With Socialists winning many elections despite their obvious failures, how come they are voted for with 60-70% of votes? Voters have handouts on the line despite alternatives existing to replace the failing welfare systems. Social security was paid for by individuals through social security tax and we could simply stock up on firearms and ammunition to resist law enforcement officers trying to harm us for resisting a tyrannical tax code. Isn't the right to keep and bear arms meant to secure us from a rogue government?
Plus, what if universal healthcare worked like public defender system established more often after Gideon vs. Wainwright(1963)? You don't have people worrying about losing that should conservatives win elections. The judiciary is there to deal with more sensitive issues that require non-partisanship such as unalienable rights. The judiciary however won't act human in such as reason being a basis for decisions.
What it's come down to is giving government more power that many won't normally accept but feel they are outgunned. I feel people don't take a stand and they should because it would send a message that we don't need permission from government for our rights to be protected.
One of our rights I must mention is Right to Petition Government for redress Grievances. What it means is someone files a complaint against government and expects redress for any grievance committed by government against people. The Founders never expected people to rely on politics to secure their freedoms since politics are often abused. Even the justice system is slovenly and judges undeserving of having the title "Honorable" in front of their names. What Petitioning for redress of grievences means is having your complaint heard and addressed impartially so you don't have to have rights put at the mercy of law enforcement officers, politicians, and lawyers.
Plus, if more people like Cookie Thornton, Joseph Kane, Jerry Kane Jr., and Carl Drega took a stand in their respective events and had only been smarter in resistance such as more powerful firearms, law enforcement and government would get the message more clearly than by using words. People need to stop viewing people like Thornton and Kane as sick individuals and be reminded of the brave Patriots who shot British troops indiscriminately in the 1770's and how freedom sometimes can only be defended by shooting police officers and armed force members on the tyrant's side. How can people forsake that as a mere memory when had it not been for Patriots having better weapons than the British army, the British would have won. Tyrants like Adolf Hitler have preferred gun control as means to control people.
Plus, the artificially high cost and rarity of finding the same firearms jack booted thugs like the BATFE, who have fucking machine guns while the easiest people to acquire them are gangs. The BATFE is a vile, hoplophobic gang that opposes the true meaning of keep and bear arms! Armed citizens pose a threat to tyranny and preserve free society. It was April 19, 1775 where citizens used firearms to prevent their confiscation, starting the American Revolution. Why can't people open fire on law enforcement thugs enforcing tyrannical laws? If just a handful of gun dealers refused to be licensed by the BATFE, gun control would be ineffective.
Once they deprive people means of having superior firearms than government, whats to stop tyranny? Will our other rights be protected? Good luck with the appeals since your rights will only be in the hands of government employees who need to be harmed severely. Do you think judges have been guardians of liberty or enemies? What did Thomas Jefferson say about judges? “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
Who is the final arbitrator? The people of course. I'm not talking about murderers, rapists, robbers, thieves, and tyrants. I'm talking about the liberty defending folk willing to fight for freedom the same way the Sons of Liberty in the Continential Army did during the American Revolution and the Allied Troops of World War II. We need people like these fighting law enforcement thugs and defending our freedoms from our own government.
What can we do to weaken and undermine tyrannical government while freeing imprisoned freedom fighters? We can first reject the legitimacy of government action as Thomas Jefferson stated in the 1797 Kentucky resolutions "
“That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
This means people can and should fight law enforcement officers enforcing such laws which abridge our freedoms. Others should save imprisoned comrades to send the tyrants a powerful message, which will also terrify and embarrass the courts. Plus, why hasn't the militia movement grown to the strength of Al-Qaeda. Had Timothy McVeigh been more influential than Osama Bin Laden, tyrannical government wouldn't be a major problem and people would assert their rights more.
There are so many undelegated powers government assumes such as deciding who owns a gun, what speech is fair, what constitutes a fair trial, what sentence is fair, and what we drink and what age we consume alcohol and cannabis. How can you resist tyranny if your rights to firearms are limited so government has an unfair advantage. the people need a stronger advantage since they outrank government.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Monday, October 7, 2013
Syria Under Seige: The New Axis of Evil and the Darkness of Islam
As well known, Obama is eager to support the Al-Qaeda rebels in Syria against the Assad Government. John McCain falsely claims these rebels are heroes and moderates when in fact these rebels resemble the Bolsheviks of 1917 if they terrorized Christians.
However, the real issue is whether involvement in Syria is a US matter. For one, Free Syrian Army rebels are Al-Qaeda. Second, the Islamist rebels are launching a genocidal campaign against the Christians. Finally, the plans for Syria after overthrowing Assad include the establishment of a totalitarian Islamic State much like Iran and Taliban Afghanistan.
this Axis of evil includes Obama's USA, Erdogan's Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Muslim brotherhood, and more. Don't forget most of these rebels hold anti-Western sentiment. Supporting them would be like Jews supporting Nazi Germany. Not to condone crimes committed by either side but the fact of the matter is Assad did not use chemical weapons while Al-Qaedan rebels did. So many questions to be asked here as to why beautiful women such as the now McCain stooge Elizabeth O'Bagy is blessing the Al-Qaeda rebels. Don't people know that Islam was born from the sword of force? Many of the hate preaching Mullahs and Imans have lied to the Muslim World to retain power. Many Muslim Countries were once part of Roman Civilization. The Levant(Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Cyprus, and Sinai Egypt) and North Africa(Egypt & Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Western Sahara) and Caucasus region used to be Western Civilized. It was thanks to Islamic conquerers that they became Islamic. If only people knew the dark history of Islam as a death cult beyond it's kneeling head towards floor prayers to the Moon God Allah and Arab culture. Before Islam, much of the Levant and North Africa was like Europe with Western Roman Civilization(France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Tunisia, Britain, Austria-Hungary, Southern Germany) being Roman Catholic(exception of Britain after 16th century which became Angelican-Protestant) and Eastern Roman Civilization(Balkan States, Greece, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Cyprus, Jordan, Caucasus, and Egypt-Sudan) being Eastern Orthodox. Angelicanism, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy are Christian denominations. Parts of Northern Saudi Arabia used to be part of Roman Civilization.
To understand how Islam became the deadly virus it has been, you must understand it's origins. I'm not preaching hate but nothing but the cold hard truth and the truth is Islam was created by one intolerant and sinful being on the Arabian Peninsula. Mohammed's early life was filled with hardships as he became an orphan as a young child and after being with his grandfather, he stayed with his hard-working uncle and cruel aunt after Mohammed's grandfather died. Mohammed's hardships as a child contributed to his mysogeny and lust for money, power, and sex. Jesus Christ was the only being born without sin, having been born of a virgin(St. Mary) and performing many miracles such as turning water into wine, walking on water, and healing a blind man. Mohammed never did any of the wonderful things Jesus accomplished. Mohammed lived his life as a robber, murder, thief, and sexual deviant while Jesus lived without sin. God is very clear that he has a son while Mohammed lived like any sinner. Mohammed even admitted he was a sinner. Islam was created by Mohammed in 610 when he claimed the angel Gabriel came to him in a cave(which was used to stash Mohammed's loot). When the Jewish and Christian tribes of Mecca and Medina refused to accept Mohammed's message, he waged war against the Meccans and Medinans with forced conversions to Islam. Mohammed even married and had sexual relations with a 6-9 year old girl named Aisha when he was between the ages of 45-52. Aisha was the daughter of Mohammed's disciple Abu Bakr(who became the first Caliph of Islam after Mohammed's death in 632).
Jesus never led armies but had one mission which is to preach a new beginning of love and forgiveness. As Jesus died on the cross in Judea, Palestine he forgave the thief on the cross simply because that thief acknowleged only Jesus could forgive sin. God chose to conceive a son of his own instead of calling on any prophet for the ultimate mission of forgiveness because any other prophet would be sinners. Jesus Christ warned of false prophets and Mohammed was one of them. What is with many Muslims who accept Mohammed as a perfect example even though he was a mere sinner who died in 632 without Christ. This would make Mohammed the Anti-Christ of his time. An Anti-Christ who would help gradually destroy traces of a tolerant civilization where Christians and Jews lived without sectarian conflicts. Martin Luther, the father of Germanic seperatism(Lutheranism) would call Mohammed "First born son of Satan." Luther was right. Mohammed was full of demonic sin, violating nearly ever commandment laid down by God, including idolatry(Moon God Allah), Murder(against non-believers), Theft(against non-believers), Adulery and Sexual Demons(Polygamy and Child Bride Aisha), and even lying to non-believers to promote Islam as a religion of peace when in fact history and actions of Islamic Fundamentalists tell otherwise. Well after Mohammed's death, his legacy of forced conversions and sectarian hatred and violence against non-believers expanded well beyond the Arabian Peninsula into the Zorostarian Persia, Eastern Orthodox Levant and Balkan Peninsula, and even as far as the Iberian Peninsula.
The Islamic Caliphates were counter-attacked by the Crusades of the 11th-13th century and Spanish Inquisition of the 16th century. What the Crusaders did was attempt to restore Western Civilization to it's former Roman glory which was somewhat successful but somewhat a failure. The Spanish Inquisition however was more successful but harsh as it was more of giving birth to Spanish nationalism under Queen Isabella of Catille and King Ferdinand. Though the Inquisition went too far such as forced conversions, it did establish Roman Catholicism as the national religion of many Roman European countries. What history should have been was having the Levant, North Africa, Balkan Peninsula, Caucasus, Arabia, and Persia being liberated from Islamic rule. However, Arabia and persia were not considered part of Roman Civilization. The Crusades and Spanish Inquisition serve as prime examples of history where Islam met strong resistance. Had Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand not pursuded the nationalist Inquisition, Spain and many other Roman Western Countries wouldn't be Western Civilized. Western Civilizations in the Old World other than Roman include the Germanic, Celtic, Anglo, Nordic, and Slavic Civilizations. Germanic Civilizations include Germany, Austria, Netherlands, South Africa, Great Britain, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Flanders, and Poland.
