was “irrelevant”. So if, for example, saving the cross-eyed black-and-white purple polka-dot people eater would bankrupt the national treasury, this is irrelevant? Garland’s opinion was over-ruled at the Supreme Court, where Scalia joined the majority.

But Reuters says this is a “moderate”.

At the time of Ruth Bader Ginzburg’s nomination by Bill Clinton, she was at the time “regarded as a moderate”. If you dig down into why she was so regarded, it was because that was the usual Mockingbird Press talking point, not because of any objective “moderation” measuring stick.

After all, this was an ACLU attorney. Come on, “moderate”?

Her reason for saying she thought Roe v Wade was a mistake? Because it galvanized pro-life opposition to prenatal infanticide (the euphemism is “abortion”).

Now Merrick Garland has ruled against the Second Amendment in a case named by the NRA, where his opinion was that the right to bear arms was not an individual right.

No matter how much Mockingbird Press and Media mocks us by tireless repetition otherwise, the right to bear arms is an individual right and to say otherwise, that is an extremist position.

To say that any one of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights is a collectivist right and not an individual right, is an extremist position. To say that any group, as such, has a “right” based on their differences from other groups, that is an extremist collectivist deviation from the way most Americans have thought since independence.

Reuters also says that the refusal by the Senate has “little precedent in U.S. history”. This is not just spin, it is a lie.
For example,the Senate Democrats did a six-month “filibuster” against the nomination of Miguel Estrada to federal court. Estrada withdrew his name from consideration 28 months after he was nominated. The Democrats objected for ideological reasons while claiming other excuses.

“Little precedent”, Reuters? There is the matter of both Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama trying to block a vote on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

Well, at least they avoided the more obvious lie of “unprecedented” that some lying political mouths used.

All you power players trying to get in on a piece of Satan’s award of political power documented in Matthew 4 of the Bible, remember that “God is not mocked”, and “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap”.

But in Isaiah 1:18 God also promised that if you “reason together” with him, “though your sins be as scarlet they will be white as snow”.  And Jesus promised that “he that cometh to me”, he will in “no wise cast out”.

 

Give peace and free markets a chance

CIA, FYI, these are politicized agencies now. CIA is known for disinformation operations, lies with a political agenda. CIA is also known for coups to overthrow elected governments.

We also know that George Soros and his merry band of hired agents, including in the State Department, overthrew the elected government of Ukraine, and meddled in post-Soviet Georgia.

We know also there was a lot of direct coordination between the Clinton campaign and Mockingbird Media. Whistle-blowers have told us that the CIA has agents in all the Establishment news rooms and publishing houses, whence the “Mockingbird Media” description. A journalist in Germany has openly confessed in shame that he published stories paid for by the CIA.

We know the Intelligence reports of WMD’s
in Iraq that Bush 43 used to justify invading Iraq were lies.

We know that the CIA grilled Jesse Ventura on how he got himself elected governor.

Now with this new tale about Russia hacking the American election to get a nationalist elected, we’re supposed to believe this?

What in the world is wrong with making peace instead of war??

The backwards thinking of “regressives”

Marriages were originally IMPLICIT contracts between two parties, and often withh the families engaged. Most were common law marriages, they just moved in together, the aspirant having had the okay of the father. (Fathers know guys better than the daughters do, at least back in those days).

The fact of the matter is, the natural nuclear family (husband, wife, children) is the institution that cultivates the strongest protection against state oppression. That went out the window with the push for state indoctrination of the next generations disguised as “free” academic education and then “forced” induction into the indoctrination centers.

The other institution that cultivates protection against meek pushover subservience to oppressors’ memes are religious institutions, this according to prominent agnostic economist and libertarian writer Murray Rothbard and atheist economist Walter Block.

No wonder Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto that they had to exterminate the “bourgeois” institution of marriage and family. Total devotion to the collectivist mentality of worker ants is their goal.  The lying viper never wanted a “workers’ paradise”, he wanted his own special groups to dictate.

