I propose a Constitutional amendment:
The People of the United States, being the sovereign authority, shall not be disarmed. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Showing posts with label The Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Constitution. Show all posts
Thursday, February 20, 2025
Sunday, February 23, 2020
A Question
Why did they write in a right to bear arms in the Constitution?
My answer to the question is simply this: WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereign authority of the United States of America. There are several natural consequences of the political primacy of the citizen. I'll just cover the first two here:
First, the citizen as the sovereign authority must be free to examine the facts for himself and communicate his conclusions to his fellow citizens. He can't be compelled to believe a falsehood and therefore act on it.
Second, the citizen as the sovereign authority must possess the physical instrument of political authority and be prepared to use it.
The ballot that's cast by the citizen, like the paper currency in common use, must be backed by a physical value. The government must be subordinate to the sovereign authority, the citizens of the nation. And citizens must have the knowledge and the means to enforce their authority. Contrary to what the practicing Kantians want us to believe, the first four words of the Second Amendment doesn't constitute a license to disarm the citizens and render them helpless in the face of a supreme state. It means that the citizens must be armed, trained, and organized to enforce their authority upon the government.
Now no rational person wants a civil war in our nation, but if the government would simply comply with the Constitution it wouldn't be necessary.
My answer to the question is simply this: WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereign authority of the United States of America. There are several natural consequences of the political primacy of the citizen. I'll just cover the first two here:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
First, the citizen as the sovereign authority must be free to examine the facts for himself and communicate his conclusions to his fellow citizens. He can't be compelled to believe a falsehood and therefore act on it.
Second, the citizen as the sovereign authority must possess the physical instrument of political authority and be prepared to use it.
The ballot that's cast by the citizen, like the paper currency in common use, must be backed by a physical value. The government must be subordinate to the sovereign authority, the citizens of the nation. And citizens must have the knowledge and the means to enforce their authority. Contrary to what the practicing Kantians want us to believe, the first four words of the Second Amendment doesn't constitute a license to disarm the citizens and render them helpless in the face of a supreme state. It means that the citizens must be armed, trained, and organized to enforce their authority upon the government.
Now no rational person wants a civil war in our nation, but if the government would simply comply with the Constitution it wouldn't be necessary.
Thursday, January 09, 2020
A Proposal
What Hubbard called the religion angle needs to be closed, to this end I propose to amend The Constitution.
All religions which deny the validity of the Constitution shall not claim protection under it. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The obvious question that's been raised in the past is why I don't call for a ban on Scientology by name? A name's only a mental label for the concept. Even though it appears to be internally forbidden to change the doctrines of Scientology, the doctrines also commands the believer to deceive the victims where necessary. Thus deception, such as a name change, by a Scientologist will occur. It's by identifying a specific toxic attribute of Scientology that we can properly exclude it from protection under the First Amendment. A fundamental attribute of the doctrine of Scientology is the denial of real laws. The real acts of legislation by real governments that protect the real rights of the people. In declaring "man made" laws to be invalid Hubbard opened the door to the commission of a multitude of crimes that would be carried out by Hubbard and other Scientologists for their own personal benefit. This action's absolutely intolerable in a civil society, in reality The People are the sovereign authority and the sole source of legislation. In reality Scientology has to go. In order for us to live a properly Human life we must allow our government to take a proactive role in defending our rights.
All religions which deny the validity of the Constitution shall not claim protection under it. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The obvious question that's been raised in the past is why I don't call for a ban on Scientology by name? A name's only a mental label for the concept. Even though it appears to be internally forbidden to change the doctrines of Scientology, the doctrines also commands the believer to deceive the victims where necessary. Thus deception, such as a name change, by a Scientologist will occur. It's by identifying a specific toxic attribute of Scientology that we can properly exclude it from protection under the First Amendment. A fundamental attribute of the doctrine of Scientology is the denial of real laws. The real acts of legislation by real governments that protect the real rights of the people. In declaring "man made" laws to be invalid Hubbard opened the door to the commission of a multitude of crimes that would be carried out by Hubbard and other Scientologists for their own personal benefit. This action's absolutely intolerable in a civil society, in reality The People are the sovereign authority and the sole source of legislation. In reality Scientology has to go. In order for us to live a properly Human life we must allow our government to take a proactive role in defending our rights.
Friday, October 25, 2019
Proposal
All religions which deny the validity of the Constitution shall not claim protection under it.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The obvious question that's been raised in the past is why I don't call for a ban on Islam or Scientology by name? A name's only a mental label for the concept. Even though it appears to be internally forbidden to change the doctrines of Islam or Scientology, the doctrines also commands the believer to deceive the victims where necessary. Thus deception, such as a name change, by a Muslim or a Scientologist will occur. It's by identifying a specific toxic attribute of Islam or Scientology that we can properly exclude it from protection under the First Amendment. A fundamental attribute of the doctrines of Islam or Scientology is the denial of real laws. The real acts of legislation by real governments that protect the real rights of the people. In declaring "man made" laws to be invalid Mohammed and Hubbard opened the door to the commission of a multitude of crimes -- including rape, robbery, and murder -- that would be carried out by Mohammed and Hubbard and for their own personal benefit. This action's absolutely intolerable in a civil society. In reality The people are the sovereign authority and the sole source of legislation. In reality Islam and Scientology have to go. And in order for us to live a properly Human life we must allow our government to take a proactive role in defending our rights and the collaborators need to be dealt with as well.