What should be done about Syria? Better yet, what if the Middle East was westernized and the ignorant savages were kept under the control of Western powers and the Muslim Brotherhood destroyed? If it weren't for Islam, Egypt would be a Coptic Orthodox state like the Papal States but have a Pharoah as head of state monarch, Coptic Pope as Head of the upper house of bishops, and a Prime Minister of the lower house which would follow the line of parliamentary democracy plus having some Anglo roots. Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco would be Roman Catholic republics with Libya being mostly Italian, Tunisia and Algeria being mostly French, and Morocco being a blend of Spanish and French roots. Lebanon and Syria have their own versions of Christianity being the Meronite and Melkonite Catholic sects but also share Greek Orthodox roots. Turkey is supposed to be a secular and nationalist republic but before the fall of Constantinople in 1453, turkey was mostly Greek Orthodox so Turkey should have their own Orthodox church dubbed Turkish Orthodox.
If it weren't for Islam, most of the Arab and Levant world would have the same standards of living as Western Europe and North America. Reality is the only Muslim country in the World to be a 1st world country is Turkey, due to rejecting jihad and sharia and endorsing modernization and Western ideals.
I know this blog post isn't talking directly much about Syria but the fact of the matter is Islam is most certainly NOT a religion of peace but I don't say that about all Muslims. I'm saying here is that Islam is a cult that centers around one sinner, Mohammed. Most people are Muslims because they fear violent retaliation if they reject and/or leave Islam, plus many Muslim's ancestors from the 7th century were forced to convert to Islam or face dire consequences at the hand of a bloody sword. Also keep in mind I don't harbor resentment against Muslims who oppose the totalitarian tyranny of Sharia law and jihad. I do however show resentment towards the cult of death known as Islam and it's many hypocrisies, lies, and arrogance that are supported by history dating back from as far as Mohammed's childhood and rise as so called "prophet".
What also makes Islam a Pagan religion is one, part of Islam includes worship of the moon god Allah, which has been worshiped since ancient civilization, two, it offers very little to no forgiveness for humanity with goals for World domination and subjugation of all other faiths and cultures, and three, was the brainchild of one sinner's imagination and bias, Mohammed.
What I think Islam is, is a merger of the Pagan Moon God worship(Allah) of Arabian culture and the cult of Mohammed. Most Islamic values are centered around Mohammed's life, making it mostly a cult similar to Jim Jones' Peoples Temple and Warren Jeffs' FLDS. All men are/were sinners and many Imans and Mullahs know Mohammed was a sinner and while they acknowledge Mohammed did the sins he did, they blindly follow his "perfect" example so as to not offend Mohammed's image. The people who wrote the Holy Bible scriptures over the thousands of years were sinners(except Jesus Christ). Jesus never asked for money or pity since his mission on Earth was to bring forgiveness to sinners.
Islam is mostly Arabian culture as you can tell the difference between Arabian and Roman cultures. Islamists celebrate the 1453 Fall of Constantinople and prey for a Caliph of Islam to destroy the West just as their ancestors did centuries before. If North Africa and the Levant are supposed to be Arab states, what about Portugal, Spain, Greece, Southern Italy, Cyprus, Armenia, and the Balkan states for example? I could imagine had Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand not have heroically re-Westernized Spain what Spain would be like. People speaking Arabic instead of Portuguese, Spanish, Greek, Italian, and other Balkan languages. Turkey has it's own language and culture separate from that of Arabia.
Let's face it, the Syrian rebels just like other Islamists do harm to other religions and cultures to not only dominate them but remove traces of Christian culture for example to further cement Arab-Islamic rule. You see terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas call for the extermination of the Jews so the Islamists could further cement their rule outside of Arabia and rule the World.
Conclusion on what Islam is. It's mostly an Arabian belief concocted by Mohammed to state that Arabs are the supreme rulers of the World and so called "Allah" has commanded the Muslims-Arabians conquer the World for Allah. That's the same mentality Adolf Hitler brought when he came to power and eventually invaded and conquered much of Europe. The Nazis and Islamists share the same goals of World Domination and Antisemitism. The Crusades on the other hand related more to the Western Allies of World War II rather than invaders since they were reclaiming Arab conquered lands. The Arab Muslims wanted to conquer the known World while the Crusaders wanted to reclaim their Christian Holy Lands in Europe, North Africa, and the Levant.
Reality is that the Arab World should only consist of the Arabian Peninsula based on both the political and geographical definitions while that West of it consists of Roman Civilization and East of it consists of Persia.
However, the real issue is whether involvement in Syria is a US matter. For one, Free Syrian Army rebels are Al-Qaeda. Second, the Islamist rebels are launching a genocidal campaign against the Christians. Finally, the plans for Syria after overthrowing Assad include the establishment of a totalitarian Islamic State much like Iran and Taliban Afghanistan.
this Axis of evil includes Obama's USA, Erdogan's Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Muslim brotherhood, and more. Don't forget most of these rebels hold anti-Western sentiment. Supporting them would be like Jews supporting Nazi Germany. Not to condone crimes committed by either side but the fact of the matter is Assad did not use chemical weapons while Al-Qaedan rebels did. So many questions to be asked here as to why beautiful women such as the now McCain stooge Elizabeth O'Bagy is blessing the Al-Qaeda rebels. Don't people know that Islam was born from the sword of force? Many of the hate preaching Mullahs and Imans have lied to the Muslim World to retain power. Many Muslim Countries were once part of Roman Civilization. The Levant(Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Cyprus, and Sinai Egypt) and North Africa(Egypt & Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Western Sahara) and Caucasus region used to be Western Civilized. It was thanks to Islamic conquerers that they became Islamic. If only people knew the dark history of Islam as a death cult beyond it's kneeling head towards floor prayers to the Moon God Allah and Arab culture. Before Islam, much of the Levant and North Africa was like Europe with Western Roman Civilization(France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Tunisia, Britain, Austria-Hungary, Southern Germany) being Roman Catholic(exception of Britain after 16th century which became Angelican-Protestant) and Eastern Roman Civilization(Balkan States, Greece, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Cyprus, Jordan, Caucasus, and Egypt-Sudan) being Eastern Orthodox. Angelicanism, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy are Christian denominations. Parts of Northern Saudi Arabia used to be part of Roman Civilization.
To understand how Islam became the deadly virus it has been, you must understand it's origins. I'm not preaching hate but nothing but the cold hard truth and the truth is Islam was created by one intolerant and sinful being on the Arabian Peninsula. Mohammed's early life was filled with hardships as he became an orphan as a young child and after being with his grandfather, he stayed with his hard-working uncle and cruel aunt after Mohammed's grandfather died. Mohammed's hardships as a child contributed to his mysogeny and lust for money, power, and sex. Jesus Christ was the only being born without sin, having been born of a virgin(St. Mary) and performing many miracles such as turning water into wine, walking on water, and healing a blind man. Mohammed never did any of the wonderful things Jesus accomplished. Mohammed lived his life as a robber, murder, thief, and sexual deviant while Jesus lived without sin. God is very clear that he has a son while Mohammed lived like any sinner. Mohammed even admitted he was a sinner. Islam was created by Mohammed in 610 when he claimed the angel Gabriel came to him in a cave(which was used to stash Mohammed's loot). When the Jewish and Christian tribes of Mecca and Medina refused to accept Mohammed's message, he waged war against the Meccans and Medinans with forced conversions to Islam. Mohammed even married and had sexual relations with a 6-9 year old girl named Aisha when he was between the ages of 45-52. Aisha was the daughter of Mohammed's disciple Abu Bakr(who became the first Caliph of Islam after Mohammed's death in 632).
Jesus never led armies but had one mission which is to preach a new beginning of love and forgiveness. As Jesus died on the cross in Judea, Palestine he forgave the thief on the cross simply because that thief acknowleged only Jesus could forgive sin. God chose to conceive a son of his own instead of calling on any prophet for the ultimate mission of forgiveness because any other prophet would be sinners. Jesus Christ warned of false prophets and Mohammed was one of them. What is with many Muslims who accept Mohammed as a perfect example even though he was a mere sinner who died in 632 without Christ. This would make Mohammed the Anti-Christ of his time. An Anti-Christ who would help gradually destroy traces of a tolerant civilization where Christians and Jews lived without sectarian conflicts. Martin Luther, the father of Germanic seperatism(Lutheranism) would call Mohammed "First born son of Satan." Luther was right. Mohammed was full of demonic sin, violating nearly ever commandment laid down by God, including idolatry(Moon God Allah), Murder(against non-believers), Theft(against non-believers), Adulery and Sexual Demons(Polygamy and Child Bride Aisha), and even lying to non-believers to promote Islam as a religion of peace when in fact history and actions of Islamic Fundamentalists tell otherwise. Well after Mohammed's death, his legacy of forced conversions and sectarian hatred and violence against non-believers expanded well beyond the Arabian Peninsula into the Zorostarian Persia, Eastern Orthodox Levant and Balkan Peninsula, and even as far as the Iberian Peninsula.
