The Zionist Elites in the US and EU are disgruntled over Putin's influence over the organically Russian region of Crimea, currently occupied by Ukraine. The Zionists are upset cause Vladimir Putin is righting the wrong that was done to Crimea by the USSR when it transferred it over to the Ukrainian SSR. Now the US-EU ZOG want's to strike Russia with sanctions, even though such actions would have negative impact on the economies of the West.
Russian troops marching into Crimea is nothing compared to the numerous atrocities committed by other historical and current regimes.
The Muslim Conquests swallowed beyond the Arabian peninsula into the Roman World where the Levant, Anatolia, Balkans, North Africa, and even Hispania and Sicily became occupied by Arab forces from the 7th century until the 19th century. Should the Levant & North Africa be considered Arab? I have nothing against Arabs but this invasion would be considered illegal and sinful under both international and natural law. Some damage was undone with notable events such as Reconquest of Hispania of the 15th century by Catholic monarchies. Plus, the Fall of Constantinople of 1453 would be considered under international law as an illegal assault on national sovereignty, making Turkish presence outside of 13th century borders of Seljuk Sultanates of Rum illegal. This means that some of so called "Turkish territory" such as Constantinople and Smyrna are truly part of Greece under natural law. I will say however that Egypt and the Levant are both truly and naturally of Greek and Arab societies. There was a Roman Province called Arabia Petraea which is today part of the Levant, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. There was a Roman Emperor from Arabia Petraea called Philip the Arab who ruled Rome from 244 to 249 AD.
As for indigenous persons of the Americas, Oceania, Africa, and Greater India you may find the last paragraph hypocritical but the Levant, Europe, and North Africa have already been settled by the Roman Times while the New World plus Africa were unsettled frontiers until the late 19th century to early 20th century. Some colonies that were once part of their true organic empires were stolen by other empires. examples include the British expulsion of French Acadians, British annexation of the Afrikaner Kaapland, Spanish occupation of Louisiana and French handover of Louisiana to the United States, annexation of a free and independent Texas, the annexation of Oregon Country by the USA from the British, the Union victory over the Confederate States of America, Union army slaughter of Native Americans, Alaska annexation by US from Russia, the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and subsequent annexation by the US, the Spanish-American Wars, occupation of Hispaniola from 1916 to 1924, and so much more! In fact the United States of America has been the worst offender in the Western World
Germany following it's defeat from World War I was unfairly punished with reparations and loss of colonies as well as it's forfeiture of contiguous land despite the fact that there was no legitimate reason for World War I to occur as Zionist NWO bankers financed both sides of the war. The French and British eventually obtained the German colonies by force. with Adolf Hitler's rise to power and defeat of World War II, Germany was punished even further with innocent Germans being displaced and harmed by Allied misconduct, especially from the Red Soviet Army. The Soviet Union annexed East Prussia and Russianized it while Poland's borders were shifted further West. Plus, the German Confederation system worked better than Otto von Bismarck's unified one-nation Germany. Germany is actually several different nations with some being Lutheran and others being Roman Catholic. Prussia was the most powerful of the German nations and was Lutheran along with Oldenburg, Mecklenberg, Hanover, and Hesse while Baden, Wurttemburg, and Bavaria being Roman Catholic.
Italy is another example as the Italian nations were forced through violence to join a unitary state with the House of Savoy(King of Sardinia) as the only monarchy in Italy. The Papal States of Latium were forced into this illegal state against their will and stripped of territory with only a small manor sized territory delegated back to the Vatican in 1929. Italy was rightfully the sovereign of Libya, Somalia(not counting British and French Somalilands), and the once Turkish occupied Albania but sinfully invaded the Christian Ethiopian Empire both in 1895-96 and 1936-41. There are several Italian states that were illegally forced to dissolve such as the Most Serene Republic of Venice which had a proud and independent culture until 1797 when Napoleon forced Venice into annexation with a Napoleonic satellite state. Others include Naples, Sicily, Modena, Tuscany, Milan, and of course Sardinia. Tyrol also relates more to Austria than other Italian states and Austria is a federal republic. San Marino was spared from forced annexation by the Judeo-Masonic Italian conquerors.
While the British Empire is considered the greatest empire in history for having improvements in quality of life and high standards of living occur within the empire, it should not be free of any criticism. The British Empire should be credited with bringing the Pagan Third World into the Christian First World but it has some events in history that compromise it's overall proud history. Examples of British tyranny include expulsion of French Arcadia, military regime installed in Massachusetts, subjugation of Dutch descending Boers, occupation of German colonies, occupation of Cyprus, and even the betrayal of the First World government in Rhodesia in favor of a Jewish Second World influenced Pagan Third World Zimbabwe led by "Negro Stalinist" Robert Mugabe. The British have also participated alongside the United States in the invasion and rape of Iraq.
Israel is truly the most evil of any state in existence to date as it is a satanic Jewish state. Israel under Jewish rule paints a portrait of how Jewish Freemasons are able to survive being held accountable and avoid falling down to rightful(or illicit) owners. In fact, Hitler and Mussolini were Freemasons who betrayed and hijacked Nazism and Fascism in attempt to not only smear the reputation of true nationalists but also raise morale for Talmudic and Kabbalist Masonic Zionist Jews in creating a Jewish state in Palestine, the land Jesus Christ lived in nearly his whole life. I understand that there are Islamic Extremists but they corrupt the true buried version of Islam. Islam is truly another sect of Christianity much like Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism. Mohammed originally started out being tolerant and Christ-like but it turns out Mohammed was a sinner and his words cannot overrule Jesus Christ. I feel that ancient Zionists sabotaged the Islamic Movement of the early 7th century to make it as evil and barbaric as Talmudic Judaism. The Ahmadiyya Movement founded in the 19th century is closer to true organic Islam as a religion of peace in following the divine Jesus Christ than the Zionist contaminated cults of Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Muslim Brotherhood groups. Jewish terrorist organizations have existed as well such as Lehi, which was first supported by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy during World War II but then supported by the Soviet Union. The Jewish Soviet State of Israel not only committed atrocities against Palestinians and non-Jews but also committed the unspeakable act of deicide, just like the Jewish elders that deceived Pontius Pilate into crucifying Jesus Christ during the Passover of 33 A.D. The Jewish Regime in Israel cannot survive without U.S. foreign aid. Besides, most Jews of the illegal State of Israel originate from the ancient Kingdom of Khazaria(which is today Southern Russia(Europe)) which existed as the first Jewish State. Only a few indigenous Jews such as Mizrahi Jews should truly be morally considered of Palestinian nationality. True Judaism does not have a nationality but is more Nomadic-like and Jews have historically have lived in different lands. Force Israel to abide by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan and keep an eye on it!
The United States of America under the 1787 Constitution was pushed by the Masonic Federalists who wanted the federal government to have vast powers at the expense of the states and people. Though the US Constitution clearly limits the federal government, activist judges and tyrannical law enforcement have changed the meaning of the document's clear words, going as far as to have 4,000 federal criminal laws, the military preventing states from seceding, hundreds of military bases worldwide, infringement of civil liberties, executive tyranny, special interests(including Zionist Illuminati bankers) pushed legislation, and subjugating states with activist judges and police force. Numerous states(even right-wing christian ones) have been forced to recognize homosexual marriages even though the courts can't force policy on governments.
I realize Russian military presence in Crimea is scary to people but Crimea should have never been part of Ukraine in the first place. In fact, Crimea looks and feels a lot like Greece and Turkey. Crimea has been part of Roman, Byzantine, Khazar, and Russian culture. Something tells me Crimea is naturally diverse as the Levant.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Is America Really A Nation?
