Hey, if you want to continue to use a service that violates people’s rights (kinda like Jim Crow Laws, but for the digital age, and ideology instead of race), than that’s on you. Since you don’t think violating people’s rights on the internet isn’t a big enough deal to act, then, at least, at a minimum, take SOME sort of action, any sort of action, in the name of liberty and freedom; do SOMETHING if anything:
Continue reading
Emotions aside, we examine the recent “Stay at Home” orders issued by Governors and county Judges nation wide. Do they even have the power to order you to do so? Are they constitutional? Are they even ethical and moral?
First, let’s look at what the constitution says.
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.
Immediately we see that there are some direct, explicit constitutional issues with Stay at Home orders. The prohibition of religious rituals and gatherings is a big, clear, violation. The next obvious violation is completely taking away the right of the people to peacefully assemble. Making these “stay at home” orders an actual large scale violation of the rights of every single person they are imposed on.
If taken to court, no doubt, it will go up to the Supreme Court.
Due to the impact and drastic nature of the order, the Supreme Court would use their “Strict Scrutiny” test to determine if it is even Constitutional.
The first prong of the test is that It must be justified by a “compelling governmental interest.” While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
Does the government have a compelling governmental interest that would require explicitly violating large number of individuals constitutional protections?
The obvious justification would be the Coronavirus and the national emergency declaration; and the need to “lower the curve” and “save lives” by being forced to “stay home.” But what happens when the actual data is argued in court and that it is on record, legally, that this virus is just a newer and nasty flu? Is a nasty flu compelling governmental interest to explicitly violating large number of individuals constitutional protections? The judicial answer to this question COULD set a VERY scary precedent.
Big government lovers, mommy daddy government dependents, socialists, and closet communist would all say that “yes, there is a compelling governmental interest to protect the welfare of the the people, the common good, from a flu virus” So, we could only speculate how the court would rule based on their view and philosophy of government, federal system and a confederation of individual states held together by a constitution that elect persons to represent that state nationally; a constitutional republic. So, let’s look at the known rulings and characteristics of the current supreme court justices.
John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice. He is a wild card. Hailed as a ‘conservative’ he has not been one according to his rulings. He, however, does not seem to vote based on his personal ideology. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he shot down government information gathering about the people. A win for the people. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power. That is a reduction in federalism. Kisor v. Wilkie, he upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, he, dissented against the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, is a stout moralist. He is conservative in his world views and interpretations and is very methodical in his opinions. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he supported the government information gathering about the people so that the government could better estimate its immigration data. Oddly supported a more nosy government. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power. That is a reduction in federalism. Kisor v. Wilkie, he dissented in allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he dissented in an interesting manner in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. I irony is that he, the only African American on the court, dissented, leaving an all non-African judges to rule that an all non-African jury may be bias. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, he, dissented against the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, she is extremely close to retirement and his most likely holding on until after the next election (I’m sure she is hoping that Trump does not get re-elected). She is as liberal as they come. Like most liberal judges, she rules based on her emotions and ideology, then digs for legal justifications to support her preconceived liberalism. In Department of Commerce v. New York, she shot down government information gathering about the people. A win for the people. But, not for the same reasons Justice Roberts did. She hates Trump and is liberal in her immigration views. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek she disagreed with the majority court and wanted to keep or expand federal judicial power. Kisor v. Wilkie, she upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, she dissented in her opinion against private businesses and their records. Flowers v. Mississippi, she joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, favored imposing state secularism over the free exercise of religion. Apple Inc v. Pepper, she joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, dissented from the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice, has been on the more liberal side of things. Though, not as extreme as Ginsburg, Sotomayor, or Kagan, he has those sort of left leaning judicial ideals. He interprets the constitutions, looking for “purpose and consequences” not just literal textual criticism. And he seems to be more supportive of government authority and action over the people. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he shot down government information gathering about the people. A win for the people. But, not for the same reasons Justice Roberts did. He is liberal in his immigration views. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he disagreed with the majority court and wanted to keep or expand federal judicial power. Kisor v. Wilkie, he upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, he dissented in her opinion against private businesses and their records. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, he joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, dissented from the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, has been on the more conservative side of things. He is a Roman Catholic and his faith is not benched in his world view. He is a literal originalist in his interpretations of the constitution. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he supported the government information gathering about the people so that the government could better estimate its immigration data. It was interesting that he supported a more nosy government. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power. That is a reduction in federalism. Kisor v. Wilkie, he dissented in allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, is most definitely a liberal when it comes to constitutional interpretation and the role of government in a society. In Department of Commerce v. New York, she shot down government information gathering about the people. A win for the people. But, not for the same reasons Justice Roberts did. She is a liberal in her immigration views. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek she disagreed with the majority court and wanted to keep or expand federal judicial power. Kisor v. Wilkie, she upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, she dissented in her opinion against private businesses and their records. Flowers v. Mississippi, she joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, favored imposing secularism over the free exercise of religion. Apple Inc v. Pepper, she joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, dissented from the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, just like Justice Sotomayor, she is liberal when it comes to constitutional interpretation and the role of government in a society and stout Democrat given her political employment backgrounds. In Department of Commerce v. New York, she shot down government information gathering about the people. A win for the people. But, not for the same reasons Justice Roberts did. She is a liberal in her immigration views. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek she disagreed with the majority court and wanted to keep or expand federal judicial power. Kisor v. Wilkie, she upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, she, oddly, agreed with the majority in her opinion against private businesses and their records. Flowers v. Mississippi, she joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, she favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, she joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, dissented from the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice, is a texutalist and originalist in his interpretations of the Constitution. He is without a doubt, conservative in his world view and a government minimalist. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he supported the government information gathering about the people so that the government could better estimate its immigration data. It was interesting that he supported a more nosy government. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power. That is a reduction in federalism. Kisor v. Wilkie, he dissented in allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined Justice Thomas in the dissent opinion in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, he, dissented against the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, much like Justice Gorsuch, is a texutalist and originalist in his interpretations of the Constitution. He is conservative in his world view and seems to be more libertarian in his government philosophies. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he supported the government information gathering about the people so that the government could better estimate its immigration data. It was interesting that he supported a more nosy government. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power. That is a reduction in federalism. Kisor v. Wilkie, he dissented in allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined the majority opinion in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, he, oddly, joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
So, given their ideologies and most recent 2019 rulings, we can have some idea about how they could view Stay at home orders.
Liberals would put more weight into the concept and principle of mandatory, government imposed stay at home for the greater good. Conservatives would put more weight in the individual freedoms and personal decision making of the people for their own good.
In general, it would seem like a split court with Justice Roberts as the wild card. It seems like he would be against closing down private businesses, given his rulings for private companies. He also seems to favor traditional religious expressions, so forcing churches to close on Sunday, specially Easter Sunday, sounds like something he would disagree with as well. It almost seems he would be 55% against Stay-at-home orders and 45% for. This would swing the court to a 5-4 decision against Stay at home orders.
Is the violation of rights from a flu like virus a compelling government interest? It seems the court would go either 5-4 or even 6-3 on this one.
The second prong is that the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
A broad stroke of declaring entire aspects of a society “non-essential” would not sit well with a majority of these justices. Forcing the closure of entire industries wouldn’t sit well either. It seems that the court would rule that these actions and orders are NOT narrowly tailored and encompasses way too much; 7-2, 6-3 court, easily.