The modern heirs of Malthus and Marx think there are too many poor people in the world. That’s why they want to “protect” us from bad people, push groupthink, collectivist mentality. They think like the Orwellian uppermost crust of the “Inner Party”, like the Animal Farm where everyone has to be EQUAL but SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

So they push Groupthink disguised as “diversity”;

Inequality disguised as “equality”;

Unemployment disguised as “minimum wage”, now morphed to “living wage”;

Racism and racial preferences disguised as “anti-racism”, “affirmative action”,

Censorship and enforcement of group-think disguised as “equality” under the law;

Bullying libertarians, whistleblowers, pro-lifers and those of religious faith, and those who think differently under the guise of “equality” as a meaningless rant and “non-discrimination”,

Violating religious liberty under the guise of claiming to defend it;

And generally wearing sheepskin while inside they are “ravenous wolves”.

 

JFK, the Cold War, Krushchev, Allende, and Zelaya

In general, as a convinced anarcho-capitalist, I agree with most of what Mr. Hornberger said in his video linked here about the JFK assassination:

http://www.voicesofliberty.com/video/the-facts-of-the-jfk-assassination-and-what-we-should-learn-from-them/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=VOL&utm_medium=post

Except mainly for one brief glancing comment about Salvador Allende. Not his fault, necessarily, though, considering the totality of the news blackout on certain aspects of the way things were then.

That said, once you learn some facts that are publicly available, and some that aren’t so much, there is no way one can say that Salvador Allende wanted a peaceful coexistence. There are other aspects of those events that say different, most of which were suppressed by the international press cartel for its own reasons, or for the reasons of those who run it. If the same sequence of events were to happen today, there would be a LOT of facts coming to light on all sides of the issues.

If I had doubt about that before, they were all blown away during 2009, when the entire force of the international news cartel Establishment threw its entire propaganda machine into supporting the same story line about events in Honduras, contrary to the truth. Every single official representative of every single member of the United Nations supported the s
ame story color-coordinated story line as the Media Cartel.

In Honduras there were even large demonstrations outside the offices of CNNE (CNN Espanol) demanding they remove their reporter and stop telling lies about events there.

That’s why I did some research about Allende. Most of what’s in the public libraries is tilted in one direction but even between the lines in the leftist shill press there is some truth to be had.

ALLENDE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE.

One connection I discovered between the Honduras and the Chile stories was Jose Miguel Insulza, the Secretary General of the OAS. He was the chief political adviser to Salvador Allende in that regime, which had declared itself loudly as a Marxist government. Not just socialist, but Marxist. They saw the existing economic system of Chile something to overturn.

Allende brought not only Fidel Castro to visit, but he invited Castro-sympathizer revolutionaries from all the countries around Latin America. This was the 1970s when it was clear, without even believing government press, that Cuba was sending material support to violent leftist insurgencies across the country, and that was also with Soviet support.*

Okay, as socialism is ruinous on any economy, and catastrophic if administered as a shock treatment, Allende’s policies and its effects did just that. I can believe they had help from the CIA, but this process needed no CIA help. Socialism did the same thing that government interference has always done throughout thousands of human history, including the Soviet Union, only faster in the industrial age (which would have collapsed within months from 1917 without help from  Western banking capital).

As libertarians SHOULD know but always forget to point out, when the CIA brings down a socialist regime it is only accelerating a political process that occurs naturally, the same as to the USA regime. From what I understand, that’s just simple Austrian economics.

Anyway, Allende and his administrators (including Insulza) was already into his plan to build his own alternative military structure, just like Obama promised he was going to do in 2008. (Remember that?)

Allende’s regime was stockpiling weapons in government warehouses maintained by political appointees. He was importing experienced (violent) revolutionaries from all around outside his borders. Cubans were invited in (like they were to Venezuela even BEFORE Chavez).

THEN THE SAME CHILE CONGRESS that put the winner of the plurality into power of the general election (well below majority) , finally DEMANDED that the military take action to stop the runaway regime. So they did.

What follows was not pretty. But Chile is in a better condition now that it would have been had the military left Allende to execute the remainder of his totalitarian plans.

JFK somewhat before and toward the end sought peace. Apparently Krushchev did too, in my opinion, his removal being one piece of evidence.