I've been looking at the alternate history wiki and came across the 13 Fallen Stars timeline which described what the political and geographic outlines would be if the 1787 Constitutional Convention failed and the former 13 rebellious colonies(New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia) agreed to dissolve the Articles of Confederation in favor of several less centralized and more independent republics.
What would the political situation be after 1788 and how would relations be? Why would it have been better for the Constitutional Convention to never be successful? For one, each of the colonies had separate cultures and attitudes.
Examples distinguishing the colonies would include issues of slavery, foreign policy, language, and religion. For example, New England was pro-British and has historically supported British causes while New Netherland and Virginia were anti-British. John Adams of New England was Pro-British and a Federalist, supporting the Northern interests of the New England states while Thomas Jefferson of Virginia was anti-British and pro-Revolutionary in his policies. Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Carolina would appear neutral but the first of these three mentioned would be anti-British while the last of the three would be pro-British.
The War of 1812 was a major indicator of which states supported British causes. New England states were upset with the U.S. Government's rivalry with the British since it would hurt the interests of New England. New England states even threatened to secede from the United States over this war. It was the Upper Southern States near Virginia that were at odds with the British.
Another issue is slavery. Massachusetts was the first of the former colonies to abolish slavery. New England would be the most anti-slavery American Republic as many abolitionists including Frederick Douglas, William Henry Garrison, David Henry Thorneau, and Harriet Beecher Stowe lived in New England. New Netherland and Pennsylvania were part of the anti-slavery crowd and the norther American Republics resisted efforts by the southern States to spread the legality of slavery. The Northern states even defied the Fugitive Slave Act passed by the U.S. Congress in 1850. Who says states nullifying federal laws is racist? In fact, runaway slaves would have been safer and freer in the northern republics if not for the existence of the U.S. government.
Third issue is trade and the economy. The northern states were pro-merchant and industrial with Alexander Hamilton of New York favoring a more centralized government for protection of northern manufacturing industries. Thomas Jefferson by contrast favored agrarian interests as the southern states were agrarian. The American republics of Virginia and Carolina would be more agrarian and have high exports of cotton. Maryland would be the only republic not to unite with other states while managing to be both agrarian and industrial much like Pennsylvania. One of the causes for the American Civil War was economic as the Southern states felt threatened by the GOP's proposals to unfairly tax southern states in favor of northern manufacturing states. The southern states were pro-free trade while the northern states were protectionist. The American Civil War was caused by economic concerns, not slavery.
Culture was also a distinguishing factor as not all of the American states agreed on what American culture was. With independent American Republics, New England would be more like the British Isles and Ireland with French influences as New English culture would be influenced by Methodist and Catholic religions as well as bordering the Maritime provinces of British North America. New Netherland(union between New Jersey and New York) would base it's culture on both English and Dutch cultures with English and Dutch as official languages. Part of the full New Netherland(NJ & NY) would be first colonized by the Dutch colonial Empire. Pennsylvania would be influenced by more Germanic influences than Anglo as the southeastern and northernmost lands in Pennsylvania and Delaware respectively were part of the Swedish colony of New Sweden from 1638 to 1655 before being dominated by the Dutch. Pennsylvania actually has it's own language known as Pennsylvania Dutch. Unless I'm mistaken, New Netherland and Pennsylvania would be Dutch as well as English with Pennsylvania possibly being Swedish. Both New Netherland and Pennsylvania were prominently Protestant.
Maryland & Virginia would be the only former U.S. States not to unite with other states in forming an independent republic as Maryland had it's own republic. Maryland is considered to be the only state in which Roman Catholicism is the largest religion. Virginia formed it's own independent commonwealth republic but unlike Maryland, Virginia had larger territorial expansions that extended as far west as the Mississippi River, bordering Louisiana Territory. The Mason-Dixon line would establish the borders between Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Canada(United Britannic Commonwealth). Maryland and Virginia would be unitary states. Carolina would include the Deep South which included North & South Carolina plus Georgia. The Carolinian Confederacy would be considered the most conservative republic in North America and the most free trade friendly country as well.
As for countries formed in the 19th century, the final border disputes between the American Republics would be resolved by the Napoleonic Wars. Louisiana was a French colony and part of New France from the 17th century till 1763, when it came under Spanish occupation. Spanish occupation would end in 1801 with the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. Louisiana would become an independent republic in 1812. Louisiana's main culture would be based off that of French and Creole cultures.
As for Texas, the Southwest(California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, West Colorado, most of New Mexico, Far West Texas, Baja Califronia peninsula, Senora, and North Chihuahua), the Midwest north of Mason-Dixon, Canada, Alaska, and the Northwest; Texas would become a free and independent republic since 1836, the republics of Rio Grande and Yucatan would be formed in the early 1840's from their respective regions but out of the three new republics seceding from New Spain, Texas would be mostly English and Baptist while Rio Grande and Yucatan would retain the Hispanic and Roman Catholic roots of New Spain.
The Southwest mentioned in previous paragraph would form the present day Latin Republic of California. My opinion here would be that instead of Latin American nations becoming independent of Spanish Crown in the 1810's-1830's, they would become dominions with self-governing parliaments starting with the Latin American Revolutions of the 1820's. New Spain would be partitioned in 1848 due to the California Gold Rush in which New Spain would be divided into numerous dominions, especially California and Mexico.
The Midwestern US north of Mason-Dixon, Northwestern U.S., Canada, and Alaska would be part of the 1876 established United Britannic Commonwealth which would create a confederation based on the US Articles of Confederation. Dominions would overtime include Britain, Ireland, Acadia, Newfoundland, Canada, Borealia, Columbia, Patagonia, India(and Princely States), Natal, Australia, Westralia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Bahamas, Jamaica, Windward-Leeward Islands, Barbados, Trinidad along with protectorates of Hawaii and Maldives plus the numerous Crown Dependencies.
The Spanish-American War would actually be a series of revolutionary republican wars in Latin America lasting from 1885-1920's with Venezuela, New Granada, Ecuador, California, Cuba, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Mexico, and Santo Domingo becoming independent republics between 1885 to 1924.
My point being here is that the United States of America is as much of a nation as the Soviet Union and the European Union. The USSR dissolved peacefully due to independence of it's Soviet Socialist Republics and even then you could clearly see the USSR is less deceptive at passing itself off as a nation-state than the USA has.
Despite the USA starting out as a humble republic, the 1787 Constitution was truly a victory for big government federalists as it would eventually be misinterpreted to green light an imperialistic federal government which has since it's inception invoked aggressive wars to prevent states from seceding from the USA, plundered natural resources of sovereign lands, killed millions of innocents, controlled the entire monetary system via Federal Reserve, extorted trillions from incriminated people via IRS and income tax, accumulated over $17 trillion debt, passed a barrage of regulations crippling economic freedom such as New Deal, Great Society, and Obamanomics, and massive violations of civil liberties with a growing police state.
My point here is that the USA can no longer be a massive unified republic and still be prosperous and free. The Soviet Union declined and dissolved due to separatism. In fact some states have not legally been part of the USA since the 1860's and cannot be subject to U.S. jurisdiction and these states include that of the Confederate States of America. Plus, despite Thomas Jefferson being an ardent classical liberal, the Louisiana Purchase violated the U.S. Constitution and made the USA an empire. I realize the benefits the purchase provided the USA with but Louisiana would eventually lose it's true organic culture based on that of French and Creole cultures. Same goes for the Southwest known in my heart as California. California went from being a Roman Catholic, Conservative, Latin society during the early to mid 19th century to a Zionist controlled socialist puppet state in the 21st century. The degenerate cutlures of Hollywood and San Francisco would have never been tolerated in 19th century Hispanic California. If anyone thinks that California would just be part of Mexico, California had it's own culture and it's people were called Californios.
