With Socialists winning many elections despite their obvious failures, how come they are voted for with 60-70% of votes? Voters have handouts on the line despite alternatives existing to replace the failing welfare systems. Social security was paid for by individuals through social security tax and we could simply stock up on firearms and ammunition to resist law enforcement officers trying to harm us for resisting a tyrannical tax code. Isn't the right to keep and bear arms meant to secure us from a rogue government?
Plus, what if universal healthcare worked like public defender system established more often after Gideon vs. Wainwright(1963)? You don't have people worrying about losing that should conservatives win elections. The judiciary is there to deal with more sensitive issues that require non-partisanship such as unalienable rights. The judiciary however won't act human in such as reason being a basis for decisions.
What it's come down to is giving government more power that many won't normally accept but feel they are outgunned. I feel people don't take a stand and they should because it would send a message that we don't need permission from government for our rights to be protected.
One of our rights I must mention is Right to Petition Government for redress Grievances. What it means is someone files a complaint against government and expects redress for any grievance committed by government against people. The Founders never expected people to rely on politics to secure their freedoms since politics are often abused. Even the justice system is slovenly and judges undeserving of having the title "Honorable" in front of their names. What Petitioning for redress of grievences means is having your complaint heard and addressed impartially so you don't have to have rights put at the mercy of law enforcement officers, politicians, and lawyers.
Plus, if more people like Cookie Thornton, Joseph Kane, Jerry Kane Jr., and Carl Drega took a stand in their respective events and had only been smarter in resistance such as more powerful firearms, law enforcement and government would get the message more clearly than by using words. People need to stop viewing people like Thornton and Kane as sick individuals and be reminded of the brave Patriots who shot British troops indiscriminately in the 1770's and how freedom sometimes can only be defended by shooting police officers and armed force members on the tyrant's side. How can people forsake that as a mere memory when had it not been for Patriots having better weapons than the British army, the British would have won. Tyrants like Adolf Hitler have preferred gun control as means to control people.
Plus, the artificially high cost and rarity of finding the same firearms jack booted thugs like the BATFE, who have fucking machine guns while the easiest people to acquire them are gangs. The BATFE is a vile, hoplophobic gang that opposes the true meaning of keep and bear arms! Armed citizens pose a threat to tyranny and preserve free society. It was April 19, 1775 where citizens used firearms to prevent their confiscation, starting the American Revolution. Why can't people open fire on law enforcement thugs enforcing tyrannical laws? If just a handful of gun dealers refused to be licensed by the BATFE, gun control would be ineffective.
Once they deprive people means of having superior firearms than government, whats to stop tyranny? Will our other rights be protected? Good luck with the appeals since your rights will only be in the hands of government employees who need to be harmed severely. Do you think judges have been guardians of liberty or enemies? What did Thomas Jefferson say about judges? “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
Who is the final arbitrator? The people of course. I'm not talking about murderers, rapists, robbers, thieves, and tyrants. I'm talking about the liberty defending folk willing to fight for freedom the same way the Sons of Liberty in the Continential Army did during the American Revolution and the Allied Troops of World War II. We need people like these fighting law enforcement thugs and defending our freedoms from our own government.
What can we do to weaken and undermine tyrannical government while freeing imprisoned freedom fighters? We can first reject the legitimacy of government action as Thomas Jefferson stated in the 1797 Kentucky resolutions "
“That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
This means people can and should fight law enforcement officers enforcing such laws which abridge our freedoms. Others should save imprisoned comrades to send the tyrants a powerful message, which will also terrify and embarrass the courts. Plus, why hasn't the militia movement grown to the strength of Al-Qaeda. Had Timothy McVeigh been more influential than Osama Bin Laden, tyrannical government wouldn't be a major problem and people would assert their rights more.
There are so many undelegated powers government assumes such as deciding who owns a gun, what speech is fair, what constitutes a fair trial, what sentence is fair, and what we drink and what age we consume alcohol and cannabis. How can you resist tyranny if your rights to firearms are limited so government has an unfair advantage. the people need a stronger advantage since they outrank government.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Monday, October 7, 2013
Syria Under Seige: The New Axis of Evil and the Darkness of Islam
As well known, Obama is eager to support the Al-Qaeda rebels in Syria against the Assad Government. John McCain falsely claims these rebels are heroes and moderates when in fact these rebels resemble the Bolsheviks of 1917 if they terrorized Christians.
However, the real issue is whether involvement in Syria is a US matter. For one, Free Syrian Army rebels are Al-Qaeda. Second, the Islamist rebels are launching a genocidal campaign against the Christians. Finally, the plans for Syria after overthrowing Assad include the establishment of a totalitarian Islamic State much like Iran and Taliban Afghanistan.
this Axis of evil includes Obama's USA, Erdogan's Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Muslim brotherhood, and more. Don't forget most of these rebels hold anti-Western sentiment. Supporting them would be like Jews supporting Nazi Germany. Not to condone crimes committed by either side but the fact of the matter is Assad did not use chemical weapons while Al-Qaedan rebels did. So many questions to be asked here as to why beautiful women such as the now McCain stooge Elizabeth O'Bagy is blessing the Al-Qaeda rebels. Don't people know that Islam was born from the sword of force? Many of the hate preaching Mullahs and Imans have lied to the Muslim World to retain power. Many Muslim Countries were once part of Roman Civilization. The Levant(Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Cyprus, and Sinai Egypt) and North Africa(Egypt & Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Western Sahara) and Caucasus region used to be Western Civilized. It was thanks to Islamic conquerers that they became Islamic. If only people knew the dark history of Islam as a death cult beyond it's kneeling head towards floor prayers to the Moon God Allah and Arab culture. Before Islam, much of the Levant and North Africa was like Europe with Western Roman Civilization(France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Tunisia, Britain, Austria-Hungary, Southern Germany) being Roman Catholic(exception of Britain after 16th century which became Angelican-Protestant) and Eastern Roman Civilization(Balkan States, Greece, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Cyprus, Jordan, Caucasus, and Egypt-Sudan) being Eastern Orthodox. Angelicanism, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy are Christian denominations. Parts of Northern Saudi Arabia used to be part of Roman Civilization.
To understand how Islam became the deadly virus it has been, you must understand it's origins. I'm not preaching hate but nothing but the cold hard truth and the truth is Islam was created by one intolerant and sinful being on the Arabian Peninsula. Mohammed's early life was filled with hardships as he became an orphan as a young child and after being with his grandfather, he stayed with his hard-working uncle and cruel aunt after Mohammed's grandfather died. Mohammed's hardships as a child contributed to his mysogeny and lust for money, power, and sex. Jesus Christ was the only being born without sin, having been born of a virgin(St. Mary) and performing many miracles such as turning water into wine, walking on water, and healing a blind man. Mohammed never did any of the wonderful things Jesus accomplished. Mohammed lived his life as a robber, murder, thief, and sexual deviant while Jesus lived without sin. God is very clear that he has a son while Mohammed lived like any sinner. Mohammed even admitted he was a sinner. Islam was created by Mohammed in 610 when he claimed the angel Gabriel came to him in a cave(which was used to stash Mohammed's loot). When the Jewish and Christian tribes of Mecca and Medina refused to accept Mohammed's message, he waged war against the Meccans and Medinans with forced conversions to Islam. Mohammed even married and had sexual relations with a 6-9 year old girl named Aisha when he was between the ages of 45-52. Aisha was the daughter of Mohammed's disciple Abu Bakr(who became the first Caliph of Islam after Mohammed's death in 632).
Jesus never led armies but had one mission which is to preach a new beginning of love and forgiveness. As Jesus died on the cross in Judea, Palestine he forgave the thief on the cross simply because that thief acknowleged only Jesus could forgive sin. God chose to conceive a son of his own instead of calling on any prophet for the ultimate mission of forgiveness because any other prophet would be sinners. Jesus Christ warned of false prophets and Mohammed was one of them. What is with many Muslims who accept Mohammed as a perfect example even though he was a mere sinner who died in 632 without Christ. This would make Mohammed the Anti-Christ of his time. An Anti-Christ who would help gradually destroy traces of a tolerant civilization where Christians and Jews lived without sectarian conflicts. Martin Luther, the father of Germanic seperatism(Lutheranism) would call Mohammed "First born son of Satan." Luther was right. Mohammed was full of demonic sin, violating nearly ever commandment laid down by God, including idolatry(Moon God Allah), Murder(against non-believers), Theft(against non-believers), Adulery and Sexual Demons(Polygamy and Child Bride Aisha), and even lying to non-believers to promote Islam as a religion of peace when in fact history and actions of Islamic Fundamentalists tell otherwise. Well after Mohammed's death, his legacy of forced conversions and sectarian hatred and violence against non-believers expanded well beyond the Arabian Peninsula into the Zorostarian Persia, Eastern Orthodox Levant and Balkan Peninsula, and even as far as the Iberian Peninsula.
The Islamic Caliphates were counter-attacked by the Crusades of the 11th-13th century and Spanish Inquisition of the 16th century. What the Crusaders did was attempt to restore Western Civilization to it's former Roman glory which was somewhat successful but somewhat a failure. The Spanish Inquisition however was more successful but harsh as it was more of giving birth to Spanish nationalism under Queen Isabella of Catille and King Ferdinand. Though the Inquisition went too far such as forced conversions, it did establish Roman Catholicism as the national religion of many Roman European countries. What history should have been was having the Levant, North Africa, Balkan Peninsula, Caucasus, Arabia, and Persia being liberated from Islamic rule. However, Arabia and persia were not considered part of Roman Civilization. The Crusades and Spanish Inquisition serve as prime examples of history where Islam met strong resistance. Had Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand not pursuded the nationalist Inquisition, Spain and many other Roman Western Countries wouldn't be Western Civilized. Western Civilizations in the Old World other than Roman include the Germanic, Celtic, Anglo, Nordic, and Slavic Civilizations. Germanic Civilizations include Germany, Austria, Netherlands, South Africa, Great Britain, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Flanders, and Poland.
What should be done about Syria? Better yet, what if the Middle East was westernized and the ignorant savages were kept under the control of Western powers and the Muslim Brotherhood destroyed? If it weren't for Islam, Egypt would be a Coptic Orthodox state like the Papal States but have a Pharoah as head of state monarch, Coptic Pope as Head of the upper house of bishops, and a Prime Minister of the lower house which would follow the line of parliamentary democracy plus having some Anglo roots. Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco would be Roman Catholic republics with Libya being mostly Italian, Tunisia and Algeria being mostly French, and Morocco being a blend of Spanish and French roots. Lebanon and Syria have their own versions of Christianity being the Meronite and Melkonite Catholic sects but also share Greek Orthodox roots. Turkey is supposed to be a secular and nationalist republic but before the fall of Constantinople in 1453, turkey was mostly Greek Orthodox so Turkey should have their own Orthodox church dubbed Turkish Orthodox.
If it weren't for Islam, most of the Arab and Levant world would have the same standards of living as Western Europe and North America. Reality is the only Muslim country in the World to be a 1st world country is Turkey, due to rejecting jihad and sharia and endorsing modernization and Western ideals.
I know this blog post isn't talking directly much about Syria but the fact of the matter is Islam is most certainly NOT a religion of peace but I don't say that about all Muslims. I'm saying here is that Islam is a cult that centers around one sinner, Mohammed. Most people are Muslims because they fear violent retaliation if they reject and/or leave Islam, plus many Muslim's ancestors from the 7th century were forced to convert to Islam or face dire consequences at the hand of a bloody sword. Also keep in mind I don't harbor resentment against Muslims who oppose the totalitarian tyranny of Sharia law and jihad. I do however show resentment towards the cult of death known as Islam and it's many hypocrisies, lies, and arrogance that are supported by history dating back from as far as Mohammed's childhood and rise as so called "prophet".
What also makes Islam a Pagan religion is one, part of Islam includes worship of the moon god Allah, which has been worshiped since ancient civilization, two, it offers very little to no forgiveness for humanity with goals for World domination and subjugation of all other faiths and cultures, and three, was the brainchild of one sinner's imagination and bias, Mohammed.
What I think Islam is, is a merger of the Pagan Moon God worship(Allah) of Arabian culture and the cult of Mohammed. Most Islamic values are centered around Mohammed's life, making it mostly a cult similar to Jim Jones' Peoples Temple and Warren Jeffs' FLDS. All men are/were sinners and many Imans and Mullahs know Mohammed was a sinner and while they acknowledge Mohammed did the sins he did, they blindly follow his "perfect" example so as to not offend Mohammed's image. The people who wrote the Holy Bible scriptures over the thousands of years were sinners(except Jesus Christ). Jesus never asked for money or pity since his mission on Earth was to bring forgiveness to sinners.
Islam is mostly Arabian culture as you can tell the difference between Arabian and Roman cultures. Islamists celebrate the 1453 Fall of Constantinople and prey for a Caliph of Islam to destroy the West just as their ancestors did centuries before. If North Africa and the Levant are supposed to be Arab states, what about Portugal, Spain, Greece, Southern Italy, Cyprus, Armenia, and the Balkan states for example? I could imagine had Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand not have heroically re-Westernized Spain what Spain would be like. People speaking Arabic instead of Portuguese, Spanish, Greek, Italian, and other Balkan languages. Turkey has it's own language and culture separate from that of Arabia.
Let's face it, the Syrian rebels just like other Islamists do harm to other religions and cultures to not only dominate them but remove traces of Christian culture for example to further cement Arab-Islamic rule. You see terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas call for the extermination of the Jews so the Islamists could further cement their rule outside of Arabia and rule the World.
Conclusion on what Islam is. It's mostly an Arabian belief concocted by Mohammed to state that Arabs are the supreme rulers of the World and so called "Allah" has commanded the Muslims-Arabians conquer the World for Allah. That's the same mentality Adolf Hitler brought when he came to power and eventually invaded and conquered much of Europe. The Nazis and Islamists share the same goals of World Domination and Antisemitism. The Crusades on the other hand related more to the Western Allies of World War II rather than invaders since they were reclaiming Arab conquered lands. The Arab Muslims wanted to conquer the known World while the Crusaders wanted to reclaim their Christian Holy Lands in Europe, North Africa, and the Levant.
Reality is that the Arab World should only consist of the Arabian Peninsula based on both the political and geographical definitions while that West of it consists of Roman Civilization and East of it consists of Persia.
However, the real issue is whether involvement in Syria is a US matter. For one, Free Syrian Army rebels are Al-Qaeda. Second, the Islamist rebels are launching a genocidal campaign against the Christians. Finally, the plans for Syria after overthrowing Assad include the establishment of a totalitarian Islamic State much like Iran and Taliban Afghanistan.
this Axis of evil includes Obama's USA, Erdogan's Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Muslim brotherhood, and more. Don't forget most of these rebels hold anti-Western sentiment. Supporting them would be like Jews supporting Nazi Germany. Not to condone crimes committed by either side but the fact of the matter is Assad did not use chemical weapons while Al-Qaedan rebels did. So many questions to be asked here as to why beautiful women such as the now McCain stooge Elizabeth O'Bagy is blessing the Al-Qaeda rebels. Don't people know that Islam was born from the sword of force? Many of the hate preaching Mullahs and Imans have lied to the Muslim World to retain power. Many Muslim Countries were once part of Roman Civilization. The Levant(Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Cyprus, and Sinai Egypt) and North Africa(Egypt & Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Western Sahara) and Caucasus region used to be Western Civilized. It was thanks to Islamic conquerers that they became Islamic. If only people knew the dark history of Islam as a death cult beyond it's kneeling head towards floor prayers to the Moon God Allah and Arab culture. Before Islam, much of the Levant and North Africa was like Europe with Western Roman Civilization(France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Tunisia, Britain, Austria-Hungary, Southern Germany) being Roman Catholic(exception of Britain after 16th century which became Angelican-Protestant) and Eastern Roman Civilization(Balkan States, Greece, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Cyprus, Jordan, Caucasus, and Egypt-Sudan) being Eastern Orthodox. Angelicanism, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy are Christian denominations. Parts of Northern Saudi Arabia used to be part of Roman Civilization.
To understand how Islam became the deadly virus it has been, you must understand it's origins. I'm not preaching hate but nothing but the cold hard truth and the truth is Islam was created by one intolerant and sinful being on the Arabian Peninsula. Mohammed's early life was filled with hardships as he became an orphan as a young child and after being with his grandfather, he stayed with his hard-working uncle and cruel aunt after Mohammed's grandfather died. Mohammed's hardships as a child contributed to his mysogeny and lust for money, power, and sex. Jesus Christ was the only being born without sin, having been born of a virgin(St. Mary) and performing many miracles such as turning water into wine, walking on water, and healing a blind man. Mohammed never did any of the wonderful things Jesus accomplished. Mohammed lived his life as a robber, murder, thief, and sexual deviant while Jesus lived without sin. God is very clear that he has a son while Mohammed lived like any sinner. Mohammed even admitted he was a sinner. Islam was created by Mohammed in 610 when he claimed the angel Gabriel came to him in a cave(which was used to stash Mohammed's loot). When the Jewish and Christian tribes of Mecca and Medina refused to accept Mohammed's message, he waged war against the Meccans and Medinans with forced conversions to Islam. Mohammed even married and had sexual relations with a 6-9 year old girl named Aisha when he was between the ages of 45-52. Aisha was the daughter of Mohammed's disciple Abu Bakr(who became the first Caliph of Islam after Mohammed's death in 632).