The Islamic Caliphates were counter-attacked by the Crusades of the 11th-13th century and Spanish Inquisition of the 16th century. What the Crusaders did was attempt to restore Western Civilization to it's former Roman glory which was somewhat successful but somewhat a failure. The Spanish Inquisition however was more successful but harsh as it was more of giving birth to Spanish nationalism under Queen Isabella of Catille and King Ferdinand. Though the Inquisition went too far such as forced conversions, it did establish Roman Catholicism as the national religion of many Roman European countries. What history should have been was having the Levant, North Africa, Balkan Peninsula, Caucasus, Arabia, and Persia being liberated from Islamic rule. However, Arabia and persia were not considered part of Roman Civilization. The Crusades and Spanish Inquisition serve as prime examples of history where Islam met strong resistance. Had Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand not pursuded the nationalist Inquisition, Spain and many other Roman Western Countries wouldn't be Western Civilized. Western Civilizations in the Old World other than Roman include the Germanic, Celtic, Anglo, Nordic, and Slavic Civilizations. Germanic Civilizations include Germany, Austria, Netherlands, South Africa, Great Britain, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Flanders, and Poland.
What should be done about Syria? Better yet, what if the Middle East was westernized and the ignorant savages were kept under the control of Western powers and the Muslim Brotherhood destroyed? If it weren't for Islam, Egypt would be a Coptic Orthodox state like the Papal States but have a Pharoah as head of state monarch, Coptic Pope as Head of the upper house of bishops, and a Prime Minister of the lower house which would follow the line of parliamentary democracy plus having some Anglo roots. Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco would be Roman Catholic republics with Libya being mostly Italian, Tunisia and Algeria being mostly French, and Morocco being a blend of Spanish and French roots. Lebanon and Syria have their own versions of Christianity being the Meronite and Melkonite Catholic sects but also share Greek Orthodox roots. Turkey is supposed to be a secular and nationalist republic but before the fall of Constantinople in 1453, turkey was mostly Greek Orthodox so Turkey should have their own Orthodox church dubbed Turkish Orthodox.
If it weren't for Islam, most of the Arab and Levant world would have the same standards of living as Western Europe and North America. Reality is the only Muslim country in the World to be a 1st world country is Turkey, due to rejecting jihad and sharia and endorsing modernization and Western ideals.
I know this blog post isn't talking directly much about Syria but the fact of the matter is Islam is most certainly NOT a religion of peace but I don't say that about all Muslims. I'm saying here is that Islam is a cult that centers around one sinner, Mohammed. Most people are Muslims because they fear violent retaliation if they reject and/or leave Islam, plus many Muslim's ancestors from the 7th century were forced to convert to Islam or face dire consequences at the hand of a bloody sword. Also keep in mind I don't harbor resentment against Muslims who oppose the totalitarian tyranny of Sharia law and jihad. I do however show resentment towards the cult of death known as Islam and it's many hypocrisies, lies, and arrogance that are supported by history dating back from as far as Mohammed's childhood and rise as so called "prophet".
What also makes Islam a Pagan religion is one, part of Islam includes worship of the moon god Allah, which has been worshiped since ancient civilization, two, it offers very little to no forgiveness for humanity with goals for World domination and subjugation of all other faiths and cultures, and three, was the brainchild of one sinner's imagination and bias, Mohammed.
What I think Islam is, is a merger of the Pagan Moon God worship(Allah) of Arabian culture and the cult of Mohammed. Most Islamic values are centered around Mohammed's life, making it mostly a cult similar to Jim Jones' Peoples Temple and Warren Jeffs' FLDS. All men are/were sinners and many Imans and Mullahs know Mohammed was a sinner and while they acknowledge Mohammed did the sins he did, they blindly follow his "perfect" example so as to not offend Mohammed's image. The people who wrote the Holy Bible scriptures over the thousands of years were sinners(except Jesus Christ). Jesus never asked for money or pity since his mission on Earth was to bring forgiveness to sinners.
Islam is mostly Arabian culture as you can tell the difference between Arabian and Roman cultures. Islamists celebrate the 1453 Fall of Constantinople and prey for a Caliph of Islam to destroy the West just as their ancestors did centuries before. If North Africa and the Levant are supposed to be Arab states, what about Portugal, Spain, Greece, Southern Italy, Cyprus, Armenia, and the Balkan states for example? I could imagine had Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand not have heroically re-Westernized Spain what Spain would be like. People speaking Arabic instead of Portuguese, Spanish, Greek, Italian, and other Balkan languages. Turkey has it's own language and culture separate from that of Arabia.
Let's face it, the Syrian rebels just like other Islamists do harm to other religions and cultures to not only dominate them but remove traces of Christian culture for example to further cement Arab-Islamic rule. You see terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas call for the extermination of the Jews so the Islamists could further cement their rule outside of Arabia and rule the World.
Conclusion on what Islam is. It's mostly an Arabian belief concocted by Mohammed to state that Arabs are the supreme rulers of the World and so called "Allah" has commanded the Muslims-Arabians conquer the World for Allah. That's the same mentality Adolf Hitler brought when he came to power and eventually invaded and conquered much of Europe. The Nazis and Islamists share the same goals of World Domination and Antisemitism. The Crusades on the other hand related more to the Western Allies of World War II rather than invaders since they were reclaiming Arab conquered lands. The Arab Muslims wanted to conquer the known World while the Crusaders wanted to reclaim their Christian Holy Lands in Europe, North Africa, and the Levant.
Reality is that the Arab World should only consist of the Arabian Peninsula based on both the political and geographical definitions while that West of it consists of Roman Civilization and East of it consists of Persia.
Monday, August 19, 2013
What if There Were A Modern Crusades?
Sorry I haven't posted much lately but I come to say that what if Freedom fighters became more like the Crusades and what if colonial powers asserted themselves more?
The crusades from the late 11th century to the late 13th century fought off Arab colonizers and reclaimed most of Islamic occupied Europe such as Spain, Portugal, Sicily, Greece for examples but failed to hold grip on the Levant(Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt) and North Africa.
Before the Arab invasions Europe, Levant, and North Africa were Christian and Western civilizations. Jesus Christ lived his entire life near Jerusalem and nearly all Biblical tales took place on the Levant and in North Africa. The Roman Empire spanned most of Europe, Levant, and coasts of North Africa. Greece composed of Southeast Europe, Cyprus, and Turkey. Even Russia and other Orthodox nations under it's empire are Western in nature such as Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States, Finland, etc. There are a couple European countries today that are Islamic such as Bosnia and Albania. Israel today is a Zionist controlled British state.
The Byzantine Empire was a Christian society in which it was conquered by the ottoman Empire on May 29, 1453 with the fall of Constantinople, today Istanbul, Turkey. Should Turkey be legitimately considered a Muslim state? While a secular Turkey protects freedom of religion, it would be fair to say that it is truly a Greek Orthodox country. Turkey becoming a secular republic and the expulsion of the Caliphate of Islam did justice for Western civilization as thanks to the greatest Turk of all time Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Turkey has been the only Muslim majority country to be First World. It's a member of NATO alongside North America and Western, Central, and Southern Europe.
Islam began as an Arab Nationalist philosophy founded by Mohammed, who is himself an Arab from Mecca. Mohammed could have made Islam a peaceful and non-oppressive nationalist ideology restricted to the Arabian Peninsula(Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, and Southeast Iraq) and Persia(Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Steppes of the Russian Empire, Bangladesh, and parts of Northern India) that related to Christianity. Instead Islam is a jingoist, totalitarian philosophy of death, abuse of women, children, and non-believers, no respect for freedom, and Third World standards of living with the exception of the high class Muslims such as royalty, government, and imans. Even before Mohammed preached his inhumane philosophy, he was a robber and murderer in his youth trying to fulfill his desires for money. Many of the Islamic practices are due to Mohammed's sickening examples of taking multiple marriages, a child bride(Aisha), robbing and killing non-believers with Jizya, Jihad, and Sharia, forced conversions, death for apostasy, hatred against Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Athiests, even Muslims who disagreed with Mohammed.
I'm not calling for the persecution of anybody but denouncing the persecution under Islam that started with Mohammed and continues to this day. There have been reform movements in Islam that call for more human rights and more freedom such as Bahai and Ahmadiyya movements for example challenged the Sunni and Shia establishments in Islam though Bahai is not of the Islamic faith. Reform movements in Islam seek more secular freedoms and human rights that Muslim Countries don't have.
Other than the Muslim World there's the matter of North America which has several societies. The United States and Canada aren't nations but multicultural empires. The United States goes no more South than Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Iowa, and Nebraska and no more West than North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. What other nations should exist?
Well for one the Confederate States of America consists of the Southern States and much of what used to be New Spain. The Northern Mexican border states plus the Yucatan peninsula are truly Southern Dixie as well. Had the Confederacy kept independence, they would be the largest superpower in the World, have the largest economy and the largest military in the World like the U.S. Dixies even wanted to expand more Southward as Central America and the Caribbean became a gold mine of land for Southerners. William Walker of the 1850's should be remembered as a hero for a Southern Manifest Destiny. During the American Revolution it was the South that won the war against the British and established limited government in America. Not saying this to insult the Northern states but it's true that Dixies are a larger population than Yankees. Southern-Confederate society is mostly Catholic, Baptist, and agrarian wheres Yankees are more Protestant, urban, rust belt, and Nordic. If the South won the Civil War, the United States would be smaller but also have some non-plantation oriented Islands in the Caribbean such as Bahamas and Bermuda for examples. The Confederate States would consist of plantation style states such as Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic as add on states.
In the End, the Confederate States of America would have consisted of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, South Illinois, New Mexico, Arizona, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Northern Nevada, Southern Nevada, Southern California, Northern California(excluding Sonoma), Rio Grande, Sierra Madre, Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Yucatan peninsula, and more plantation islands. Others could include Central America. the CSA capital would be Ft. Davis-Lee near Dallas, Texas.