If the US Constitution was never ratified and the US states instead became independent republics, the numerous differences would have been better dissolved so this way no state(s) could use the federal or central government as a weapon to impose their agenda on other states. The best hope for America is for states to start seceding and for the $17 trillion debt empire to collapse, done with as little insurrection as possible. I think the former Confederate States of America is a great place to start cause it would void the forced annexation by the US that occurred in 1865.
What would the political situation be after 1788 and how would relations be? Why would it have been better for the Constitutional Convention to never be successful? For one, each of the colonies had separate cultures and attitudes.
Examples distinguishing the colonies would include issues of slavery, foreign policy, language, and religion. For example, New England was pro-British and has historically supported British causes while New Netherland and Virginia were anti-British. John Adams of New England was Pro-British and a Federalist, supporting the Northern interests of the New England states while Thomas Jefferson of Virginia was anti-British and pro-Revolutionary in his policies. Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Carolina would appear neutral but the first of these three mentioned would be anti-British while the last of the three would be pro-British.
The War of 1812 was a major indicator of which states supported British causes. New England states were upset with the U.S. Government's rivalry with the British since it would hurt the interests of New England. New England states even threatened to secede from the United States over this war. It was the Upper Southern States near Virginia that were at odds with the British.
Another issue is slavery. Massachusetts was the first of the former colonies to abolish slavery. New England would be the most anti-slavery American Republic as many abolitionists including Frederick Douglas, William Henry Garrison, David Henry Thorneau, and Harriet Beecher Stowe lived in New England. New Netherland and Pennsylvania were part of the anti-slavery crowd and the norther American Republics resisted efforts by the southern States to spread the legality of slavery. The Northern states even defied the Fugitive Slave Act passed by the U.S. Congress in 1850. Who says states nullifying federal laws is racist? In fact, runaway slaves would have been safer and freer in the northern republics if not for the existence of the U.S. government.
Third issue is trade and the economy. The northern states were pro-merchant and industrial with Alexander Hamilton of New York favoring a more centralized government for protection of northern manufacturing industries. Thomas Jefferson by contrast favored agrarian interests as the southern states were agrarian. The American republics of Virginia and Carolina would be more agrarian and have high exports of cotton. Maryland would be the only republic not to unite with other states while managing to be both agrarian and industrial much like Pennsylvania. One of the causes for the American Civil War was economic as the Southern states felt threatened by the GOP's proposals to unfairly tax southern states in favor of northern manufacturing states. The southern states were pro-free trade while the northern states were protectionist. The American Civil War was caused by economic concerns, not slavery.
Culture was also a distinguishing factor as not all of the American states agreed on what American culture was. With independent American Republics, New England would be more like the British Isles and Ireland with French influences as New English culture would be influenced by Methodist and Catholic religions as well as bordering the Maritime provinces of British North America. New Netherland(union between New Jersey and New York) would base it's culture on both English and Dutch cultures with English and Dutch as official languages. Part of the full New Netherland(NJ & NY) would be first colonized by the Dutch colonial Empire. Pennsylvania would be influenced by more Germanic influences than Anglo as the southeastern and northernmost lands in Pennsylvania and Delaware respectively were part of the Swedish colony of New Sweden from 1638 to 1655 before being dominated by the Dutch. Pennsylvania actually has it's own language known as Pennsylvania Dutch. Unless I'm mistaken, New Netherland and Pennsylvania would be Dutch as well as English with Pennsylvania possibly being Swedish. Both New Netherland and Pennsylvania were prominently Protestant.
Maryland & Virginia would be the only former U.S. States not to unite with other states in forming an independent republic as Maryland had it's own republic. Maryland is considered to be the only state in which Roman Catholicism is the largest religion. Virginia formed it's own independent commonwealth republic but unlike Maryland, Virginia had larger territorial expansions that extended as far west as the Mississippi River, bordering Louisiana Territory. The Mason-Dixon line would establish the borders between Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Canada(United Britannic Commonwealth). Maryland and Virginia would be unitary states. Carolina would include the Deep South which included North & South Carolina plus Georgia. The Carolinian Confederacy would be considered the most conservative republic in North America and the most free trade friendly country as well.
As for countries formed in the 19th century, the final border disputes between the American Republics would be resolved by the Napoleonic Wars. Louisiana was a French colony and part of New France from the 17th century till 1763, when it came under Spanish occupation. Spanish occupation would end in 1801 with the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. Louisiana would become an independent republic in 1812. Louisiana's main culture would be based off that of French and Creole cultures.
As for Texas, the Southwest(California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, West Colorado, most of New Mexico, Far West Texas, Baja Califronia peninsula, Senora, and North Chihuahua), the Midwest north of Mason-Dixon, Canada, Alaska, and the Northwest; Texas would become a free and independent republic since 1836, the republics of Rio Grande and Yucatan would be formed in the early 1840's from their respective regions but out of the three new republics seceding from New Spain, Texas would be mostly English and Baptist while Rio Grande and Yucatan would retain the Hispanic and Roman Catholic roots of New Spain.
The Southwest mentioned in previous paragraph would form the present day Latin Republic of California. My opinion here would be that instead of Latin American nations becoming independent of Spanish Crown in the 1810's-1830's, they would become dominions with self-governing parliaments starting with the Latin American Revolutions of the 1820's. New Spain would be partitioned in 1848 due to the California Gold Rush in which New Spain would be divided into numerous dominions, especially California and Mexico.
The Midwestern US north of Mason-Dixon, Northwestern U.S., Canada, and Alaska would be part of the 1876 established United Britannic Commonwealth which would create a confederation based on the US Articles of Confederation. Dominions would overtime include Britain, Ireland, Acadia, Newfoundland, Canada, Borealia, Columbia, Patagonia, India(and Princely States), Natal, Australia, Westralia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Bahamas, Jamaica, Windward-Leeward Islands, Barbados, Trinidad along with protectorates of Hawaii and Maldives plus the numerous Crown Dependencies.
The Spanish-American War would actually be a series of revolutionary republican wars in Latin America lasting from 1885-1920's with Venezuela, New Granada, Ecuador, California, Cuba, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Mexico, and Santo Domingo becoming independent republics between 1885 to 1924.
My point being here is that the United States of America is as much of a nation as the Soviet Union and the European Union. The USSR dissolved peacefully due to independence of it's Soviet Socialist Republics and even then you could clearly see the USSR is less deceptive at passing itself off as a nation-state than the USA has.
Despite the USA starting out as a humble republic, the 1787 Constitution was truly a victory for big government federalists as it would eventually be misinterpreted to green light an imperialistic federal government which has since it's inception invoked aggressive wars to prevent states from seceding from the USA, plundered natural resources of sovereign lands, killed millions of innocents, controlled the entire monetary system via Federal Reserve, extorted trillions from incriminated people via IRS and income tax, accumulated over $17 trillion debt, passed a barrage of regulations crippling economic freedom such as New Deal, Great Society, and Obamanomics, and massive violations of civil liberties with a growing police state.