But I doubt that of Allende. I also KNOW that Manuel Zelaya of Honduras in 2009 received the same (better even) coverage that Allende got in 1973. I also know that Roberto Michelletti got the same vitriol (worse really) spun at him that Pinochet got for so many years.

And in the usual leftist shill web sites supported by the usual socialist billionaire-foundation suspects, they still use the same lying rhetoric as back then.

(NOTE: Were there atrocities back then? No doubt. There were also full-blast shootouts between revolutionaries and military troops at those clandestine arms depots. The violent revolutionaries wanting to support the planned totalitarian regime change were called “resistance” against the coup, and the military “golpistas”.

Portugal had a peaceful coup. Libya had a peaceful coup and the West blasted away the ONLY middle-eastern nation and its leader that had denounced its own previous policies, and was a blue ribbon success for peaceful change among Arab countries. The ONLY one where Christians felt safe, women were lifted up in public view, prominently.

Honduras restored constitutionality, which you could call a “coup” but only if you count the stopping of a counter-coup that was already in progress, or restoration of constitutional continuity in power rather than presidential continuity in power.

I am an anarchist, but there things that are worse sometimes that the regime that rules in your land. Ask the Cold-war era refugees from Eastern Europe.

<<————————————>>

*–Remember it didn’t take long for the Soviets to remove Khrushchev after that rapprochement either. (And speaking of facts kept out of general public view, the current Rockefeller patriarch of the day had visited Moscow between both events.

It seems both sides of the Cold War (or their manipulators) wanted to keep the threat levels and military production up, but without actually letting any missiles fly.

Taxation is tribute, tribute is theft

Both dominant USG political parties are socialist, because their platforms and practice both make the basic assumption that all your money belongs to them to do with as they see fit, and they will let you keep enough to live another day to continue to “pay tribute”. This is the life of serfs and lords of the manor. Organized grand theft.

I never, not once, I NEVER agreed to ANY such “social contract” WHATSOEVER.

There is no government on Earth today that did not arrive to it by conquest. Today’s “lords” pretend to be more benevolent but they still have the warfare-welfare state to sell.

All the wars in the Middle East have a pivot point in Jerusalem. USG lined up to lay its reputation on the line, along with the sons of serfs, in support of Israel, which is a creation of what were called Zionists before WW2. Truman and other lords of the manor threw reports of Irgun atrocities in the trash and recognized Israel immediately.

Meantime, the Federal Reserve continues its counterfeit money operation. Fiat money makes it easier to wage war, so we have a runaway government waging unconstitutional wars with unconstitutional money. What they can’t get by taxing us out of house and home (in many cases literally) they get by robbing us in the greatest theft scheme of history, currency devaluation. They call it “inflation” so it doesn’t sound so bad.

When Krugman of the NYT says a little bit of inflation is good, he’s quoting Keynes, whose ideas corrupted the conversation and made most economists stupid. What neither Keynes or Krugman will admit publicly is that inflation is a direct theft of value from what “purchasing power” the “little people” have.

But politicians loved him. Durban said quipped “Keynesianism is dead” at the presser for so-called “Sequestration”. Sequestration had absolutely ZERO cuts to the budget over the previous year. So when USG complained about having to cut services, they were lying when they said it was stingy Republicans are blah blah. But the Republican Party is no better, they did the same thing to finance the wars too.

I told everybody in 2008 that Obama would do the same things Bush did. And I am so sorry that Obama did not only that but much much more than Bush could have hoped for.

Jesus came to set at liberty those who are captive, give comfort to the poor, heal the sick, and most importantly save our souls. In Matthew 17 he exposes all taxation schemes as “tribute” extorted (stolen) by conquering looters. In saying “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God what is God’s” he was referring to the fact that Caesar and all extortionists (see Matthew 17) do not own anything legitimately. Romans 13 is no excuse for Caesar-loving 501c3 loving pastors, because if any government does not meet its requirements it means it deserves nothing.

Columbians want to finish what Uribe started

The FARC may be protected –I do believe that. After all, for example, Jimmy Carter pushed “Rhodesia” into elections that Muzorewa won, and when the Mugabe gang cried foul (they didn’t win) then Carter pushed Zimbabwe into elections that Mugabe won. And he has not let go since.