Jesus never led armies but had one mission which is to preach a new beginning of love and forgiveness. As Jesus died on the cross in Judea, Palestine he forgave the thief on the cross simply because that thief acknowleged only Jesus could forgive sin. God chose to conceive a son of his own instead of calling on any prophet for the ultimate mission of forgiveness because any other prophet would be sinners. Jesus Christ warned of false prophets and Mohammed was one of them. What is with many Muslims who accept Mohammed as a perfect example even though he was a mere sinner who died in 632 without Christ. This would make Mohammed the Anti-Christ of his time. An Anti-Christ who would help gradually destroy traces of a tolerant civilization where Christians and Jews lived without sectarian conflicts. Martin Luther, the father of Germanic seperatism(Lutheranism) would call Mohammed "First born son of Satan." Luther was right. Mohammed was full of demonic sin, violating nearly ever commandment laid down by God, including idolatry(Moon God Allah), Murder(against non-believers), Theft(against non-believers), Adulery and Sexual Demons(Polygamy and Child Bride Aisha), and even lying to non-believers to promote Islam as a religion of peace when in fact history and actions of Islamic Fundamentalists tell otherwise. Well after Mohammed's death, his legacy of forced conversions and sectarian hatred and violence against non-believers expanded well beyond the Arabian Peninsula into the Zorostarian Persia, Eastern Orthodox Levant and Balkan Peninsula, and even as far as the Iberian Peninsula.
The Islamic Caliphates were counter-attacked by the Crusades of the 11th-13th century and Spanish Inquisition of the 16th century. What the Crusaders did was attempt to restore Western Civilization to it's former Roman glory which was somewhat successful but somewhat a failure. The Spanish Inquisition however was more successful but harsh as it was more of giving birth to Spanish nationalism under Queen Isabella of Catille and King Ferdinand. Though the Inquisition went too far such as forced conversions, it did establish Roman Catholicism as the national religion of many Roman European countries. What history should have been was having the Levant, North Africa, Balkan Peninsula, Caucasus, Arabia, and Persia being liberated from Islamic rule. However, Arabia and persia were not considered part of Roman Civilization. The Crusades and Spanish Inquisition serve as prime examples of history where Islam met strong resistance. Had Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand not pursuded the nationalist Inquisition, Spain and many other Roman Western Countries wouldn't be Western Civilized. Western Civilizations in the Old World other than Roman include the Germanic, Celtic, Anglo, Nordic, and Slavic Civilizations. Germanic Civilizations include Germany, Austria, Netherlands, South Africa, Great Britain, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Flanders, and Poland.
What should be done about Syria? Better yet, what if the Middle East was westernized and the ignorant savages were kept under the control of Western powers and the Muslim Brotherhood destroyed? If it weren't for Islam, Egypt would be a Coptic Orthodox state like the Papal States but have a Pharoah as head of state monarch, Coptic Pope as Head of the upper house of bishops, and a Prime Minister of the lower house which would follow the line of parliamentary democracy plus having some Anglo roots. Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco would be Roman Catholic republics with Libya being mostly Italian, Tunisia and Algeria being mostly French, and Morocco being a blend of Spanish and French roots. Lebanon and Syria have their own versions of Christianity being the Meronite and Melkonite Catholic sects but also share Greek Orthodox roots. Turkey is supposed to be a secular and nationalist republic but before the fall of Constantinople in 1453, turkey was mostly Greek Orthodox so Turkey should have their own Orthodox church dubbed Turkish Orthodox.
If it weren't for Islam, most of the Arab and Levant world would have the same standards of living as Western Europe and North America. Reality is the only Muslim country in the World to be a 1st world country is Turkey, due to rejecting jihad and sharia and endorsing modernization and Western ideals.
I know this blog post isn't talking directly much about Syria but the fact of the matter is Islam is most certainly NOT a religion of peace but I don't say that about all Muslims. I'm saying here is that Islam is a cult that centers around one sinner, Mohammed. Most people are Muslims because they fear violent retaliation if they reject and/or leave Islam, plus many Muslim's ancestors from the 7th century were forced to convert to Islam or face dire consequences at the hand of a bloody sword. Also keep in mind I don't harbor resentment against Muslims who oppose the totalitarian tyranny of Sharia law and jihad. I do however show resentment towards the cult of death known as Islam and it's many hypocrisies, lies, and arrogance that are supported by history dating back from as far as Mohammed's childhood and rise as so called "prophet".
What also makes Islam a Pagan religion is one, part of Islam includes worship of the moon god Allah, which has been worshiped since ancient civilization, two, it offers very little to no forgiveness for humanity with goals for World domination and subjugation of all other faiths and cultures, and three, was the brainchild of one sinner's imagination and bias, Mohammed.
What I think Islam is, is a merger of the Pagan Moon God worship(Allah) of Arabian culture and the cult of Mohammed. Most Islamic values are centered around Mohammed's life, making it mostly a cult similar to Jim Jones' Peoples Temple and Warren Jeffs' FLDS. All men are/were sinners and many Imans and Mullahs know Mohammed was a sinner and while they acknowledge Mohammed did the sins he did, they blindly follow his "perfect" example so as to not offend Mohammed's image. The people who wrote the Holy Bible scriptures over the thousands of years were sinners(except Jesus Christ). Jesus never asked for money or pity since his mission on Earth was to bring forgiveness to sinners.
Islam is mostly Arabian culture as you can tell the difference between Arabian and Roman cultures. Islamists celebrate the 1453 Fall of Constantinople and prey for a Caliph of Islam to destroy the West just as their ancestors did centuries before. If North Africa and the Levant are supposed to be Arab states, what about Portugal, Spain, Greece, Southern Italy, Cyprus, Armenia, and the Balkan states for example? I could imagine had Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand not have heroically re-Westernized Spain what Spain would be like. People speaking Arabic instead of Portuguese, Spanish, Greek, Italian, and other Balkan languages. Turkey has it's own language and culture separate from that of Arabia.
Let's face it, the Syrian rebels just like other Islamists do harm to other religions and cultures to not only dominate them but remove traces of Christian culture for example to further cement Arab-Islamic rule. You see terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas call for the extermination of the Jews so the Islamists could further cement their rule outside of Arabia and rule the World.
Conclusion on what Islam is. It's mostly an Arabian belief concocted by Mohammed to state that Arabs are the supreme rulers of the World and so called "Allah" has commanded the Muslims-Arabians conquer the World for Allah. That's the same mentality Adolf Hitler brought when he came to power and eventually invaded and conquered much of Europe. The Nazis and Islamists share the same goals of World Domination and Antisemitism. The Crusades on the other hand related more to the Western Allies of World War II rather than invaders since they were reclaiming Arab conquered lands. The Arab Muslims wanted to conquer the known World while the Crusaders wanted to reclaim their Christian Holy Lands in Europe, North Africa, and the Levant.
Reality is that the Arab World should only consist of the Arabian Peninsula based on both the political and geographical definitions while that West of it consists of Roman Civilization and East of it consists of Persia.
Monday, August 19, 2013
What if There Were A Modern Crusades?
Sorry I haven't posted much lately but I come to say that what if Freedom fighters became more like the Crusades and what if colonial powers asserted themselves more?
The crusades from the late 11th century to the late 13th century fought off Arab colonizers and reclaimed most of Islamic occupied Europe such as Spain, Portugal, Sicily, Greece for examples but failed to hold grip on the Levant(Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt) and North Africa.
Before the Arab invasions Europe, Levant, and North Africa were Christian and Western civilizations. Jesus Christ lived his entire life near Jerusalem and nearly all Biblical tales took place on the Levant and in North Africa. The Roman Empire spanned most of Europe, Levant, and coasts of North Africa. Greece composed of Southeast Europe, Cyprus, and Turkey. Even Russia and other Orthodox nations under it's empire are Western in nature such as Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States, Finland, etc. There are a couple European countries today that are Islamic such as Bosnia and Albania. Israel today is a Zionist controlled British state.
The Byzantine Empire was a Christian society in which it was conquered by the ottoman Empire on May 29, 1453 with the fall of Constantinople, today Istanbul, Turkey. Should Turkey be legitimately considered a Muslim state? While a secular Turkey protects freedom of religion, it would be fair to say that it is truly a Greek Orthodox country. Turkey becoming a secular republic and the expulsion of the Caliphate of Islam did justice for Western civilization as thanks to the greatest Turk of all time Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Turkey has been the only Muslim majority country to be First World. It's a member of NATO alongside North America and Western, Central, and Southern Europe.
Islam began as an Arab Nationalist philosophy founded by Mohammed, who is himself an Arab from Mecca. Mohammed could have made Islam a peaceful and non-oppressive nationalist ideology restricted to the Arabian Peninsula(Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, and Southeast Iraq) and Persia(Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Steppes of the Russian Empire, Bangladesh, and parts of Northern India) that related to Christianity. Instead Islam is a jingoist, totalitarian philosophy of death, abuse of women, children, and non-believers, no respect for freedom, and Third World standards of living with the exception of the high class Muslims such as royalty, government, and imans. Even before Mohammed preached his inhumane philosophy, he was a robber and murderer in his youth trying to fulfill his desires for money. Many of the Islamic practices are due to Mohammed's sickening examples of taking multiple marriages, a child bride(Aisha), robbing and killing non-believers with Jizya, Jihad, and Sharia, forced conversions, death for apostasy, hatred against Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Athiests, even Muslims who disagreed with Mohammed.
I'm not calling for the persecution of anybody but denouncing the persecution under Islam that started with Mohammed and continues to this day. There have been reform movements in Islam that call for more human rights and more freedom such as Bahai and Ahmadiyya movements for example challenged the Sunni and Shia establishments in Islam though Bahai is not of the Islamic faith. Reform movements in Islam seek more secular freedoms and human rights that Muslim Countries don't have.
Other than the Muslim World there's the matter of North America which has several societies. The United States and Canada aren't nations but multicultural empires. The United States goes no more South than Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Iowa, and Nebraska and no more West than North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. What other nations should exist?
Well for one the Confederate States of America consists of the Southern States and much of what used to be New Spain. The Northern Mexican border states plus the Yucatan peninsula are truly Southern Dixie as well. Had the Confederacy kept independence, they would be the largest superpower in the World, have the largest economy and the largest military in the World like the U.S. Dixies even wanted to expand more Southward as Central America and the Caribbean became a gold mine of land for Southerners. William Walker of the 1850's should be remembered as a hero for a Southern Manifest Destiny. During the American Revolution it was the South that won the war against the British and established limited government in America. Not saying this to insult the Northern states but it's true that Dixies are a larger population than Yankees. Southern-Confederate society is mostly Catholic, Baptist, and agrarian wheres Yankees are more Protestant, urban, rust belt, and Nordic. If the South won the Civil War, the United States would be smaller but also have some non-plantation oriented Islands in the Caribbean such as Bahamas and Bermuda for examples. The Confederate States would consist of plantation style states such as Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic as add on states.
In the End, the Confederate States of America would have consisted of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, South Illinois, New Mexico, Arizona, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Northern Nevada, Southern Nevada, Southern California, Northern California(excluding Sonoma), Rio Grande, Sierra Madre, Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Yucatan peninsula, and more plantation islands. Others could include Central America. the CSA capital would be Ft. Davis-Lee near Dallas, Texas.
Plus, what if Russia asserted itself more in North America? What governates would Russia have? Would the Pacific Northwest also be of Russian descent? Alaska was settled by Russia circa 1800 and the Russian Empire settled as far as Fort Ross in Somona County, California. Fort Ross is north of San Francisco Bay. Alaska wouldn't be just confined to one state peninsula but would also include the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains North of Colorado, Utah, Northern Nevada, and Northern California. It would be called the Alaskan Democratic Federative Republic which before was a federated colony of the Russian Empire. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Alaska became a mandate under the British and Yankee governments until 1923, which became an independent parliamentary republic. The federated states would be called Oblasts as they were called in Russia. Real states that would be part of Alaska would be the Pacifc and Far North Californias north of San Francisco Bay(Sonoma), Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington(Columbia), British Columbia(Columbia, New Caledonia, Vancouver, Charlotte, Tongass, Sitka, Borealia), Alaska(Sitka, Denali, Kodiak, Kenai, Far North, Aleutia, New Irkutski), Yukon, Northwest territories(Yukon), Nunavut(Borealia), Alberta(Alberta, Borealia), Saskatchewan(Saskatchewan, Borealia), and Manitoba(pre-1912 Manitoba, Borealia).
Alaskan Democratic Federative Republic would be much like the United States and Confederate States of America in terms of democratic and republican government but would be parliamentary like the United Kingdom and late 19th to early 20th century Russia. The legilsatures would be called Duma, which is also the name of the Russian legislature. Culture is influenced by Russian, British, and American culture with main languages being Russian and English. Main religions include Russian Orthodox, Protestantism, and Catholicism. Many cities and names are Russian and Anglo. The Head of State would be called general President elected by a college of electors while the Head of Government would be Prime Minister that is based on Parliament. The largest ethnic group in Alaska would be Russians, especially when Anti-Communist White Russians fled from Bolshevik terror. From the Early 19th century to 1917, Alaska was known as Russian America and also part of the Russian Empire with the Tsar of Russia as Head of State. Most of ADFR territory was before part of the United States of America and the British Empire. Other ethnic groups would include Brits, Yankees, Dixies, Germanic people, and indigenous peoples as well as others such as Far East Asians(Chinese, Japanese, etc.). Subdivisions of the Oblasts will be called Uyezds. The main political parties would include Constitutional Democratic and Socialist Revolutionary. After the 1930's, they were changed to Evergreen and Workers Party.
Other nations in North America would include Quebec, Acadia(New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton), and Ontario would be divided Southeast and Northwest with the Southeast being called Ontario and the Northwest joining the U.S. State of Superior. Ontario would also be a U.S. State.
Other countries to talk about here are Southern Africa, Westralia, and Israel.
Countries in Southern Africa that are rightfully White are South Africa, Rhodesia(now Zimbabwe), and Southwest Africa(now Namibia) and the rest of Southern Africa. Most of Southern Africa was primarily colonized by the British Empire with the exceptions of Southwest Africa(German), Tanzania & Zanzibar(German), Cape Colony(Dutch), ?. The late 20th century in Southern Africa saw the Pagan indigenous Blacks conquering these White lands through stealth with assistance from the internationalists. Was the European settlements of the Americas and Australia plus New Zealand wrong because it put White-Western civilization at the highest sovereignty? The precedents set in Rhodesia and South Africa send a bad message that Europeans had no right to settle in vast, pagan lands and instead must be punished with minority status as pagans rule over them in a pure democracy. Nearly all of Southern Africa is full of White nations that were wronged of their identity. Apartheid in South Africa and Rhodesia could have ended by giving coloured indigenous people opportunity to assimilate into Afrikaner and Ango-African society, therefore loosening the inhumane aspects of Apartheid while retaining Afrikaner nationalism. Non-assimilated indigenous people can stay on reserves and have autonomy within their reserves similar to the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia. The Bantusan System in south Africa and Rhodesia should have been retained for Blacks unwilling to accept Afrikaner society. South Africa could have also became a confederation with the four provinces becoming republics. Have you ever heard that "The Truth is hate speech only to those who hate it?" Well to be honest the White race and Western civilization are superior to the Third World and if it wasn't for European settlers, the World would be worse off since resources would be far more limited and people would be living lower standards of living and would be set back centuries. Cecil Rhodes, a British Subject was the chief of the Scramble of Africa which sought to expand Western Civilization in ways it was destined for. I don't condone any abuses committed by colonial governments but I do feel that South Africa for example should be a White governed country.
Israel is a Zionist occupied holy land where Jesus Christ lived. The Israelites were Whites and British heritage descends from the land of Israel. It's a mistake to believe Israel should be ruled by Jews or Muslims or anyone other than Christians. So unbelievable is the fact that there have been several proposals for a Jewish state other than Palestine. Where the Jewish state should have landed was on Charlotte Island adjacent to British Columbia as it is vast and easy to build. Another option would have been to accept part of British East Africa. Israel is rightfully a British Christian nation. Charlotte Island is larger than Israel. I'm not saying that Jews shouldn't live in Israel but that Israel should not be dominated by Zionism. If only Charlotte Island was considered, it would have better suited Jewish culture considering the atmosphere.
General Sisi in Egypt is working to restore order and destroy the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian military is taking real action to restore peace and stability by crushing Muslim Brotherhood supporters. I say there needs to be war against the Muslim brotherhood because unless they're destroyed, they'll just keep invading and terrorizing. Expel Sharia and jihad to the Arabian Peninsula and Persia! Liberate the Levant and North Africa from Islamic domination!
The crusades from the late 11th century to the late 13th century fought off Arab colonizers and reclaimed most of Islamic occupied Europe such as Spain, Portugal, Sicily, Greece for examples but failed to hold grip on the Levant(Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt) and North Africa.