My point here is that the USA can no longer be a massive unified republic and still be prosperous and free. The Soviet Union declined and dissolved due to separatism. In fact some states have not legally been part of the USA since the 1860's and cannot be subject to U.S. jurisdiction and these states include that of the Confederate States of America. Plus, despite Thomas Jefferson being an ardent classical liberal, the Louisiana Purchase violated the U.S. Constitution and made the USA an empire. I realize the benefits the purchase provided the USA with but Louisiana would eventually lose it's true organic culture based on that of French and Creole cultures. Same goes for the Southwest known in my heart as California. California went from being a Roman Catholic, Conservative, Latin society during the early to mid 19th century to a Zionist controlled socialist puppet state in the 21st century. The degenerate cutlures of Hollywood and San Francisco would have never been tolerated in 19th century Hispanic California. If anyone thinks that California would just be part of Mexico, California had it's own culture and it's people were called Californios.
If the US Constitution was never ratified and the US states instead became independent republics, the numerous differences would have been better dissolved so this way no state(s) could use the federal or central government as a weapon to impose their agenda on other states. The best hope for America is for states to start seceding and for the $17 trillion debt empire to collapse, done with as little insurrection as possible. I think the former Confederate States of America is a great place to start cause it would void the forced annexation by the US that occurred in 1865.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Rights & Responsibilities: Following The Case of "Affluenza"
I've never heard of Afflluenza in my life before hearing of a 16 year old rich kid from Texas who drunk-drove killed 4 people and ruined more lives. Affluenza is a bullshit defense in which the kid dodges responsibility on account of being pampered in a rich family. This slaps the face of what responsibility is and points out just how retarded treating teenagers as children is. In the 18th century, a 14 year old could purchase firearms, drink and purchase beer, seek employment, drive carriages, buy and smoke cigarettes, and even live on their own if financially independent and people didn't complain. They felt teens having adult rights gave them a stronger sense of responsibility and are also to be held as responsible as an adult.
Millions of teenagers are forced into adult responsibility while being presumed irresponsible for many adult rights. Rights come from birth, not when surpassing a designated birthday. Knowing right from wrong is evidence of being responsible enough to make adult decisions. The reason a 6 year old has no responsibilities nor adult rights is because the child can't distinguish right from wrong. Morality has to be taught through guidance and when caretakers fail to guide the child to being responsible, they are just as guilty of irresponsible behavior as if the child actually did know right from wrong.
Ethan Couch was given a mansion by his father without sense of responsibility so the father was the real owner since he was taking responsibility for the mansion. I don't feel couch was pressured into taking responsibility for his actions and when the justice system had the opportunity to do what mom & pop didn't do, Judge Jean Boyd stupidly sided with the defense during sentencing and sentenced Ethan Couch to just 10 years probation and treatment.
How can anyone seriously presume under 21 year olds to be irresponsible on some adult accounts while forcing maximum adult responsibilities on them? As for children, aren't parents more responsible for their children since they know the child better than anyone else? Driving a car is a major responsibility and in driving you are taking adult responsibility for your actions. If the youngster can't be held responsible to adult standards, then the parents for example are usually responsible. For example, February 29, 2000 a school shooting in Michigan occurred in which a 6 year old Negro boy from a troubled family took his uncle's gun to school and shot a classmate with it. The 6 year old boy couldn't be charged even in juvenile court because of his age and 6 year olds don't have any legal responsibilities. The youth can't be held legally accountable even after 50-90 years. The uncle was however charged with involuntary manslaughter because he neglected to keep the 6 year old boy from accessing the firearm.
Do we seriously need laws that put law abiding citizens on trial? The fact that someone can be put on adult trial and receive adult sentences is evidence enough of responsibility for firearm ownership, alcohol consumption, cigarettes, and gambling.
The most irresponsible group of people in our society is Congress! Yes, congress like the rest of the federal government refuses to take responsibility and a lack of effective consequences at deterring tyrannical government violating the U.S. Constitution is only maintaining the problem. You have to use force against tyrannical government and that's where armed insurrection(should be used rarely), nullification, and citizen's enforcement of the U.S Constitution and our unalienable rights.
What about government agencies? Over 5,000 have been killed by violent law enforcement since September 11 attacks. Can you honestly say that we need more gun control against private citizens while arming law enforcement jack booted thugs with fully automatic machine guns? Gun control proponents are willing to overlook abuses by government thugs such as accidental contraband raids. If guns caused violence, why can't EVERYBODY including law enforcement and our military disarm? Elitists will never do so since that would jeopardize their grip on power and control of people.
I can just compare laissez-faire markets vs. planned centralized economies and you will see how government industry is less responsible than free market private economies. Take the dysfunctional Oakland Police Department which blames victims for violence, particularly back in 2012 with a 16 year old girl shot by a 36 year old maniac. The 36 year old maniac had more just treatment under the law than the 16 year old victim as the latter couldn't even purchase a handgun let alone carry one. Police have no obligation to protect you but they're better at threatening you with arrest if you do not obey whatever laws politicians make.
How can a public servant(legislator, judge, district attorney, law enforcement officer) demand their masters obey whatever law is passed with the threat of violence? Just look at how Mexican government handles the drug cartel violence and has strict gun control. Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster made the Ukrainian city of Prypiat uninhabitable since the mid 1980's, then under the Soviet Union.
What's the panacea for violence in society? Responsibility! Forcing wrong doers to take responsibility for evil is the best option for combating terrorism, substance abuse, gun violence, and government abuse of power. You can't have a rule of law without armed citizens checking government tyranny. You have to view and treat government thugs like cancerous cells.
Conclusion here is if someone harms another, punish them, don't put prior restraints on gun purchases. Prior restraints only seek to help those in power evade being accountable to the people.
Millions of teenagers are forced into adult responsibility while being presumed irresponsible for many adult rights. Rights come from birth, not when surpassing a designated birthday. Knowing right from wrong is evidence of being responsible enough to make adult decisions. The reason a 6 year old has no responsibilities nor adult rights is because the child can't distinguish right from wrong. Morality has to be taught through guidance and when caretakers fail to guide the child to being responsible, they are just as guilty of irresponsible behavior as if the child actually did know right from wrong.
Ethan Couch was given a mansion by his father without sense of responsibility so the father was the real owner since he was taking responsibility for the mansion. I don't feel couch was pressured into taking responsibility for his actions and when the justice system had the opportunity to do what mom & pop didn't do, Judge Jean Boyd stupidly sided with the defense during sentencing and sentenced Ethan Couch to just 10 years probation and treatment.
How can anyone seriously presume under 21 year olds to be irresponsible on some adult accounts while forcing maximum adult responsibilities on them? As for children, aren't parents more responsible for their children since they know the child better than anyone else? Driving a car is a major responsibility and in driving you are taking adult responsibility for your actions. If the youngster can't be held responsible to adult standards, then the parents for example are usually responsible. For example, February 29, 2000 a school shooting in Michigan occurred in which a 6 year old Negro boy from a troubled family took his uncle's gun to school and shot a classmate with it. The 6 year old boy couldn't be charged even in juvenile court because of his age and 6 year olds don't have any legal responsibilities. The youth can't be held legally accountable even after 50-90 years. The uncle was however charged with involuntary manslaughter because he neglected to keep the 6 year old boy from accessing the firearm.
Do we seriously need laws that put law abiding citizens on trial? The fact that someone can be put on adult trial and receive adult sentences is evidence enough of responsibility for firearm ownership, alcohol consumption, cigarettes, and gambling.
The most irresponsible group of people in our society is Congress! Yes, congress like the rest of the federal government refuses to take responsibility and a lack of effective consequences at deterring tyrannical government violating the U.S. Constitution is only maintaining the problem. You have to use force against tyrannical government and that's where armed insurrection(should be used rarely), nullification, and citizen's enforcement of the U.S Constitution and our unalienable rights.