Plus, what if Russia asserted itself more in North America? What governates would Russia have? Would the Pacific Northwest also be of Russian descent? Alaska was settled by Russia circa 1800 and the Russian Empire settled as far as Fort Ross in Somona County, California. Fort Ross is north of San Francisco Bay. Alaska wouldn't be just confined to one state peninsula but would also include the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains North of Colorado, Utah, Northern Nevada, and Northern California. It would be called the Alaskan Democratic Federative Republic which before was a federated colony of the Russian Empire. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Alaska became a mandate under the British and Yankee governments until 1923, which became an independent parliamentary republic. The federated states would be called Oblasts as they were called in Russia. Real states that would be part of Alaska would be the Pacifc and Far North Californias north of San Francisco Bay(Sonoma), Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington(Columbia), British Columbia(Columbia, New Caledonia, Vancouver, Charlotte, Tongass, Sitka, Borealia), Alaska(Sitka, Denali, Kodiak, Kenai, Far North, Aleutia, New Irkutski), Yukon, Northwest territories(Yukon), Nunavut(Borealia), Alberta(Alberta, Borealia), Saskatchewan(Saskatchewan, Borealia), and Manitoba(pre-1912 Manitoba, Borealia).
Alaskan Democratic Federative Republic would be much like the United States and Confederate States of America in terms of democratic and republican government but would be parliamentary like the United Kingdom and late 19th to early 20th century Russia. The legilsatures would be called Duma, which is also the name of the Russian legislature. Culture is influenced by Russian, British, and American culture with main languages being Russian and English. Main religions include Russian Orthodox, Protestantism, and Catholicism. Many cities and names are Russian and Anglo. The Head of State would be called general President elected by a college of electors while the Head of Government would be Prime Minister that is based on Parliament. The largest ethnic group in Alaska would be Russians, especially when Anti-Communist White Russians fled from Bolshevik terror. From the Early 19th century to 1917, Alaska was known as Russian America and also part of the Russian Empire with the Tsar of Russia as Head of State. Most of ADFR territory was before part of the United States of America and the British Empire. Other ethnic groups would include Brits, Yankees, Dixies, Germanic people, and indigenous peoples as well as others such as Far East Asians(Chinese, Japanese, etc.). Subdivisions of the Oblasts will be called Uyezds. The main political parties would include Constitutional Democratic and Socialist Revolutionary. After the 1930's, they were changed to Evergreen and Workers Party.
Other nations in North America would include Quebec, Acadia(New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton), and Ontario would be divided Southeast and Northwest with the Southeast being called Ontario and the Northwest joining the U.S. State of Superior. Ontario would also be a U.S. State.
Other countries to talk about here are Southern Africa, Westralia, and Israel.
Countries in Southern Africa that are rightfully White are South Africa, Rhodesia(now Zimbabwe), and Southwest Africa(now Namibia) and the rest of Southern Africa. Most of Southern Africa was primarily colonized by the British Empire with the exceptions of Southwest Africa(German), Tanzania & Zanzibar(German), Cape Colony(Dutch), ?. The late 20th century in Southern Africa saw the Pagan indigenous Blacks conquering these White lands through stealth with assistance from the internationalists. Was the European settlements of the Americas and Australia plus New Zealand wrong because it put White-Western civilization at the highest sovereignty? The precedents set in Rhodesia and South Africa send a bad message that Europeans had no right to settle in vast, pagan lands and instead must be punished with minority status as pagans rule over them in a pure democracy. Nearly all of Southern Africa is full of White nations that were wronged of their identity. Apartheid in South Africa and Rhodesia could have ended by giving coloured indigenous people opportunity to assimilate into Afrikaner and Ango-African society, therefore loosening the inhumane aspects of Apartheid while retaining Afrikaner nationalism. Non-assimilated indigenous people can stay on reserves and have autonomy within their reserves similar to the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia. The Bantusan System in south Africa and Rhodesia should have been retained for Blacks unwilling to accept Afrikaner society. South Africa could have also became a confederation with the four provinces becoming republics. Have you ever heard that "The Truth is hate speech only to those who hate it?" Well to be honest the White race and Western civilization are superior to the Third World and if it wasn't for European settlers, the World would be worse off since resources would be far more limited and people would be living lower standards of living and would be set back centuries. Cecil Rhodes, a British Subject was the chief of the Scramble of Africa which sought to expand Western Civilization in ways it was destined for. I don't condone any abuses committed by colonial governments but I do feel that South Africa for example should be a White governed country.
Israel is a Zionist occupied holy land where Jesus Christ lived. The Israelites were Whites and British heritage descends from the land of Israel. It's a mistake to believe Israel should be ruled by Jews or Muslims or anyone other than Christians. So unbelievable is the fact that there have been several proposals for a Jewish state other than Palestine. Where the Jewish state should have landed was on Charlotte Island adjacent to British Columbia as it is vast and easy to build. Another option would have been to accept part of British East Africa. Israel is rightfully a British Christian nation. Charlotte Island is larger than Israel. I'm not saying that Jews shouldn't live in Israel but that Israel should not be dominated by Zionism. If only Charlotte Island was considered, it would have better suited Jewish culture considering the atmosphere.
General Sisi in Egypt is working to restore order and destroy the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian military is taking real action to restore peace and stability by crushing Muslim Brotherhood supporters. I say there needs to be war against the Muslim brotherhood because unless they're destroyed, they'll just keep invading and terrorizing. Expel Sharia and jihad to the Arabian Peninsula and Persia! Liberate the Levant and North Africa from Islamic domination!
The crusades from the late 11th century to the late 13th century fought off Arab colonizers and reclaimed most of Islamic occupied Europe such as Spain, Portugal, Sicily, Greece for examples but failed to hold grip on the Levant(Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt) and North Africa.
Before the Arab invasions Europe, Levant, and North Africa were Christian and Western civilizations. Jesus Christ lived his entire life near Jerusalem and nearly all Biblical tales took place on the Levant and in North Africa. The Roman Empire spanned most of Europe, Levant, and coasts of North Africa. Greece composed of Southeast Europe, Cyprus, and Turkey. Even Russia and other Orthodox nations under it's empire are Western in nature such as Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States, Finland, etc. There are a couple European countries today that are Islamic such as Bosnia and Albania. Israel today is a Zionist controlled British state.
The Byzantine Empire was a Christian society in which it was conquered by the ottoman Empire on May 29, 1453 with the fall of Constantinople, today Istanbul, Turkey. Should Turkey be legitimately considered a Muslim state? While a secular Turkey protects freedom of religion, it would be fair to say that it is truly a Greek Orthodox country. Turkey becoming a secular republic and the expulsion of the Caliphate of Islam did justice for Western civilization as thanks to the greatest Turk of all time Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Turkey has been the only Muslim majority country to be First World. It's a member of NATO alongside North America and Western, Central, and Southern Europe.
Islam began as an Arab Nationalist philosophy founded by Mohammed, who is himself an Arab from Mecca. Mohammed could have made Islam a peaceful and non-oppressive nationalist ideology restricted to the Arabian Peninsula(Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, and Southeast Iraq) and Persia(Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Steppes of the Russian Empire, Bangladesh, and parts of Northern India) that related to Christianity. Instead Islam is a jingoist, totalitarian philosophy of death, abuse of women, children, and non-believers, no respect for freedom, and Third World standards of living with the exception of the high class Muslims such as royalty, government, and imans. Even before Mohammed preached his inhumane philosophy, he was a robber and murderer in his youth trying to fulfill his desires for money. Many of the Islamic practices are due to Mohammed's sickening examples of taking multiple marriages, a child bride(Aisha), robbing and killing non-believers with Jizya, Jihad, and Sharia, forced conversions, death for apostasy, hatred against Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Athiests, even Muslims who disagreed with Mohammed.
I'm not calling for the persecution of anybody but denouncing the persecution under Islam that started with Mohammed and continues to this day. There have been reform movements in Islam that call for more human rights and more freedom such as Bahai and Ahmadiyya movements for example challenged the Sunni and Shia establishments in Islam though Bahai is not of the Islamic faith. Reform movements in Islam seek more secular freedoms and human rights that Muslim Countries don't have.
Other than the Muslim World there's the matter of North America which has several societies. The United States and Canada aren't nations but multicultural empires. The United States goes no more South than Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Iowa, and Nebraska and no more West than North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. What other nations should exist?
Well for one the Confederate States of America consists of the Southern States and much of what used to be New Spain. The Northern Mexican border states plus the Yucatan peninsula are truly Southern Dixie as well. Had the Confederacy kept independence, they would be the largest superpower in the World, have the largest economy and the largest military in the World like the U.S. Dixies even wanted to expand more Southward as Central America and the Caribbean became a gold mine of land for Southerners. William Walker of the 1850's should be remembered as a hero for a Southern Manifest Destiny. During the American Revolution it was the South that won the war against the British and established limited government in America. Not saying this to insult the Northern states but it's true that Dixies are a larger population than Yankees. Southern-Confederate society is mostly Catholic, Baptist, and agrarian wheres Yankees are more Protestant, urban, rust belt, and Nordic. If the South won the Civil War, the United States would be smaller but also have some non-plantation oriented Islands in the Caribbean such as Bahamas and Bermuda for examples. The Confederate States would consist of plantation style states such as Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic as add on states.
In the End, the Confederate States of America would have consisted of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, South Illinois, New Mexico, Arizona, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Northern Nevada, Southern Nevada, Southern California, Northern California(excluding Sonoma), Rio Grande, Sierra Madre, Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Yucatan peninsula, and more plantation islands. Others could include Central America. the CSA capital would be Ft. Davis-Lee near Dallas, Texas.