The third prong is that The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this “least restrictive means” requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately.
Now this is almost laughable. There are millions and hundreds of other, least restrictive means to “flatten the curve.” But, given some of the ideologies of the court, the failure of this test may not be so clear. 5-4 ruling on this prong is a reasonable guess.
Only a totalitarian authoritarian tyrannical oppressive Court would rule “Stay at home” orders constitutional. The same kind of supreme courts that agreed with slavery and internment camps.
Now, lets apply our Liberty Test to dig deeper in this issue.
First prong; No, it does not support ANY constitutional rights. One may argue, it supports the right to life and pursuit of happiness but… this virus isn’t any more deadly than a peek flu season AND there are WORSE things that KILL MORE people. And the “pursuit of happiness” is not protected as quarantine and unemployment will cause an increase in poverty and suicide… With that said, we can see that it will create hardships that didn’t exist prior. Most defiantly NOT supportive of any of our rights.
Second prong; No, it does not expand any rights, nor does it loosen any government regulations or laws around any rights. In fact, it does exactly the opposite. As the secondary prong explores, it creates, increases, and tightens limitations and restrictions around just about all rights. We can conclude that this is the most hateful act towards human rights.
Third prong; No, the simple fact that the government can just deem whomever it pleases as essential while others non-essential is the same as picking favorites and showing bias and partiality in a society that claims to be defenders of equality. It is NOT levied equally on all people. Some people are given special treatment through being deemed essential and others are targeted unequally by being deemed non-essential and ordered to close and stay home. This is the opposite of equality and freedom for all.
Fourth prong; No, it does not. The issue is so broad in that the issue encompasses the entire planet. The issue is a virus. There are hundreds of viruses, all over the place, all the time, every year, everywhere. The broadness, vagueness, vastness, and subjective nature opens the door wide open for governmental abuse and large scale control and oppression; justified by a virus.
With the Constitutionality of the orders in question and doubted, and its massive failure for freedom and liberty, it then makes us question the moral and ethical nature of these sorts of orders.
The statistics to support the claim of how dangerous the virus is, are skewed and heavily flawed. At this point, with the sheer number of people that have possibly been infected, even with the CDC guided inflated death count; there is a reasonable argument that it is just another, new, flu strand; with a fairly similar mortality rate of the seasonal flu. This can not be discounted. But it exposes the flawed proclamation of the scariness and dangerous-ness of the virus; leans more toward propaganda.
The orders are justified with the idea of “safety, for the common good… a little sacrifice for the community” and “security from a common enemy, the virus” The ethical problem is that those are the same justifications used for Japanese Internment Camps and a host of other unethical government oppression… so to use them, would also require you to justify Internment Camps to remain consistent and prevent being a logical hypocrite. The Supreme Court also upheld Japanese Internment Camps too… So that is the ethical question:
This question answers both “Stay at home” orders and Japanese Internment Camps because they both depend on the same logic and justifications. Let’s go through the logical similarities and elements:
Logic proves there that if you justify one, it justifies the other. So the real question you have to ask is:
You can’t say Japanese Internment Camps were immoral but Stay at Home orders are not; because, again, as logically proven above, they follow the exact same logical expression.
If you defend “Stay at Home” orders, you then must defend Japanese Internment Camps, to remain logical and rationally consistent. If not, you are illogical, irrational, and hypocritical.
We can even evaluate Jim Crow laws, using the same line of logic and rational thought. We know that Jim Crow laws and Japanese Internment Camps ARE UNETHICAL and IMMORAL; therefore, we can conclude that Stay at Home orders that depend on the very same logical must then be unethical and immoral as well.
Though, we should NOT solely depend on The Supreme Court to determine our ethical and moral grounds. They too defended Jim Crow laws (the “separate but equal” ruling, Plessy v. Ferguson) and Japanese Internment Camps (Korematsu v. United States). And let us not forget the host of other court rulings throughout history that WERE and ARE and forever will be unethical and immoral (Historic American Government Oppression). Ethics and Morality transcends the Supreme Court. They did not invent it or define it. They either agree with it and defend it, or violate it.
Those who defend “Stay at Home” orders, would have also defended Japanese Internment Camps and Jim Crow laws in those times. They may say that they wouldn’t have but their thinking and cultural emotions is of the present. But their logic is timeless. And the logic, if applied in that era, within that era’s thinking and cultural emotions, would have led them to the same conclusion; the justification of taking away rights for the common good.
From the declaration of independence, the bill of rights, and letters from the founding fathers, of the once-most-free nation on earth, we see a RIGHT of the people, that no one wants to talk about because of what it entails:
The very opening of the Declaration of Independence we see a shadow of it:
“…it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…”
Then, in the second paragraph, it hits:
Now, revolutions and abolishing the government is NOT and SHOULD NOT be a knee jerk reaction to something that is oppressive to the people.
These evils should be suffered, endured; and change from within, peacefully, should be sought first and foremost.
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
BUT, when the government resists change, grows in oppression, and continues in evil; despite the people’s peaceful attempts to change it…
THEN this RIGHT is justifiably exercised:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government“
The colonies suffered through these oppression. They tried to get the government they fell under to change its oppressiveness toward them. But, it resisted them. It grew in oppression. So, the time came to exercise their RIGHT:
“and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.“
And is futile if only a couple of people agree to, it takes an entire community. Roughly 33% of the colonist were pro-revolution and about 13% of the colonist actually participated in the revolution. These 13% of brave, selfless, bold men received support from only more 20% of their communities. And that was it. Everyone else was either comfortable in their peaceful slavery and abuse or were loyalists and received some sort of benefit for being loyal to the crown.
But, we see here, that feelings, don’t trump rights. The feelings of the peaceful slaves, and the feelings of the Loyalist, didn’t trump the feelings of the revolutionaries. The peaceful slaves didn’t want change and the Loyalist didn’t want a new form of government. Yet, the revolutionaries strived for both. The offense of others does not negate what out of necessity, needs to be done.
We also see that the “common good” neglected 1/3rd of the community so that 2/3rds could be comfortable. This abuse and neglect of the smaller portion of the community for the betterment of the larger portion of the community was not a justifiable reason to continue on and endure the government abuse.
The Stamp Act was passed by English Parliament in March 1765, which put a direct tax on the colonies for the first time. Every single thing, made or mailed to and from the colonies must have an official Stamp, and to get the Stamp, they had to pay a tax. They didn’t complain that the tax as too high, but that it was so low it was more of an inconvenience AND they didn’t have representation when it was passed. Benjamin Franklin testified in Parliament in 1766 that Americans already contributed heavily to the defense of the Empire.
The Sons of Liberty formed that same year in 1765, and they used public demonstrations, boycott, and threats of violence to ensure that the British tax laws were unenforceable. In Boston, the Sons of Liberty burned the records of the vice admiralty court and looted the home of chief justice Thomas Hutchinson. Several legislatures called for united action, and nine colonies sent delegates to the Stamp Act Congress in New York City in October. Moderates led by John Dickinson drew up a “Declaration of Rights and Grievances” stating that taxes passed without representation violated their rights as Englishmen, and colonists emphasized their determination by boycotting imports of British merchandise. Parliament agreed and repealed the tax on February 21, 1766, but they insisted in the Declaratory Act of March 1766 that they retained full power to make laws for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever”. The repeal nonetheless caused widespread celebrations in the colonies.