What about government agencies? Over 5,000 have been killed by violent law enforcement since September 11 attacks. Can you honestly say that we need more gun control against private citizens while arming law enforcement jack booted thugs with fully automatic machine guns? Gun control proponents are willing to overlook abuses by government thugs such as accidental contraband raids. If guns caused violence, why can't EVERYBODY including law enforcement and our military disarm? Elitists will never do so since that would jeopardize their grip on power and control of people.
I can just compare laissez-faire markets vs. planned centralized economies and you will see how government industry is less responsible than free market private economies. Take the dysfunctional Oakland Police Department which blames victims for violence, particularly back in 2012 with a 16 year old girl shot by a 36 year old maniac. The 36 year old maniac had more just treatment under the law than the 16 year old victim as the latter couldn't even purchase a handgun let alone carry one. Police have no obligation to protect you but they're better at threatening you with arrest if you do not obey whatever laws politicians make.
How can a public servant(legislator, judge, district attorney, law enforcement officer) demand their masters obey whatever law is passed with the threat of violence? Just look at how Mexican government handles the drug cartel violence and has strict gun control. Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster made the Ukrainian city of Prypiat uninhabitable since the mid 1980's, then under the Soviet Union.
What's the panacea for violence in society? Responsibility! Forcing wrong doers to take responsibility for evil is the best option for combating terrorism, substance abuse, gun violence, and government abuse of power. You can't have a rule of law without armed citizens checking government tyranny. You have to view and treat government thugs like cancerous cells.
Conclusion here is if someone harms another, punish them, don't put prior restraints on gun purchases. Prior restraints only seek to help those in power evade being accountable to the people.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Individual Rights vs. Government Powers
What exactly is natural conception of individual rights and what makes something an individual right? Also, what makes an action a power or privilege?
For individual rights, an individual right is one which someone is at natural and moral liberty to do. Who decides what individual rights are? The individual him/herself does as the rights to life, liberty, and property are of individual nature meaning no other person nor government can abridge or redefine any right that has an individual nature. What is individual nature anyway? If activity is solely consensual and not done with malicious, reckless, or deliberate harm to others and society, then it is an individual right. Some individual rights also check against state tyranny such as freedom of speech, assembly, press, right to keep and bear arms, due process, privacy, trial by jury, freedom of worship, etc. But where do we draw the line between Liberty and Policy? What about "welfare" rights? A person is not automatically entitled to healthcare or education as these services need to be provided by someone. Being served at a restaurant is not an inalienable right since the business has a right to serve whom they wish. A person does have the right to have a contract respected such as having insurance terms respected according to the contract signed.
A power is something delegated to authority by a higher source, the people. God remains above the people so God gives people rights, privileges, and immunities. Government is run by man and any ideas coming from man are not infallible. Science is not always reliable and scientists have abused science to fit agendas. Jews in Nazi Germany were portrayed as sub-human vermin and that the Aryan race was the master race, calling discrimination and genocide science. Science doesn't give government powers and no government can receive powers if the people don't have the power at all. If a person can't murder another human being absent reasons of defensive action, then how can government be given the power to kidnap and kill people without due process? Democracy doesn't have regards for freedom as it can negatively affect freedom just as it had in 1928-33 Germany. Governments have even delegated powers to themselves without regard to people's consent. How can a government claim power to decide individual rights on someone's behalf? Plus, how can government also claim the right to tax anything it wants if people don't know where the money is flowing or if it's being used merely to carry out a delegated power?
How can you tell what powers government legitimately has? For starts, check it's laws such as statures and constitution. If you notice anything either left out or stained in legal documents, you'll know how your government respects rights. If government doesn't recognize certain rights(right to keep and bear arms) yet claims others(Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage, Healthcare, etc.) as rights, you know something's wrong. What if government makes you fear it more than they fear you? Who has the power or rights to defend your rights? Individuals retain right to defend themselves and rights, even if it means slaying dozens of government law enforcement officers and thuggish soldiers.
People have usually relied on the courts for redress but rarely does redress come. Did the Glorious Revolution of 1689 happen through the courts? The British courts had no litigation presented to it because people confronted British troops and succeeded due to the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms and accepting nothing more than victory at all costs, even if it meant harming and killing many British Troops. George Washington also would accept nothing less than Victory as there is no compromising with tyranny at all. You either kill tyranny or let it flourish more. Though the courts have sometimes ruled in favor of freedom, the other two branches and even other jurists ignore these decisions and continue violating people. They do this because they can get away with it and feel no physical or psychological threat.
When do you forfeit your rights? Since early civilization, if someone were to harm another, the perpetrator would if convicted through fair trial be sentenced to loss of freedom such as incarceration and all sentences are handed down by the courts of justice as legislated by the legislature. Due Process is the concept that ensures fairness, justice, and freedom including freedom from coercion. Without due process, government will become arbitrary and people will have no freedom from coercion. The massive confiscation of firearms in Australia in 1996 did not constitute due process as it was Port Arthur Shooter Martin Bryant who was guilty of that crime, not Australia's gun owners. Why didn't Australian gun owners protest and attack law enforcement officers or call for the overthrow of administration? Haven't Australians throughout the 20th century been braver and have more sense of individualism than Americans? Even though Australia lacks a bill of rights, courts have protected some rights and I feel if people had faith in God, rights would be exercised whether government approves or disapproves. You can't be forced to forfeit your rights unless there was an injured party that you were directly responsible for injuring. A convicted criminal being sentenced for a crime with an injured party is considered part of justice, but not if the convicted person is innocent.
Does someone go to jail or face any legal consequences because their neighbor robbed a bank or went on a shooting spree? No, doing so would violate due process which requires that the person be at fault for the crime commit via fair trial. How are people unfairly forced to forfeit their rights such as keeping and bearing arms due to assumption of mass shootings and abuse of weapons? Confiscation without due process of course. Of course you could always appeal but it puts you in the position of being presumed guilty and must prove innocence.
Plus, how could public servants decide what's best for us, especially children, who are known better by family than anyone else? Can government honestly assume it knows best when it comes to child care and how can there be any laws in which you can be treated as a child due to restrictions and prohibitions such as buying guns, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, and sometimes mature entertainment yet be considered fully responsible for adult consequences such as adult prison time? The reason a 6 year old can't vote, drive, buy guns, alcohol, tobacco, sign into contracts, get a full time career, or do many things outside parental consent is because they normally do not have the capacity to be held responsible for their actions. Politician's law says a 17 year old is presumed mostly as irresponsible as a 6 year old yet unlike the 6 year old who can't be charged in any court(not even juvenile) the 17 year old can be tried as an adult.
Does this sound like due process to you? How about armed thugs arriving at your house without proper warning coming to take your guns? No due process hearing just that you fit criteria for prohibited person.
what is the denominator in this? Denominator here is that government cannot act in powers it doesn't have and nor can people delegate powers they themselves lack. Does a person naturally have the right to kill an unborn child? Abortion has been forced on us by the U.S. Supreme Court despite the U.S. Constitution giving courts nor other branches no such power. The courts have also attacked the God of the Bible by prohibiting prayer and bibles in class. Where does the judicial system have authority to make law?
For individual rights, an individual right is one which someone is at natural and moral liberty to do. Who decides what individual rights are? The individual him/herself does as the rights to life, liberty, and property are of individual nature meaning no other person nor government can abridge or redefine any right that has an individual nature. What is individual nature anyway? If activity is solely consensual and not done with malicious, reckless, or deliberate harm to others and society, then it is an individual right. Some individual rights also check against state tyranny such as freedom of speech, assembly, press, right to keep and bear arms, due process, privacy, trial by jury, freedom of worship, etc. But where do we draw the line between Liberty and Policy? What about "welfare" rights? A person is not automatically entitled to healthcare or education as these services need to be provided by someone. Being served at a restaurant is not an inalienable right since the business has a right to serve whom they wish. A person does have the right to have a contract respected such as having insurance terms respected according to the contract signed.