The fracking story, same as here in the States, is just another meme that the elites are pushing to keep the gullible agitated about something, fearful about something so that their astroturf grassroots (with the gullible) can then demand more control. Elites to the rescue! After all, they are (this is their term, not mine) our “interplanetary guardians”! (Kid you not! You can’t make this stuff up! Stranger than fiction!)

About *-Columbia-* now, I lived there in Medellin as a missionary when there was a strong cartel presence and strong guerrilla presence both, and I’ve known lots of Columbians here in Miami. One I worked with agreed, that Uribe is a national hero among the people. In the States even alternative media doesn’t get the facts as well as they do with what’s going on here and to some extent in Europe.

Columbians in general were sick, tired, and disgusted with the lame way things were going. Gaviria got elected precisely on a platform of negotiating with FARC, and he was so serious about it he met their demand for a safe zone territory inside Columbia where they would not be bothered. (Probably to the consternation of its inhabitants). But Columbians wanted peace that’s why they elected him.

That was then. This is now. The FARC only used their safe zone to hold their couple hundred kidnapped ransom hostages, and stall, stall, stall, and they kept on killing people and blowing up things, business as usual. This went on for almost Gaviria’s entire one constitutional term. Near the end, due to pressure and embarrassment, he finally declare talks over and gave an ultimatum for that zone.

Biggest embarrassment for Gaviria was when the “paramilitary” groups –which had nothing to do with the military, that word is usually a propaganda trick of the elites, in my opinion. They circled that zone at one point and the FARC broke off talks demanding the government stop them. (OH, the irony! Government could not defeat FARC but stop the other guys). The independent self-defense forces were much more effective against them. (I met one guy who had land who gave us a ride once while hitchhiking). They just wanted to defend themselves.

So when Uribe ran for president, he spoke very clearly about getting serious about shutting them down. I think Columbians knew by then that the civilian politicians were timid about it, and saw Uribe as more serious. And serious he must have been, because during the campaign they murdered his son. Uribe’s next campaign speech after that was furious, and he said they thought they would stop him, but he was more determined than ever.

He proved to do exactly that, and the Columbians awarded him with a change in their constitution (not very easy there) to let him run a second term. They began getting some victories. That’s when Uribe got intelligence that led their forces to a FARC camp inside Ecuador that the Chavista president was obviously protecting. Correa was more angry about Columbian forces violating their territory than he was over Columbian guerrillas violating their territory (oops, maybe he had invited them?) or over Ecuador violating Columbian territory by supporting guerrilla bases.

So the Columbians changed their constitution again! And Uribe got a *third* term!

And my Columbian friends could not say enough good about him! In spite of the worldwide leftist propaganda machine. They indicted some Congresswoman to make it look like Uribe used dirty tricks to get re-elected but Columbians are not stupid. Not all that much.

So yeah. Leftists like Chavez, Correa in Ecuador, Morales in Bolivia, sure corporations can deal with them. They prefer a government that can guarantee them protection and deals. But like Paraguay shows, there are chinks and leaks in the Propaganda Machine. According to Bible passages in Daniel, Revelation and others, the description of the prophesied world government fits socialist regimes. (“Shall by peace overthrow many”, “shall gain the kingdom by flatteries”, “a collector of taxes shall rise up”..) But they also speak of plenty of trouble for his regime, including from many who are not Bible believers.

So for all this, no, I would not be surprised at pseudo-capitalists, fascist-capitalists, working with leftists. At least the elites, the ones that coordinate. No doubt they do. Armand Hammer, Warburg. Saw a Cold-War era movie made in Russia once, about the Swedish capitalists that worked with the Bolsheviks to make great numbers of train cars to save the masses from hunger (according to this movie haha).

Also about the USG helping leftist regimes, I’ve shared many times (my contra-propaganda mission) that the American ambassador Hugo Llorens to (my wife’s country) Honduras (Hugo Llorens) was used in Zelaya’s TV spots as if he endorsed Zelaya’s fraudulent “referendum/survey”. He was at Zelaya’s presidential palace the night before the “survey” would take place that would justify his Chavez-style dictatorship, at the same table as the inner circle of planners. He was “known” in Honduran social circles to be in a compromising relationship with Zelaya’s son.