Before the Arab invasions Europe, Levant, and North Africa were Christian and Western civilizations. Jesus Christ lived his entire life near Jerusalem and nearly all Biblical tales took place on the Levant and in North Africa. The Roman Empire spanned most of Europe, Levant, and coasts of North Africa. Greece composed of Southeast Europe, Cyprus, and Turkey. Even Russia and other Orthodox nations under it's empire are Western in nature such as Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States, Finland, etc. There are a couple European countries today that are Islamic such as Bosnia and Albania. Israel today is a Zionist controlled British state.
The Byzantine Empire was a Christian society in which it was conquered by the ottoman Empire on May 29, 1453 with the fall of Constantinople, today Istanbul, Turkey. Should Turkey be legitimately considered a Muslim state? While a secular Turkey protects freedom of religion, it would be fair to say that it is truly a Greek Orthodox country. Turkey becoming a secular republic and the expulsion of the Caliphate of Islam did justice for Western civilization as thanks to the greatest Turk of all time Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Turkey has been the only Muslim majority country to be First World. It's a member of NATO alongside North America and Western, Central, and Southern Europe.
Islam began as an Arab Nationalist philosophy founded by Mohammed, who is himself an Arab from Mecca. Mohammed could have made Islam a peaceful and non-oppressive nationalist ideology restricted to the Arabian Peninsula(Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, and Southeast Iraq) and Persia(Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Steppes of the Russian Empire, Bangladesh, and parts of Northern India) that related to Christianity. Instead Islam is a jingoist, totalitarian philosophy of death, abuse of women, children, and non-believers, no respect for freedom, and Third World standards of living with the exception of the high class Muslims such as royalty, government, and imans. Even before Mohammed preached his inhumane philosophy, he was a robber and murderer in his youth trying to fulfill his desires for money. Many of the Islamic practices are due to Mohammed's sickening examples of taking multiple marriages, a child bride(Aisha), robbing and killing non-believers with Jizya, Jihad, and Sharia, forced conversions, death for apostasy, hatred against Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Athiests, even Muslims who disagreed with Mohammed.
I'm not calling for the persecution of anybody but denouncing the persecution under Islam that started with Mohammed and continues to this day. There have been reform movements in Islam that call for more human rights and more freedom such as Bahai and Ahmadiyya movements for example challenged the Sunni and Shia establishments in Islam though Bahai is not of the Islamic faith. Reform movements in Islam seek more secular freedoms and human rights that Muslim Countries don't have.
Other than the Muslim World there's the matter of North America which has several societies. The United States and Canada aren't nations but multicultural empires. The United States goes no more South than Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Iowa, and Nebraska and no more West than North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. What other nations should exist?
Well for one the Confederate States of America consists of the Southern States and much of what used to be New Spain. The Northern Mexican border states plus the Yucatan peninsula are truly Southern Dixie as well. Had the Confederacy kept independence, they would be the largest superpower in the World, have the largest economy and the largest military in the World like the U.S. Dixies even wanted to expand more Southward as Central America and the Caribbean became a gold mine of land for Southerners. William Walker of the 1850's should be remembered as a hero for a Southern Manifest Destiny. During the American Revolution it was the South that won the war against the British and established limited government in America. Not saying this to insult the Northern states but it's true that Dixies are a larger population than Yankees. Southern-Confederate society is mostly Catholic, Baptist, and agrarian wheres Yankees are more Protestant, urban, rust belt, and Nordic. If the South won the Civil War, the United States would be smaller but also have some non-plantation oriented Islands in the Caribbean such as Bahamas and Bermuda for examples. The Confederate States would consist of plantation style states such as Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic as add on states.
In the End, the Confederate States of America would have consisted of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, South Illinois, New Mexico, Arizona, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Northern Nevada, Southern Nevada, Southern California, Northern California(excluding Sonoma), Rio Grande, Sierra Madre, Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Yucatan peninsula, and more plantation islands. Others could include Central America. the CSA capital would be Ft. Davis-Lee near Dallas, Texas.
Plus, what if Russia asserted itself more in North America? What governates would Russia have? Would the Pacific Northwest also be of Russian descent? Alaska was settled by Russia circa 1800 and the Russian Empire settled as far as Fort Ross in Somona County, California. Fort Ross is north of San Francisco Bay. Alaska wouldn't be just confined to one state peninsula but would also include the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains North of Colorado, Utah, Northern Nevada, and Northern California. It would be called the Alaskan Democratic Federative Republic which before was a federated colony of the Russian Empire. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Alaska became a mandate under the British and Yankee governments until 1923, which became an independent parliamentary republic. The federated states would be called Oblasts as they were called in Russia. Real states that would be part of Alaska would be the Pacifc and Far North Californias north of San Francisco Bay(Sonoma), Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington(Columbia), British Columbia(Columbia, New Caledonia, Vancouver, Charlotte, Tongass, Sitka, Borealia), Alaska(Sitka, Denali, Kodiak, Kenai, Far North, Aleutia, New Irkutski), Yukon, Northwest territories(Yukon), Nunavut(Borealia), Alberta(Alberta, Borealia), Saskatchewan(Saskatchewan, Borealia), and Manitoba(pre-1912 Manitoba, Borealia).
Alaskan Democratic Federative Republic would be much like the United States and Confederate States of America in terms of democratic and republican government but would be parliamentary like the United Kingdom and late 19th to early 20th century Russia. The legilsatures would be called Duma, which is also the name of the Russian legislature. Culture is influenced by Russian, British, and American culture with main languages being Russian and English. Main religions include Russian Orthodox, Protestantism, and Catholicism. Many cities and names are Russian and Anglo. The Head of State would be called general President elected by a college of electors while the Head of Government would be Prime Minister that is based on Parliament. The largest ethnic group in Alaska would be Russians, especially when Anti-Communist White Russians fled from Bolshevik terror. From the Early 19th century to 1917, Alaska was known as Russian America and also part of the Russian Empire with the Tsar of Russia as Head of State. Most of ADFR territory was before part of the United States of America and the British Empire. Other ethnic groups would include Brits, Yankees, Dixies, Germanic people, and indigenous peoples as well as others such as Far East Asians(Chinese, Japanese, etc.). Subdivisions of the Oblasts will be called Uyezds. The main political parties would include Constitutional Democratic and Socialist Revolutionary. After the 1930's, they were changed to Evergreen and Workers Party.
Other nations in North America would include Quebec, Acadia(New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton), and Ontario would be divided Southeast and Northwest with the Southeast being called Ontario and the Northwest joining the U.S. State of Superior. Ontario would also be a U.S. State.
Other countries to talk about here are Southern Africa, Westralia, and Israel.
Countries in Southern Africa that are rightfully White are South Africa, Rhodesia(now Zimbabwe), and Southwest Africa(now Namibia) and the rest of Southern Africa. Most of Southern Africa was primarily colonized by the British Empire with the exceptions of Southwest Africa(German), Tanzania & Zanzibar(German), Cape Colony(Dutch), ?. The late 20th century in Southern Africa saw the Pagan indigenous Blacks conquering these White lands through stealth with assistance from the internationalists. Was the European settlements of the Americas and Australia plus New Zealand wrong because it put White-Western civilization at the highest sovereignty? The precedents set in Rhodesia and South Africa send a bad message that Europeans had no right to settle in vast, pagan lands and instead must be punished with minority status as pagans rule over them in a pure democracy. Nearly all of Southern Africa is full of White nations that were wronged of their identity. Apartheid in South Africa and Rhodesia could have ended by giving coloured indigenous people opportunity to assimilate into Afrikaner and Ango-African society, therefore loosening the inhumane aspects of Apartheid while retaining Afrikaner nationalism. Non-assimilated indigenous people can stay on reserves and have autonomy within their reserves similar to the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia. The Bantusan System in south Africa and Rhodesia should have been retained for Blacks unwilling to accept Afrikaner society. South Africa could have also became a confederation with the four provinces becoming republics. Have you ever heard that "The Truth is hate speech only to those who hate it?" Well to be honest the White race and Western civilization are superior to the Third World and if it wasn't for European settlers, the World would be worse off since resources would be far more limited and people would be living lower standards of living and would be set back centuries. Cecil Rhodes, a British Subject was the chief of the Scramble of Africa which sought to expand Western Civilization in ways it was destined for. I don't condone any abuses committed by colonial governments but I do feel that South Africa for example should be a White governed country.
Israel is a Zionist occupied holy land where Jesus Christ lived. The Israelites were Whites and British heritage descends from the land of Israel. It's a mistake to believe Israel should be ruled by Jews or Muslims or anyone other than Christians. So unbelievable is the fact that there have been several proposals for a Jewish state other than Palestine. Where the Jewish state should have landed was on Charlotte Island adjacent to British Columbia as it is vast and easy to build. Another option would have been to accept part of British East Africa. Israel is rightfully a British Christian nation. Charlotte Island is larger than Israel. I'm not saying that Jews shouldn't live in Israel but that Israel should not be dominated by Zionism. If only Charlotte Island was considered, it would have better suited Jewish culture considering the atmosphere.
General Sisi in Egypt is working to restore order and destroy the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian military is taking real action to restore peace and stability by crushing Muslim Brotherhood supporters. I say there needs to be war against the Muslim brotherhood because unless they're destroyed, they'll just keep invading and terrorizing. Expel Sharia and jihad to the Arabian Peninsula and Persia! Liberate the Levant and North Africa from Islamic domination!
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Egyptian Protests Source of Inspiration
"It can't happen here" is such a provocative lie in Western civilization. Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi is on limb for his dictatorship the year after being democratically elected, facing mobs of protestors. The Egyptian military agrees with anti-Morsi protestors and the military also overthrew Morsi recently.
How come the U.S. Military hasn't overthrown Obama and Biden? If the USA is suppose to be free, then why can't our U.S. military overthrow tyrants. Despite several U.S. Presidents being tyrannical, not one has been overthrown! Though there have been four assassinations and one resignation due to threat of impeachment, the U.S. has lots to learn from other countries, even third world countries. Overthrowing Abraham Lincoln around New Years 1865 and replacing his regime with anti-war administration would have granted Southern victory and secured peace for a divided North and South.
The reason Morsi was overthrown July 3 was because he was an Islamic tyrant who gave the Muslim Brotherhood preferential treatment over Coptic Christians. Plus, the Egyptian Military acted to prevent Egypt's destruction in the best and only way to do so, by overthrowing Morsi.
Why can't the U.S. Military forsake democracy to protect a constitutional republic from destruction by expelling Barack Obama and his cronies from their offices? America is not a democracy but a republic and when elected officials violate their contracts they're bound by, they should be overthrown regardless of what any other laws say. An oath is an oath and Morsi used power for selfish purposes while the Egyptian Military used theirs as a selfless favor to the people of Egypt.
Regardless of democratic elections, anyone in power can become a tyrant. History tells more than any speeches as Germany was a liberal democracy from 1919 to 1933 until the Nazi Party made gains in the Weimar Republic elections and secured Adolf Hitler's rise to power. Hitler became unstoppable and consolidated power and molded Germany into a single party totalitarian state. This is exactly what Morsi was helping the Muslim Brotherhood establish and also what Obama and Biden favor.
Hitler was able to avoid a military coup by deceiving the military into believing that a military coup of a democratically elected leader would make them depraved and Hitler was able to replace the Republican military with a Nazi military. Hitler's rise to power was made possible by not only unsecured democratic elections but political turmoil and defenseless opponents. Unfortunately for Morsi, the Egyptian military was more loyal to the rule of law than to Morsi himself. Both Hitler and Morsi were elected through democratic elections but Hitler was able to consolidate power to the point no political force could peacefully oppose him and the Nazi Party.
Not only that but Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan is working to downgrade Turkey from a secular, westernized, and 1st world country to an Islamic Third World hellhole like Iran. Protesters however aren't willing to leave it that way as they take to the streets and Erdogan's thugs slash the protesters much like the Chinese gestapo. If the protestors were armed to the teeth, Erdogan would have been soundly overthrown.
No wonder cowards such as Obama and Erdogan support Morsi. They possibly see Morsi's overthrow as a threat to using democracy as an excuse to become a tyrant. That's one other reason than supporting the tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood.
Final line is democracy is volatile and having a constitutional republic is better, even if it has to be protected through undemocratic actions such as coups of tyrants and armed insurrection.
How come the U.S. Military hasn't overthrown Obama and Biden? If the USA is suppose to be free, then why can't our U.S. military overthrow tyrants. Despite several U.S. Presidents being tyrannical, not one has been overthrown! Though there have been four assassinations and one resignation due to threat of impeachment, the U.S. has lots to learn from other countries, even third world countries. Overthrowing Abraham Lincoln around New Years 1865 and replacing his regime with anti-war administration would have granted Southern victory and secured peace for a divided North and South.
The reason Morsi was overthrown July 3 was because he was an Islamic tyrant who gave the Muslim Brotherhood preferential treatment over Coptic Christians. Plus, the Egyptian Military acted to prevent Egypt's destruction in the best and only way to do so, by overthrowing Morsi.
Why can't the U.S. Military forsake democracy to protect a constitutional republic from destruction by expelling Barack Obama and his cronies from their offices? America is not a democracy but a republic and when elected officials violate their contracts they're bound by, they should be overthrown regardless of what any other laws say. An oath is an oath and Morsi used power for selfish purposes while the Egyptian Military used theirs as a selfless favor to the people of Egypt.
Regardless of democratic elections, anyone in power can become a tyrant. History tells more than any speeches as Germany was a liberal democracy from 1919 to 1933 until the Nazi Party made gains in the Weimar Republic elections and secured Adolf Hitler's rise to power. Hitler became unstoppable and consolidated power and molded Germany into a single party totalitarian state. This is exactly what Morsi was helping the Muslim Brotherhood establish and also what Obama and Biden favor.
Hitler was able to avoid a military coup by deceiving the military into believing that a military coup of a democratically elected leader would make them depraved and Hitler was able to replace the Republican military with a Nazi military. Hitler's rise to power was made possible by not only unsecured democratic elections but political turmoil and defenseless opponents. Unfortunately for Morsi, the Egyptian military was more loyal to the rule of law than to Morsi himself. Both Hitler and Morsi were elected through democratic elections but Hitler was able to consolidate power to the point no political force could peacefully oppose him and the Nazi Party.
Not only that but Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan is working to downgrade Turkey from a secular, westernized, and 1st world country to an Islamic Third World hellhole like Iran. Protesters however aren't willing to leave it that way as they take to the streets and Erdogan's thugs slash the protesters much like the Chinese gestapo. If the protestors were armed to the teeth, Erdogan would have been soundly overthrown.
No wonder cowards such as Obama and Erdogan support Morsi. They possibly see Morsi's overthrow as a threat to using democracy as an excuse to become a tyrant. That's one other reason than supporting the tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood.
Final line is democracy is volatile and having a constitutional republic is better, even if it has to be protected through undemocratic actions such as coups of tyrants and armed insurrection.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Reconcilliation solution to Gun Violence
In California, a law was passed to confiscate prohibited person firearms without due process, which is a bill of attainder in which legislation cannot directly impose penalties a judiciary would with due process.
The recent shooting at a college in Santa Monica, California most definitely shows the failure of gun confiscation as it failed to disarm crazies like the lone gunman whose shooting spree ended when police shattered his spine with a bullet. Gun control proponents make it seem as if the gun itself is the problem. If you can get past the gun itself being the problem and recognized that someone had something in their mind that motivated them to do horrible things then you can understand why gun control is not only failure but tyrannical.
Gun control such as registries have failed to track criminal firearms as most firearms used in crimes come from the black market. However, there have been more punishments for non-compliance of gun control laws by law abiding citizens than there have been for capturing criminals. In fact, self defense punishments under "firearm" offenses have been punished more harshly than knife muggings which should be reviewed by courts.
Any solution to gun violence must respect due process and not compromise other rights such as freedom from warrantless searches. What we also must recognize is the inalienable right to self-defense against violent aggression and that all state constitutions DO have provisions acknowledging unremunerated rights meaning that simply because such a right isn't listed doesn't mean people have no right to it. In fact, the true meaning of rights is protecting ones that have been under common law.
The Founders understood that freedom cannot be preserved without citizens bearing arms strong enough to oppose tyranny.
If there's going to be a solution to gun violence the core problem must be addressed. Islamic terrorism for example is rooted in Jihad, or Muslim for Holy War.
Instead of singling out guns, why do you think criminals are able to commit crimes? White Supremacist Benjamin Smith of Illinois was able to easily obtain firearms from a completely black market source and open fire on minorities back in 1999.
Plus, what other problems such as third world immigration and soft on crime failures? The reason New York City has lower crime rate than Chicago and Detroit is that NYC is better run despite having Nazi gun control laws. Ever thought of why Chicago has higher crime rates than Austin, Texas?
Another fact is that firearm deaths are far lower than automobile and swimming pool deaths.
Plus, ever thought of enforcing existing laws against crime that have been around for centuries? I'm talking about common law crimes.
I also want to point out that the NRA is not really a gun rights organization but a corporatist-fascist gun control club deceiving it's members into handing over membership fees, certificates, and merchandise which secretly works hand in hand with the tyrannical BATFE, the most dangerous threat to gun rights. Both organizations work together to deceive people and gain money and power, especially for the major gun dealers over the freedom loving mom and pop gun shops in conservative states.