In 1767, the Parliament passed the Townshend Acts which placed duties on a number of staple goods, including paper, glass, and tea, and established a Board of Customs in Boston to more rigorously execute trade regulations. The new taxes were enacted on the belief that Americans only objected to internal taxes and not to external taxes such as custom duties.
In January 1769, Parliament responded to the unrest by reactivating the Treason Act 1543 which called for subjects outside the realm to face trials for treason in England. The governor of Massachusetts was instructed to collect evidence of said treason, and the threat caused widespread outrage, though it was not carried out.
In February 1768, the Assembly of Massachusetts Bay issued a circular letter to the other colonies urging them to coordinate resistance. The governor dissolved the assembly when it refused to rescind the letter. A riot broke out in Boston in June 1768 over the seizure of the sloop Liberty, owned by John Hancock, for alleged smuggling. Customs officials were forced to flee, prompting the British to deploy troops to Boston. A Boston town meeting declared that no obedience was due to parliamentary laws and called for the convening of a convention. A convention assembled but only issued a mild protest before dissolving itself.
On March 5, 1770, a large crowd gathered around a group of British soldiers. The crowd grew, throwing snowballs at them. There was no order to fire, but the soldiers fired into the crowd anyway. They hit 11 people; three civilians died at the scene of the shooting, and two died after the incident. The event quickly came to be called the Boston Massacre.
In 1771, at Great Alamance Creek, 2,000 Tar Heel farmers called Regulators had led an uprising, the largest armed rebellion in any English colony to that time. They wanted to “regulate” the governor’s corrupt local officials, who were charging huge fees and seizing property. The royal governor, William Tryon, and his militia crushed the rebellion at the Battle of Alamance.
In June 1772, American patriots, including John Brown, burned a British warship that had been vigorously enforcing unpopular trade regulations in what became known as the Gaspee Affair. The affair was investigated for possible treason, but no action was taken.
In 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act to lower the price of taxed tea exported to the colonies in order to help the East India Company undersell smuggled Dutch tea. Colonists in Boston, Massachusetts, had thrown shipments of tea into the harbor rather than pay Parliament’s taxes on the tea. This came to be known as the Boston Tea Party and word spread of the act all throughout the colonies.
The British government responded by passing several Acts which came to be known as the Intolerable Acts. The first was the Massachusetts Government Act which altered the Massachusetts charter and restricted town meetings. The second act was the Administration of Justice Act which ordered that all British soldiers to be tried were to be arraigned in Britain, not in the colonies. The third Act was the Boston Port Act, which closed the port of Boston until the British had been compensated for the tea lost in the Boston Tea Party. The fourth Act was the Quartering Act of 1774, which allowed royal governors to house British troops in the homes of citizens without requiring permission of the owner.
In June 1774, the Massachusetts legislature issued a call for all of the colonies to meet at Philadelphia to consider these problems. But Royal Governor Josiah Martin refused to call a meeting of North Carolina’s legislature in time (on purpose) to select delegates to go to Philadelphia. So the colony’s Whigs (those who favored independence) formed a provincial congress that sent representatives to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in September.
Then, in 1774, the the Massachusetts Bay Colony elected ruling council was abrogated and replaced with a British military government under Gen. Thomas Gage, the commander of all British troops in North America. He began warlike operations all throughout New England such as seizing stores of weapons and powder. But, the Sons of Liberty and Committees of Correspondence dispatched Paul Revere December 13, 1774, to issue a warning to local allies.
In 1775, Gen. Gage then received orders to arrest of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress. In a letter to him it stated, “arrest and imprison the principal Actors and Abettors in the [Massachusetts] Provincial Congress.”
In April 1775, British soldiers, called lobsterbacks because of their red coats, and minutemen—the colonists’ militia—exchanged gunfire at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts. Described as “the shot heard round the world,” it signaled the start of the American Revolution and led to the creation of a new nation.
And then, the revolution began.
We can take from their justifications in the declaration of independence and the events that took place in history, and see how they were justified in exercising this right.
Then, in conclusion states this:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
This made them “rebels” and “revolutionaries.”
They banded together, organized, formed an allegiance, and were willing to sacrifice their lives, fortunes, and honor for freedom.
Patrick Henry’s speech on March 23, 1775, sums it up very well, in part:
“For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery… Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven… Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation… what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission?… They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years… we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on… If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!.. Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?.. we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty… we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave… There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come… Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
These “People” formed a “more perfect union” and sought to correct all the things that the previous government failed.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. – The Constitution, Preamble
When you look at their justifications in the Declaration of Independence, you see The Bill of Rights.
#6 is extremely important. It is what justifies the absolute right of revolution. The government can not say the people exhausting all other peaceful options before resorting to violence. It is then the fault of the government for ignoring the petitions for redress. The People can have a clear conscience that they did everything else possible to avoid this, to avoid exercising this ultimate right.
What happens when the government makes laws prohibiting and abridging these rights and ignores the petitions for redress?
The idea of the need for the 2nd Amendment is what the founding fathers knew was necessary for THEM to exercise their absolute right to abolish oppressive governments.
Now, consider Congress now.
Are those who are in Congress actually representing YOU?
Are they imposing laws that go against your local communities needs?
Has Congress made the system so complicated and difficult for YOU to actually participate in?
Is YOUR local justice system fair?
Do the Police act as a “standing army” imposing laws you did not participate in creating and act superior to The People of their community?
Does your government and Congress address and fix your Petitioned for Redress, or is petitioning just pointless and vain?
Is your freedom and liberty being abridged by laws and Congress?
Doe you feel like your vote even counts?
Remember, it was a peace of paper that revolutionized the government… it was their right to revolt put into action.
With the politicians and media outlets constantly pushing news updates on the Coronavirus, we all by now are aware of it, but what is it, how dangerous is it, and why the hype?
First of all, the death rate for ages 1-49 is less than the annual flu. The low is around 12,000 deaths and the high is around 56,000 deaths, annually, from the annual flu. It hit 80,000 in 2018 [1]. How many has the Coronavirus killed? 3,494… world wide [3]. With 102,228 confirmed cases, and 3,494 confirmed deaths, we can calculate a death rate of 0.034 or 3.4% Seems high, but when you look at the age groups effected you see that most of the confirmed cases were elderly which are also the higher confirmed deaths. The death rate for SARS and MERS was far greater, 10%, and 34% [6]. Here is another important fact about the Coronavirus and its death rate. 80 percent of those who died have been over the age of 60, and of those 75 percent had pre-existing conditions such as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes [6]. Compared to Ebola that killed perfectly healthy people, this flu like virus hits harder those who are already weak. How if we put it in perspective, each year an estimated 290,000 to 650,000 people die in the world due to complications from seasonal influenza viruses. That’s EACH YEAR.
*UPDATE: 4/16/2020*
The GAME of numbers and statistical manipulation; a form of propaganda. But, numbers also can’t lie. Confirmed, low death rates show how deadly it’s not. Then how do some regions have much higher death rates? Sanitation regiment and cultural hygiene may play a role but that isn’t the virus’ doing. How can New York suffer such a high amount of mortality, yet, the rest of America doesn’t? Does testing rate change the numbers? Yes, and No.