A power is something delegated to authority by a higher source, the people. God remains above the people so God gives people rights, privileges, and immunities. Government is run by man and any ideas coming from man are not infallible. Science is not always reliable and scientists have abused science to fit agendas. Jews in Nazi Germany were portrayed as sub-human vermin and that the Aryan race was the master race, calling discrimination and genocide science. Science doesn't give government powers and no government can receive powers if the people don't have the power at all. If a person can't murder another human being absent reasons of defensive action, then how can government be given the power to kidnap and kill people without due process? Democracy doesn't have regards for freedom as it can negatively affect freedom just as it had in 1928-33 Germany. Governments have even delegated powers to themselves without regard to people's consent. How can a government claim power to decide individual rights on someone's behalf? Plus, how can government also claim the right to tax anything it wants if people don't know where the money is flowing or if it's being used merely to carry out a delegated power?
How can you tell what powers government legitimately has? For starts, check it's laws such as statures and constitution. If you notice anything either left out or stained in legal documents, you'll know how your government respects rights. If government doesn't recognize certain rights(right to keep and bear arms) yet claims others(Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage, Healthcare, etc.) as rights, you know something's wrong. What if government makes you fear it more than they fear you? Who has the power or rights to defend your rights? Individuals retain right to defend themselves and rights, even if it means slaying dozens of government law enforcement officers and thuggish soldiers.
People have usually relied on the courts for redress but rarely does redress come. Did the Glorious Revolution of 1689 happen through the courts? The British courts had no litigation presented to it because people confronted British troops and succeeded due to the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms and accepting nothing more than victory at all costs, even if it meant harming and killing many British Troops. George Washington also would accept nothing less than Victory as there is no compromising with tyranny at all. You either kill tyranny or let it flourish more. Though the courts have sometimes ruled in favor of freedom, the other two branches and even other jurists ignore these decisions and continue violating people. They do this because they can get away with it and feel no physical or psychological threat.
When do you forfeit your rights? Since early civilization, if someone were to harm another, the perpetrator would if convicted through fair trial be sentenced to loss of freedom such as incarceration and all sentences are handed down by the courts of justice as legislated by the legislature. Due Process is the concept that ensures fairness, justice, and freedom including freedom from coercion. Without due process, government will become arbitrary and people will have no freedom from coercion. The massive confiscation of firearms in Australia in 1996 did not constitute due process as it was Port Arthur Shooter Martin Bryant who was guilty of that crime, not Australia's gun owners. Why didn't Australian gun owners protest and attack law enforcement officers or call for the overthrow of administration? Haven't Australians throughout the 20th century been braver and have more sense of individualism than Americans? Even though Australia lacks a bill of rights, courts have protected some rights and I feel if people had faith in God, rights would be exercised whether government approves or disapproves. You can't be forced to forfeit your rights unless there was an injured party that you were directly responsible for injuring. A convicted criminal being sentenced for a crime with an injured party is considered part of justice, but not if the convicted person is innocent.
Does someone go to jail or face any legal consequences because their neighbor robbed a bank or went on a shooting spree? No, doing so would violate due process which requires that the person be at fault for the crime commit via fair trial. How are people unfairly forced to forfeit their rights such as keeping and bearing arms due to assumption of mass shootings and abuse of weapons? Confiscation without due process of course. Of course you could always appeal but it puts you in the position of being presumed guilty and must prove innocence.
Plus, how could public servants decide what's best for us, especially children, who are known better by family than anyone else? Can government honestly assume it knows best when it comes to child care and how can there be any laws in which you can be treated as a child due to restrictions and prohibitions such as buying guns, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, and sometimes mature entertainment yet be considered fully responsible for adult consequences such as adult prison time? The reason a 6 year old can't vote, drive, buy guns, alcohol, tobacco, sign into contracts, get a full time career, or do many things outside parental consent is because they normally do not have the capacity to be held responsible for their actions. Politician's law says a 17 year old is presumed mostly as irresponsible as a 6 year old yet unlike the 6 year old who can't be charged in any court(not even juvenile) the 17 year old can be tried as an adult.
Does this sound like due process to you? How about armed thugs arriving at your house without proper warning coming to take your guns? No due process hearing just that you fit criteria for prohibited person.
what is the denominator in this? Denominator here is that government cannot act in powers it doesn't have and nor can people delegate powers they themselves lack. Does a person naturally have the right to kill an unborn child? Abortion has been forced on us by the U.S. Supreme Court despite the U.S. Constitution giving courts nor other branches no such power. The courts have also attacked the God of the Bible by prohibiting prayer and bibles in class. Where does the judicial system have authority to make law?
From Modern Militia Movement: MILITIA MOBILIZATION ACROSS THE NATION UNDER WAY
Keep in mind that this is not mine and that I am merely reiterating a fellow militia member patriot
Dear Save America Foundation Members and all Patriots across the United States,
Be advised that I am in the process of notifying and contacting all legal and constitutionally created militia groups across the United States to mobilize on Washington DC for “Operation American Spring” currently scheduled for May 16th, 2014 and commanded by my friend Colonel Harry Riley US Army Intelligence (Retired) Silver star.
1.8 million people have already responded in kind and are mobilizing and or supporting this effort. We need 10 million.
The Senate and the Congress feel it is in the best interest of this nation to fund illegal immigrants and keep them sustained with free health care, tax breaks, free education in our schools, EBT cards, public housing and the like. They wish to keep sending tax payer money to foreign countries that hate us. They wish to fund bogus global warming projects in the billions and they refuse to take a pay cut themselves.
Yet they will now deny the wounded veteran his pension COLA increases which he or she earned and depends on while struggling to survive day to day, some are in wheel chairs and without arms and legs. Mr. Politician you are now going to be held accountable.
This vote, to first deny and then block the able bodied and disabled veterans their earned pension COLA raises is unacceptable and an act of treason against the Republic from the Marxists in the government. They must want a war against 25 million veterans. Mr. Communist, Mr. RINO, Mr.. Democrat, Mr. Republican. So be it. You got it.
I called the Marxist Senator (comrade) Harry Reid this morning at 0430 hours and left him a message notifying him that we are now mobilizing and coming to see him soon in Washington. We are not leaving the grounds surrounding our White House or the Congress until Mr. Barry Soetoro, the Muslim imposter, has been removed from office for treason and/or impeached for crimes against the constitution.
Speaker Boehner you may want to start reconsidering his decision not to investigate the inaction by our government in regards to Benghazi too. We are coming to town. Your on the visitation list too. We will NEVER forget Benghazi.
If you would like to call Senate Leader Comrade Harry Reid and relay your own message his number is 202-224-3542. Do not threaten, we come in peace, but we are not leaving Washington DC until Mr. Barry Soetoro, the illegal immigrant from Kenya, who studied as an Indonesian foreign student in this nation, who flew to Pakistan in 1981 on a foreign passport, has been removed from office.
We have the resources, the money the training and the Constitutional protections to take this country back. And we will. You have pushed us too far Mr. Marxist, now you will see who runs this country. It is we the people.
We live in a Constitutional Republic not a Marxist dictatorship. It’s time.