I also want to point out that violence occurs based on three factors of evil: existence of it, imbalance of power, and betrayal of trust.
What should be the solution to any violence. It all depends on how much law and order there is. If criminals and tyrannical officials are not held to account enough they will not be deterred sufficiently to preserve justice. Justice is the enemy of crime, tyranny, and evil. A justice system that holds criminals accountable while preserving the rights, freedom, and property of innocents is one that preserves law and order.
More important, self-defense is a natural human right because it allows the individual to defend him or herself as well as others from aggressors who seek to violate life, liberty, and/or property of others.
To end this post, here are some key points that should be remembered:
The recent shooting at a college in Santa Monica, California most definitely shows the failure of gun confiscation as it failed to disarm crazies like the lone gunman whose shooting spree ended when police shattered his spine with a bullet. Gun control proponents make it seem as if the gun itself is the problem. If you can get past the gun itself being the problem and recognized that someone had something in their mind that motivated them to do horrible things then you can understand why gun control is not only failure but tyrannical.
Gun control such as registries have failed to track criminal firearms as most firearms used in crimes come from the black market. However, there have been more punishments for non-compliance of gun control laws by law abiding citizens than there have been for capturing criminals. In fact, self defense punishments under "firearm" offenses have been punished more harshly than knife muggings which should be reviewed by courts.
Any solution to gun violence must respect due process and not compromise other rights such as freedom from warrantless searches. What we also must recognize is the inalienable right to self-defense against violent aggression and that all state constitutions DO have provisions acknowledging unremunerated rights meaning that simply because such a right isn't listed doesn't mean people have no right to it. In fact, the true meaning of rights is protecting ones that have been under common law.
The Founders understood that freedom cannot be preserved without citizens bearing arms strong enough to oppose tyranny.
If there's going to be a solution to gun violence the core problem must be addressed. Islamic terrorism for example is rooted in Jihad, or Muslim for Holy War.
Instead of singling out guns, why do you think criminals are able to commit crimes? White Supremacist Benjamin Smith of Illinois was able to easily obtain firearms from a completely black market source and open fire on minorities back in 1999.
Plus, what other problems such as third world immigration and soft on crime failures? The reason New York City has lower crime rate than Chicago and Detroit is that NYC is better run despite having Nazi gun control laws. Ever thought of why Chicago has higher crime rates than Austin, Texas?
Another fact is that firearm deaths are far lower than automobile and swimming pool deaths.
Plus, ever thought of enforcing existing laws against crime that have been around for centuries? I'm talking about common law crimes.
I also want to point out that the NRA is not really a gun rights organization but a corporatist-fascist gun control club deceiving it's members into handing over membership fees, certificates, and merchandise which secretly works hand in hand with the tyrannical BATFE, the most dangerous threat to gun rights. Both organizations work together to deceive people and gain money and power, especially for the major gun dealers over the freedom loving mom and pop gun shops in conservative states.
I also want to point out that violence occurs based on three factors of evil: existence of it, imbalance of power, and betrayal of trust.
What should be the solution to any violence. It all depends on how much law and order there is. If criminals and tyrannical officials are not held to account enough they will not be deterred sufficiently to preserve justice. Justice is the enemy of crime, tyranny, and evil. A justice system that holds criminals accountable while preserving the rights, freedom, and property of innocents is one that preserves law and order.
More important, self-defense is a natural human right because it allows the individual to defend him or herself as well as others from aggressors who seek to violate life, liberty, and/or property of others.
To end this post, here are some key points that should be remembered:
- Self-defense against aggression and tyranny is a natural right and that police are unable to protect you in ways you could do so at an individual level
- Merely because constitutions don't outline such a right doesn't mean government can infringe on such a right as punishing self defense is a violation of due process right to life, liberty, and property
- kindness towards victims doesn't mean less rights for others as victims rights cannot interfere with other rights
- respecting a near absolute right to something doesn't mean support for violence, so grouping bitter clingers with mass murderers is nonsensical.
- police also have evil ability to turn against certain people for political reasons and genocides have been made possible mainly due to gun control.
- people have a right to use terror against gun controllers in efforts to protect self defense and right to keep and bear arms.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
In Loving Memory of...
The martyrs who made freedoms and revolutions possible. For memorial day, what martyrs shall I mention? As the federal government becomes more tyrannical and a Velvet Revolution/Arab Spring style unrest is needed to change elections from very corrupted by partisanship to non-partisan and freer, it's more needed that law enforcement and armed force members remember and keep their oaths. I support Oath Keepers as the best law enforcement affiliated organization due to them truly taking their oath seriously. If only they would be more union like to scare other law enforcement organizations off.
Gun control proponents mock the NRA all they want but are afraid to mention other gun rights groups like Gun Owners of America and Jews For Preservation of Firearm Ownership since they don't fuck around on not only gun rights but others rights like due process. JPFO is arguing for a bill of rights culture which would seal the gun control nightmares for good as people will see that the gun itself isn't the problem but the socio-economic roots such as gang culture and poverty that breed crime. The NRA's problem is they fail to stand for the constitution as a whole such as due process which helps barricade use from arbitrary state action.
Also note that people who have directly fought their own governments here in America deserve the same praise as those fighting foreign belligerents. The 1946 Battle of Athens, Tennessee involved World War II veterans shooting at McMinn County deputies loyal to the corrupt sheriff. This was a major victory for We The People as not only did those responsible for fighting government get off scot-free but McMinn county became more accountable to we the people.
What about the crimes committed in which the root causes were not addressed. Some Jihadi bastard in London beheaded a 25 year old British Soldier because the Quran had verses which told Muslims to kill infidels who fight Islam. Yet officials fail to acknowledge attacks like these are motivated by hatred of non-believers, especially armed force members while disarmed victims pay the price of numerous stabbings since criminals feel safer knowing with gun bans that victims are likely unarmed and defenseless. Around 70% of crimes committed are the result of recidivism. Many criminals fail to be rehabilitated and are more ruthless and cunning criminals than before their first arrest. While not all countries with gun bans suffer higher crime rates, it's important to note that owning a firearm is a right in which to resist tyranny. Regulating it against law abiding citizens and punishing self-defense is like regulating political speech and targeting political opponents only wanting a constitutional republic.
What also influences crime is the area's economy. Chicago and New York have higher crime rates not only thanks to gun bans but thanks to the inability of justice to reduce crime and cut recidivism. Throwing youth in jail for smoking pot will only subject them to harden criminalhood, especially Blacks and Hispanics.
Forgot to mention that Oath Keepers encourages armed force members and law enforcement officers to keep their oath to We The People and the constitution seriously. What if troops were faced with having to suppress a secessionist movement and prevent self-determination? Would they blindly obey the fuhrer in chief or asset the Declaration of Independence and Constitution? What if Union troops refused to obey Lincoln's GOP invasion of the Confederate States of America and aided Clemente Valladigham in resisting Lincoln. What if instead Union troops joined the Copperheads in taking a more paramilitary approach and violently overthrowing Lincoln and GOP government in the 1860's, therefore ending the American Civil War with a Southern victory and securing peace between Yankees and Dixies as separate countries.
If troops fight for freedom, they must be willing to overthrow their own tyrannical governments by 20 July Plot style coups. Our law enforcement and armed force members don't take their oaths to politicians and man's law but only to We The People and God's law. As the Irish of the Early 20th Century once said "We Serve Neither Kaiser nor King!" This made Ireland a proud republic and had a less tyrannical military than the United Kingdom.
Gun control proponents mock the NRA all they want but are afraid to mention other gun rights groups like Gun Owners of America and Jews For Preservation of Firearm Ownership since they don't fuck around on not only gun rights but others rights like due process. JPFO is arguing for a bill of rights culture which would seal the gun control nightmares for good as people will see that the gun itself isn't the problem but the socio-economic roots such as gang culture and poverty that breed crime. The NRA's problem is they fail to stand for the constitution as a whole such as due process which helps barricade use from arbitrary state action.
Also note that people who have directly fought their own governments here in America deserve the same praise as those fighting foreign belligerents. The 1946 Battle of Athens, Tennessee involved World War II veterans shooting at McMinn County deputies loyal to the corrupt sheriff. This was a major victory for We The People as not only did those responsible for fighting government get off scot-free but McMinn county became more accountable to we the people.
What about the crimes committed in which the root causes were not addressed. Some Jihadi bastard in London beheaded a 25 year old British Soldier because the Quran had verses which told Muslims to kill infidels who fight Islam. Yet officials fail to acknowledge attacks like these are motivated by hatred of non-believers, especially armed force members while disarmed victims pay the price of numerous stabbings since criminals feel safer knowing with gun bans that victims are likely unarmed and defenseless. Around 70% of crimes committed are the result of recidivism. Many criminals fail to be rehabilitated and are more ruthless and cunning criminals than before their first arrest. While not all countries with gun bans suffer higher crime rates, it's important to note that owning a firearm is a right in which to resist tyranny. Regulating it against law abiding citizens and punishing self-defense is like regulating political speech and targeting political opponents only wanting a constitutional republic.
What also influences crime is the area's economy. Chicago and New York have higher crime rates not only thanks to gun bans but thanks to the inability of justice to reduce crime and cut recidivism. Throwing youth in jail for smoking pot will only subject them to harden criminalhood, especially Blacks and Hispanics.
Forgot to mention that Oath Keepers encourages armed force members and law enforcement officers to keep their oath to We The People and the constitution seriously. What if troops were faced with having to suppress a secessionist movement and prevent self-determination? Would they blindly obey the fuhrer in chief or asset the Declaration of Independence and Constitution? What if Union troops refused to obey Lincoln's GOP invasion of the Confederate States of America and aided Clemente Valladigham in resisting Lincoln. What if instead Union troops joined the Copperheads in taking a more paramilitary approach and violently overthrowing Lincoln and GOP government in the 1860's, therefore ending the American Civil War with a Southern victory and securing peace between Yankees and Dixies as separate countries.
If troops fight for freedom, they must be willing to overthrow their own tyrannical governments by 20 July Plot style coups. Our law enforcement and armed force members don't take their oaths to politicians and man's law but only to We The People and God's law. As the Irish of the Early 20th Century once said "We Serve Neither Kaiser nor King!" This made Ireland a proud republic and had a less tyrannical military than the United Kingdom.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Petitioning for Grievences: Direct Democracy Now!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Petitioning for grievances is one level of holding government accountable. But what really holds government's accountable non-violently? It's Direct Democracy of course. What's wrong with representative democracy? Problem is legislators act like dictators and special interest puppets, rejecting pleas to be more accountable. despite numerous government reforms like term limits and ethics laws, the root problems fail to be addressed such as special interests, rigged elections, partisan duelopolies, and irreconcilable differences plague the very integrity of controlling our government.
With the rise of multicultural influences from non-Western civilizations such as immigration from Third World hellholes which will give rise to socialist regimes through democratic elections. However, the real issue is a non-violent way of controlling government through citizens referendum.
What a citizens referendum will bring is an alternative to relying on politicians for policy making by holding them accountable by overriding any acts of Congress or Parliament. Special interests and unions will be furious about creating a Direct Democracy that not only puts direct power into the hands of citizens but also follows the election principles of the Founding Fathers while allowing any Westernized citizen of civic literacy to vote. The issue of property ownership being an election requirement should be considered as it could indicate you are a proud citizen of this state. However, civic literacy tests of reasonable nature are good enough.
What direct democracy in America should be structured on is the electoral college model where votes would be calculated based on representative districts. For example, votes would only count based the same way of a house of representatives. the popular vote would only count within their electoral district while the senate would rely on two votes per state. Large states like California should follow the same model as the Federal Government for representation such as having representatives based on population and within county borders while senators would be selected by county. This way Orange County has mostly conservative representatives while Los Angeles County is unable to unfairly overpower the Conservative opposition.
Armed conflicts exist in Third World Countries like Iraq and Somalia because one group tries to unfairly overpower another and the oppressed feel they have no choice but to engage in terrorism against enemies. How come Switzerland and New Zealand have far less moral for solving political conflicts through violence than Iraq and Somalia? the fact of the matter is that unlike "representative democracies", direct democracies don't have the same problem as special interests are unable to penetrate online voting, plus people can solve problems non-violently.
I feel the problem of low voter turnout is lack of faith in corrupt elections. Ending major party status, reducing voter fraud, and bringing proportional electoral results(such as electoral college) to large states will ensure not only fairness in elections but a Republican form of government, making it more difficult for special interests and dictator politicians to limit freedoms and consolidate power. Voting for politicians alone does not constitute proper control over government, especially when only two parties get all the goods and others get left with zero chances.
Switzerland's government is possibly the most accountable government in the World due to direct democracy alone, given the fact parliament's laws are subject to citizens veto. This means that issues such as repealing gun control, age restrictions, drug war, taxes, and other shit legislatures are too tied up to deal with could be repealed simply by obtaining citizen signatures of registered voters in a process that isn't mauled by time constraints, burdensome signature requirements, and corrupt executives.
However, the way I want direct democracy established is based on the electoral college model where voting would be proportionate in having votes counted within a single district while it is the district electoral vote that truly counts for the final casting. Popular vote only applies to districts.
Lawmaking could instead be done by districts counting popular votes and sending a delegate to count their position. for example, if funding for infrastructure was approved, the delegate hired would be required by law to submit a Yes vote in favor.
The current elections resemble those of 1930's Germany where checks and balances failed to stop Hitler's rise to power. What did Weimar Republic's judicial system do to curb Hitler's rise to power? Absolutely nothing. They just stood back citing "judicial restraint" and allowed Hitler to rise to power even though such consolidation and partisanship in favor of Nazism violated the Weimar constitution. Before Germany knew it, it went from a corrupt and flawed Constitutional republic in 1930 to a Totalitarian Nazi dictatorship in 1933. The Nazi Party was democratically elected just like the Democratic and Republican Parties in America are. during the Third Reich, elections were controlled by the Nazi Party as not only did they become the sole legal party but also counted votes for all plebiscites and referendums following January 1933. Elections in America are controlled in a similar fashion as Nazi Germany. No wonder Germany's annexation of Austria got 99% of the votes, the Nazis tampered with the results!
What needs to be accomplished? An independent non-partisan voter named Daniel Jeffs back in 2000-01 tried to get the US Supreme Court to make a landmark ruling revolutionizing and departisanizing elections in North America. That didn't happen as supreme court justices and America's judiciary is a lot like the judiciary of the Weimar Republic. Hopefully changing the way judges are appointed will bring more accountability and steer them away from partisan dictatorships.
The way judges should be appointed is based on the Pendleton civil Service reform which made merit the method of selecting bureaucrats. If judges were selected the same way bureaucrats under the Pendleton Civil Service act of 1880's were, judges would be more accountable and be subject to removal for turning any provision of our laws and constitution on it's head. Removal of judges would be decided by civil jury trial of the people. Judges would be selected based on their ethics, character, understanding of domestic law and constitutional law including original intent of such laws, and respect for the fact that all political power is inherent from the people. Any judge or justice in violation of these terms shall be subject to civil trial by a jury of concerned citizens. Currently the only way to forcibly remove a judge is through a broken and partisan congress. Most judges are very selfish and abusive with their power and assume they are above the will of the people. Assassinations or bodily harm attempts seem to be the most effective way practical at holding tyrannical officials accountable. However, if judges are to be held accountable once more, it needs to be treated like they're employees of the people, not a corrupt elite. How could the US Supreme Court involve itself with partisan politics. Do there need to be a bunch of terror attacks just to bring some shock to these pricks?! Larry Flynt was right about the US Supreme Court being a "bunch of assholes and token cunts!"
The last resort is use of revolutionary guerilla warfare involving bombings of law enforcement targets and recruitment of terrorists. The Arab Spring of 2011 proved very effective at regime change with Libya enduring a Civil War resulting in the overthrow of Qaddafi. The same things need to happen throughout Western Civilization. In fact, if only some suicidal person would strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it in the facilities where the enemies of our cause live it up and work(such as partisan courthouses and corrupt election commissions), not only igniting a revolution but creating sympathy for this martyr/victim, just like the martyrs of self-immolation only what makes it worth more is the blood of the enemies is shed alongside the suicidal martyr. Hopefully other suicidal or terminally ill people will help the resistance cause by strapping bombs to themselves and detonating them in front of pro-regime law enforcement officers resisting accountability.
Whether Messiah Daniel Jeffs, leader of Direct Democracy and non-partisan elections gets way either through armed conflict like in Iraq or Somalia or peacefully like Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Russia, etc. Protests in the winter of 2013 occurred in Bulgaria thanks in part to the broken democratic system.
Here are the questions which must be resolved.
The Allies of World War II won because they never failed to use their last resort. The only thing we must accept in war is victory, even if much collateral damage is done! The US Supreme Court lacks the brazen of the World War II allied resistance but armed militants don't!
I do favor mixing non-violence with revolutionary guerilla tactics such as being as armed and dangerous as Al-Qaeda operatives at government branch buildings such as capitols, governor mansions, and supreme courthouses in the form of occupy style protesting. Hopefully Southern Nationalists can revive the Confederate States of America by doing the same thing.