Italy and Spain (7.7%) have high testing rates with a 5.79% mortality rate. But, France and the UK have very low testing rates, with 5.7% and 5.2% mortality rates. The example here shows that testing rate doesn’t seem to matter here. What they don’t tell you is that initially, as it began, those who died were tested and made up the initial batch of stats. Therefore, the percentage WOULD be a lot higher because they made up a majority of the confirmations from the very beginning [7].
As we test more and more, we find more and more infected, surviving; and as we find more and more infected, and not dying, this drops the mortality rate. In March, the death rate was estimated around 3.4% (The W.H.O. estimation), and even they, it seemed to be an overestimate. Even Trump disagreed with those numbers (consulting with professionals) and said it’s under 1% and everyone laughed [8]. As more countries ramped up their testing, they found a vastly lower mortality rate. South Korea determined a 0.6% mortality rate given all their increased testing. China even published a study putting the mortality rate at around 2.3%
But then this study was published. A group of researchers analyzed data from China and found that the overall mortality rate of COVID-19 was 1.38%. But if they adjusted for cases that likely went unaccounted for due to their mild or asymptomatic nature, the overall mortality rate decreased to around 0.66%, they reported on March 30 in journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases [9]. Then, another study, exposed problems with the data coming out of China. Their study published in the journal Nature Medicine had found that the death rate in the city — without including those who were likely asymptomatic — was around 1.4%.
Consistent with previous research, the new study also found that the death rate varied greatly by age. While the death rate was around 0.0016% in 0 to 9-year-olds, it increased to about 7.8% for people who were age 80 and above. The researchers also found that nearly 1 in 5 people over the age of 80 infected with COVID-19 were likely to require hospitalization whereas only 1% of people under 30 were likely to be hospitalized.
THEN the CDC issued March 24, the guidance tells hospitals to list COVID-19 as a cause of death regardless of whether or not there’s actual testing to confirm that’s the case!! Instead, even if the coronavirus was just a contributing factor or if it’s “assumed to have caused or contributed to death,” it can be listed as the primary cause!! The Western Journal author even stated “It doesn’t help that data when the guidelines for determining who’s actually died of the coronavirus are profoundly vague.”
WHICH LEAD TO this:
“probable” and “presumed” is NOT accurate or confirmed.
What if they died from just the seasonal flu? After all, that infects and kills more people annually. How would they know the difference if the symptoms are very similar?
What happens when an elderly person with numerous underlying conditions comes into the hospital and dies? What happens when someone suffering from late-stage cancer or liver failure dies in the hospital? If that person was in the final stages of life and no testing is done and no autopsy conducted, what are we to assume? [12] Data manipulation is a communist propaganda strategy. Which is why China’s numbers aren’t reliable and everyone admits it. The Washington Post, shockingly, reports on China’s unreliability and their tactful manipulation of their data [13]. Even in their opinion section, they expand on that gross dishonest and manipulative behavior [14]. So, officially, if you are basing your insight and fear on numbers from China… you are officially indoctrinated by communism.
SO NOW, we have States putting out mildly unreliable data, counting those who died from a per-existing condition, as someone who died directly due to the COVID-19. AND we have extremely unreliable data coming out of China. You add those together and BAM, trash statistics, inaccurate unreliable numbers, but cause fear.
*UPDATE: 5/25/2020*
Here we are again, with another update and CDC “revision” [23] of their numbers. Shockingly, of course, as predicted, they drop the mortality rate by a lot; to 0.26% over all.
Officials estimate a 0.4% fatality rate among those who are symptomatic and project a 35% rate of asymptomatic cases among those infected, which drops the overall infection fatality rate (IFR) to just 0.26% — almost exactly where Stanford researchers pegged it a month ago.
Ultimately we might find out that the IFR is even lower because numerous studies and hard counts of confined populations have shown a much higher percentage of asymptomatic cases. Simply adjusting for a 50% asymptomatic rate would drop their fatality rate to 0.2% – exactly the rate of fatality Dr. John Ionnidis of Stanford University projected. [24]
Why are the death rates only higher in Democrat controlled states? Yes, their numbers are/were skewed.
*End of Update(s)*
You can start to notice some hype. News outlets compare it to Ebola and and AIDS, when, in fact, it is just a mutated flu virus [4]. And all these fancy websites are set up to ‘track’ it like some sort of massive pandemic about to bring about the end of the world [5]. The media has hitting on this 24/7. If there is negative news relate to this virus, they do news alerts, blow all the horns and whistles and talk about it non stop. You have liberal states and cities quick to declare national emergencies for ONE confirmed case. I guess all their homeless spreading all kinds of disease as they shit in the streets and leave heroin needles on the ground everywhere isn’t a big deal.
For the same reason why they politicize children, victims, homeless, and every other vulnerable population and exploit tragic events; the make a political opponent look bad.
The criticism of The President after his press conference was interesting. He is acting in his official capacity and meeting with experts to formulate a federal response. And before any sort of implication or visual result, he is already attacked. Now, this is not an enforcement for any one party or person. We have our serious disagreements with him too, but we are also fair, rational, logical, and call out hypocrisy no matter where it is.
The truth is, The Federal government shouldn’t have this much power in the first place to control our daily lives. If I don’t want to get sick, ill wear a mask, wash my hands, and avoid public places; until it dies down. If I get sick, ill follow all proper medical advice, quarantine myself, stay hydrated, get plenty of rest, and keep my fever down. I shouldn’t depend on the government to tell me what I should and should not do. Mommy Daddy government in a forced healthcare state is never a good thing. Communist China couldn’t even stop it from spreading.
Suddenly all the anti-borders, pro-immigration folks are perfectly fine with China sealing off their borders. You can’t be anymore anti-immigration than the actions that China took. Not a word from them. Why? Because they politicize immigration and all the immigrants to make a party and a president look bad. They DGAF about immigrants because they aren’t all up and arms about China…
*Update 4/16/2020*
Wow, just look at what has happened since this Article was originally published on 7 March 2020.
The government has deemed people’s livelihood as “non-essential” and forcefully closing them down. Small businesses have gone out of business. Unemployment rate has shot up to over 10% [21, 22]. What’s crazy is those elements in the Bill of Rights; those businesses directly related to those absolute rights, are deemed “non-essential”
Even POLICE DEPARTMENTS feel like your absolute RIGHT to protest is “non-essential”!
Be sure to give these piece of shit Gestapo-like police a phone call, email, or social media tag, they deserve nothing less for their oppressive mindset.
https://raleighnc.gov/policepoliceinfo@raleighnc.gov919-996-3335
And their Police Chief:
Deck-Brown, Cassandra
Cassandra.Deck-Brown@raleighnc.gov
919-996-3385https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-2&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1250098856827801600&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fpotr1774.com%2Fthe-coronavirus%2F&siteScreenName=POTR1776&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px
https://www.facebook.com/CityofRaleigh
Then, they started enforcing “stay-at-home” orders, dictating where you could and could not go. Commanding you to not leave your house or get arrested. The LOCAL governments fearlessly infringing on YOUR RIGHT to assemble [14].