Hondurans were massively relieved when Zelaya was relieved of his then illegitimate occupation of the presidential palace.

USG intervention was definitely and unequivocally tilted “leftist” in that case. Who knows? Maybe they knowingly cooperated with the phony “coup” in Venezuela. The Chavista Supreme Court cleared the top military brass of all charges and they got full retirement with benefits, very quietly, a year or so later.

Columbia is a beautiful country and are horrified –like it says there– at the prospect of one of these brutal killers getting office. Columbia still has an ongoing amnesty program, and any one of them can just give up at any time. Uribe had them almost wiped out. Columbians are mad that Santos eased off the goal of ending it.

In Guatemala, Efrain Rios Montt put a halt to ranchers-motivated killings of protesting Indians and started a “guns and beans” program. The Indians themselves were armed and trained to defend themselves against the guerrillas and they made sure they didn’t go hungry doing it, and helped them trade too. The result was that the guerrillas lost the war right then in Guatemala, and the “Left” has never forgiven him. Guatemala would have elected him.

Ron Paul says Obama’s Drone Wars Undermine American Values

His comments are found at the Daily Bell:

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/35250/Ron-Paul-Obamas-Drone-Wars-Undermine-American-Values/

One big thing I like about Daily Bell is that they carefully analyze events, look for context, and make clear that what you see –in the regular news media fare- is not always what you get. No WSYWIG there, no sir. And it’s early to call for war crimes tribunals, as there is not sufficient infrastructure (yet anyway) to enforce them. Education will do its job. Ron Paul’s campaign to educate the American body politic is a good example of the greater effectiveness of this. The numbers of both those who are aware, both veterans in forums and publications, and the newly aware, will continue to grow despite the hysterical efforts of the Powers That Be to explain everything in Controlled Media in ways that pretend that there is no liberty movement. As long as there is a sector of the Internet that is free, and it is still possible to spread facts and the real stories at these electronic speeds, it will continue to grow. In fact, it will continue on in some form, even if they implement Lieberman’s wet dream of an Internet “off-switch…like China has.” Like China!

The USA has certainly supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists many places, and “installed” a few. But as a libertarian anarcho-capitalist myself, it is evident to me most left-fascists and libertarians alike, sometimes ascribe too much power to the CIA overseas. I call libertarians especially to telescope to a view of these world events from a higher altitude. I’ll bet you that some analysts within the intelligence apparatus have an inflated view of their own power.

For example, no matter how much Hugo Chavez and later Maduro blamed CIA plots for what Hondurans did in 2009, whatever the CIA did was irrelevant. My wife is from there, and it made me nervous that it might become another Venezuelan vassal state. If they paid out money here or there, they totally wasted all of it, because the overwhelming majority of the people of that country were dedicated to getting rid of the guy they supposedly elected earlier. It was a bit of a surprise even to me, since most of the poor are inclined toward looting the rich. I believe it’s possible Hugo Chavez won the first election, even though in my opinion he’s perfectly capable of committing fraud.

But I realized later that even many of the poor in Honduras are somewhat educated now about events elsewhere, and there is an Internet effect there too. It helped that apparently the media seems somewhat less subservient to the politicians, and some of the local elite families saw socialism as inimical to their own interests. There were probably a few of them also “hedging their bets” and secretly supporting the auto-coup plotter Zelaya, including one famous perennial presidential candidate who was accused very publicly of smuggling him into the Brazilian embassy.

Not all poor people are stupid or ignorant. Hondurans who hate poverty and who are capable of thinking analytically at all, they do NOT want an economy like Cuba’s or Venezuela’s. They know theirs has been corrupt, but they would rather not jump into the abyss of permanent poverty just like that. More so the middle class there.

Hillary Clinton made a personal call to Zelaya and told him to resign, and so open the door for the socialist president that the American ambassador had supported in the efforts to establish his lifetime national socialist Chavista fiefdom. Yes he did. What the CIA does is secret, but in the small-town social environment of a country like Honduras, not everything can be kept secret. Hugo Llorens appeared in some of the televised propaganda for the propaganda cover for the overt stage of the auto-coup, the takeover manifest”referendum”.