We can't keep having elections like East Germany, Iran, and Russia! We need the National Citizen's Initiative for democracy! Remember, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance with citizens protecting liberty from tyrannical authority.
Petitioning for grievances is one level of holding government accountable. But what really holds government's accountable non-violently? It's Direct Democracy of course. What's wrong with representative democracy? Problem is legislators act like dictators and special interest puppets, rejecting pleas to be more accountable. despite numerous government reforms like term limits and ethics laws, the root problems fail to be addressed such as special interests, rigged elections, partisan duelopolies, and irreconcilable differences plague the very integrity of controlling our government.
With the rise of multicultural influences from non-Western civilizations such as immigration from Third World hellholes which will give rise to socialist regimes through democratic elections. However, the real issue is a non-violent way of controlling government through citizens referendum.
What a citizens referendum will bring is an alternative to relying on politicians for policy making by holding them accountable by overriding any acts of Congress or Parliament. Special interests and unions will be furious about creating a Direct Democracy that not only puts direct power into the hands of citizens but also follows the election principles of the Founding Fathers while allowing any Westernized citizen of civic literacy to vote. The issue of property ownership being an election requirement should be considered as it could indicate you are a proud citizen of this state. However, civic literacy tests of reasonable nature are good enough.
What direct democracy in America should be structured on is the electoral college model where votes would be calculated based on representative districts. For example, votes would only count based the same way of a house of representatives. the popular vote would only count within their electoral district while the senate would rely on two votes per state. Large states like California should follow the same model as the Federal Government for representation such as having representatives based on population and within county borders while senators would be selected by county. This way Orange County has mostly conservative representatives while Los Angeles County is unable to unfairly overpower the Conservative opposition.
Armed conflicts exist in Third World Countries like Iraq and Somalia because one group tries to unfairly overpower another and the oppressed feel they have no choice but to engage in terrorism against enemies. How come Switzerland and New Zealand have far less moral for solving political conflicts through violence than Iraq and Somalia? the fact of the matter is that unlike "representative democracies", direct democracies don't have the same problem as special interests are unable to penetrate online voting, plus people can solve problems non-violently.
I feel the problem of low voter turnout is lack of faith in corrupt elections. Ending major party status, reducing voter fraud, and bringing proportional electoral results(such as electoral college) to large states will ensure not only fairness in elections but a Republican form of government, making it more difficult for special interests and dictator politicians to limit freedoms and consolidate power. Voting for politicians alone does not constitute proper control over government, especially when only two parties get all the goods and others get left with zero chances.
Switzerland's government is possibly the most accountable government in the World due to direct democracy alone, given the fact parliament's laws are subject to citizens veto. This means that issues such as repealing gun control, age restrictions, drug war, taxes, and other shit legislatures are too tied up to deal with could be repealed simply by obtaining citizen signatures of registered voters in a process that isn't mauled by time constraints, burdensome signature requirements, and corrupt executives.
However, the way I want direct democracy established is based on the electoral college model where voting would be proportionate in having votes counted within a single district while it is the district electoral vote that truly counts for the final casting. Popular vote only applies to districts.
Lawmaking could instead be done by districts counting popular votes and sending a delegate to count their position. for example, if funding for infrastructure was approved, the delegate hired would be required by law to submit a Yes vote in favor.
The current elections resemble those of 1930's Germany where checks and balances failed to stop Hitler's rise to power. What did Weimar Republic's judicial system do to curb Hitler's rise to power? Absolutely nothing. They just stood back citing "judicial restraint" and allowed Hitler to rise to power even though such consolidation and partisanship in favor of Nazism violated the Weimar constitution. Before Germany knew it, it went from a corrupt and flawed Constitutional republic in 1930 to a Totalitarian Nazi dictatorship in 1933. The Nazi Party was democratically elected just like the Democratic and Republican Parties in America are. during the Third Reich, elections were controlled by the Nazi Party as not only did they become the sole legal party but also counted votes for all plebiscites and referendums following January 1933. Elections in America are controlled in a similar fashion as Nazi Germany. No wonder Germany's annexation of Austria got 99% of the votes, the Nazis tampered with the results!
What needs to be accomplished? An independent non-partisan voter named Daniel Jeffs back in 2000-01 tried to get the US Supreme Court to make a landmark ruling revolutionizing and departisanizing elections in North America. That didn't happen as supreme court justices and America's judiciary is a lot like the judiciary of the Weimar Republic. Hopefully changing the way judges are appointed will bring more accountability and steer them away from partisan dictatorships.
The way judges should be appointed is based on the Pendleton civil Service reform which made merit the method of selecting bureaucrats. If judges were selected the same way bureaucrats under the Pendleton Civil Service act of 1880's were, judges would be more accountable and be subject to removal for turning any provision of our laws and constitution on it's head. Removal of judges would be decided by civil jury trial of the people. Judges would be selected based on their ethics, character, understanding of domestic law and constitutional law including original intent of such laws, and respect for the fact that all political power is inherent from the people. Any judge or justice in violation of these terms shall be subject to civil trial by a jury of concerned citizens. Currently the only way to forcibly remove a judge is through a broken and partisan congress. Most judges are very selfish and abusive with their power and assume they are above the will of the people. Assassinations or bodily harm attempts seem to be the most effective way practical at holding tyrannical officials accountable. However, if judges are to be held accountable once more, it needs to be treated like they're employees of the people, not a corrupt elite. How could the US Supreme Court involve itself with partisan politics. Do there need to be a bunch of terror attacks just to bring some shock to these pricks?! Larry Flynt was right about the US Supreme Court being a "bunch of assholes and token cunts!"
The last resort is use of revolutionary guerilla warfare involving bombings of law enforcement targets and recruitment of terrorists. The Arab Spring of 2011 proved very effective at regime change with Libya enduring a Civil War resulting in the overthrow of Qaddafi. The same things need to happen throughout Western Civilization. In fact, if only some suicidal person would strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it in the facilities where the enemies of our cause live it up and work(such as partisan courthouses and corrupt election commissions), not only igniting a revolution but creating sympathy for this martyr/victim, just like the martyrs of self-immolation only what makes it worth more is the blood of the enemies is shed alongside the suicidal martyr. Hopefully other suicidal or terminally ill people will help the resistance cause by strapping bombs to themselves and detonating them in front of pro-regime law enforcement officers resisting accountability.
Whether Messiah Daniel Jeffs, leader of Direct Democracy and non-partisan elections gets way either through armed conflict like in Iraq or Somalia or peacefully like Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Russia, etc. Protests in the winter of 2013 occurred in Bulgaria thanks in part to the broken democratic system.
Here are the questions which must be resolved.
- Does the two-party system adversely effect the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States?-yes
- Does the two-party system adversely effect the performance and accountability of the United States government?-yes
- Is the two-party system unconstitutional?-yes
- Should elections and the United States government be nonpartisan?-yes
- Do current voting systems violate citizens' rights to vote equally, confidently, accurately and efficiently?-yes
- Should voting systems be elevated and standardized throughout the United States?-yes
The Allies of World War II won because they never failed to use their last resort. The only thing we must accept in war is victory, even if much collateral damage is done! The US Supreme Court lacks the brazen of the World War II allied resistance but armed militants don't!
I do favor mixing non-violence with revolutionary guerilla tactics such as being as armed and dangerous as Al-Qaeda operatives at government branch buildings such as capitols, governor mansions, and supreme courthouses in the form of occupy style protesting. Hopefully Southern Nationalists can revive the Confederate States of America by doing the same thing.
We can't keep having elections like East Germany, Iran, and Russia! We need the National Citizen's Initiative for democracy! Remember, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance with citizens protecting liberty from tyrannical authority.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Democracy vs. Constitutional Republic
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” —Ben
Franklin
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
—Thomas Jefferson
“Democracy ... wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
—John Adams
“Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention... incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”
—James Madison
“The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and ... breaks up the foundations of society.”
—Thomas Jefferson
What has history shown about democracy? What about the ill fated Weimar Republic which was a liberal democracy? How well was it guarded from the abuses of tyrannical government? What can we learn from Germany's transition from a democracy to a totalitarian dictatorship to a federal republic?
The Weimar Republic was born from the defeat of the German Empire in 1919 and that was only the beginning of Germany's political troubles. The Treaty of Versailles was signed the same year requiring reparations from Germany to the Allied Powers of World War I. This helped bankrupt Germany's economy to hyperinflation which lasted from 1919-23. Social Democrat President Fredrich Ebert complied with this infringement on Germany's sovereignty and political unrest broke out. When Ebert died in 1925, former German Empire General Paul von Hindenberg became president and while from 1924-29 Germany enjoyed a short lived golden era in the midst of Hitler's Rise to Power, the monopolization of force began with a gun control bill in 1928 which required registration of civilian firearms, which Hitler Nazi regime would use for political gain against opponents. The 1930 elections saw the Nazi Party have big gains with them being just second behind the ruling Social Democratic Party. 1932 elections made the Nazi Party the largest party in parliament. two more elections would succeed with Hitler being appointed Chancellor on january 30, 1933. The Reichteg Fire of February 27, 1933 led to the Enabling Act, giving Hitler and his Nazi Party a monopoly on power, leading to a totalitarian regime.
Question here is how could such a tyrannical politician rise to power and how could the Nazi Party have become the dominant party in parliament? How could the Enabling Act have been stopped from passing and how could the Nazi Party be removed from power and banned without armed conflict? One problem with the Weimar Republic was it tried to monopolize power when it passed gun control in 1928 and failing to have a judicial system equiped to be free of government influence. What role could the courts have in stopping such atrocities? How could judges be free of political influence and be trusted enough not to follow their own political views? The problem with government funded judiciaries is the judges nominated mostly by government have no incentive or consequence for their actions on the bench? How about public officials who knowingly break their oath of office and become tyrannical? How can they be stopped?
Non-Governmental organizations play a role in impartiality since they have no direct interest with government affiliation. for example, NGO are more trustworthy in counting votes and doing justice. This is why new checks and balances should include non-governmental law enforcement and justice systems.
What have government funded law enforcement and judges done? They've abused their power because they have no incentive to be held to account since should no branch step up and stop them, they will continue to become tyrannical. This is why there should be an easier removal of public officials by petition and merit based systems to hold judges, legislators, and executives accountable, being judged by trustworthy NGOs.
An example of judicial checks on political parties and politicians is Turkey, which became a constitutional republic in 1923. Mustafa Kemal established a Westernized Republican Turkey which has a constitution to reflect that. Turkey's constitution prohibits political activity or political parties/officials that violate the constitution. The judiciary can simply remove an official from power because they violate the Turkish Constitution. Why cant the USA have such a check? Better yet, why should we allow government attorneys to have near absolute power over legal matters?
Thomas Jefferson best said "Allow judges to be the sole arbitraitors of constitutional matters breeds tyranny and despotism". Nazi Germany had a judicial system that was funded and established by the Nazi Party. Putting your freedom in the hands of judges is like Jews putting their civil rights in the hands of Roland Freisler.
Another issue is what's our final resort? It comes down to killing government troops in the event of tyrannical government. In US vs. Miller, the US Supreme court ruled that government could not regulate military firearms. That case dealt with a sawed-off shotgun which the court ruled had no military purpose. Machine Guns, AR-15s for example do have military purpose. The final resort is violence against public officials who abuse elections to gain power.
Question here is how can broken government best be reformed. It requires violating the broken and corrupt system through armed conflict against government officials and a rejection of ignorant voters who serve to make matters worse. The Nazi Party rose to power thanks to the ignorance of voters.
The question of government funding for political parties goes unchecked. Do the funders need a terror attack perpetrated against it's facilities just to stop it's abuses? Apparently so. The IRS has become nothing more than an enabler for an out of control regime. Democracy is a cancer ready to suck out due process in politics.
Government is tyrannical because of their exploitation of elections and power with disrespect for due process. Due process is a barrier against government abuse and when inalienable rights are in danger, due process must come to save the day. Sometimes protecting due process requires use of armed force against aggressors.
What should be done about the rise of inverted totalitarian democracy? Having non-governmental checks and balances such as armed citizens and competing justice systems can help secure liberty and justice while making it easier and shorter process to hold public officials accountable. Plus, non-governmental supervision of elections and majority elections with no preferential treatment for political parties. Also allow for a Fully Informed Jury which would be protected by NGO Fully Informed Jury Association.
California can be fixed but only if it's government is brought to compliance with a Republican form of government required by the constitution so federal courts should order a constitutional convention for California as well as have NGO supervise proceedings. The Weimar Republic failed because people believed elections alone could secure freedom when in fact it turned out to do the exact opposite. We also need to secure our elections from ignorant votes and illegal immigrants.
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
—Thomas Jefferson
“Democracy ... wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
—John Adams
“Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention... incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”
—James Madison
“The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and ... breaks up the foundations of society.”
—Thomas Jefferson
What has history shown about democracy? What about the ill fated Weimar Republic which was a liberal democracy? How well was it guarded from the abuses of tyrannical government? What can we learn from Germany's transition from a democracy to a totalitarian dictatorship to a federal republic?
The Weimar Republic was born from the defeat of the German Empire in 1919 and that was only the beginning of Germany's political troubles. The Treaty of Versailles was signed the same year requiring reparations from Germany to the Allied Powers of World War I. This helped bankrupt Germany's economy to hyperinflation which lasted from 1919-23. Social Democrat President Fredrich Ebert complied with this infringement on Germany's sovereignty and political unrest broke out. When Ebert died in 1925, former German Empire General Paul von Hindenberg became president and while from 1924-29 Germany enjoyed a short lived golden era in the midst of Hitler's Rise to Power, the monopolization of force began with a gun control bill in 1928 which required registration of civilian firearms, which Hitler Nazi regime would use for political gain against opponents. The 1930 elections saw the Nazi Party have big gains with them being just second behind the ruling Social Democratic Party. 1932 elections made the Nazi Party the largest party in parliament. two more elections would succeed with Hitler being appointed Chancellor on january 30, 1933. The Reichteg Fire of February 27, 1933 led to the Enabling Act, giving Hitler and his Nazi Party a monopoly on power, leading to a totalitarian regime.
Question here is how could such a tyrannical politician rise to power and how could the Nazi Party have become the dominant party in parliament? How could the Enabling Act have been stopped from passing and how could the Nazi Party be removed from power and banned without armed conflict? One problem with the Weimar Republic was it tried to monopolize power when it passed gun control in 1928 and failing to have a judicial system equiped to be free of government influence. What role could the courts have in stopping such atrocities? How could judges be free of political influence and be trusted enough not to follow their own political views? The problem with government funded judiciaries is the judges nominated mostly by government have no incentive or consequence for their actions on the bench? How about public officials who knowingly break their oath of office and become tyrannical? How can they be stopped?
Non-Governmental organizations play a role in impartiality since they have no direct interest with government affiliation. for example, NGO are more trustworthy in counting votes and doing justice. This is why new checks and balances should include non-governmental law enforcement and justice systems.
What have government funded law enforcement and judges done? They've abused their power because they have no incentive to be held to account since should no branch step up and stop them, they will continue to become tyrannical. This is why there should be an easier removal of public officials by petition and merit based systems to hold judges, legislators, and executives accountable, being judged by trustworthy NGOs.
An example of judicial checks on political parties and politicians is Turkey, which became a constitutional republic in 1923. Mustafa Kemal established a Westernized Republican Turkey which has a constitution to reflect that. Turkey's constitution prohibits political activity or political parties/officials that violate the constitution. The judiciary can simply remove an official from power because they violate the Turkish Constitution. Why cant the USA have such a check? Better yet, why should we allow government attorneys to have near absolute power over legal matters?
Thomas Jefferson best said "Allow judges to be the sole arbitraitors of constitutional matters breeds tyranny and despotism". Nazi Germany had a judicial system that was funded and established by the Nazi Party. Putting your freedom in the hands of judges is like Jews putting their civil rights in the hands of Roland Freisler.
Another issue is what's our final resort? It comes down to killing government troops in the event of tyrannical government. In US vs. Miller, the US Supreme court ruled that government could not regulate military firearms. That case dealt with a sawed-off shotgun which the court ruled had no military purpose. Machine Guns, AR-15s for example do have military purpose. The final resort is violence against public officials who abuse elections to gain power.
Question here is how can broken government best be reformed. It requires violating the broken and corrupt system through armed conflict against government officials and a rejection of ignorant voters who serve to make matters worse. The Nazi Party rose to power thanks to the ignorance of voters.
The question of government funding for political parties goes unchecked. Do the funders need a terror attack perpetrated against it's facilities just to stop it's abuses? Apparently so. The IRS has become nothing more than an enabler for an out of control regime. Democracy is a cancer ready to suck out due process in politics.
Government is tyrannical because of their exploitation of elections and power with disrespect for due process. Due process is a barrier against government abuse and when inalienable rights are in danger, due process must come to save the day. Sometimes protecting due process requires use of armed force against aggressors.