THEN, these LOCAL and STATE governments ordered a RELIGION not to worship, meet, on one of their holiest of days; Easter. And, when they did, they were issued citations and some even arrested! [15, 16, 17, 18, 20]. And notice a lot of these snide self-righteous virtue-signaling peaceful slaves cheering on these local governments to violate everyone’s religious freedom [19]. What is so crazy is, here, we SEE government TELLING a religion HOW they can and can not worship…
“Pursuant to Executive Order 202.10, all non-essential gatherings of individuals of any size for any reasons (e.g. worship services, parties, celebrations, or other social events) are canceled or postponed. Congregate services within houses of worship are prohibited. Houses of worship may only be used by individuals and only where appropriate social distancing of, at least, six feet between people can be maintained. Further, individuals should not gather in houses of worship, homes, or other locations for religious services until the end of this public health emergency. If possible, religious leaders should consider alternative forms of worship, replacing in-person gatherings with virtual services, such as phone or conference calls, videoconference calls, or online streaming. “
ALL THIS IN A MATTER OF A MONTH.
The Bill of Rights (READ IT!), YOUR inalienable HUMAN RIGHTS, were disregarded and violated in less than 30 days, by YOUR local, state, and federal government…
Completely based on inflated, hyped, and inaccurate numbers of a virus that has infected and killed less people than seasonal flue…
*UPDATE: 5/25/2020*
“When controlling for the differences in population across states, the number of deaths from coronavirus is over three times higher in states with Democratic governors than in states with Republican governors. As of Sunday, April 26, states with Republican governors have experienced 57.53 coronavirus deaths per million of population, states with Democratic governors have 179.74 deaths per million of population. Even excluding the state of New York as an extreme outlier, states with Democratic governors have 138.58 deaths per million from coronavirus, still over twice as many coronavirus deaths per million as deaths in states with Republican governors.” – James R. Rogers [25]
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo won glowing reviews in the news media for his handling of the state at the epicenter of the crisis, though the reviews have started to dim. Republican governors, however, were vilified for moving slowly to order total lockdowns or being the first to lift restrictions [26].
Odd, its almost as if a certain ideology is actively counting more deaths, that may not be corona-virus related, to induce fear and elicit more funding from the federal government. States that are going broke, such as California…
*End of update(s)*
As we see, investors are weak-minded sissies who bought into the scary hype. They acted like Apple and Microsoft wouldn’t recover… The worlds biggest tech companies wouldn’t survive a dip in production… so like weak minded hopeless sissies do, they sell off. Thus, the major dips in the stockmarket.
Then we have the media constantly beating the horrors of the flu into our heads and some how tying it into how poor the president is doing at containing the situation… COMMUNIST CHINA COULDN’T CONTAIN IT. Stfu MSNBC, CNN, even Fox. When you’re in a public place and you see this propaganda on the tv, change the channel.
The virus will die out.
The economy WILL recover.
The human race will go on.
You just may want to invest in companies that diversify their labor factories in more than just one country. Mexico and India are good alternatives to China alone… just a thought.
But this sissy knee jerk reaction to something that takes place annually needs to stop. Confront the fearmongers and shut up their pathetic attempts to control the weak.
The government, as proven, is NOT fighting for your rights, they careless about your rights, and have proven it in the COVID-19 era.
Sources:
Well, it’s officially obvious, a majority of Americans desire peaceful slavery over a dangerous freedom. They are willing to obey a system that puts their human rights on hold for the flu. They are so easily influenced by constant media that they are thrown in to a panic over toilet paper. They claim to hate socialism and the bullying of the moral majority, yet praise a president that is exerting extreme government control and influence. Government officials declaring that churches can’t meet. Government officials telling you where you can and cannot go. This is reality.American freedom is an illusion.
Suddenly all these government regulations can be put on hold to better the economy… if that’s true, why have them at all to always have a better economy?
And who are these officials and experts we are listening to? They are all part of a system that is completely dependent on the government. Of course their going to support MORE governmental action. Of course they are going to demand more government spending. Of course they are going to demand government bailouts. Oh and don’t forget, down the road, they are going to demand increasing the taxes on the rich and the corporations to help fund more massive government programs and expansions to “ensure this doesn’t happen again.” But, it will, can’t control nature and China, Communist Massive Government Control China couldn’t even contain it. But these officials and experts will cry for more government anyway.
Then the government tells free people they can’t go to church, can’t go out and eat, can’t go to work. Then they tell the private business they can’t open. Then, what do you know, it turns into an economic problem! With the government coming into save the day, of the problem they created… And these “free” people, obey like slaves. Then complain about “how am I going to feed my family or pay my bills if I can’t go to work…” STFU you slave, you agreed to go home, you agreed to close your business, you obeyed like a bitch, now live the consequences.
When scared, a nation’s true colors show. Suddenly they want mommy daddy government to save them because they failed to be prepared. They want closed borders. They want to be hold what to do. That saying, “weak-men create hard times” is a historical fact, and now, we have nothing but a majority of weak men, creating a hard time. And it’s only going to get worse.
Not a single freedom group in California are in the streets. They are okay with the government suspending their constitutional rights, over a flu virus. And don’t worry, these authoritarian politicians are taking notes. They see exactly what they can get away with and how far they can push being in control and restricting rights.
So let’s address some of those bootlicking arguments for this level of obedience:
That’s a cute argument. Odd how no one really argues for this, this hard, every year, for a virus that is statistically more dangerous. The general population goes and gets their flu shot and goes about their business. 56,000 people died in 2012-2013 flu season (1) and around 710,000 flu hospitalizations (not even counting those who were infected but did not go to the hospital or where hospitalized). So why wasn’t there a run on toilet paper and country wide shut down in 2013? Right now there are an estimated 27,000 cases with 347 deaths (2). That is no where near the 2013 flu season numbers.
So what stopped the stead of the virus in all the other years prior? Well, logic demands us to admit that it wasn’t the government’s commands to shut down all business and schools and order free citizens to stay home…
Yeah? I like to hear that argument from people who support abortion clinics in their community, impose a tax increase on targeted members of their community, or force certain members of their community to accept anything… They are also the same people who buy 500 rolls of toilet paper, because F everyone else. And usually, these aren’t the type of people to volunteer additional money, along with their taxes, to the local government either. Forcing the closing of local businesses is actually worse for the community; local employees go home without paychecks. Local business lose out in important income to pay their works and buy/produce more product. This has a lasting effect on the community. But because the government said so, it must be right…
Keep Businesses open, BUT empower them to conduct MORE cleaning and sanitizing of their places of business. Request the aid of local non-profit and local volunteers to assist. Leave it up to that private business to decided a customer limit or change in business hours.
Empower and support Employers to send home employees with symptoms or have been around someone who has/had symptoms. Request compensation from state or federal agencies or even donations from the local community to financially support those who missed work so the business doesn’t face the full financial force.
Whatever government agency is closed down, divert those tax funds toward cleaning and sanitation supplies and conduct cleanings of government buildings and public grounds and create fund for local businesses to apply for financial aid.
Just a few ideas to assist in efforts to combat the virus while simultaneously keep the local economy going strong, and families bills paid and fed.
What we have learned from this is a number of things:
1. The modern American culture is weak. To toughen up, it will take very hard times or very hard parenting to changed the negative trajectory next generation. If the flu can throw the nation into chaos, just imagine what else could. And notice how easy it was. Some bad news, repeated over and over by the media, and a little bit of fear-mongering and hype. that’s it.
