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!
Monday, August 19, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)