What should be done about the rise of inverted totalitarian democracy? Having non-governmental checks and balances such as armed citizens and competing justice systems can help secure liberty and justice while making it easier and shorter process to hold public officials accountable. Plus, non-governmental supervision of elections and majority elections with no preferential treatment for political parties. Also allow for a Fully Informed Jury which would be protected by NGO Fully Informed Jury Association.
California can be fixed but only if it's government is brought to compliance with a Republican form of government required by the constitution so federal courts should order a constitutional convention for California as well as have NGO supervise proceedings. The Weimar Republic failed because people believed elections alone could secure freedom when in fact it turned out to do the exact opposite. We also need to secure our elections from ignorant votes and illegal immigrants.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Why violence against oath breaking tyrants is justifiable
California, Illinois, New York, Connecticut, and now Colorado are experiencing tyranny of gun confiscation as the only way to combat this is if bombs went off at government facilities engaging in gun confiscation. Thanks to registration deception, California Democrats were able to successfully impliment gun confiscation. Why else are they able to do so? What resistance could possibly defeat them?
What if someone were to plant bombs in government facilities and they were to explode, killing government employees, would the perpetraitor be able to successfully use the defense against tyrannical government defense? Depends on their purpose, targets, and whether these government bureaucrats were a threat to people's freedom.
I want to first tell you about the judicial system in this country and many others. Do you know that the judicial system is funded entirely by government money and the judiciary is 100% on government side. It doesn't matter if the judge presiding is benevolent since the legislator acts like god over the laws it makes by creating reprisals for officers and judges who refuse to swear alligence to the legislature laws instead of the constitution. Who's going to hold the tyrannical judiciary accountable?
It's certainly not going to be Congress since they thrive on statist rulings. Have you ever heard of Volksgerichtshof? It was the judicial system of Nazi Germany which conducted show trials and where defense attorneys couldn't stand a fighting chance because it was the presiding judges who held god like power to decide guilt or innocence regardless of the fairness of the trial. Much of the judicial system here acts in a way that gives them god like power over anyone in the courtroom. in some Western countries court officers can be legally reprimanded should they fail to swear blind obedience to the magistrate their serving. When one branch of government reprimands another for failing to obey it's edicts, then the system of checks and balances dissolves and this is what is happening in Colorado. America's judicial system has failed to stay independent because many judges are more concerned with getting rewarded for keeping the statist quo than upholding their oath. No wonder judges refuse to allow jury nullification mentionings in courtrooms.
Ever noticed how numerous government agencies are becoming as feared as Gestapo? This is how bad the situation involving government agencies such as the IRS, BATFE, TSA, and DHS. If people cannot live without fearing their own government, then government is tyrannical an dpeople do have god given right to defend themselves against tyrannical government agencies. Not just these organizations but the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, and even the U.S. Marshals are guilty of instilling the same kind of fear that Gestapo and KGB instilled in their subjects.
Would gun control be dissolved had the gun industry have fought using militant means and using the government's energy against them? Nazi Germany was dissolved in only 12 years due to Allied Powers victory during World War II. defeating a military industrial complex from the outside is difficult but creating a plan for victory is important as using the strongest weapons is important, especially when facing an army with weapons of mass destruction and air force of drones.
Be sure to look at nullification such as going to state and county legislatures. The thing about human nature is action alone decides most of policy and even if one county in California were to resist gun control and other socialist policies, then they could overcome any tyranny headed their way. It's very easy to pressure your city or county council since they are close to the area! A supermajority of Counties in New York have expressed outrage and resistance to New York's Anti-Civil Liberties gun control SAFE Act.
But seriously, will individual armed force members truly have the heart to rival American citizens? the cold blooded commanders like Barack Obama are weak without loyalists. The agents are the enablers of agendas. If we pay these thugs the same respect they pay others we can overcome this "Law is the law." syndrome and break free of the tyrannies ahead. Giving the thugs at BATFE, IRS, Judiciaries, TSA, FEMA, DHS, and Secret Service the same respect you would give Gestapo and KGB agents is important for ending monopolies on force and taking a stand.
I seriously favor non-violent declarations of no unless it is necessary to use armed force to say "NO". Influencing city/county councils and state legislators is more efficient but the regime will use deadly force to stop civil disobedience. Sometimes you just have to shoot a bunch of law enforcement thugs to protect your inalienable rights.
Any government agency or NGO that uses the law to abuse their power and kill your liberty is an appealing target for a terror attack whether people accept this or not. The Patriots did not care about public opinion and neither should you. I wouldn't feel any sadness if IRS or BATFE headquarters for example went up in flames and undermined their operations following the deaths or incapacitations of numerous agents. Such attacks would be the equvilent of bombing KGB and Gestapo headquarters.
In fact, a judge suppressing fully informed juries would be as appealing target for attack as Volksgerichtshof Judge President Roland Freisler's fate in 1945.
Please understand I don't support or won't engage in any acts of violence against non-hostile people and the use of violence should be only for acts of defense of life, liberty, and property. Which is why hundreds of thousands of lives are saved by responsible gun use.
What if someone were to plant bombs in government facilities and they were to explode, killing government employees, would the perpetraitor be able to successfully use the defense against tyrannical government defense? Depends on their purpose, targets, and whether these government bureaucrats were a threat to people's freedom.
I want to first tell you about the judicial system in this country and many others. Do you know that the judicial system is funded entirely by government money and the judiciary is 100% on government side. It doesn't matter if the judge presiding is benevolent since the legislator acts like god over the laws it makes by creating reprisals for officers and judges who refuse to swear alligence to the legislature laws instead of the constitution. Who's going to hold the tyrannical judiciary accountable?
It's certainly not going to be Congress since they thrive on statist rulings. Have you ever heard of Volksgerichtshof? It was the judicial system of Nazi Germany which conducted show trials and where defense attorneys couldn't stand a fighting chance because it was the presiding judges who held god like power to decide guilt or innocence regardless of the fairness of the trial. Much of the judicial system here acts in a way that gives them god like power over anyone in the courtroom. in some Western countries court officers can be legally reprimanded should they fail to swear blind obedience to the magistrate their serving. When one branch of government reprimands another for failing to obey it's edicts, then the system of checks and balances dissolves and this is what is happening in Colorado. America's judicial system has failed to stay independent because many judges are more concerned with getting rewarded for keeping the statist quo than upholding their oath. No wonder judges refuse to allow jury nullification mentionings in courtrooms.
Ever noticed how numerous government agencies are becoming as feared as Gestapo? This is how bad the situation involving government agencies such as the IRS, BATFE, TSA, and DHS. If people cannot live without fearing their own government, then government is tyrannical an dpeople do have god given right to defend themselves against tyrannical government agencies. Not just these organizations but the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, and even the U.S. Marshals are guilty of instilling the same kind of fear that Gestapo and KGB instilled in their subjects.
Would gun control be dissolved had the gun industry have fought using militant means and using the government's energy against them? Nazi Germany was dissolved in only 12 years due to Allied Powers victory during World War II. defeating a military industrial complex from the outside is difficult but creating a plan for victory is important as using the strongest weapons is important, especially when facing an army with weapons of mass destruction and air force of drones.
Be sure to look at nullification such as going to state and county legislatures. The thing about human nature is action alone decides most of policy and even if one county in California were to resist gun control and other socialist policies, then they could overcome any tyranny headed their way. It's very easy to pressure your city or county council since they are close to the area! A supermajority of Counties in New York have expressed outrage and resistance to New York's Anti-Civil Liberties gun control SAFE Act.
But seriously, will individual armed force members truly have the heart to rival American citizens? the cold blooded commanders like Barack Obama are weak without loyalists. The agents are the enablers of agendas. If we pay these thugs the same respect they pay others we can overcome this "Law is the law." syndrome and break free of the tyrannies ahead. Giving the thugs at BATFE, IRS, Judiciaries, TSA, FEMA, DHS, and Secret Service the same respect you would give Gestapo and KGB agents is important for ending monopolies on force and taking a stand.
I seriously favor non-violent declarations of no unless it is necessary to use armed force to say "NO". Influencing city/county councils and state legislators is more efficient but the regime will use deadly force to stop civil disobedience. Sometimes you just have to shoot a bunch of law enforcement thugs to protect your inalienable rights.
Any government agency or NGO that uses the law to abuse their power and kill your liberty is an appealing target for a terror attack whether people accept this or not. The Patriots did not care about public opinion and neither should you. I wouldn't feel any sadness if IRS or BATFE headquarters for example went up in flames and undermined their operations following the deaths or incapacitations of numerous agents. Such attacks would be the equvilent of bombing KGB and Gestapo headquarters.
In fact, a judge suppressing fully informed juries would be as appealing target for attack as Volksgerichtshof Judge President Roland Freisler's fate in 1945.
Please understand I don't support or won't engage in any acts of violence against non-hostile people and the use of violence should be only for acts of defense of life, liberty, and property. Which is why hundreds of thousands of lives are saved by responsible gun use.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Patriots of America: Fighting Without Stronger Weapons
Ever wonder how Nazi Germany was able to invade Poland on September 1, 1939 without breaking a sweat? The Polish army had obsolete and inferior weapons compared to the frightning might of the Nazi Army led by the ferocious Adolf Hitler and his iron generals.
Could the Confederate States of America have won had they've had access to deadlier weapons? The answer is yes! The key to winning wars is to strive in being stronger than your enemy. If you fight using sissors and your enemies have AR-15s, then you don't stand a very big chance!
Learning from the U.N. Peacekeeping invasion and destruction of the Free African State of Katanga in the early 1960's, you can see how dangerous it is for your freedom and independence to allow your rivals to be stronger than you.
The reason the government is winning the war on freedom is not because they are "good" and "holy" but because any resistance to tyrannical government has been dealt by not pushing the envelope and not trying to outmatch them. It seems the biggest resistance to the U.S. Government is mostly Islamic Jihad groups like Al-Qaeda. Too long and too much have good people complied with a criminal government and that's how tyrannical government thrives.
Nazi Germany thrived because the German people were willing to accept Adolf Hitler as a saint and infallible. The best and only way this came to an end and West Germans were freer than in the Weimar Republic era was when the Allied Forces liberated them and destroyed Nazi Germany. How can America under the hybrid regime of Democrat-Republican be compared to Nazi Germany? After 9/11, Americans for a brief moment threw aside politics to remember the victims but soon after they became more supportive of their government and George W. Bush has higher approval ratings. What a fucking joke! Bush deserved every assassination attempt on his life just like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Bill Clinton, and now Barack Obama and their cronies did/do.
Many Americans today are to a certain degree more willing to submit to their government just as Germans did in Nazi Germany during the 1930's and 40's while accepting the widespread abuses of government power against patriots just like the Jews suffered at the hands of Nazi Germany. The reason Americans have accepted their abusive government just like the German people of Nazi Germany was because they believe the mainstream propaganda too much and fail to have a sense of right vs. wrong when it comes to politics. Although more Americans are coming to resent their government, too many still believe the propaganda machine. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News for example are no better than Joseph Goebels cause they try to portray a sadistic government in a positive way while demonizing freedom fighters and democide victims in America.
Take a look at abortion! over 50 million unborn children killed since 1973! What about the drones over the Middle East? I don't support much of Arab culture attitudes on freedom but to say it's alright for government to drone attack innocent Arabs is like the jingoist crimes committed by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Yet DC continues to accept multiculturalism of the Third World so long as it benefits the empire and destroys any intelligence in civilization.
Prisons are now made to be miniature police states of psychological pain and suffering. Guantanamo and ADX Supermax are two examples of prisons that are in need of serious reform. Inhumanities that occur there are endless time in solitary confinement meant to destroy the prisoner's mind and sadistic tricks the sadistic guards use without regard for humanity. The New World Order will include treating prisoners like animals instead of human beings which is exactly what totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and North Korea do. So sickening as it seems liberals are more preferrable on this issue than conservatives.
If gun industry has big guns, why hasn't it declared war on the gun grabbing politicians and law enforcement? Is not doing enough and being weaker than federal law enforcement the reason there are still many gun control laws? If just a small faction of armed and militant patriots in California caused mayhem and destruction to government buildings in Sacramento, California Democrats would be seriously terrorized by shock of resistance.
How about state legislatures in Colorado for example threatening sheriffs with dislodging should they fail to support the regime gun control laws? Forcing law enforcement to obey legislatures and activist judiciaries contributes to tyranny and it would be great if every single anti-gun democrat in Colorado were injured or even finished off by nail bombs for example. If militant patriots used explosives to damage government and progressive buildings such as Democratic Party headquarters, that would be wonderful. If mainstream media compunds were attacked with any kind of biological or chemical weapon such as anthrax or cyanide, it would stop the propaganda machines of tyranny from thriving and allow fairness in public opinion. If a despotic magistrate were to meet his/her demise with the blast of an explosive, it would send a powerful message that controlling your government may require commiting acts of terrorism against government facilities and their active supporters.
The thing about the Patriot Movement is taking a stand by fighting for what is right and not trying to de-fickle those fickle souls. Bombing BATFE headquarters and killing BATFE thugs is taking a stand. Begging before Congress to change is submitting to a corrupt system. Retaliating against law enforcement with guerilla warfare style ambush attacks is taking a stand. Going before the courts with little chance of victory is submission!
Bombing a federal office building that has agencies dedicated to destroying your freedoms is not in anyway murderous or criminal but justifiable homicide. Thomas Jefferson best said "the tree of liberty must from time to time be grown from the blood of patriots and tyrants." also saying 'When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when government fears the people there is liberty."
How can we make government fear the people? Terrorism is a method of communication mixed with action in an extreme fashion intended to strike fear into the enemy. Osama Bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh are on the same terror coin but are on different sides of it. Both favored militant means of advancing their achievements. Al-Qaeda advocates Islamic domination over the World while Patriots favor control over their own government by any means necessary and at any necessary cost, even if it means killing hundreds of thousands of government bureaucrats and their accomplices working for the evil DC Empire.
How will the evil empire respond? It shall respond as if it were truly a victim and believe people are ignorant enough to believe the lies of DC. Terrorism is a very powerful tool used to communicate a message that cannot be communicated non-violently. The difference between Islamists and Patriots are people in western Civilization will never surrender to Sharia rule just like they refused surrender to Nazism and Communism. Patriots have the side of truth and holiness to conquer the evil empire. Taking a stand sometimes requires you to shed the blood of your enemies without mercy and without taking prisoners. If an evil empire employee is screaming at the sight of an upcoming execution style gunshot, are they pleading for redemption or are they simply scared for their pathetic life?
Can the walls of ADX Supermax be destroyed with the might of explosions and a militia of patriotic liberators free our political prisoners? The Great Escape was a heroic story of escaping from a Nazi Concentration Camp and should patriots put their minds to it they shall liberate federal prisons across America and terrorize the mainstream media with their inability to lie out of the heroic deeds of the Patriotic Minutemen!
I wish to make clear the message I am trying to send. My point here is fighting evil may require you to be harsh towards your enemies while being wise enough not to become madmen hell bent on sensless destruction. Would you rather continue to live under oppression of tyrannical government or accept the reality that terrorism against government targets is the only way for regime change?
“keep and seek for all the commandments of the LORD your God: that ye may possess this good land, and leave it for an inheritance for your children after you for ever.” 1 Chronicles 28:8
Is it a sin to open fire on IRS, BATFE, and other regime enforcement agents if you're defending your country from a tyrannical government? Is armed and explosive insurrection the only defense against tyrannical government? No and yes. The Patriots did their duty in defeating British troops even if it meant committing acts of terror in the name of liberty. The Patriots were not cold blooded killers willing to kill innocents but killed British troops because they had to.
I must tell you of a dredful yet cave of treasures agency. Homeland Security has begun their war on liberty and they have a gold mine of firearms and hollow point bullets. Obtaining these weapons is important for militant patriots as it will not only give tools needed for victory but also be DHS worst nightmare as for them losing these weapons means a shocking defeat for the regime.
Even though it may frighten people, terror is the only method that can paralyze and destroy tI'yrannical government. Terrorism is a method that can be abused by those seeking to gain power for themselves such as Al-Qaeda tactics of killing civilians and non-believers of Islam. The Anthrax attacks of 2001 while using the U.S. Postal service endangered some innocent lives it did have legitimate targets that could have been eliminated through more precise means. Using care to avoid collateral damage is important as preserving humanity is important as well to avoid a Phyrric victory.
General Douglas McArthur said "There is no substitute for victory." If we shall ever be free again, we must be willing to do whatever it takes to win the DC War on Liberty and Self-Determination, even if it means resorting to use of weapons of mass destruction, which hopefully will have rare use. In times of war, points are best made with bombs and destruction of enemy livelihoods, not words. Appeasement has been a miserable failure noting the 1938 Munich Agreement in which Adolf Hitler begain invading much of Europe in 1939-40. Nazi Germany was brought to an end thanks to the Allied Forces of World War II. Had it not have been for leaders unwilling to surrender, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would have conquered most of the World.
Would America still exist had it not have been for leaders like Winston Chruchill and General George Patton? Had McVeigh been more like Osama Bin Laden, would the militia movement rival the federal armed forces? Had George Washington not have led the patriot army through militant means, would the colonies have gained independence from Great Britain? All I'm arguing here is that guerilla warfare against government in the form of terror attacks against government belligerants in the War on Liberty maybe our only way of preserving our constitutional republic. Elections and the courts have been relied on as means for redress but are lengthy and yield unsatisfactory results lacking enough safeguards such as non-governmental organizations defending freedom.