The obvious question that's been raised in the past is why I don't call for a ban on Islam or Scientology by name? A name's only a mental label for the concept. Even though it appears to be internally forbidden to change the doctrines of Islam or Scientology, the doctrines also commands the believer to deceive the victims where necessary. Thus deception, such as a name change, by a Muslim or a Scientologist will occur. It's by identifying a specific toxic attribute of Islam or Scientology that we can properly exclude it from protection under the First Amendment. A fundamental attribute of the doctrines of Islam or Scientology is the denial of real laws. The real acts of legislation by real governments that protect the real rights of the people. In declaring "man made" laws to be invalid Mohammed and Hubbard opened the door to the commission of a multitude of crimes -- including rape, robbery, and murder -- that would be carried out by Mohammed and Hubbard and for their own personal benefit. This action's absolutely intolerable in a civil society. In reality The people are the sovereign authority and the sole source of legislation. In reality Islam and Scientology have to go. And in order for us to live a properly Human life we must allow our government to take a proactive role in defending our rights and the collaborators need to be dealt with as well.
Friday, April 05, 2019
Suggestion
Those who deny the validity of our Constitution should hanged with piano wire. Yes, I know the Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment." But these assholes deny the validity of our Constitution. So why not?
Friday, December 28, 2018
Questions
Why did they write in a right to bear arms in the Constitution?
My answer to the question is simply this: WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereign authority of the United States of America.
There are several natural consequences of the political primacy of the citizen. I'll just cover the first two here:
Second, the citizen as the sovereign authority must possess the physical instrument of political authority and be prepared to use it. The ballot that is cast by the citizen, like the paper currency in common use, must be backed by a physical value. The government must be subordinate to the sovereign authority, the citizens of the nation. And citizens must have the knowledge and the means to enforce their authority.
Contrary to what the practicing Kantians want us to believe, the first four words of the Second Amendment does not constitute a license to disarm the citizens and render them helpless in the face of a supreme state. It means that the citizens must be armed, trained, and organized to enforce their authority upon the government. Now no rational person wants a civil war in our nation, but if the government would simply comply with the Constitution it wouldn't be necessary.
My answer to the question is simply this: WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereign authority of the United States of America.
There are several natural consequences of the political primacy of the citizen. I'll just cover the first two here:
Amendment IFirst, the citizen as the sovereign authority must be free to examine the facts for himself and communicate his conclusions to his fellow citizens. He cannot be compelled to believe a falsehood and therefore act on it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Second, the citizen as the sovereign authority must possess the physical instrument of political authority and be prepared to use it. The ballot that is cast by the citizen, like the paper currency in common use, must be backed by a physical value. The government must be subordinate to the sovereign authority, the citizens of the nation. And citizens must have the knowledge and the means to enforce their authority.
Contrary to what the practicing Kantians want us to believe, the first four words of the Second Amendment does not constitute a license to disarm the citizens and render them helpless in the face of a supreme state. It means that the citizens must be armed, trained, and organized to enforce their authority upon the government. Now no rational person wants a civil war in our nation, but if the government would simply comply with the Constitution it wouldn't be necessary.
Thursday, February 02, 2017
Message
Monday, January 27, 2014
An Old Issue
I'm going through some old files in search of an article on the subject of moral boundaries. Specifically when is an armed uprising morally necessary.
So far I found the following piece. I submitted it to editor Steven M. Barry (a.k.a. J.F.A. Davidson) for publication in The Resister. But SMB always had something better to publish. And the assumption at the time I wrote it was that Big Bubba was going to be the chief enemy. This still applies to The Big Zero.
The fundamental problem with the enemy is that they value power. Loot has always been a secondary issue for them. It is their lust for power that is currently driving their efforts to silence and disarm the People. And it is these efforts that will ultimately bring about the revolution that will destroy them.
So far I found the following piece. I submitted it to editor Steven M. Barry (a.k.a. J.F.A. Davidson) for publication in The Resister. But SMB always had something better to publish. And the assumption at the time I wrote it was that Big Bubba was going to be the chief enemy. This still applies to The Big Zero.
LET'S MAKE A DEAL?
After months (or more likely years) of fighting, the beltway brigands declare that they are seeking a negotiated settlement to the Second Civil War.