2. Need to be prepared to be self sufficient for at least 6 months. This means growing your own food, jarring your own food, freezing your own food, stocking up on can goods, non-perishables items with long life spans. Having a chicken coop, going fishing, and raising other animals for food such as rabbits and squirrel. This frees up money for the purchasing of other times. Becoming less dependent on the local energy supply and water supply by having generators, solar power items, water catching and filtration set up. Sustainable food, water, and energy supply will get you through the hard times that are too come.
3. Financial Independence. Dependence on the government is shameful. Having a savings account is extremely important and paying off your debt is very important as well. But, notice influence go through the roof because of what Trump did. Printing off trillions of dollars. That is going to drive the value of the dollar DOWN. So, because the dollar is just expensive monopoly money, it would be a good idea to actually invest in and store hard precious metals like gold and silver.
4. Network of Patriots. Communicate with a close group of local friends to share plans and resources during hard times.
You really can’t blame this virus for all the hardships to come, really. The seasonal flu infects more and kills more, annually. But it was the government that closed all the businesses and turned off the economy, not the flu. Then, it was the government that injected trillions of printed dollars into the banks, printed out of thin air. It was the government that infringed on all your basic human rights; and you were okay with it. Why? To make you think and feel like you “need” the government more than you ever have, and to give them a greater control over the private sector and you.
But, you can’t blame the virus. You elected these people. You obeyed without question…
There is a new kind of HATE that is acceptable in American culture. It is not strictly race or religion based but ideological. If you subscribe to a particular ideology, it is acceptable in the culture to be hateful towards you- more like Culturally Approved Hypocrisy and Hate. To PROVE this, I just need to cite a couple of real life examples that are more common in day to day life. These 5 points help reveal this truly hateful accepted American ideology.
PROOF: It is WRONG to refuse business against to particular ideology (Modern Liberal) BUT it IS okay to refuse business of those who have a different ideology (Conservative).
A). https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/
B). https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/06/27/like-red-hen-restaurants-can-often-refuse-service-based-politics/734215002/
Notice the thoughtful justification in both articles, then compare their standard with each other…
PROOF: It is WRONG to censor free speech BUT it IS okay to censor free speech of an different ideology (Conservative).
A). http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/389262-nfl-player-freedom-of-speech-does-not-exist-for-nfl-players-now
B). https://atlantablackstar.com/2018/08/07/candace-owens-charlie-kirk-attacked-by-antifa-protesters-yelling-f-k-white-supremacy/
C). https://www.vox.com/2018/8/6/17655658/alex-jones-facebook-youtube-conspiracy-theories
PROOF: It is WRONG to silence black speech BUT IT IS Okay to silence black speakers who hold a different view of oppression liberal theology.
A). https://ncac.org/resource/black-voices-silenced
B). http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/400547-antifa-protests-tpusas-candace-owens-charlie-kirk-over-breakfast
PROOF: It is WRONG to associate Hitler with Obama, but it is OKAY to associate Hitler with Bush and Trump.
A). https://fair.org/extra/playing-the-nazi-card/
B). https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/08/nancys_nazi_shock_did_she_forget_the_bush_years_97812.html
C). http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/media/AnalogiesUSPresHitlerMegan.htm
D). https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/why-comparing-trumps-america-to-nazi-germany-misses-the-point.html
E). https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/08/10/democrats_have_become_what_they_say_they_despise_137769.html
PROOF: It is WRONG to make any generalized judgement about an entire race UNLESS they are “White”. It IS OKAY to judge “white people”, some, most, others, whatever the amount, a judgement that is race focused on a sorted group of people, of whom the judge has NEVER MET.
Example: “I don’t mean ALL white people… just some white people”… is a racial judgement on “some white people” that are judged solely based on assumptions and skin color because the true ethics, qualities, and characteristics of those “some” is still unknown.
A). https://www.theroot.com/white-people-explained-1827479753
B). https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/28/racism-white-defensive-robin-diangelo-white-fragility/637585002/
Now, lets LOGICALLY and RATIONALLY look at all that is going on, put sissified emotionalism aside and see what is REALLY GOING ON.
Fight racism, but use racist ideologies against people who may disagree. They cry for free speech, then censor those who they disagree with. They want equality, then discriminate those who they disagree with. They cry, “my body, my choice” but then MAKE YOU pay for it!
The NEW form of HATE in America is Modern Liberalism. It IS exactly what it claims not to be! Hateful.
The really sad part is that three things: either people see it and turn a blind eye to it because they are to cowardly to confront it, or they are blind to it, or they believe it and are okay with it…
WTF is it to you? Why do you need a large SUV instead of a Mini-van? One could potentially kill more people than the other (and cars do kill more people than guns). I think YOU should buy something that I feel more comfortable with. WTF am I to tell you what kind of car you should buy? WTF are you to tell me how I should protect myself and my family?
Clearly, asking this questions shows IGNORANCE of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment in the first place. It is NOT a right to hunt. It is NOT a right to sport shoot. It is NOT a right collect. THE purpose that the founding fathers had in mind was this: to keep the future government in check! and give the citizens the ability to resist any future government if necessary. All those other benefits contained in the right, like to hunt, sport shoot, and collect came as a result of the inherent RIGHT to protect one self and others against an oppressive government.
Then some of those nimrods will say “militias wont be able to resist the US Federal Government with all their tanks and bigger things that go boomy“. Clearly, again, these ignorant tools don’t understand why Afghanistan has been such a headache for America for over a decade! Even Vietnam for that matter. We can even go farther back, like, the colonist and the greatest most powerful nation on earth at that time; Great Britain. With the greater, more powerful force, being stopped despite all their bigger guns and bigger boomy thingies.
All these pathetic questions just show that these snowflakes need to read a real history book and not one published by George Soros filled with his leftist revisionist propaganda of one sided false history. Nothing more than tools and slaves of Soros. Most don’t even know it, thats the real sad part.
But at the end of the day, most of them just want to CONTROL YOU. To feel empowered and over power you by doing what ever it takes, cry, temper tantrums, threat, assault, or anything, to HAVE Control and Power over others. Thats what it comes down to. To sacrifice freedom for safety. But who controls or enforces safety? Who decides what is safe? They do… after you have already lost your freedom to defend yourself and ensure your own safety.
WHY DOES ANYONE NEED AN AR-15? Because government is run my humans and humans become corrupted by power and control and that corrupted power and control will always lead to worse things; just ask the Jews and Germany; what the Nazi party did was legal and socially acceptable, of course, after they disarmed their citizens with the promise of governmental safety and spilled propaganda for years prior to conducting mass murder; all sanctioned by the ruling government…
WHY DO I NEED AN AR-15?
Freedom thats why.
Freedom to protect my self and others from anything and anyone including the government.
Hey, if you want to continue to use a service that violates people’s rights (kinda like Jim Crow Laws, but for the digital age, and ideology instead of race), than that’s on you. Since you don’t think violating people’s rights on the internet isn’t a big enough deal to act, then, at least, at a minimum, take SOME sort of action, any sort of action, in the name of liberty and freedom; do SOMETHING if anything:
Blocks, Hide, Unfollows, and reports of Spam all play a role in the FB algorithm. It also reduces engagements and views, which also impact the algorithm. Use Facebook’s trash algorithm against the ideology that created it.
Who to take these steps on?
They thrive on how many “engagements” and “follows” they have. Facebook gets paid, by them, for shoving their paid for ads and posts in your face. A drop in “engagements” and “follows” makes them question the ads they pay for. They pay for less ads, Facebook makes less money, and so on.