Plus, what if Russia asserted itself more in North America? What governates would Russia have? Would the Pacific Northwest also be of Russian descent? Alaska was settled by Russia circa 1800 and the Russian Empire settled as far as Fort Ross in Somona County, California. Fort Ross is north of San Francisco Bay. Alaska wouldn't be just confined to one state peninsula but would also include the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains North of Colorado, Utah, Northern Nevada, and Northern California. It would be called the Alaskan Democratic Federative Republic which before was a federated colony of the Russian Empire. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Alaska became a mandate under the British and Yankee governments until 1923, which became an independent parliamentary republic. The federated states would be called Oblasts as they were called in Russia. Real states that would be part of Alaska would be the Pacifc and Far North Californias north of San Francisco Bay(Sonoma), Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington(Columbia), British Columbia(Columbia, New Caledonia, Vancouver, Charlotte, Tongass, Sitka, Borealia), Alaska(Sitka, Denali, Kodiak, Kenai, Far North, Aleutia, New Irkutski), Yukon, Northwest territories(Yukon), Nunavut(Borealia), Alberta(Alberta, Borealia), Saskatchewan(Saskatchewan, Borealia), and Manitoba(pre-1912 Manitoba, Borealia).
Alaskan Democratic Federative Republic would be much like the United States and Confederate States of America in terms of democratic and republican government but would be parliamentary like the United Kingdom and late 19th to early 20th century Russia. The legilsatures would be called Duma, which is also the name of the Russian legislature. Culture is influenced by Russian, British, and American culture with main languages being Russian and English. Main religions include Russian Orthodox, Protestantism, and Catholicism. Many cities and names are Russian and Anglo. The Head of State would be called general President elected by a college of electors while the Head of Government would be Prime Minister that is based on Parliament. The largest ethnic group in Alaska would be Russians, especially when Anti-Communist White Russians fled from Bolshevik terror. From the Early 19th century to 1917, Alaska was known as Russian America and also part of the Russian Empire with the Tsar of Russia as Head of State. Most of ADFR territory was before part of the United States of America and the British Empire. Other ethnic groups would include Brits, Yankees, Dixies, Germanic people, and indigenous peoples as well as others such as Far East Asians(Chinese, Japanese, etc.). Subdivisions of the Oblasts will be called Uyezds. The main political parties would include Constitutional Democratic and Socialist Revolutionary. After the 1930's, they were changed to Evergreen and Workers Party.
Other nations in North America would include Quebec, Acadia(New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton), and Ontario would be divided Southeast and Northwest with the Southeast being called Ontario and the Northwest joining the U.S. State of Superior. Ontario would also be a U.S. State.
Other countries to talk about here are Southern Africa, Westralia, and Israel.
Countries in Southern Africa that are rightfully White are South Africa, Rhodesia(now Zimbabwe), and Southwest Africa(now Namibia) and the rest of Southern Africa. Most of Southern Africa was primarily colonized by the British Empire with the exceptions of Southwest Africa(German), Tanzania & Zanzibar(German), Cape Colony(Dutch), ?. The late 20th century in Southern Africa saw the Pagan indigenous Blacks conquering these White lands through stealth with assistance from the internationalists. Was the European settlements of the Americas and Australia plus New Zealand wrong because it put White-Western civilization at the highest sovereignty? The precedents set in Rhodesia and South Africa send a bad message that Europeans had no right to settle in vast, pagan lands and instead must be punished with minority status as pagans rule over them in a pure democracy. Nearly all of Southern Africa is full of White nations that were wronged of their identity. Apartheid in South Africa and Rhodesia could have ended by giving coloured indigenous people opportunity to assimilate into Afrikaner and Ango-African society, therefore loosening the inhumane aspects of Apartheid while retaining Afrikaner nationalism. Non-assimilated indigenous people can stay on reserves and have autonomy within their reserves similar to the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia. The Bantusan System in south Africa and Rhodesia should have been retained for Blacks unwilling to accept Afrikaner society. South Africa could have also became a confederation with the four provinces becoming republics. Have you ever heard that "The Truth is hate speech only to those who hate it?" Well to be honest the White race and Western civilization are superior to the Third World and if it wasn't for European settlers, the World would be worse off since resources would be far more limited and people would be living lower standards of living and would be set back centuries. Cecil Rhodes, a British Subject was the chief of the Scramble of Africa which sought to expand Western Civilization in ways it was destined for. I don't condone any abuses committed by colonial governments but I do feel that South Africa for example should be a White governed country.
Israel is a Zionist occupied holy land where Jesus Christ lived. The Israelites were Whites and British heritage descends from the land of Israel. It's a mistake to believe Israel should be ruled by Jews or Muslims or anyone other than Christians. So unbelievable is the fact that there have been several proposals for a Jewish state other than Palestine. Where the Jewish state should have landed was on Charlotte Island adjacent to British Columbia as it is vast and easy to build. Another option would have been to accept part of British East Africa. Israel is rightfully a British Christian nation. Charlotte Island is larger than Israel. I'm not saying that Jews shouldn't live in Israel but that Israel should not be dominated by Zionism. If only Charlotte Island was considered, it would have better suited Jewish culture considering the atmosphere.
General Sisi in Egypt is working to restore order and destroy the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian military is taking real action to restore peace and stability by crushing Muslim Brotherhood supporters. I say there needs to be war against the Muslim brotherhood because unless they're destroyed, they'll just keep invading and terrorizing. Expel Sharia and jihad to the Arabian Peninsula and Persia! Liberate the Levant and North Africa from Islamic domination!
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Egyptian Protests Source of Inspiration
"It can't happen here" is such a provocative lie in Western civilization. Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi is on limb for his dictatorship the year after being democratically elected, facing mobs of protestors. The Egyptian military agrees with anti-Morsi protestors and the military also overthrew Morsi recently.
How come the U.S. Military hasn't overthrown Obama and Biden? If the USA is suppose to be free, then why can't our U.S. military overthrow tyrants. Despite several U.S. Presidents being tyrannical, not one has been overthrown! Though there have been four assassinations and one resignation due to threat of impeachment, the U.S. has lots to learn from other countries, even third world countries. Overthrowing Abraham Lincoln around New Years 1865 and replacing his regime with anti-war administration would have granted Southern victory and secured peace for a divided North and South.
The reason Morsi was overthrown July 3 was because he was an Islamic tyrant who gave the Muslim Brotherhood preferential treatment over Coptic Christians. Plus, the Egyptian Military acted to prevent Egypt's destruction in the best and only way to do so, by overthrowing Morsi.
Why can't the U.S. Military forsake democracy to protect a constitutional republic from destruction by expelling Barack Obama and his cronies from their offices? America is not a democracy but a republic and when elected officials violate their contracts they're bound by, they should be overthrown regardless of what any other laws say. An oath is an oath and Morsi used power for selfish purposes while the Egyptian Military used theirs as a selfless favor to the people of Egypt.
Regardless of democratic elections, anyone in power can become a tyrant. History tells more than any speeches as Germany was a liberal democracy from 1919 to 1933 until the Nazi Party made gains in the Weimar Republic elections and secured Adolf Hitler's rise to power. Hitler became unstoppable and consolidated power and molded Germany into a single party totalitarian state. This is exactly what Morsi was helping the Muslim Brotherhood establish and also what Obama and Biden favor.
Hitler was able to avoid a military coup by deceiving the military into believing that a military coup of a democratically elected leader would make them depraved and Hitler was able to replace the Republican military with a Nazi military. Hitler's rise to power was made possible by not only unsecured democratic elections but political turmoil and defenseless opponents. Unfortunately for Morsi, the Egyptian military was more loyal to the rule of law than to Morsi himself. Both Hitler and Morsi were elected through democratic elections but Hitler was able to consolidate power to the point no political force could peacefully oppose him and the Nazi Party.
Not only that but Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan is working to downgrade Turkey from a secular, westernized, and 1st world country to an Islamic Third World hellhole like Iran. Protesters however aren't willing to leave it that way as they take to the streets and Erdogan's thugs slash the protesters much like the Chinese gestapo. If the protestors were armed to the teeth, Erdogan would have been soundly overthrown.
No wonder cowards such as Obama and Erdogan support Morsi. They possibly see Morsi's overthrow as a threat to using democracy as an excuse to become a tyrant. That's one other reason than supporting the tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood.
Final line is democracy is volatile and having a constitutional republic is better, even if it has to be protected through undemocratic actions such as coups of tyrants and armed insurrection.
How come the U.S. Military hasn't overthrown Obama and Biden? If the USA is suppose to be free, then why can't our U.S. military overthrow tyrants. Despite several U.S. Presidents being tyrannical, not one has been overthrown! Though there have been four assassinations and one resignation due to threat of impeachment, the U.S. has lots to learn from other countries, even third world countries. Overthrowing Abraham Lincoln around New Years 1865 and replacing his regime with anti-war administration would have granted Southern victory and secured peace for a divided North and South.
The reason Morsi was overthrown July 3 was because he was an Islamic tyrant who gave the Muslim Brotherhood preferential treatment over Coptic Christians. Plus, the Egyptian Military acted to prevent Egypt's destruction in the best and only way to do so, by overthrowing Morsi.
Why can't the U.S. Military forsake democracy to protect a constitutional republic from destruction by expelling Barack Obama and his cronies from their offices? America is not a democracy but a republic and when elected officials violate their contracts they're bound by, they should be overthrown regardless of what any other laws say. An oath is an oath and Morsi used power for selfish purposes while the Egyptian Military used theirs as a selfless favor to the people of Egypt.