After they make the usual noises about "power sharing" arrangements, etc., etc., the head of our delegation answers thus:
What we want from you Bill is this; You and your underlings will formally resign from office , you will surrender all claims of authority over the citizens and territory of the United States, you will go into exile, and under no circumstances will you establish or support the establishment of a quote, government in exile, close quote. You and your followers will take your offshore bank ATM cards and go. And please take the First Bitch with you.
In effect, the enemy is offered conditional amnesty.
The point in favor of such a deal is that we cut our own losses in blood and treasure.
The points against are, firstly, while the deal is expedient, it is fundamentally unjust. The individuals responsible for the subjugation and slaughter of American citizens (the Waco massacre, etc.) are basically getting away scot-free.
The second point against it is that it is contrary to the nature of the beast we are facing. Although the deal allows the enemy to take their loot with them, plunder (on the part of the leadership) was not their primary goal, unrestrained power over us is. The apparent governing principle of (to name an example) Clinton's behavior in public office is L'Etat cest Moi, literally; "The State, that's Me". The leader is held to be synonymous with the state, opposition to malfeasance on the part of the leader is treated as anti-government hatred, in effect as nothing less than treason. Clinton's consistent answer to criticism of his actions has been to defame his victim's
The fundamental problem with the enemy is that they value power. Loot has always been a secondary issue for them. It is their lust for power that is currently driving their efforts to silence and disarm the People. And it is these efforts that will ultimately bring about the revolution that will destroy them.
Monday, November 04, 2013
The Notional Debt
The question of the day: Should the victims be held liable for the debts run up by the criminals?
The correct answer is no. But try telling that to the Democrats and the Vichy Republicans.
The Democrats and the Vichy Republicans, who are in effect now a single ruling party, are exercising powers which were not granted to the Federal Government as well as powers which are specifically prohibited. And in doing so they have run up a debt that is both insane and beyond the capacity to redeem.
In short they are committing crimes against the people of the United States.
The Fourteenth Amendment, Fourth Section states:
Let's step back and examine the situation objectively. The executive and legislative branches of the federal government are in clear violation of the Constitution, and the judicial branch is along for the ride. Not only are they exercising specifically prohibited powers, but they are actively working to disarm the citizens of the nation. Which is in practical effect an act of insurrection.
To govern is to exercise control. But this mob which calls themselves the government is out of control. They refuse to comply with the laws to which they are subject. And they are now subjecting us to their will.
They are not the government. They are the insurrection.
Are we liable for their debts? Absolutely not.
The correct answer is no. But try telling that to the Democrats and the Vichy Republicans.
The Democrats and the Vichy Republicans, who are in effect now a single ruling party, are exercising powers which were not granted to the Federal Government as well as powers which are specifically prohibited. And in doing so they have run up a debt that is both insane and beyond the capacity to redeem.
In short they are committing crimes against the people of the United States.
The Fourteenth Amendment, Fourth Section states:
The Validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned, but neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligation and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Let's step back and examine the situation objectively. The executive and legislative branches of the federal government are in clear violation of the Constitution, and the judicial branch is along for the ride. Not only are they exercising specifically prohibited powers, but they are actively working to disarm the citizens of the nation. Which is in practical effect an act of insurrection.
To govern is to exercise control. But this mob which calls themselves the government is out of control. They refuse to comply with the laws to which they are subject. And they are now subjecting us to their will.
They are not the government. They are the insurrection.
Are we liable for their debts? Absolutely not.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
What The Hell Big Zero?
Another day in the land of The Big Zero:
[LINK TO FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE]
I'm at a loss to think of something original to say about this. I just want this nightmare to end.
It is really this simple: The fundamental cause of crime is the belief on the part of the criminal that another person exists for the purpose of being used by the criminal. Islam is a criminal doctrine created by a major criminal to recruit other criminals to rob and murder for his own benefit. Because the doctrine of Islam denies the validity of all real laws, including The Constitution and The Bill Of Rights, the perpetrators cannot under any circumstances claim protection under same.
Crush Islam.
Now.
Two men training at Fort Leonard Wood are in custody after deputies say they tried to abduct a 12-year-old girl in Pulaski County Friday afternoon. Mohammed Mahmoud Omar Mefleh, 34, and Antoine Clela, 31, were charged with enticement of a child and harassment.
The victim told police she was playing with a sibling in her yard when Mefleh and Clela approached her several times and tried to lure her into their vehicle. She told officers they kept asking for sexual favors.
The suspects are with a foreign military in a middle eastern country and are part of a training mission at Fort Leonard Wood, just a couple miles from where the attempted abduction took place.
[LINK TO FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE]
I'm at a loss to think of something original to say about this. I just want this nightmare to end.
It is really this simple: The fundamental cause of crime is the belief on the part of the criminal that another person exists for the purpose of being used by the criminal. Islam is a criminal doctrine created by a major criminal to recruit other criminals to rob and murder for his own benefit. Because the doctrine of Islam denies the validity of all real laws, including The Constitution and The Bill Of Rights, the perpetrators cannot under any circumstances claim protection under same.
Crush Islam.
Now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)