The “demonstrations” in favor of Zelaya were padded with paid bodies. Chavez poured so much money in that the lempira rose a full 10% against the dollar for a few weeks while they tried to make a show of it for the world.

The CIA may have been doing its thing there, no doubt, but keep in mind that the FSS and FIS (successors to the KGB and the GRU) are not exactly dead, and Chavez was all about intervention himself. He offered President Micheletti $3 million dollars to resign, poured money in for marches (that never reached the numbers of the pro-Micheletti, anti-Zelaya, anti-Chavez, or even the irate protests against CNN and its reporter, who was distorting the situation there.

Socialism does not need any CIA intervention to collapse under its own destructive weight. The CIA often does, always does, intervene for its own purposes. But let us not kid ourselves. Sometimes it may act in a manner you least expect, also. Moles are not rare anywhere, and the Venona papers of course corroborated the accusations of Senator McCarthy that the State Department was infiltrated by outright Communists that reported to the Soviet Union.

And who can doubt the jubilation of East Germans when the Berlin Wall fell and they were able to join the “more free” market and prosperity of West Germany?

Who can doubt that 90% of North Koreans would seize the chance to migrate to South Korea?

Who can doubt that the United States today just might have more Cubans than Cuba itself? And remember, Cuba cannot blame the embargo either, since every other nation in the world allows trade with them.

And even with the case of Chile, almost nobody ever hears the fact that the Congress in Chile, lacking a constitutional method to impeach and dethrone the dictatorship of Salvador Allende, voted 81 to 47, on August 22, 1973, for a resolution demanding the immediate cessation of Allende’s unconstitutional actions, that he cease arming leftist cadres, and a series of other demands, PLUS they demanded the removal of Allende from office. The military did nothing until the Congress demanded it, because of the economic damage and the violence that the regime had propagated.

This was even dubbed a “trade secret” by leftist journalists in Latin America: That they begrudgingly knew, admitted among themselves, that Pinochet’s actions had resulted in a much more prosperous Chile. And that was before they joined the G-7 club of “developed” nations.

Let me restate here though that I am absolutely opposed to US intervention abroad, all of it.

But many actions seem even engineered to hurt American interests, of which drone strikes are a “striking” example. Even if the orders that go forth for those actions are not purposed to hurt the country, they may be an example of God’s warnings that he would “turn back” the weapons in the hands of a nation under judgment. (Jeremiah 21:4)

Can’t have a war without soldiers

Can’t have a war without soldiers:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/laurence-m-vance/you-cant-have-a-war-without-soldiers/

Congress rolls over for the executive (Ron Paul):
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/ron-paul/congress-rolls-over-for-the-executive/

What to do when cops pull you over:

Top brass, military and civilian, were told minutes after it started, about the “terrorist” (their word) Benghazi attack, with no mention of any video, to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and minutes before they reported on it to the President:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/14/benghazi-transcripts-top-defense-officials-briefed-obama-on-attack-not-video-or/

Alcohol: study says it’s the “direct cause” of 80,000 deaths a year in the USA:

The countries with the highest rates of alcohol-related deaths were mostly in Central America, including El Salvador (27.4 out of 100,000 deaths each year), Guatemala (22.3 out of 100,000) and Nicaragua (21.3 out of 100,000).

Overall, men accounted for 84 percent of alcohol-necessary deaths, though the male-to-female ratio varied from country to country. In El Salvador, the risk of a man dying from an alcohol-necessary cause was 27.8 times higher than that of a woman, while in the United States and Canada, the risk was 3.2 times higher.

There were also differences in age groups for alcohol mortality between countries. In Argentina, Canada, Costa Rica and the U.S., the highest mortality rates occurred in individuals between 50 and 69 years of age. In Brazil, Ecuador and Venezuela, the highest mortality rates were seen in individuals between 40 and 49 years of age.

No Such Agency also gets info from offline computers:
…And so China wants international rules on computer spying. Hahaha. Spying for me but not for thee.
How about we all stop our governments from doing all that spying on us.

Bumper stickers: “Stop watching us”…

“The NSA: The only part of government that actually listens to you”.