Regardless of democratic elections, anyone in power can become a tyrant. History tells more than any speeches as Germany was a liberal democracy from 1919 to 1933 until the Nazi Party made gains in the Weimar Republic elections and secured Adolf Hitler's rise to power. Hitler became unstoppable and consolidated power and molded Germany into a single party totalitarian state. This is exactly what Morsi was helping the Muslim Brotherhood establish and also what Obama and Biden favor.
Hitler was able to avoid a military coup by deceiving the military into believing that a military coup of a democratically elected leader would make them depraved and Hitler was able to replace the Republican military with a Nazi military. Hitler's rise to power was made possible by not only unsecured democratic elections but political turmoil and defenseless opponents. Unfortunately for Morsi, the Egyptian military was more loyal to the rule of law than to Morsi himself. Both Hitler and Morsi were elected through democratic elections but Hitler was able to consolidate power to the point no political force could peacefully oppose him and the Nazi Party.
Not only that but Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan is working to downgrade Turkey from a secular, westernized, and 1st world country to an Islamic Third World hellhole like Iran. Protesters however aren't willing to leave it that way as they take to the streets and Erdogan's thugs slash the protesters much like the Chinese gestapo. If the protestors were armed to the teeth, Erdogan would have been soundly overthrown.
No wonder cowards such as Obama and Erdogan support Morsi. They possibly see Morsi's overthrow as a threat to using democracy as an excuse to become a tyrant. That's one other reason than supporting the tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood.
Final line is democracy is volatile and having a constitutional republic is better, even if it has to be protected through undemocratic actions such as coups of tyrants and armed insurrection.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Reconcilliation solution to Gun Violence
In California, a law was passed to confiscate prohibited person firearms without due process, which is a bill of attainder in which legislation cannot directly impose penalties a judiciary would with due process.
The recent shooting at a college in Santa Monica, California most definitely shows the failure of gun confiscation as it failed to disarm crazies like the lone gunman whose shooting spree ended when police shattered his spine with a bullet. Gun control proponents make it seem as if the gun itself is the problem. If you can get past the gun itself being the problem and recognized that someone had something in their mind that motivated them to do horrible things then you can understand why gun control is not only failure but tyrannical.
Gun control such as registries have failed to track criminal firearms as most firearms used in crimes come from the black market. However, there have been more punishments for non-compliance of gun control laws by law abiding citizens than there have been for capturing criminals. In fact, self defense punishments under "firearm" offenses have been punished more harshly than knife muggings which should be reviewed by courts.
Any solution to gun violence must respect due process and not compromise other rights such as freedom from warrantless searches. What we also must recognize is the inalienable right to self-defense against violent aggression and that all state constitutions DO have provisions acknowledging unremunerated rights meaning that simply because such a right isn't listed doesn't mean people have no right to it. In fact, the true meaning of rights is protecting ones that have been under common law.
The Founders understood that freedom cannot be preserved without citizens bearing arms strong enough to oppose tyranny.
If there's going to be a solution to gun violence the core problem must be addressed. Islamic terrorism for example is rooted in Jihad, or Muslim for Holy War.
Instead of singling out guns, why do you think criminals are able to commit crimes? White Supremacist Benjamin Smith of Illinois was able to easily obtain firearms from a completely black market source and open fire on minorities back in 1999.
Plus, what other problems such as third world immigration and soft on crime failures? The reason New York City has lower crime rate than Chicago and Detroit is that NYC is better run despite having Nazi gun control laws. Ever thought of why Chicago has higher crime rates than Austin, Texas?
Another fact is that firearm deaths are far lower than automobile and swimming pool deaths.
Plus, ever thought of enforcing existing laws against crime that have been around for centuries? I'm talking about common law crimes.
I also want to point out that the NRA is not really a gun rights organization but a corporatist-fascist gun control club deceiving it's members into handing over membership fees, certificates, and merchandise which secretly works hand in hand with the tyrannical BATFE, the most dangerous threat to gun rights. Both organizations work together to deceive people and gain money and power, especially for the major gun dealers over the freedom loving mom and pop gun shops in conservative states.
I also want to point out that violence occurs based on three factors of evil: existence of it, imbalance of power, and betrayal of trust.
What should be the solution to any violence. It all depends on how much law and order there is. If criminals and tyrannical officials are not held to account enough they will not be deterred sufficiently to preserve justice. Justice is the enemy of crime, tyranny, and evil. A justice system that holds criminals accountable while preserving the rights, freedom, and property of innocents is one that preserves law and order.
More important, self-defense is a natural human right because it allows the individual to defend him or herself as well as others from aggressors who seek to violate life, liberty, and/or property of others.
To end this post, here are some key points that should be remembered:
The recent shooting at a college in Santa Monica, California most definitely shows the failure of gun confiscation as it failed to disarm crazies like the lone gunman whose shooting spree ended when police shattered his spine with a bullet. Gun control proponents make it seem as if the gun itself is the problem. If you can get past the gun itself being the problem and recognized that someone had something in their mind that motivated them to do horrible things then you can understand why gun control is not only failure but tyrannical.
Gun control such as registries have failed to track criminal firearms as most firearms used in crimes come from the black market. However, there have been more punishments for non-compliance of gun control laws by law abiding citizens than there have been for capturing criminals. In fact, self defense punishments under "firearm" offenses have been punished more harshly than knife muggings which should be reviewed by courts.
Any solution to gun violence must respect due process and not compromise other rights such as freedom from warrantless searches. What we also must recognize is the inalienable right to self-defense against violent aggression and that all state constitutions DO have provisions acknowledging unremunerated rights meaning that simply because such a right isn't listed doesn't mean people have no right to it. In fact, the true meaning of rights is protecting ones that have been under common law.
The Founders understood that freedom cannot be preserved without citizens bearing arms strong enough to oppose tyranny.
If there's going to be a solution to gun violence the core problem must be addressed. Islamic terrorism for example is rooted in Jihad, or Muslim for Holy War.
Instead of singling out guns, why do you think criminals are able to commit crimes? White Supremacist Benjamin Smith of Illinois was able to easily obtain firearms from a completely black market source and open fire on minorities back in 1999.
Plus, what other problems such as third world immigration and soft on crime failures? The reason New York City has lower crime rate than Chicago and Detroit is that NYC is better run despite having Nazi gun control laws. Ever thought of why Chicago has higher crime rates than Austin, Texas?
Another fact is that firearm deaths are far lower than automobile and swimming pool deaths.
Plus, ever thought of enforcing existing laws against crime that have been around for centuries? I'm talking about common law crimes.
I also want to point out that the NRA is not really a gun rights organization but a corporatist-fascist gun control club deceiving it's members into handing over membership fees, certificates, and merchandise which secretly works hand in hand with the tyrannical BATFE, the most dangerous threat to gun rights. Both organizations work together to deceive people and gain money and power, especially for the major gun dealers over the freedom loving mom and pop gun shops in conservative states.
I also want to point out that violence occurs based on three factors of evil: existence of it, imbalance of power, and betrayal of trust.
What should be the solution to any violence. It all depends on how much law and order there is. If criminals and tyrannical officials are not held to account enough they will not be deterred sufficiently to preserve justice. Justice is the enemy of crime, tyranny, and evil. A justice system that holds criminals accountable while preserving the rights, freedom, and property of innocents is one that preserves law and order.
More important, self-defense is a natural human right because it allows the individual to defend him or herself as well as others from aggressors who seek to violate life, liberty, and/or property of others.
To end this post, here are some key points that should be remembered:
- Self-defense against aggression and tyranny is a natural right and that police are unable to protect you in ways you could do so at an individual level
- Merely because constitutions don't outline such a right doesn't mean government can infringe on such a right as punishing self defense is a violation of due process right to life, liberty, and property
- kindness towards victims doesn't mean less rights for others as victims rights cannot interfere with other rights
- respecting a near absolute right to something doesn't mean support for violence, so grouping bitter clingers with mass murderers is nonsensical.
- police also have evil ability to turn against certain people for political reasons and genocides have been made possible mainly due to gun control.
- people have a right to use terror against gun controllers in efforts to protect self defense and right to keep and bear arms.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
In Loving Memory of...
The martyrs who made freedoms and revolutions possible. For memorial day, what martyrs shall I mention? As the federal government becomes more tyrannical and a Velvet Revolution/Arab Spring style unrest is needed to change elections from very corrupted by partisanship to non-partisan and freer, it's more needed that law enforcement and armed force members remember and keep their oaths. I support Oath Keepers as the best law enforcement affiliated organization due to them truly taking their oath seriously. If only they would be more union like to scare other law enforcement organizations off.
Gun control proponents mock the NRA all they want but are afraid to mention other gun rights groups like Gun Owners of America and Jews For Preservation of Firearm Ownership since they don't fuck around on not only gun rights but others rights like due process. JPFO is arguing for a bill of rights culture which would seal the gun control nightmares for good as people will see that the gun itself isn't the problem but the socio-economic roots such as gang culture and poverty that breed crime. The NRA's problem is they fail to stand for the constitution as a whole such as due process which helps barricade use from arbitrary state action.
Also note that people who have directly fought their own governments here in America deserve the same praise as those fighting foreign belligerents. The 1946 Battle of Athens, Tennessee involved World War II veterans shooting at McMinn County deputies loyal to the corrupt sheriff. This was a major victory for We The People as not only did those responsible for fighting government get off scot-free but McMinn county became more accountable to we the people.