With this in mind, there is a Settings section that I’m sure you are not aware of. An entire arena of Advertising Settings, that are auto selected for you until you go through it yourself… THIS is their bread and butter, advertising effectiveness. This is also, YOUR power to change their ad effectiveness too.
TURN ALL THAT SHIT OFF!
Access your personal information, EVEN WHEN YOUR NOT ON FACEBOOK! Their app protocols when you install the app on the your phone, force you to grant access to all kinds of things that collected data, even when you are NOT on Facebook and NOT part of the Facebook App.
OR, just delete all that personal information about you off your profile. Even if it is “only me” setting, they can still access it…
Make it difficult for advertisers to get reliable data. Screws with their ad research and can impact how they invest in advertising on Facebook.
Things you CAN do to HELP the few remaining open minded, freedom oriented pages and people:
Tap the “hamburger” menu button, and scroll through “Most Recent” news feed. Better chance of seeing something that was reduced (censored) by Facebook algorithms.
Also, go to your News Feed settings and add a couple freedom minded pages to your priorities, and then unfollow some commie pages.
“Oh but don’t you support a private business rights too?”
Our follow up question is, Why, do you support private businesses to violate people’s civil/constitutional and human rights?
Defending Facebook’s censorship, is defending businesses that enforced Jim Crow laws… move along hypocrites. Nazis and communists defend suppressing free speech…
“Oh but aren’t you guys still using Facebook?”
Yeah, to reach morons that ask these kinds of pathetic sheeple questions… and to take an active role within the platform to impact it, even in the slightest.
Now, us maintaining a page and profile and NOT taking an active role in combating its anti freedom would make us hypocritical, but, as seen above, we are being active within it to influence some sort of freedom. What are you doing to fight censorship and the violation of civil rights of your friends and family on Facebook?
Share THIS url for this blog post: https://tinyurl.com/yy7766mj
WTF is wrong with the “patriots” of today?! “Follow the rule of law” oh ya? Like all the laws that oppress? Did the Patriots of the Revolutionary War follow the rule of law?! Did the founders of America follow their current rule of law?! “Condemn these acts of violence” oh ya? Like the violent acts of our Founding Fathers, you know, killing and burning the government of their day? With mass censorship and all kinds of illegal unconstitutional violations, WITH the court system utterly failing… what is the modern patriot’s response; vote harder? WTF is wrong with you pathetic fake false patriots?!
Continue readingLet’s face it, your nice and sweet peaceful protests have done absolutely thing. You protest abortion, and guess what, millions of babies are still killed every year. You protest Gun Control, and guess what, laws that infringe on the 2nd Amendment keep growing. It’s a nice show to put on with big names, but in actuality, it does not change anything.
Remember the Tea Party Protests in the early 2000s? What happened. Well, quite frankly, they didn’t change anything. Look at where America is today. What did they change? The party they overwhelmingly support lost the House and is on the verge of losing the Senate. “Oh but they got Trump elected” some might try to argue, but what has his influence done to abortion and gun control? Nothing. In fact, he supports Gun Control laws lol. “Oh but Trump will get to nominate traditionalist Supreme Court justices” they might also try to argue, but how has that turned out? Not good. The latest Supreme Court decision has opened the door for even more limitations on religious institutions, not to mention their avoidance of cases that would effect the police state and abortion.
Look at the large gun rights rally in Virginia in 2019. They were so peaceful and so compliant they managed to get the state of Virginia to pass even more Gun Control laws after the rally. III%s and Oath Keepers were all there, and, what did they help with? Nothing.
We still have troops in Iraq, and Afghanistan fighting this endless war that has nothing to do with YOUR freedom here. Instead these endless wars take away fathers, mothers, and your children from their families and sends them overseas to fight for someone else’s’ imposed “freedom” while you sit at home and have to worry about getting robbed, shot, stabbed, or find a job because the government declared you as non-essential. How are those parent-less homes working out for America?
Then, some of you (the peaceful republican protestors) condemn the more aggressive protesting (not talking about the looters) as of recent, such as the Black Lives Matters protests (again, not talking about the looters). Yet, THOSE protests have yielded more fruit than your “conservative, patriotic” protests. Police departments are under heavy scrutiny and facing some federal bills and potential more oversight. Cities and states have taken steps in changing their practices. Those protests have yielded fruit! Their mission is being more successful.
Aggressive protesting IS PATRIOTIC! Study the actions of the colonialist before the revolution. Study the Civil Rights Movement. THOSE were effective fruitful protests, not yours.
Your single party loyalty is pathetic and shameful. Your tribalism is part of the problem.
You preach “Vote Red” and get “conservative” politicians like Mitt Romney elected year after year. Quite honestly, most Republicans are BIG GOVERNMENT politicians. Which Republican didn’t impose some sort of Bill of Rights restriction (and still) during the COVID-19 fearmongering? Then, you try to justify the suspension of the Bill of Rights in an attempt to support your Red candidate…
You are no different than people who are against racism who vote for racist candidates (Democrat voters and Joe Biden). You claim to be for liberty and freedom but then vote for candidates that will declare you as non-essential and impose limitations to your rights. You support Police… who enforce Gun Control laws and enforce the Stay-at-home orders…
And if you unlike and unfollow us on social media because of rebukes likes this, that just proves you are the one close minded to the reality that you are part of the problem. Please do some self reflection.
Why aren’t you voting for people to demand a balanced budget amendment and national debt reduction? It’s almost like you enjoy all the government subsidies and handouts too. Your dependence on the federal government makes you a BIG GOVERNMENT supporter too.
Why are you protesting? What are you protesting? Who are you protesting?
Your police pals need to be protesting WITH YOU.
Your friends and family in the National Guard need to be protesting WITH YOU.
You need to be protesting at the door steps of the problem, all day, everyday, until REAL change happens. “But we have jobs” cool, good, then protest after work. And if it is a real concern for you, if the lives of babies are really that important to you, take some days off of work. Bring your community together, share resources, and cause change.
Your show-boat protesting is useless and invalid.
Oohhh scary you bring rifles with you to your peaceful Hawaiian shirt protests. What are you going to do with those rifles? Nothing. You will even let the police disarm you and arrest you, which has been happening. You show up to businesses that are not complying with the order to close (as they should, not comply) during COVID-19 armed, and then the police show up and arrest everyone lol. What was the point of that? It’s all a show. A show that isn’t causing any real change.
You wave around flags that say “Come and Take It” and “Don’t Tread On Me” but they, the police, whom you support, do just that, tread all over you and come and take your guns lol. And you do nothing. You obey and comply rendering your entire protest invalid lol.
Either stfu with your hypocritical useless peaceful protesting or actually take a principled stand on something.
There is a lot of discussion about the Confederate Flag; whether it represents racism or heritage. But, considering it from a rational logical stand point, we can see through the feelings and determine it’s actual meaning.
We will look at both sides of the argument. The view that the flag represents racism and the view that the flag represents southern heritage. Then, like always, we will inject our stance on the matter.
The Confederate Flag was flown as the official flag of the Confederate States that seceded from the union. This is just a historical fact, right or wrong. So we must ask, as the official flag, HOW did it represent the Confederate States.