33 million Egyptians took back their country from the terrorist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization supported by and propped up by Barry Soetoro and the former Secretary of State (born again Communist) Hillary Clinton. This is also treason against the United States for aiding and abetting the enemy.
Impeachment charges have been drawn up in the past and presented to the Congress against Mr. Barry Soetoro with NO ACTION, no response. They are spineless gutless cowards with as much intestinal fortitude as a rotting possum run over by a semi.
I want all Tea Party groups – Militia groups and like minded individualswho have the courage (and understand and know) that God and the constitution are on their side, to start to prepare NOW to mobilize for“Operation American Spring” May 16th 2014. location Washington DC.
1.8 million people have already responded in kind and are mobilizing and or supporting this effort. We need 10 million.
The Senate and the Congress feel it is in the best interest of this nation to fund illegal immigrants and keep them sustained with free health care, tax breaks, free education in our schools, EBT cards, public housing and the like. They wish to keep sending tax payer money to foreign countries that hate us. They wish to fund bogus global warming projects in the billions and they refuse to take a pay cut themselves.
Yet they will now deny the wounded veteran his pension COLA increases which he or she earned and depends on while struggling to survive day to day, some are in wheel chairs and without arms and legs. Mr. Politician you are now going to be held accountable.
This vote, to first deny and then block the able bodied and disabled veterans their earned pension COLA raises is unacceptable and an act of treason against the Republic from the Marxists in the government. They must want a war against 25 million veterans. Mr. Communist, Mr. RINO, Mr.. Democrat, Mr. Republican. So be it. You got it.
I called the Marxist Senator (comrade) Harry Reid this morning at 0430 hours and left him a message notifying him that we are now mobilizing and coming to see him soon in Washington. We are not leaving the grounds surrounding our White House or the Congress until Mr. Barry Soetoro, the Muslim imposter, has been removed from office for treason and/or impeached for crimes against the constitution.
Speaker Boehner you may want to start reconsidering his decision not to investigate the inaction by our government in regards to Benghazi too. We are coming to town. Your on the visitation list too. We will NEVER forget Benghazi.
If you would like to call Senate Leader Comrade Harry Reid and relay your own message his number is 202-224-3542. Do not threaten, we come in peace, but we are not leaving Washington DC until Mr. Barry Soetoro, the illegal immigrant from Kenya, who studied as an Indonesian foreign student in this nation, who flew to Pakistan in 1981 on a foreign passport, has been removed from office.
We have the resources, the money the training and the Constitutional protections to take this country back. And we will. You have pushed us too far Mr. Marxist, now you will see who runs this country. It is we the people.
We live in a Constitutional Republic not a Marxist dictatorship. It’s time.
33 million Egyptians took back their country from the terrorist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization supported by and propped up by Barry Soetoro and the former Secretary of State (born again Communist) Hillary Clinton. This is also treason against the United States for aiding and abetting the enemy.
Impeachment charges have been drawn up in the past and presented to the Congress against Mr. Barry Soetoro with NO ACTION, no response. They are spineless gutless cowards with as much intestinal fortitude as a rotting possum run over by a semi.
I want all Tea Party groups – Militia groups and like minded individualswho have the courage (and understand and know) that God and the constitution are on their side, to start to prepare NOW to mobilize for“Operation American Spring” May 16th 2014. location Washington DC.
Pass this around.
Just for the record, the Tea Party and Militia Movements as well as my self do not support any terroristic nor criminal behavior as these are the sins we are fighting against. We are fighting against a self-righteous, terroristic, and criminal government. The rule of law has been decided by those who abuse power and therefore people have every right to use aggressive yet defensive force against such criminals.
I intend no copyright or harm to anyone as the Militia Movement's mission is to reclaim self-determination and the rule of law from cynical and tyrannical politicians.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
A New Years Message and Resolution
I'm thinking 2014 should be the year of revolution where people realize that taking up arms against tyrannical government is the ONLY way to solve government coercion. It was the only way to solve government coercion back in the 1770's and 1780's. Do you think a democratically elected legislature should get away with violating the higher laws such as that of the Constitution and God? America has been given a lawless and murderous government due to lack of visible Egyptian style protests like the summer of 2013.
Before I mention the Birth of Lord Savior Jesus Christ, I want to mention the "End Times" biblical verse Matthew 24:21-22 - For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
I have been recommended the King James Bible since it is the most logical and correct one, unlike the demonic NIV for example! Now for a verse stating God giving humanity his only son to save humanity from Lucifer.
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
I mentioned Matthew 24:21-22 cause I wanted to shed light on what could happen to Western civilization if good people didn't do enough. It's not enough to vote benevolent politicians into office but fighting police and armies is what brings victory and sends a powerful message of freedom, a definition distorted by the satanic evils pushed through war, casual sex, drug abuse, communism, tyrannical government, moral decay, and occultists.
I also want to mention The Hunger Games Catching Fire as it teaches an excellent story just like in The Hunger Games about how America became totalitarian Panem due to collapse of modern civilization. Do people seriously believe this shit can't happen in America that they're willing to stand idle as people like David Olofson, Adam Kokesh, and Brian Aitken have been prosecuted and jailed for mere possession of supposedly illegal firearms? Gun grabbers want you to forfeit your right to own firearms to the unholy mercy of bureaucrats. Other rights have been put on lockdown by government tyrants such as manipulative jurists undermining the role of a jury such as hearing crucial arguments such as constitutional matters. What power does any sworn jurist have to have final say on legal and constitutional matters?
Also, what does Romans 13 say about authority? BTW, this verse will be from the King James Bible
Romans 13:1, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”
Romans 13 states here that no force is higher than God and that the natural hierarchy falls behind God. If political power is inherent of the people, how come people must rely on politicians for security of rights? Doesn't government receive powers instead of rights? How can government decide what's best for individuals as if the former was God compared to it's citizens? Politicians are less honest than the decent and righteous people(such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Robert Rhett, Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Barry Goldwater, Ron Paul, etc.). these men were historical figures known for having integrity and selflessness in fighting for American values, both North but also mostly Southern values.
Would Jesus Christ be in favor of democracy? If democracy was unrestrained without the holy boundaries, that would bring the END TIMES! Abortion, homosexuality, gun control, socialist regulations, unconstitutional wars and taxes plus deficit spending, and corrupt justice systems are law! Jesus Christ roamed Palestine as one with deity, virgin birth, and lack of sin. It was Christ who would be known as the Prince of Peace. No other human being in history was able to achieve what Christ achieved by his departure from the Human World into the spiritual heavens and then resurrected to rise into the heavens by age 33.
American nationalism is a farce as New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Midwestern states unfairly influence American nationalism over the objections of the Southern and Western states.
While America was founded mostly by Northern Freemasons, the Southern states were more Christian than the merchants and bankers of New York, Philadelphia, and Boston.
What should be the new years resolution? For starters, the Arab Spring was considered both a smash hit and a perilous nightmare as while strongmen in both the Arabian peninsula and Levant were ousted but mostly replaced with Islamist governments. However, the Modern Militia Movement would fight for constitutional government and freedom. To tell you the truth, I'd rather have a Goldwater Republican take presidency through a military coup than have an Obama Democrat democratically elected. In Egypt, General Sisi overthrew Islamist President Mohammed Morsi and this is how constitutional republics are preserved and dictatorships are halted, depending on who takes power. Sisi has been a populist hero to the Egyptian people while Obama is a communist tyrant.
America and the West are facing End Times that can only be addressed by taking back our governments, similar to the Arab Springs of 2011. I would mostly recommend civil disobedience tactics that are mostly non-violent by nature but should be able to use counter-force against mobs or police interfering with such actions. A police state has been created via instilling fear and discouraging resistance through militarization of law enforcement and destructive manpower of law enforcement.