What about the crimes committed in which the root causes were not addressed. Some Jihadi bastard in London beheaded a 25 year old British Soldier because the Quran had verses which told Muslims to kill infidels who fight Islam. Yet officials fail to acknowledge attacks like these are motivated by hatred of non-believers, especially armed force members while disarmed victims pay the price of numerous stabbings since criminals feel safer knowing with gun bans that victims are likely unarmed and defenseless. Around 70% of crimes committed are the result of recidivism. Many criminals fail to be rehabilitated and are more ruthless and cunning criminals than before their first arrest. While not all countries with gun bans suffer higher crime rates, it's important to note that owning a firearm is a right in which to resist tyranny. Regulating it against law abiding citizens and punishing self-defense is like regulating political speech and targeting political opponents only wanting a constitutional republic.
What also influences crime is the area's economy. Chicago and New York have higher crime rates not only thanks to gun bans but thanks to the inability of justice to reduce crime and cut recidivism. Throwing youth in jail for smoking pot will only subject them to harden criminalhood, especially Blacks and Hispanics.
Forgot to mention that Oath Keepers encourages armed force members and law enforcement officers to keep their oath to We The People and the constitution seriously. What if troops were faced with having to suppress a secessionist movement and prevent self-determination? Would they blindly obey the fuhrer in chief or asset the Declaration of Independence and Constitution? What if Union troops refused to obey Lincoln's GOP invasion of the Confederate States of America and aided Clemente Valladigham in resisting Lincoln. What if instead Union troops joined the Copperheads in taking a more paramilitary approach and violently overthrowing Lincoln and GOP government in the 1860's, therefore ending the American Civil War with a Southern victory and securing peace between Yankees and Dixies as separate countries.
If troops fight for freedom, they must be willing to overthrow their own tyrannical governments by 20 July Plot style coups. Our law enforcement and armed force members don't take their oaths to politicians and man's law but only to We The People and God's law. As the Irish of the Early 20th Century once said "We Serve Neither Kaiser nor King!" This made Ireland a proud republic and had a less tyrannical military than the United Kingdom.
Gun control proponents mock the NRA all they want but are afraid to mention other gun rights groups like Gun Owners of America and Jews For Preservation of Firearm Ownership since they don't fuck around on not only gun rights but others rights like due process. JPFO is arguing for a bill of rights culture which would seal the gun control nightmares for good as people will see that the gun itself isn't the problem but the socio-economic roots such as gang culture and poverty that breed crime. The NRA's problem is they fail to stand for the constitution as a whole such as due process which helps barricade use from arbitrary state action.
Also note that people who have directly fought their own governments here in America deserve the same praise as those fighting foreign belligerents. The 1946 Battle of Athens, Tennessee involved World War II veterans shooting at McMinn County deputies loyal to the corrupt sheriff. This was a major victory for We The People as not only did those responsible for fighting government get off scot-free but McMinn county became more accountable to we the people.
What about the crimes committed in which the root causes were not addressed. Some Jihadi bastard in London beheaded a 25 year old British Soldier because the Quran had verses which told Muslims to kill infidels who fight Islam. Yet officials fail to acknowledge attacks like these are motivated by hatred of non-believers, especially armed force members while disarmed victims pay the price of numerous stabbings since criminals feel safer knowing with gun bans that victims are likely unarmed and defenseless. Around 70% of crimes committed are the result of recidivism. Many criminals fail to be rehabilitated and are more ruthless and cunning criminals than before their first arrest. While not all countries with gun bans suffer higher crime rates, it's important to note that owning a firearm is a right in which to resist tyranny. Regulating it against law abiding citizens and punishing self-defense is like regulating political speech and targeting political opponents only wanting a constitutional republic.
What also influences crime is the area's economy. Chicago and New York have higher crime rates not only thanks to gun bans but thanks to the inability of justice to reduce crime and cut recidivism. Throwing youth in jail for smoking pot will only subject them to harden criminalhood, especially Blacks and Hispanics.
Forgot to mention that Oath Keepers encourages armed force members and law enforcement officers to keep their oath to We The People and the constitution seriously. What if troops were faced with having to suppress a secessionist movement and prevent self-determination? Would they blindly obey the fuhrer in chief or asset the Declaration of Independence and Constitution? What if Union troops refused to obey Lincoln's GOP invasion of the Confederate States of America and aided Clemente Valladigham in resisting Lincoln. What if instead Union troops joined the Copperheads in taking a more paramilitary approach and violently overthrowing Lincoln and GOP government in the 1860's, therefore ending the American Civil War with a Southern victory and securing peace between Yankees and Dixies as separate countries.
If troops fight for freedom, they must be willing to overthrow their own tyrannical governments by 20 July Plot style coups. Our law enforcement and armed force members don't take their oaths to politicians and man's law but only to We The People and God's law. As the Irish of the Early 20th Century once said "We Serve Neither Kaiser nor King!" This made Ireland a proud republic and had a less tyrannical military than the United Kingdom.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Petitioning for Grievences: Direct Democracy Now!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Petitioning for grievances is one level of holding government accountable. But what really holds government's accountable non-violently? It's Direct Democracy of course. What's wrong with representative democracy? Problem is legislators act like dictators and special interest puppets, rejecting pleas to be more accountable. despite numerous government reforms like term limits and ethics laws, the root problems fail to be addressed such as special interests, rigged elections, partisan duelopolies, and irreconcilable differences plague the very integrity of controlling our government.
With the rise of multicultural influences from non-Western civilizations such as immigration from Third World hellholes which will give rise to socialist regimes through democratic elections. However, the real issue is a non-violent way of controlling government through citizens referendum.
What a citizens referendum will bring is an alternative to relying on politicians for policy making by holding them accountable by overriding any acts of Congress or Parliament. Special interests and unions will be furious about creating a Direct Democracy that not only puts direct power into the hands of citizens but also follows the election principles of the Founding Fathers while allowing any Westernized citizen of civic literacy to vote. The issue of property ownership being an election requirement should be considered as it could indicate you are a proud citizen of this state. However, civic literacy tests of reasonable nature are good enough.
What direct democracy in America should be structured on is the electoral college model where votes would be calculated based on representative districts. For example, votes would only count based the same way of a house of representatives. the popular vote would only count within their electoral district while the senate would rely on two votes per state. Large states like California should follow the same model as the Federal Government for representation such as having representatives based on population and within county borders while senators would be selected by county. This way Orange County has mostly conservative representatives while Los Angeles County is unable to unfairly overpower the Conservative opposition.
Armed conflicts exist in Third World Countries like Iraq and Somalia because one group tries to unfairly overpower another and the oppressed feel they have no choice but to engage in terrorism against enemies. How come Switzerland and New Zealand have far less moral for solving political conflicts through violence than Iraq and Somalia? the fact of the matter is that unlike "representative democracies", direct democracies don't have the same problem as special interests are unable to penetrate online voting, plus people can solve problems non-violently.
I feel the problem of low voter turnout is lack of faith in corrupt elections. Ending major party status, reducing voter fraud, and bringing proportional electoral results(such as electoral college) to large states will ensure not only fairness in elections but a Republican form of government, making it more difficult for special interests and dictator politicians to limit freedoms and consolidate power. Voting for politicians alone does not constitute proper control over government, especially when only two parties get all the goods and others get left with zero chances.
Switzerland's government is possibly the most accountable government in the World due to direct democracy alone, given the fact parliament's laws are subject to citizens veto. This means that issues such as repealing gun control, age restrictions, drug war, taxes, and other shit legislatures are too tied up to deal with could be repealed simply by obtaining citizen signatures of registered voters in a process that isn't mauled by time constraints, burdensome signature requirements, and corrupt executives.
However, the way I want direct democracy established is based on the electoral college model where voting would be proportionate in having votes counted within a single district while it is the district electoral vote that truly counts for the final casting. Popular vote only applies to districts.
Lawmaking could instead be done by districts counting popular votes and sending a delegate to count their position. for example, if funding for infrastructure was approved, the delegate hired would be required by law to submit a Yes vote in favor.
The current elections resemble those of 1930's Germany where checks and balances failed to stop Hitler's rise to power. What did Weimar Republic's judicial system do to curb Hitler's rise to power? Absolutely nothing. They just stood back citing "judicial restraint" and allowed Hitler to rise to power even though such consolidation and partisanship in favor of Nazism violated the Weimar constitution. Before Germany knew it, it went from a corrupt and flawed Constitutional republic in 1930 to a Totalitarian Nazi dictatorship in 1933. The Nazi Party was democratically elected just like the Democratic and Republican Parties in America are. during the Third Reich, elections were controlled by the Nazi Party as not only did they become the sole legal party but also counted votes for all plebiscites and referendums following January 1933. Elections in America are controlled in a similar fashion as Nazi Germany. No wonder Germany's annexation of Austria got 99% of the votes, the Nazis tampered with the results!
What needs to be accomplished? An independent non-partisan voter named Daniel Jeffs back in 2000-01 tried to get the US Supreme Court to make a landmark ruling revolutionizing and departisanizing elections in North America. That didn't happen as supreme court justices and America's judiciary is a lot like the judiciary of the Weimar Republic. Hopefully changing the way judges are appointed will bring more accountability and steer them away from partisan dictatorships.
The way judges should be appointed is based on the Pendleton civil Service reform which made merit the method of selecting bureaucrats. If judges were selected the same way bureaucrats under the Pendleton Civil Service act of 1880's were, judges would be more accountable and be subject to removal for turning any provision of our laws and constitution on it's head. Removal of judges would be decided by civil jury trial of the people. Judges would be selected based on their ethics, character, understanding of domestic law and constitutional law including original intent of such laws, and respect for the fact that all political power is inherent from the people. Any judge or justice in violation of these terms shall be subject to civil trial by a jury of concerned citizens. Currently the only way to forcibly remove a judge is through a broken and partisan congress. Most judges are very selfish and abusive with their power and assume they are above the will of the people. Assassinations or bodily harm attempts seem to be the most effective way practical at holding tyrannical officials accountable. However, if judges are to be held accountable once more, it needs to be treated like they're employees of the people, not a corrupt elite. How could the US Supreme Court involve itself with partisan politics. Do there need to be a bunch of terror attacks just to bring some shock to these pricks?! Larry Flynt was right about the US Supreme Court being a "bunch of assholes and token cunts!"
