"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.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
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?
Monday, March 11, 2013
Non-Violent Ways of Killing DC
Have you ever thought why Republicans & Democrats always win? Factors include election flaws such as:
Who's counting the votes?
Is there government funding involved?
How does society accept two parties?
Plus, civil disobedience should be respected as a right if it is done peacefully & with respects to the rights & property of others. Hopefully this will screen the difference between rioters looting shops vs. refusal to send kids to government schools.
First, elections & why faith has been lost. It's easy to see the nature behind elections & their outcomes depend on how they're manipulated. For example, it depends on how candidates are qualified. Qualifications for office are outlined in Constitutions & all others giving preferential treatment to major parties contradicts fairness of elections. For example, there is nothing in the constitution allowing two party states. Having major party status is nowhere in any of the state or federal constitutions & any candidate qualified under state/federal constitutions is qualified.
Second, counting of votes. Josef Stalin(USSR Ruler) said "It is not one who casts the votes but one who counts the votes". As much as Stalin was the totalitarian ruler of Soviet Union, this statement is correct. Voting machines & secret untrustworthy organizations have voted for you whether you agree with them or not. No wonder it's favored a two party system for so long! How come countries like Netherlands, Brazil, & New Zealand have better elections & better hope for all candidates but Americans suffer the same two party rule the same way Soviet subjects suffered one party rule by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In 1986, the Phillippines had dual vote counting organizations in it's presidential election. Incumbent Ferdinand Marcos was declared winner over opponent Corazon Aquino as counted by the Elections Commission which was a governmental organization. The National Citizens' Movement for Free Elections however declared Aquino winner by a narrow margin, ending Marcos 20 year reign. A revolt against Marcos began with Aquino becoming president. This wasn't done without militant revolt. Democracy advocates had to enforce the fair elections themselves & were successful at ousting Marcos after the three day People Power Revolution(Feb 22-25, 1986). One month later, the Phillipine government officially recognized the Elections Commissions election null & void, therefore accepting Aquino as president.
If Americans would do the same thing in demanding a non governmental organization trustworthy & dedicated to fair elections in counting the votes with paper ballots & freeing candidacy for ALL candidates, regardless of political party(not just Republicans & Democrats). If this were to be the case & Americans were to be armed to the teeth, such a revolution would be easier to win with police & military fearing armed citizens shooting at them! No wonder Democrats & some Republicans want your guns!
Third, government funding of political parties. This is NOWHERE to be found in the U.S. Constitution yet the FEC funds both major parties. It seems tax resistence is the best option since without revenue, no funding of political parties. IRS comes down with a heavy hand but Joe Stack on Feb 28, 2010 came down with one too on IRS snake Vernon Hunter. Why have Democrats & Republicans been able to get votes but not Libertarian, Constitution, & Green parties for examples? The money comes secretly from DC.
Pause here & imagine how the political structure would be like if U.S. elections were like the ones in the Netherlands, Brazil, & New Zealand.
Legislatures would have multiple political parties without the three evils of our elections. Examples would include congress having majority of members be from Libertarian, Constitution, & Green Parties with numerous others & independents being behind but having the same opportunities not afforded before such a revolution occurs.
If ANY more gun control laws were to pass, they would be unenforcable due to strains on resources & inability to achieve effectiveness. Had there been massive civil disobedience to gun control laws decades ago, there would be no federal gun control laws in effect. Sadly enough people until recently have been obey & supporting such gun control laws.
For those enforcing fair elections I suggest being armed & dangerous like rival law enforcement are. Dozens of firearms dealers are refusing to sell weapons to state law enforcement which doesn't respect gun rights. Plus, I commend brave people like Franklin Sain of Colorado for threatning Communist State Rep. Rhonda Fields warning her not to pass gun control! Of course, I don't really support death threats but just those that distract gun grabbers from holding their gun grabbing conferences!
Gradual secession is another way to do things such as for example neo-confederates seceding from the U.S. themselves & inviting anyone wanting to join. More people will join & eventually the new Confederate States will eliminate U.S. claims over the South. However the first thing that's neede3d is a strong defense & the ideal weapons for this are either semi or fully automatic rifles with no less than 30 rounds per magazine clips, semi or fully automatic pistols, & turret/gattling guns. Weapon strength increases defense & that's why gun grabbers want to limit your rounds & ban semi automatic weapons. Had the Confederacy had better weapons than the Union, the former would have won the Civil War!
Time to say ENOUGH! Demand a plan to secede & defend with fair elections counted by trustworthy NGO. Don't let history repeat itself by not supporting people's right to have fully automatic weapons & hollow point bullets capable of firing over 150 rounds. Gun control is never about curbing crime but curbing freedom.