And they’re already bringing criminal charges against political opponents in Wisconsin:
…Who said political authorities would ever respect free speech?

 

Right to Bear Arms: The Legal Question

I’m not trying to be argumentative, just curious. The current Court has struck down most recent attempts of states and municipalities to regulate arms. The NRA wages legal and electoral campaigns against anyone who breathes a hint to restrain a “right to bear arms“. The U.S. Congress, as well as the President, refuses to consider any restrictions.

—
The Supreme Court in the past few decades, has trashed the Constitution and allowed lots of infringing against the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Finally Illinois forced the issue with an obvious hit against the collectivist misinterpretation, and ruled that it was an individual right, not a state militia right.

[Cue the snicker sound track here.] After all, if the right to bear arms is a right of governments and not a right for individuals, then the Second Amendment really means, according to this insanity:

Does it say this?

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the [government???] to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[Cue riotous laughter at that…].

So to protect the “security” of a

Dred Scott, whose famous case to gain his freedom began as a lawsuit filed in St. Louis in 1846 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“free” state, the right of the government to bear arms shall not be infringed. Under this misinterpretation, the Second Amendment would presumably include the right to “bear” nuclear weapons.

So, are Steve and I permitted to own (keep) and use (bear) nuclear weapons (again, sorry, Norm, you were born on the wrong side of the pond)? If not, why not? That is, if I can keep and bear an AK-47 or AR-15 why not a thermonuclear device?

—-
There are MUCH WORSE people than you or Steve that already own (as in possess the use of) nuclear weapons.

#1. For example, one person who could throw nuclear weapons at somebody right now include one who arranged a massacre in a theater in which 130 innocent people died:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20067384
…But some 130 hostages died – most not at the hands of the gunmen and women, but apparently because of the effects of the gas….

#2. Another group killed an estimated 5,000 with over 10,000 hurt critically, all in cold blood to stop a peaceful protest.. The troops they sent in were ordered to shoot anybody that got in the way; they were brought from distant bases (presumably so that they would not include too many who would worry about relatives being among the victims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

#3. Another one has arrogated to himself the illegal and unconstitutional “authority” to order secret kills on anybody he wants to anywhere in the world and has done it with full public knowledge. He (and his subordinates in command) continue their and unconstitutional and interventionist wars in five foreign countries.

For survivors, he has put command-and-control death panels in their future. Special treatment for special friends.

Rational people would demand all means possible to defend themselves against these obvious pathological maniacs, ruthless killers. And the list above is of the ones currently in possession of the worst nuclear weapons in the world. It does not include criminal dictators and rulers from the past or the future.

I’m serious. I admit that a reasonable person would not want Jason to have a tight rubber band, much less a nuke, but seriously should that be a limitation (no matter how logical and reasonable)? Instead is there case law which delineates what is protected by the 2nd amendment and not? Perhaps case law defines “arms”, which means that there would be a line in the sand; what is that line? I.e., what is protected and what is not?

—-
Case law is worse than useless when it numbs the mind of erudite attorneys at law and of citizens who accept it. Case law changes on the whim of those who make it, including 100s of reversals by the most respected Court in the world, the U.S. Supreme Court. Their ruling on the Republicans’ Civil RIghts Act in the 1960s reversed the Dred Scott case, for which you cannot find one little phrase of justification in even the slaver-protecting Constitution. (Justification was provided by the horror they felt at the prospect of blacks being able to carry arms, because if they are free men they carry arms).

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

—
And some people out there in the cackling industry actually try to pretend it means that governments have the right to arm themselves!

Imagine that! Next thing they’ll pass a law that says chickens shall lay eggs and water shall flow downhill!

At least those amendments and laws would make lots more sense than the sewage pouring forth from looters’ governments today!

Related articles

• The Case for Constitutional Carry (thetruthaboutguns.com)
• Another Push Toward Revolution? US Senate Says Right to Keep & Bear Arms is Debatable (sgtreport.com)
• The “Collectivist Right” Interpretation of the Second Amendment: Created in Kansas in 1905 (gunwatch.blogspot.com)
• The Right to Keep and Bear Arms [With Less Than 10 Rounds] Shall Not Be Infringed (thetruthaboutguns.com)

//

//