The only way to regain lost freedoms is to assert yourself as if you had more authority than the so called "authorities". The Civil Rights Movement was made assertive, successful, and inspiring because people asserted themselves and taking a stand through civil disobedience and keeping pride in their actions. As a result, the Civil Rights Movement of Civil Disobedience became a success, lasting from 1955 to 1964, though the Civil Rights Movement as a whole lasted for decades.
Civil Disobedience can only be victorious through the unity of people who believe in fighting for a noble cause. United We Stand! Southern Nationalists must unite to overthrow DC rule in the Southern States by arming themselves regardless of the illegal DC regime's "laws". Conspiracy theorists must unite regardless of political beliefs to save humanity from illuminati terror and government deception! Gun rights crusaders must unite in fighting not for guns but for seeing this as a fight for freedom noting that with every gun control law interferes with one's ability to fight tyrannical government.
If only many people just started following in the peaceful footsteps of Egyptain protestors back in 2013. Just look at how the Real ID Act of 2005 has been doing it's whole pathetic life. Nullification worked more than the courts and the Real ID Act seems to be as if it isn't law anymore. What about gun control, regulations, and drug prohibition? Complying with government regulations will only subject you to a higher risk of abuse as bureaucrats can more easily abuse you since they know your information. If just 20% of gun dealers refused to license with either the ATF or state agency, gun control laws would be nearly as crippled as government thugs will find it harder to harass and intimidate gun dealers and pot dispensaries out of business.
They key is to follow the mostly non-violent resistance movements that occurred in 1990 Eastern Europe and 2013 Egypt. I recommend millions of regional nationalists walk like Egyptians on their state capitols and peacefully clog the streets just as the Egyptians did in both 2011 and 2013. The message is best sent through such a manner. Obama and the elitists were foaming mad at the overthrow of Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. People may need to used armed force to defend their lives and freedoms but peaceful protests are key to gaining some attention.
Before I mention the Birth of Lord Savior Jesus Christ, I want to mention the "End Times" biblical verse Matthew 24:21-22 - For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
I have been recommended the King James Bible since it is the most logical and correct one, unlike the demonic NIV for example! Now for a verse stating God giving humanity his only son to save humanity from Lucifer.
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
I mentioned Matthew 24:21-22 cause I wanted to shed light on what could happen to Western civilization if good people didn't do enough. It's not enough to vote benevolent politicians into office but fighting police and armies is what brings victory and sends a powerful message of freedom, a definition distorted by the satanic evils pushed through war, casual sex, drug abuse, communism, tyrannical government, moral decay, and occultists.
I also want to mention The Hunger Games Catching Fire as it teaches an excellent story just like in The Hunger Games about how America became totalitarian Panem due to collapse of modern civilization. Do people seriously believe this shit can't happen in America that they're willing to stand idle as people like David Olofson, Adam Kokesh, and Brian Aitken have been prosecuted and jailed for mere possession of supposedly illegal firearms? Gun grabbers want you to forfeit your right to own firearms to the unholy mercy of bureaucrats. Other rights have been put on lockdown by government tyrants such as manipulative jurists undermining the role of a jury such as hearing crucial arguments such as constitutional matters. What power does any sworn jurist have to have final say on legal and constitutional matters?
Also, what does Romans 13 say about authority? BTW, this verse will be from the King James Bible
Romans 13:1, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”
Romans 13 states here that no force is higher than God and that the natural hierarchy falls behind God. If political power is inherent of the people, how come people must rely on politicians for security of rights? Doesn't government receive powers instead of rights? How can government decide what's best for individuals as if the former was God compared to it's citizens? Politicians are less honest than the decent and righteous people(such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Robert Rhett, Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Barry Goldwater, Ron Paul, etc.). these men were historical figures known for having integrity and selflessness in fighting for American values, both North but also mostly Southern values.
Would Jesus Christ be in favor of democracy? If democracy was unrestrained without the holy boundaries, that would bring the END TIMES! Abortion, homosexuality, gun control, socialist regulations, unconstitutional wars and taxes plus deficit spending, and corrupt justice systems are law! Jesus Christ roamed Palestine as one with deity, virgin birth, and lack of sin. It was Christ who would be known as the Prince of Peace. No other human being in history was able to achieve what Christ achieved by his departure from the Human World into the spiritual heavens and then resurrected to rise into the heavens by age 33.
American nationalism is a farce as New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Midwestern states unfairly influence American nationalism over the objections of the Southern and Western states.
While America was founded mostly by Northern Freemasons, the Southern states were more Christian than the merchants and bankers of New York, Philadelphia, and Boston.
What should be the new years resolution? For starters, the Arab Spring was considered both a smash hit and a perilous nightmare as while strongmen in both the Arabian peninsula and Levant were ousted but mostly replaced with Islamist governments. However, the Modern Militia Movement would fight for constitutional government and freedom. To tell you the truth, I'd rather have a Goldwater Republican take presidency through a military coup than have an Obama Democrat democratically elected. In Egypt, General Sisi overthrew Islamist President Mohammed Morsi and this is how constitutional republics are preserved and dictatorships are halted, depending on who takes power. Sisi has been a populist hero to the Egyptian people while Obama is a communist tyrant.
America and the West are facing End Times that can only be addressed by taking back our governments, similar to the Arab Springs of 2011. I would mostly recommend civil disobedience tactics that are mostly non-violent by nature but should be able to use counter-force against mobs or police interfering with such actions. A police state has been created via instilling fear and discouraging resistance through militarization of law enforcement and destructive manpower of law enforcement.
The only way to regain lost freedoms is to assert yourself as if you had more authority than the so called "authorities". The Civil Rights Movement was made assertive, successful, and inspiring because people asserted themselves and taking a stand through civil disobedience and keeping pride in their actions. As a result, the Civil Rights Movement of Civil Disobedience became a success, lasting from 1955 to 1964, though the Civil Rights Movement as a whole lasted for decades.
Civil Disobedience can only be victorious through the unity of people who believe in fighting for a noble cause. United We Stand! Southern Nationalists must unite to overthrow DC rule in the Southern States by arming themselves regardless of the illegal DC regime's "laws". Conspiracy theorists must unite regardless of political beliefs to save humanity from illuminati terror and government deception! Gun rights crusaders must unite in fighting not for guns but for seeing this as a fight for freedom noting that with every gun control law interferes with one's ability to fight tyrannical government.
If only many people just started following in the peaceful footsteps of Egyptain protestors back in 2013. Just look at how the Real ID Act of 2005 has been doing it's whole pathetic life. Nullification worked more than the courts and the Real ID Act seems to be as if it isn't law anymore. What about gun control, regulations, and drug prohibition? Complying with government regulations will only subject you to a higher risk of abuse as bureaucrats can more easily abuse you since they know your information. If just 20% of gun dealers refused to license with either the ATF or state agency, gun control laws would be nearly as crippled as government thugs will find it harder to harass and intimidate gun dealers and pot dispensaries out of business.
They key is to follow the mostly non-violent resistance movements that occurred in 1990 Eastern Europe and 2013 Egypt. I recommend millions of regional nationalists walk like Egyptians on their state capitols and peacefully clog the streets just as the Egyptians did in both 2011 and 2013. The message is best sent through such a manner. Obama and the elitists were foaming mad at the overthrow of Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. People may need to used armed force to defend their lives and freedoms but peaceful protests are key to gaining some attention.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
How Dependence on government is Ruining Lives and Creating Dictatorships
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)