Who's counting the votes?
Is there government funding involved?
How does society accept two parties?
Plus, civil disobedience should be respected as a right if it is done peacefully & with respects to the rights & property of others. Hopefully this will screen the difference between rioters looting shops vs. refusal to send kids to government schools.
First, elections & why faith has been lost. It's easy to see the nature behind elections & their outcomes depend on how they're manipulated. For example, it depends on how candidates are qualified. Qualifications for office are outlined in Constitutions & all others giving preferential treatment to major parties contradicts fairness of elections. For example, there is nothing in the constitution allowing two party states. Having major party status is nowhere in any of the state or federal constitutions & any candidate qualified under state/federal constitutions is qualified.
Second, counting of votes. Josef Stalin(USSR Ruler) said "It is not one who casts the votes but one who counts the votes". As much as Stalin was the totalitarian ruler of Soviet Union, this statement is correct. Voting machines & secret untrustworthy organizations have voted for you whether you agree with them or not. No wonder it's favored a two party system for so long! How come countries like Netherlands, Brazil, & New Zealand have better elections & better hope for all candidates but Americans suffer the same two party rule the same way Soviet subjects suffered one party rule by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In 1986, the Phillippines had dual vote counting organizations in it's presidential election. Incumbent Ferdinand Marcos was declared winner over opponent Corazon Aquino as counted by the Elections Commission which was a governmental organization. The National Citizens' Movement for Free Elections however declared Aquino winner by a narrow margin, ending Marcos 20 year reign. A revolt against Marcos began with Aquino becoming president. This wasn't done without militant revolt. Democracy advocates had to enforce the fair elections themselves & were successful at ousting Marcos after the three day People Power Revolution(Feb 22-25, 1986). One month later, the Phillipine government officially recognized the Elections Commissions election null & void, therefore accepting Aquino as president.
If Americans would do the same thing in demanding a non governmental organization trustworthy & dedicated to fair elections in counting the votes with paper ballots & freeing candidacy for ALL candidates, regardless of political party(not just Republicans & Democrats). If this were to be the case & Americans were to be armed to the teeth, such a revolution would be easier to win with police & military fearing armed citizens shooting at them! No wonder Democrats & some Republicans want your guns!
Third, government funding of political parties. This is NOWHERE to be found in the U.S. Constitution yet the FEC funds both major parties. It seems tax resistence is the best option since without revenue, no funding of political parties. IRS comes down with a heavy hand but Joe Stack on Feb 28, 2010 came down with one too on IRS snake Vernon Hunter. Why have Democrats & Republicans been able to get votes but not Libertarian, Constitution, & Green parties for examples? The money comes secretly from DC.
Pause here & imagine how the political structure would be like if U.S. elections were like the ones in the Netherlands, Brazil, & New Zealand.
Legislatures would have multiple political parties without the three evils of our elections. Examples would include congress having majority of members be from Libertarian, Constitution, & Green Parties with numerous others & independents being behind but having the same opportunities not afforded before such a revolution occurs.
If ANY more gun control laws were to pass, they would be unenforcable due to strains on resources & inability to achieve effectiveness. Had there been massive civil disobedience to gun control laws decades ago, there would be no federal gun control laws in effect. Sadly enough people until recently have been obey & supporting such gun control laws.
For those enforcing fair elections I suggest being armed & dangerous like rival law enforcement are. Dozens of firearms dealers are refusing to sell weapons to state law enforcement which doesn't respect gun rights. Plus, I commend brave people like Franklin Sain of Colorado for threatning Communist State Rep. Rhonda Fields warning her not to pass gun control! Of course, I don't really support death threats but just those that distract gun grabbers from holding their gun grabbing conferences!
Gradual secession is another way to do things such as for example neo-confederates seceding from the U.S. themselves & inviting anyone wanting to join. More people will join & eventually the new Confederate States will eliminate U.S. claims over the South. However the first thing that's neede3d is a strong defense & the ideal weapons for this are either semi or fully automatic rifles with no less than 30 rounds per magazine clips, semi or fully automatic pistols, & turret/gattling guns. Weapon strength increases defense & that's why gun grabbers want to limit your rounds & ban semi automatic weapons. Had the Confederacy had better weapons than the Union, the former would have won the Civil War!
Time to say ENOUGH! Demand a plan to secede & defend with fair elections counted by trustworthy NGO. Don't let history repeat itself by not supporting people's right to have fully automatic weapons & hollow point bullets capable of firing over 150 rounds. Gun control is never about curbing crime but curbing freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)