The last resort is use of revolutionary guerilla warfare involving bombings of law enforcement targets and recruitment of terrorists. The Arab Spring of 2011 proved very effective at regime change with Libya enduring a Civil War resulting in the overthrow of Qaddafi. The same things need to happen throughout Western Civilization. In fact, if only some suicidal person would strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it in the facilities where the enemies of our cause live it up and work(such as partisan courthouses and corrupt election commissions), not only igniting a revolution but creating sympathy for this martyr/victim, just like the martyrs of self-immolation only what makes it worth more is the blood of the enemies is shed alongside the suicidal martyr. Hopefully other suicidal or terminally ill people will help the resistance cause by strapping bombs to themselves and detonating them in front of pro-regime law enforcement officers resisting accountability.
Whether Messiah Daniel Jeffs, leader of Direct Democracy and non-partisan elections gets way either through armed conflict like in Iraq or Somalia or peacefully like Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Russia, etc. Protests in the winter of 2013 occurred in Bulgaria thanks in part to the broken democratic system.
Here are the questions which must be resolved.
The Allies of World War II won because they never failed to use their last resort. The only thing we must accept in war is victory, even if much collateral damage is done! The US Supreme Court lacks the brazen of the World War II allied resistance but armed militants don't!
I do favor mixing non-violence with revolutionary guerilla tactics such as being as armed and dangerous as Al-Qaeda operatives at government branch buildings such as capitols, governor mansions, and supreme courthouses in the form of occupy style protesting. Hopefully Southern Nationalists can revive the Confederate States of America by doing the same thing.
We can't keep having elections like East Germany, Iran, and Russia! We need the National Citizen's Initiative for democracy! Remember, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance with citizens protecting liberty from tyrannical authority.
Petitioning for grievances is one level of holding government accountable. But what really holds government's accountable non-violently? It's Direct Democracy of course. What's wrong with representative democracy? Problem is legislators act like dictators and special interest puppets, rejecting pleas to be more accountable. despite numerous government reforms like term limits and ethics laws, the root problems fail to be addressed such as special interests, rigged elections, partisan duelopolies, and irreconcilable differences plague the very integrity of controlling our government.
With the rise of multicultural influences from non-Western civilizations such as immigration from Third World hellholes which will give rise to socialist regimes through democratic elections. However, the real issue is a non-violent way of controlling government through citizens referendum.
What a citizens referendum will bring is an alternative to relying on politicians for policy making by holding them accountable by overriding any acts of Congress or Parliament. Special interests and unions will be furious about creating a Direct Democracy that not only puts direct power into the hands of citizens but also follows the election principles of the Founding Fathers while allowing any Westernized citizen of civic literacy to vote. The issue of property ownership being an election requirement should be considered as it could indicate you are a proud citizen of this state. However, civic literacy tests of reasonable nature are good enough.
What direct democracy in America should be structured on is the electoral college model where votes would be calculated based on representative districts. For example, votes would only count based the same way of a house of representatives. the popular vote would only count within their electoral district while the senate would rely on two votes per state. Large states like California should follow the same model as the Federal Government for representation such as having representatives based on population and within county borders while senators would be selected by county. This way Orange County has mostly conservative representatives while Los Angeles County is unable to unfairly overpower the Conservative opposition.
Armed conflicts exist in Third World Countries like Iraq and Somalia because one group tries to unfairly overpower another and the oppressed feel they have no choice but to engage in terrorism against enemies. How come Switzerland and New Zealand have far less moral for solving political conflicts through violence than Iraq and Somalia? the fact of the matter is that unlike "representative democracies", direct democracies don't have the same problem as special interests are unable to penetrate online voting, plus people can solve problems non-violently.
I feel the problem of low voter turnout is lack of faith in corrupt elections. Ending major party status, reducing voter fraud, and bringing proportional electoral results(such as electoral college) to large states will ensure not only fairness in elections but a Republican form of government, making it more difficult for special interests and dictator politicians to limit freedoms and consolidate power. Voting for politicians alone does not constitute proper control over government, especially when only two parties get all the goods and others get left with zero chances.
Switzerland's government is possibly the most accountable government in the World due to direct democracy alone, given the fact parliament's laws are subject to citizens veto. This means that issues such as repealing gun control, age restrictions, drug war, taxes, and other shit legislatures are too tied up to deal with could be repealed simply by obtaining citizen signatures of registered voters in a process that isn't mauled by time constraints, burdensome signature requirements, and corrupt executives.
However, the way I want direct democracy established is based on the electoral college model where voting would be proportionate in having votes counted within a single district while it is the district electoral vote that truly counts for the final casting. Popular vote only applies to districts.
Lawmaking could instead be done by districts counting popular votes and sending a delegate to count their position. for example, if funding for infrastructure was approved, the delegate hired would be required by law to submit a Yes vote in favor.
The current elections resemble those of 1930's Germany where checks and balances failed to stop Hitler's rise to power. What did Weimar Republic's judicial system do to curb Hitler's rise to power? Absolutely nothing. They just stood back citing "judicial restraint" and allowed Hitler to rise to power even though such consolidation and partisanship in favor of Nazism violated the Weimar constitution. Before Germany knew it, it went from a corrupt and flawed Constitutional republic in 1930 to a Totalitarian Nazi dictatorship in 1933. The Nazi Party was democratically elected just like the Democratic and Republican Parties in America are. during the Third Reich, elections were controlled by the Nazi Party as not only did they become the sole legal party but also counted votes for all plebiscites and referendums following January 1933. Elections in America are controlled in a similar fashion as Nazi Germany. No wonder Germany's annexation of Austria got 99% of the votes, the Nazis tampered with the results!
What needs to be accomplished? An independent non-partisan voter named Daniel Jeffs back in 2000-01 tried to get the US Supreme Court to make a landmark ruling revolutionizing and departisanizing elections in North America. That didn't happen as supreme court justices and America's judiciary is a lot like the judiciary of the Weimar Republic. Hopefully changing the way judges are appointed will bring more accountability and steer them away from partisan dictatorships.
The way judges should be appointed is based on the Pendleton civil Service reform which made merit the method of selecting bureaucrats. If judges were selected the same way bureaucrats under the Pendleton Civil Service act of 1880's were, judges would be more accountable and be subject to removal for turning any provision of our laws and constitution on it's head. Removal of judges would be decided by civil jury trial of the people. Judges would be selected based on their ethics, character, understanding of domestic law and constitutional law including original intent of such laws, and respect for the fact that all political power is inherent from the people. Any judge or justice in violation of these terms shall be subject to civil trial by a jury of concerned citizens. Currently the only way to forcibly remove a judge is through a broken and partisan congress. Most judges are very selfish and abusive with their power and assume they are above the will of the people. Assassinations or bodily harm attempts seem to be the most effective way practical at holding tyrannical officials accountable. However, if judges are to be held accountable once more, it needs to be treated like they're employees of the people, not a corrupt elite. How could the US Supreme Court involve itself with partisan politics. Do there need to be a bunch of terror attacks just to bring some shock to these pricks?! Larry Flynt was right about the US Supreme Court being a "bunch of assholes and token cunts!"
The last resort is use of revolutionary guerilla warfare involving bombings of law enforcement targets and recruitment of terrorists. The Arab Spring of 2011 proved very effective at regime change with Libya enduring a Civil War resulting in the overthrow of Qaddafi. The same things need to happen throughout Western Civilization. In fact, if only some suicidal person would strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it in the facilities where the enemies of our cause live it up and work(such as partisan courthouses and corrupt election commissions), not only igniting a revolution but creating sympathy for this martyr/victim, just like the martyrs of self-immolation only what makes it worth more is the blood of the enemies is shed alongside the suicidal martyr. Hopefully other suicidal or terminally ill people will help the resistance cause by strapping bombs to themselves and detonating them in front of pro-regime law enforcement officers resisting accountability.
Whether Messiah Daniel Jeffs, leader of Direct Democracy and non-partisan elections gets way either through armed conflict like in Iraq or Somalia or peacefully like Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Russia, etc. Protests in the winter of 2013 occurred in Bulgaria thanks in part to the broken democratic system.
Here are the questions which must be resolved.
- Does the two-party system adversely effect the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States?-yes
- Does the two-party system adversely effect the performance and accountability of the United States government?-yes
- Is the two-party system unconstitutional?-yes
- Should elections and the United States government be nonpartisan?-yes
- Do current voting systems violate citizens' rights to vote equally, confidently, accurately and efficiently?-yes
- Should voting systems be elevated and standardized throughout the United States?-yes
The Allies of World War II won because they never failed to use their last resort. The only thing we must accept in war is victory, even if much collateral damage is done! The US Supreme Court lacks the brazen of the World War II allied resistance but armed militants don't!
I do favor mixing non-violence with revolutionary guerilla tactics such as being as armed and dangerous as Al-Qaeda operatives at government branch buildings such as capitols, governor mansions, and supreme courthouses in the form of occupy style protesting. Hopefully Southern Nationalists can revive the Confederate States of America by doing the same thing.
We can't keep having elections like East Germany, Iran, and Russia! We need the National Citizen's Initiative for democracy! Remember, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance with citizens protecting liberty from tyrannical authority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)