Bottom line here is a terrorist attack similar to the Oklahoma City Bombing while avoiding collateral damage will unfortunately be the best way to send the simple message of "NO!" to an uber-tyrannical government. You can fight the law and win but only if there is a paramilitary organization willing to go through whatever lengths necessary for achieving victory. Don't assume I'm just a crazy terror loving psycho because I'm suggesting that the only way this tyrannical government will be defeated is through guerilla warfare-terrorism. Freedom isn't free and if it means millions of regime soldiers must be destroyed, it is what we as freemen must do. I'm ready to give the government as much respect as they do to the constitution! Next blog will have a list of traitorous individuals and organizations as well as heroic patriots who will help us.
Could the Confederate States of America have won had they've had access to deadlier weapons? The answer is yes! The key to winning wars is to strive in being stronger than your enemy. If you fight using sissors and your enemies have AR-15s, then you don't stand a very big chance!
Learning from the U.N. Peacekeeping invasion and destruction of the Free African State of Katanga in the early 1960's, you can see how dangerous it is for your freedom and independence to allow your rivals to be stronger than you.
The reason the government is winning the war on freedom is not because they are "good" and "holy" but because any resistance to tyrannical government has been dealt by not pushing the envelope and not trying to outmatch them. It seems the biggest resistance to the U.S. Government is mostly Islamic Jihad groups like Al-Qaeda. Too long and too much have good people complied with a criminal government and that's how tyrannical government thrives.
Nazi Germany thrived because the German people were willing to accept Adolf Hitler as a saint and infallible. The best and only way this came to an end and West Germans were freer than in the Weimar Republic era was when the Allied Forces liberated them and destroyed Nazi Germany. How can America under the hybrid regime of Democrat-Republican be compared to Nazi Germany? After 9/11, Americans for a brief moment threw aside politics to remember the victims but soon after they became more supportive of their government and George W. Bush has higher approval ratings. What a fucking joke! Bush deserved every assassination attempt on his life just like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Bill Clinton, and now Barack Obama and their cronies did/do.
Many Americans today are to a certain degree more willing to submit to their government just as Germans did in Nazi Germany during the 1930's and 40's while accepting the widespread abuses of government power against patriots just like the Jews suffered at the hands of Nazi Germany. The reason Americans have accepted their abusive government just like the German people of Nazi Germany was because they believe the mainstream propaganda too much and fail to have a sense of right vs. wrong when it comes to politics. Although more Americans are coming to resent their government, too many still believe the propaganda machine. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News for example are no better than Joseph Goebels cause they try to portray a sadistic government in a positive way while demonizing freedom fighters and democide victims in America.
Take a look at abortion! over 50 million unborn children killed since 1973! What about the drones over the Middle East? I don't support much of Arab culture attitudes on freedom but to say it's alright for government to drone attack innocent Arabs is like the jingoist crimes committed by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Yet DC continues to accept multiculturalism of the Third World so long as it benefits the empire and destroys any intelligence in civilization.
Prisons are now made to be miniature police states of psychological pain and suffering. Guantanamo and ADX Supermax are two examples of prisons that are in need of serious reform. Inhumanities that occur there are endless time in solitary confinement meant to destroy the prisoner's mind and sadistic tricks the sadistic guards use without regard for humanity. The New World Order will include treating prisoners like animals instead of human beings which is exactly what totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and North Korea do. So sickening as it seems liberals are more preferrable on this issue than conservatives.
If gun industry has big guns, why hasn't it declared war on the gun grabbing politicians and law enforcement? Is not doing enough and being weaker than federal law enforcement the reason there are still many gun control laws? If just a small faction of armed and militant patriots in California caused mayhem and destruction to government buildings in Sacramento, California Democrats would be seriously terrorized by shock of resistance.
How about state legislatures in Colorado for example threatening sheriffs with dislodging should they fail to support the regime gun control laws? Forcing law enforcement to obey legislatures and activist judiciaries contributes to tyranny and it would be great if every single anti-gun democrat in Colorado were injured or even finished off by nail bombs for example. If militant patriots used explosives to damage government and progressive buildings such as Democratic Party headquarters, that would be wonderful. If mainstream media compunds were attacked with any kind of biological or chemical weapon such as anthrax or cyanide, it would stop the propaganda machines of tyranny from thriving and allow fairness in public opinion. If a despotic magistrate were to meet his/her demise with the blast of an explosive, it would send a powerful message that controlling your government may require commiting acts of terrorism against government facilities and their active supporters.
The thing about the Patriot Movement is taking a stand by fighting for what is right and not trying to de-fickle those fickle souls. Bombing BATFE headquarters and killing BATFE thugs is taking a stand. Begging before Congress to change is submitting to a corrupt system. Retaliating against law enforcement with guerilla warfare style ambush attacks is taking a stand. Going before the courts with little chance of victory is submission!
Bombing a federal office building that has agencies dedicated to destroying your freedoms is not in anyway murderous or criminal but justifiable homicide. Thomas Jefferson best said "the tree of liberty must from time to time be grown from the blood of patriots and tyrants." also saying 'When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when government fears the people there is liberty."
How can we make government fear the people? Terrorism is a method of communication mixed with action in an extreme fashion intended to strike fear into the enemy. Osama Bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh are on the same terror coin but are on different sides of it. Both favored militant means of advancing their achievements. Al-Qaeda advocates Islamic domination over the World while Patriots favor control over their own government by any means necessary and at any necessary cost, even if it means killing hundreds of thousands of government bureaucrats and their accomplices working for the evil DC Empire.
How will the evil empire respond? It shall respond as if it were truly a victim and believe people are ignorant enough to believe the lies of DC. Terrorism is a very powerful tool used to communicate a message that cannot be communicated non-violently. The difference between Islamists and Patriots are people in western Civilization will never surrender to Sharia rule just like they refused surrender to Nazism and Communism. Patriots have the side of truth and holiness to conquer the evil empire. Taking a stand sometimes requires you to shed the blood of your enemies without mercy and without taking prisoners. If an evil empire employee is screaming at the sight of an upcoming execution style gunshot, are they pleading for redemption or are they simply scared for their pathetic life?
Can the walls of ADX Supermax be destroyed with the might of explosions and a militia of patriotic liberators free our political prisoners? The Great Escape was a heroic story of escaping from a Nazi Concentration Camp and should patriots put their minds to it they shall liberate federal prisons across America and terrorize the mainstream media with their inability to lie out of the heroic deeds of the Patriotic Minutemen!
I wish to make clear the message I am trying to send. My point here is fighting evil may require you to be harsh towards your enemies while being wise enough not to become madmen hell bent on sensless destruction. Would you rather continue to live under oppression of tyrannical government or accept the reality that terrorism against government targets is the only way for regime change?
“keep and seek for all the commandments of the LORD your God: that ye may possess this good land, and leave it for an inheritance for your children after you for ever.” 1 Chronicles 28:8
Is it a sin to open fire on IRS, BATFE, and other regime enforcement agents if you're defending your country from a tyrannical government? Is armed and explosive insurrection the only defense against tyrannical government? No and yes. The Patriots did their duty in defeating British troops even if it meant committing acts of terror in the name of liberty. The Patriots were not cold blooded killers willing to kill innocents but killed British troops because they had to.
I must tell you of a dredful yet cave of treasures agency. Homeland Security has begun their war on liberty and they have a gold mine of firearms and hollow point bullets. Obtaining these weapons is important for militant patriots as it will not only give tools needed for victory but also be DHS worst nightmare as for them losing these weapons means a shocking defeat for the regime.
Even though it may frighten people, terror is the only method that can paralyze and destroy tI'yrannical government. Terrorism is a method that can be abused by those seeking to gain power for themselves such as Al-Qaeda tactics of killing civilians and non-believers of Islam. The Anthrax attacks of 2001 while using the U.S. Postal service endangered some innocent lives it did have legitimate targets that could have been eliminated through more precise means. Using care to avoid collateral damage is important as preserving humanity is important as well to avoid a Phyrric victory.
General Douglas McArthur said "There is no substitute for victory." If we shall ever be free again, we must be willing to do whatever it takes to win the DC War on Liberty and Self-Determination, even if it means resorting to use of weapons of mass destruction, which hopefully will have rare use. In times of war, points are best made with bombs and destruction of enemy livelihoods, not words. Appeasement has been a miserable failure noting the 1938 Munich Agreement in which Adolf Hitler begain invading much of Europe in 1939-40. Nazi Germany was brought to an end thanks to the Allied Forces of World War II. Had it not have been for leaders unwilling to surrender, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would have conquered most of the World.
Would America still exist had it not have been for leaders like Winston Chruchill and General George Patton? Had McVeigh been more like Osama Bin Laden, would the militia movement rival the federal armed forces? Had George Washington not have led the patriot army through militant means, would the colonies have gained independence from Great Britain? All I'm arguing here is that guerilla warfare against government in the form of terror attacks against government belligerants in the War on Liberty maybe our only way of preserving our constitutional republic. Elections and the courts have been relied on as means for redress but are lengthy and yield unsatisfactory results lacking enough safeguards such as non-governmental organizations defending freedom.
Bottom line here is a terrorist attack similar to the Oklahoma City Bombing while avoiding collateral damage will unfortunately be the best way to send the simple message of "NO!" to an uber-tyrannical government. You can fight the law and win but only if there is a paramilitary organization willing to go through whatever lengths necessary for achieving victory. Don't assume I'm just a crazy terror loving psycho because I'm suggesting that the only way this tyrannical government will be defeated is through guerilla warfare-terrorism. Freedom isn't free and if it means millions of regime soldiers must be destroyed, it is what we as freemen must do. I'm ready to give the government as much respect as they do to the constitution! Next blog will have a list of traitorous individuals and organizations as well as heroic patriots who will help us.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Easter Message for the West
"Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion-- it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it." - Dr. Ron Paul
As any Christian should know there are two lords, one of which is our creators and the other Jesus Christ Our Savior. It was Good Friday that Christ died for humanity's sin with his own blood, giving us eternal spiritual life to those who go with him. Going with christ requires admission of you as the sinner as you are human and to believe that he took humanity's place to be condemned to die.
But what does the Gospel of Christs messages tell us? It tells us that God, Our Creator loved and cared for humanity so much that he sent his only true spiritual son Jesus Christ to teach gods word to the people and show them that god is a caring and loving god despite being so wrathful. There is a rival force to god's power and that is Satan, who was cast down from heaven for rebelling against God. Satan's force is to pass himself onto godhood. It is only he who created the universe that is true God. Satan represents lies and wickedness through darkness and burning flames. Another name for Satan is Lucifer, who is a fallen angel due to his rebellion against God. Lucifer and his fallen angels can take any form for purpose of deception. The Bible refers to Lucifer as a snake.
What does the Gospel of Christ tell us about God vs. Satan? It should tell us that Lucifer is waging a perpetual state of war against God and that our creator sent Christ to Earth to save us from Luciferian domination. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ served as a major defeat for evil as Christ's teaching helped influence society to become more enlightented and good. Luficer vowed to create an Anti-Christ to destroy this white light of joy shined on Earth by Lord Savior Jesus Christ.
How has christianity impacted Western civilization. Unlike Judism, Islam, Buddhism, Freemasonry, and Hinduism for examples, Christianity carries a simple message of good faith and truth, which tyrants like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, and Pol Pot for examples feared and despised. Communism(Marxism-Leninism-Maoism) and Nazism follow the path of death, tyranny, and self-rightiousness in belief they can become gods. Vladimir Lenin's rulership in the Soviet Communist Party as one of the start of a more bloody reign of terror with peasants having crops confiscated and ended up starving in Lenin's effort to destroy people's faith in god. The Bible of God has been suppressed for civilizations because it symbolizes a threat to the power of mankind over other human beings. Only faith in Lord Savior Jesus christ will save us from doom and destruction of Luciferian Hell.
How has America gone from freedom loving patriots to hellbound noids of Amerikans? Many North Americans and Europeans have little to no faith in the savior Jesus Christ, also the Prince of Peace who shed his own blood so humanity could be saved from lucifer and this can only happen if people accept this in truth and spirit. People have lost faith in christ and as a result were swept away by the occultists of the Illuminati, Satanism, Freemasonry, and Big government thanks to the Big Mainstream Media of talentless pop stars, ritualistic movie stars, and propaganda news anchors. The sins of homosexuality, communism, immoral perversion of god's meaning of sex, black magic, pedophilia, substance abuse, immoral wars the U.S. has participated in the past 150 years, and distractions from the realities of what is happening to America. Not just America but also Europe. During the mid 1990's, South Africa experienced a rise in ultra progressive politics which included the rise in prostitution, AIDS, crime, socialism, drug abuse, and sexual perversion. South Africa today has become an Anti-Christ nation wheres just decades before it had strong Christian Morals. I'm not defending Apartheid but just making the point that Post-Apartheid did not bring equality to South Africa but empowered the Left-Wing and Far-Left politics in power as superior over the rest. The African National Congress which won majority in the 1994 South Africa Post Apartheid elections was an ultra Left Wing party with Nelson Mandela having ties to Communist Parties. Mandela was a staunch Marxist and has throughout his entire life carried out his Marxist views throughout the ANC.
Australia, a more moral country suffered a Nazi style gun buy back scheme in 1996, emulating Hitler's 1935 dream of an unarmed civilianry "This year will go down in history! For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead in the future!" This nightmare became a reality as nobody in 1994 would ever think Australia would have more draconian gun control at the federal level than the United States. I've read Australia's constitution and there is no source of authority for such draconian gun control at the federal level. It took just a few decades for most of the Western World to enact Hitler's utopian gun ban of 1935.
Vladimir Lenin best said "Youth devoid of morals make best revolutionaries." The Anti-Christ is amongst us in multiple forms, just like the form of possession and deception Satan creates. Bill Clinton, Marylin Manson, Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, Aleister Crowley, Anton LaVey, Barack Obama, Lady Gaga, and many more have led North America to the highway to hell.
Jesus christ came to Earth to save sinners and bring compassion and kindness to humanity as God truly loved humanity after thousands of years of rejecting it for being capable of sin. An important event in this is a woman was about to be stoned for adultury but Jesus intervened and forgave her, just as God does today. Many take this forgiveness and mercy for granted and instead of seeing the light, they look away from it and choose the horrors that are abortion, homosexuality, "free sex", communism, socialism, etc.
The North, South, and West United States and Canada are culturally alien and the South is actually more socially conservative. Had the Confederate States of America not have been buried by the fascist GOP in the 1860's and 1870's, the Southern states would still be more socially conservative on christian levels. Abortion was legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 and yet states failed to even attempt nullification of this so called "Right to on demand abortion." It's not just powers of Congress that need to be limited but the judiciary in terms of what it can review. Dr. Ron Paul introduced a bill in Congress that would prohibit federal courts from legalizing or strengthening abortion, homosexuality, or most other social issues reserved for the states under the 10th amendment. Other issues must include crime, prositution, gambling, decency, etc.
I want to be clear that America was founded on Christian values and America today is run by new age occultists and that I don't favor making a law reacting to every immoral practice but want to make difference between bad vs. criminal choices. A bad choice is doing something that harms yourself and could indirectly affect others negatively. A criminal choice is disrupting natural order of life and looking back to state laws and federal laws of the early 19th century you will see patterns in how America was and how courts have embraced progressive judicial practices such as legalizing abortion, sodomy, more power for the federal government, burdonsome restrictions on victims rights, broader eminent domain, and now Gay Marriage.
Before the 1960's, there were laws in many states that encouraged marriage between a man and a woman and outlawed immoral sexual practices such as sodomy, fornication, adultury, and promiscuity. There are good reasons for doing so because our creator intended for sex to be an expression of love towards your soulmate, not a party game you can play without life altering consequences. Sex is a life altering experience that is meant for expression of love between a man and a woman. It is a method of bearing children. With abortion, countless women have foolishly decided to become whores and not consider consequences of their actions such as getting pregnant and leaving this beautiful unborn child god created to either be "aborted" at the hands of a cruel abortion doctor or grow up in a dysfunctional environment without the best form of family a child can have such as one with a mother and father. Divorce rates have skyrocketed since the late 60's thanks to so called "Sexual Liberation". What this sex party has done is create more pain and misery to people's lives and degraded them as wild animals. Humans have the ability to reason and people are taking God's gift of natural salvation for granted. There's already a pedophile organization dubbed NAMBLA advocating men have rights to have sex with young boys.
I also want to state that you can't automatically legislate morality but for me I like to allow laws of nature to guide us as our rights come from our creator. The Founding Fathers based America on christian principles because it was friendly twoards principles of liberty and justice while challenging how much power man can have. Liberals pretend to favor freedom but want a radical social revolution instead where people, especially youth start rejecting and forgeting the founding fathers Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin and instead worship far left terrorists like Che Gueverra.
Can good triumph over evil? God is the creator whereas Satan is the evil scum of the universe so good had the power to triumph over evil. Thomas Jefferson once said "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." If good christians fail to do enough to stop the evil that triumphed in the 1960's, this evil such as Roe vs. Wade of 1973 will continue to grow. Satan triumphs where Christians stand back. Christians and patriots must not be neutral to these Anti-American and Pro-Socialist injustices that have plagued youth of the late 1960's to today. It's time for North America to repent allowing Lucifer's posessed demons to indoctrinate good people and hope the Western World will do enough to stand up to their own governments and indoctrinators.
As any Christian should know there are two lords, one of which is our creators and the other Jesus Christ Our Savior. It was Good Friday that Christ died for humanity's sin with his own blood, giving us eternal spiritual life to those who go with him. Going with christ requires admission of you as the sinner as you are human and to believe that he took humanity's place to be condemned to die.
But what does the Gospel of Christs messages tell us? It tells us that God, Our Creator loved and cared for humanity so much that he sent his only true spiritual son Jesus Christ to teach gods word to the people and show them that god is a caring and loving god despite being so wrathful. There is a rival force to god's power and that is Satan, who was cast down from heaven for rebelling against God. Satan's force is to pass himself onto godhood. It is only he who created the universe that is true God. Satan represents lies and wickedness through darkness and burning flames. Another name for Satan is Lucifer, who is a fallen angel due to his rebellion against God. Lucifer and his fallen angels can take any form for purpose of deception. The Bible refers to Lucifer as a snake.
What does the Gospel of Christ tell us about God vs. Satan? It should tell us that Lucifer is waging a perpetual state of war against God and that our creator sent Christ to Earth to save us from Luciferian domination. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ served as a major defeat for evil as Christ's teaching helped influence society to become more enlightented and good. Luficer vowed to create an Anti-Christ to destroy this white light of joy shined on Earth by Lord Savior Jesus Christ.
How has christianity impacted Western civilization. Unlike Judism, Islam, Buddhism, Freemasonry, and Hinduism for examples, Christianity carries a simple message of good faith and truth, which tyrants like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, and Pol Pot for examples feared and despised. Communism(Marxism-Leninism-Maoism) and Nazism follow the path of death, tyranny, and self-rightiousness in belief they can become gods. Vladimir Lenin's rulership in the Soviet Communist Party as one of the start of a more bloody reign of terror with peasants having crops confiscated and ended up starving in Lenin's effort to destroy people's faith in god. The Bible of God has been suppressed for civilizations because it symbolizes a threat to the power of mankind over other human beings. Only faith in Lord Savior Jesus christ will save us from doom and destruction of Luciferian Hell.
How has America gone from freedom loving patriots to hellbound noids of Amerikans? Many North Americans and Europeans have little to no faith in the savior Jesus Christ, also the Prince of Peace who shed his own blood so humanity could be saved from lucifer and this can only happen if people accept this in truth and spirit. People have lost faith in christ and as a result were swept away by the occultists of the Illuminati, Satanism, Freemasonry, and Big government thanks to the Big Mainstream Media of talentless pop stars, ritualistic movie stars, and propaganda news anchors. The sins of homosexuality, communism, immoral perversion of god's meaning of sex, black magic, pedophilia, substance abuse, immoral wars the U.S. has participated in the past 150 years, and distractions from the realities of what is happening to America. Not just America but also Europe. During the mid 1990's, South Africa experienced a rise in ultra progressive politics which included the rise in prostitution, AIDS, crime, socialism, drug abuse, and sexual perversion. South Africa today has become an Anti-Christ nation wheres just decades before it had strong Christian Morals. I'm not defending Apartheid but just making the point that Post-Apartheid did not bring equality to South Africa but empowered the Left-Wing and Far-Left politics in power as superior over the rest. The African National Congress which won majority in the 1994 South Africa Post Apartheid elections was an ultra Left Wing party with Nelson Mandela having ties to Communist Parties. Mandela was a staunch Marxist and has throughout his entire life carried out his Marxist views throughout the ANC.
Australia, a more moral country suffered a Nazi style gun buy back scheme in 1996, emulating Hitler's 1935 dream of an unarmed civilianry "This year will go down in history! For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead in the future!" This nightmare became a reality as nobody in 1994 would ever think Australia would have more draconian gun control at the federal level than the United States. I've read Australia's constitution and there is no source of authority for such draconian gun control at the federal level. It took just a few decades for most of the Western World to enact Hitler's utopian gun ban of 1935.
Vladimir Lenin best said "Youth devoid of morals make best revolutionaries." The Anti-Christ is amongst us in multiple forms, just like the form of possession and deception Satan creates. Bill Clinton, Marylin Manson, Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, Aleister Crowley, Anton LaVey, Barack Obama, Lady Gaga, and many more have led North America to the highway to hell.
Jesus christ came to Earth to save sinners and bring compassion and kindness to humanity as God truly loved humanity after thousands of years of rejecting it for being capable of sin. An important event in this is a woman was about to be stoned for adultury but Jesus intervened and forgave her, just as God does today. Many take this forgiveness and mercy for granted and instead of seeing the light, they look away from it and choose the horrors that are abortion, homosexuality, "free sex", communism, socialism, etc.
The North, South, and West United States and Canada are culturally alien and the South is actually more socially conservative. Had the Confederate States of America not have been buried by the fascist GOP in the 1860's and 1870's, the Southern states would still be more socially conservative on christian levels. Abortion was legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 and yet states failed to even attempt nullification of this so called "Right to on demand abortion." It's not just powers of Congress that need to be limited but the judiciary in terms of what it can review. Dr. Ron Paul introduced a bill in Congress that would prohibit federal courts from legalizing or strengthening abortion, homosexuality, or most other social issues reserved for the states under the 10th amendment. Other issues must include crime, prositution, gambling, decency, etc.
I want to be clear that America was founded on Christian values and America today is run by new age occultists and that I don't favor making a law reacting to every immoral practice but want to make difference between bad vs. criminal choices. A bad choice is doing something that harms yourself and could indirectly affect others negatively. A criminal choice is disrupting natural order of life and looking back to state laws and federal laws of the early 19th century you will see patterns in how America was and how courts have embraced progressive judicial practices such as legalizing abortion, sodomy, more power for the federal government, burdonsome restrictions on victims rights, broader eminent domain, and now Gay Marriage.
Before the 1960's, there were laws in many states that encouraged marriage between a man and a woman and outlawed immoral sexual practices such as sodomy, fornication, adultury, and promiscuity. There are good reasons for doing so because our creator intended for sex to be an expression of love towards your soulmate, not a party game you can play without life altering consequences. Sex is a life altering experience that is meant for expression of love between a man and a woman. It is a method of bearing children. With abortion, countless women have foolishly decided to become whores and not consider consequences of their actions such as getting pregnant and leaving this beautiful unborn child god created to either be "aborted" at the hands of a cruel abortion doctor or grow up in a dysfunctional environment without the best form of family a child can have such as one with a mother and father. Divorce rates have skyrocketed since the late 60's thanks to so called "Sexual Liberation". What this sex party has done is create more pain and misery to people's lives and degraded them as wild animals. Humans have the ability to reason and people are taking God's gift of natural salvation for granted. There's already a pedophile organization dubbed NAMBLA advocating men have rights to have sex with young boys.
I also want to state that you can't automatically legislate morality but for me I like to allow laws of nature to guide us as our rights come from our creator. The Founding Fathers based America on christian principles because it was friendly twoards principles of liberty and justice while challenging how much power man can have. Liberals pretend to favor freedom but want a radical social revolution instead where people, especially youth start rejecting and forgeting the founding fathers Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin and instead worship far left terrorists like Che Gueverra.
Can good triumph over evil? God is the creator whereas Satan is the evil scum of the universe so good had the power to triumph over evil. Thomas Jefferson once said "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." If good christians fail to do enough to stop the evil that triumphed in the 1960's, this evil such as Roe vs. Wade of 1973 will continue to grow. Satan triumphs where Christians stand back. Christians and patriots must not be neutral to these Anti-American and Pro-Socialist injustices that have plagued youth of the late 1960's to today. It's time for North America to repent allowing Lucifer's posessed demons to indoctrinate good people and hope the Western World will do enough to stand up to their own governments and indoctrinators.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Laws mean what they say & intended to be
How should the U.S. Constitution be interpreted? Can the judiciary be trusted to interpret correctly? What does the constitution say about nullifying federal laws?
Answers include interpreting based on text & original pattern of intent. But how could the constitution be interpreted? Based on historical analysis, I can conclude the framers intent was to restrict the federal government to enumerated powers while the 10th amendment clearly states everything else not delegated to federal government NOR prohibited by the states rest within state/local governments as well as the people.
How has the US Supreme Court ruled in regards to this? Certainly the judiciary hasn't been of much help & no branch in the federal government was trustworthy enough to correct such constitutional violations. Having the supreme court be final dictorium on law is like having one branch of a corporation be the arbitraitor in a suit brought against another branch.
Who decides the constitutionality of something? The U.S. Constitution mentions ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about final arbitration, leaving that up to the states/people as reinforced by the 10th amendment. The US Supreme Court only asserted in Madbury vs. Madison that it had the power to eliminate laws of congress found to be unconstitutional. They did not declare themselves final masters of laws. Subsequent rulings relating to Congressional powers relates to defining what the constitution means with some blemishes. The Marshall court played a pivotal role in upholding US National Bank & defining the true definition of Commerce Clause in Odgens vs. Gibbons. Odgen vs. Gibbons struck down a New York law granting exclusive steamboat rights for intrastate commerce. It was struck down in order to make way for reinforcing the federal government's role in maintaining a unified free trade zone amongst U.S. states.
The Commerce Clause evolved to restrict individual behavior thanks to judicial activism. Regulate meant to make regular such as unifying trade boundaries between states. Odgen vs. Gibbons was a great example of the true intent of the commerce clause because it stated New York could not allow monopolies of intrastate commerce over interstate. Other Commerce Clauses favoring the federal government are false unless they are in line with Odgens vs. gibbons precedent of making commerce regular.
Think about this now. The constitution has provision to amend it and the only successfully ammended part restricting individual behavior(exception of slavery) is 18th amendment federalizing alcohol prohibition, which would be repealed in 1933 after nearly 14 years. there were a few others such as regulation of child labor but only one prohibition/regulation general in nature passed as a constitutional amendment. There is no federal power to regulate labor, firearms, drugs, sexual practices, education, health care, etc. meaning for examples what Obama was pushing for his state of the Union Address including gun control, education, minimum wage, and climate change are all unconstitutional, even if they do have good intentions. However, neither are examples of reasons for federal intervention.
The Framers were not entirely pragmatic but were smart enough to outline the powers of the federal government in a way it could be as limited to necessary functions states were not usually accustomed to. The framers also distinguished with what the states couldn't do in article one, section 10 such as declaring war, bills of attainer, letters of marque, ex post facto, payment in anything other than gold/silver tonnage. If you've been told state courts cannot declare certain actions of the federal government unconstitutional, then article one, section 10 and the 10th amendment state otherwise as there is nothing in article one, section 10 or article four that prohibit states from restricting the actions of the federal government as the 10th amendment reinforces this. For example, Missouri & Texas are planning to nullify ALL federal gun control laws and Virginia is planning to make Gold legal tender. There is nowhere in the constitution that the federal government can have veto power over the states unless the states are clearly prohibited under the constitution from doing so.
Madbury vs. Madison in 1803 was the most landmark supreme court case ruling the Supreme Court has the power under article III of judicial review. But do the courts truly under article III have the near absolute power to judicial review? The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule in 1803 that it had final say on legal matters. Article III blueprints the judiciary and it's authority. Congress has the power to set jurisdiction of the federal judiciary wheres the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is stated in article III. The federal judiciary is overinvolved in state matters ranging from abortion to crime. Perhaps an infamous case in 1973 Roe vs. Wade with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling 7-2 a woman had a right to obtain an abortion, completely overriding state powers to protect the unborn, had been the case in nearly every U.S. state for over 150 years. Lawrence vs. Texas in 2003 legalized sodomy by consenting adults(even homosexual couples) despite there being no historical or constitutional basis of such a ruling. The 14th amendment has been abused to strike down state laws that had been acceptable close to the founding era.
Concluding line here is the constitution means what it says & it does not mention the federal government having the power to override state laws unless states are specifically prohibited from doing so in the constitution. why do you think the framers made it more specific in article one, section 10 of what the states couldn't do vs. what the federal government could do in article one section 8? My analysis says this so as not to be confused with the federal government abusing it's power over the states and people while reinforcing what's important the states shouldn't end up doing such as declaring war for example. For example this means Texas can override federal gun control laws but cannot declare war on Mexico. Plus, if states are prohibited from using anything but gold/silver as legal tender, why is the U.S. Dollar forced on as a fiat currency?
Answers include interpreting based on text & original pattern of intent. But how could the constitution be interpreted? Based on historical analysis, I can conclude the framers intent was to restrict the federal government to enumerated powers while the 10th amendment clearly states everything else not delegated to federal government NOR prohibited by the states rest within state/local governments as well as the people.
How has the US Supreme Court ruled in regards to this? Certainly the judiciary hasn't been of much help & no branch in the federal government was trustworthy enough to correct such constitutional violations. Having the supreme court be final dictorium on law is like having one branch of a corporation be the arbitraitor in a suit brought against another branch.
Who decides the constitutionality of something? The U.S. Constitution mentions ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about final arbitration, leaving that up to the states/people as reinforced by the 10th amendment. The US Supreme Court only asserted in Madbury vs. Madison that it had the power to eliminate laws of congress found to be unconstitutional. They did not declare themselves final masters of laws. Subsequent rulings relating to Congressional powers relates to defining what the constitution means with some blemishes. The Marshall court played a pivotal role in upholding US National Bank & defining the true definition of Commerce Clause in Odgens vs. Gibbons. Odgen vs. Gibbons struck down a New York law granting exclusive steamboat rights for intrastate commerce. It was struck down in order to make way for reinforcing the federal government's role in maintaining a unified free trade zone amongst U.S. states.
The Commerce Clause evolved to restrict individual behavior thanks to judicial activism. Regulate meant to make regular such as unifying trade boundaries between states. Odgen vs. Gibbons was a great example of the true intent of the commerce clause because it stated New York could not allow monopolies of intrastate commerce over interstate. Other Commerce Clauses favoring the federal government are false unless they are in line with Odgens vs. gibbons precedent of making commerce regular.
Think about this now. The constitution has provision to amend it and the only successfully ammended part restricting individual behavior(exception of slavery) is 18th amendment federalizing alcohol prohibition, which would be repealed in 1933 after nearly 14 years. there were a few others such as regulation of child labor but only one prohibition/regulation general in nature passed as a constitutional amendment. There is no federal power to regulate labor, firearms, drugs, sexual practices, education, health care, etc. meaning for examples what Obama was pushing for his state of the Union Address including gun control, education, minimum wage, and climate change are all unconstitutional, even if they do have good intentions. However, neither are examples of reasons for federal intervention.
The Framers were not entirely pragmatic but were smart enough to outline the powers of the federal government in a way it could be as limited to necessary functions states were not usually accustomed to. The framers also distinguished with what the states couldn't do in article one, section 10 such as declaring war, bills of attainer, letters of marque, ex post facto, payment in anything other than gold/silver tonnage. If you've been told state courts cannot declare certain actions of the federal government unconstitutional, then article one, section 10 and the 10th amendment state otherwise as there is nothing in article one, section 10 or article four that prohibit states from restricting the actions of the federal government as the 10th amendment reinforces this. For example, Missouri & Texas are planning to nullify ALL federal gun control laws and Virginia is planning to make Gold legal tender. There is nowhere in the constitution that the federal government can have veto power over the states unless the states are clearly prohibited under the constitution from doing so.
Madbury vs. Madison in 1803 was the most landmark supreme court case ruling the Supreme Court has the power under article III of judicial review. But do the courts truly under article III have the near absolute power to judicial review? The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule in 1803 that it had final say on legal matters. Article III blueprints the judiciary and it's authority. Congress has the power to set jurisdiction of the federal judiciary wheres the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is stated in article III. The federal judiciary is overinvolved in state matters ranging from abortion to crime. Perhaps an infamous case in 1973 Roe vs. Wade with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling 7-2 a woman had a right to obtain an abortion, completely overriding state powers to protect the unborn, had been the case in nearly every U.S. state for over 150 years. Lawrence vs. Texas in 2003 legalized sodomy by consenting adults(even homosexual couples) despite there being no historical or constitutional basis of such a ruling. The 14th amendment has been abused to strike down state laws that had been acceptable close to the founding era.
Concluding line here is the constitution means what it says & it does not mention the federal government having the power to override state laws unless states are specifically prohibited from doing so in the constitution. why do you think the framers made it more specific in article one, section 10 of what the states couldn't do vs. what the federal government could do in article one section 8? My analysis says this so as not to be confused with the federal government abusing it's power over the states and people while reinforcing what's important the states shouldn't end up doing such as declaring war for example. For example this means Texas can override federal gun control laws but cannot declare war on Mexico. Plus, if states are prohibited from using anything but gold/silver as legal tender, why is the U.S. Dollar forced on as a fiat currency?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)