First, this flag was used as a Battle flag. There were a few other confederate flags but this was the one most widely used during the Civil War. This flag was flown to represent the Soldier’s allegiance to their cause, a symbolic battle cry. In modern times, it is a symbol of Southern Pride.
The south has its own culture. Deep southern states have vastly different cultural norms and even accents. But, one primary element of this culture was the historical use of slave labor for their economic structure. The culture, mostly all the southern states, later adopted a cultural separation of “whites” and “blacks” in the local communities and south society.
The primary reason for their secession from the union was the challenge to their own economic system which was dependent on slave labor as the abolitionist movement gained more and more traction in the north. Once that was squashed after the civil war, federal government action, and passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments, the challenge then came to their southern societal norms of segregation and Jim Crow laws. These were too squashed by more federal government actions, Supreme Court decisions, and the civil rights movement.
The flag was flown during a time of racial oppression. Once the south was reincorporated back into the union, the flag was rendered obsolete as the United States Flag is the flag and symbol of all the states, united. Therefore that flag actually represents a time period that was primarily focused on racial oppression.
The types of foods, lingo, and accents are just the minor details of southern culture. The primary, ingrained issue within southern heritage has been a fight to defend their way of life, which directly included racial prejudice and racism. When discussing this, it is logically impossible to avoid this.
Thus, the flag that represents Southern pride has the stigma of racism always and forever attached to it, inseparable. It is this fact that makes people offended by the sight of it. They see the flag and also see the historical racism associated with it. And they aren’t wrong. Racism is historically attached to that symbol. So for some, that flag does, in fact, represent a racist element of society, and their feelings are justified.
Now, you don’t have to be racist to have pride in living in the south. Even some African Americans have pride in living in the south. So, when they think of Southern Pride, they aren’t including the horrific mistakes of the south’s history. People can look at an offensive symbol and subscribe a different meaning or subtract the negative associations of it.
When people buy a Mercedes Benz, they don’t associate the fact that Mercedes Benz made bomber engines for the Nazi party during WW2 that was used to kill allied forces and bomb England. This is a historical fact with the brand, but people to not subscribe that to it. The Volkswagen Beetle was a nationally built car at the push of the Nazi party. Do you hear people demanding other people not drive a Nazi Beetle? Nike is known for using “cheap” child labor in China to make their expensive shoes. There are some calls for them to reform, but the band really hasn’t and athletes who claim to be against oppression are still more than willing to be sponsored by them. Even they look past these issues and take pride in the brand.
So it is possible for people to look past things that played a role in horrible historical events. This is not a denial of historical horrors, but a looking past them. Especially when those who have pride in it, are not directly associated to the atrocities (aside from buying Nike, which gives money to a company that builds child labor factories still). Buying a Mercedes Benz or Volkswagen does not fund the Nazi war machine anymore. Having Southern Pride does not directly support slave labor or Jim Crow laws anymore.
Therefore, it is possible to have Southern Pride, represented by the Confederate Flag, and not directly support or condone the horrors of the past.
So, it is possible to view the Confederate Flag as racist or not. Some may incorporate the history of racism with it and others may look past it and only incorporate the subtle cultural nuances of the south, and have pride in that.
We are first and foremost support the freedoms for all. People are free to hate the flag and people are free to take pride in the flag (for the reasons stated above). People are free to offend. All people should be free to express themselves. That is the essence of true equality and freedom.
We do incorporate the horrible history of that flag to it. And here’s why:
Let’s do this logical experiment:
X people group did X historical atrocity and the X flag was their symbol at that time.
Now, if you replace “X people” with “Southerner,” replace “X historical atrocity” with “racism” and “X Flag” with “Confederate flag” and you have the topic we are talking about.
Now, use that very same logical expression and replace the “X”s with Nazism, and ask, should Germans be proud to fly the Nazi Swastika? Is the Swastika something to be proud of? It’s German heritage isn’t it? That flag was only flown during the darkest time in human history and become obsolete after the Nazi regime fell. What use is it now besides symbolically reverting back to a dark time in history? Now apply the same logical, equally, to the Confederate Flag.
People fly all sorts of flags that are offensive. Some immigrants fly flags of their nation that offend other immigrants of a nation that was also oppressed by that nation. The gay pride flag is offensive to certain religions. And just about every country has a dark past but their flags can be flown as well; the flag of Columbia for example. No one gets bent out of shape of all those atrocities the communist government did. The flag of China, the country with the most human rights violations and most murderous founding in human history is another. The South African flag is proudly flown despite its oppressive colonialist past and its modern white oppression. French don’t demand English take down flags of England despite their horrific past. The flag of communism has killed more people under it than of any other symbol in human history, no one riots about that.
So why is the Confederate Flag such a hated target?
People, any people, all people, should be free to fly whatever flag the desire. That’s the price of freedom. And those who get totally hurt and bent out of shape about a flag are really mentally weak and lack self-control. We absolutely disagree the Nazi flag, but we won’t riot over it. We absolutely disagree the confederate flag, but we won’t riot over it either. We absolutely disagree with flying communist flags, as they are the most murderous of all, historically, but we won’t riot over it either.
Maintaining self-control and mental fortitude leads to greater discussions and opens more minds.
According to Democrats, if you are a minority, you must act and think a certain way, based on your skin color and culture. And if you don’t think or act the way they think you should, you’re wrong, because they, a different skin color and in their superiority, know better than you do.
So really, the party that made up the majority of the KKK, still hasn’t changed all that much. We can see this just by their actions and their own words.
Their chosen front runner and party leader, Joe Biden, exhibits this just about every time to opens his mouth. He explicitly stated that if YOU don’t support him, and you’re black, then, “you ain’t black.” How can he tell people who are black, their not, if they don’t support him? Simply because of his own perceived superiority.
He thinks blacks should act and think a certain way. And if they don’t, he discredits them, marginalizes them, even vilifies them.
How can he be FOR a racial group if, throughout his political career, he has supported and co-authored legislation that actually harms racial groups? For 40 plus years, data has shown the harmfulness of his own policies. He has had 40 plus years to address this, why didn’t he? He chooses his own career over their issues. Only when it benefits his party and his own career, he then talks about race issues and supports very minor reforms. Again, his care isn’t about the black community, but himself.
You have politicians like (D) Bill Clinton who championed the 1994 crime bill. You even have Hillary Clinton state “they all look alike” at a conference comparing Eric Holder with Corry Booker. The fact that people came out in defense of her claiming all kinds of things from framing some sort of ‘context’ of her racist joke is shameful. Even if it was a joke, it was racist.
Don’t believe it? Read https://potr1774.com/get-to-know-joe-biden/ and watch the videos of him your self.
Remember, it was the democrat party that supported Jim Crow laws. As blacks voted for more republicans and when blacks began to really start voting that they changed their approach. Then they pushed for mass incarceration (1994 crime bill) which directly harmed the black community. They got a couple black civil rights leaders on board and changed their image to look like they were for the black community. They pushed this idea and image that democrats were the party of minorities, even though their policies greatly harm those communities. Then, as they got more of the power back, they used that image to maintain power.
The real problems facing the black community is black on black crime and abortion. These two violence cause the most loss of life in the black community and do serious harm to families. What is the Democratic solution? Support aborting even more black babies, over-criminalize, mass incarcerate of more blacks, and force blacks to be more dependent on the system…
The love of power. It’s as simple as that. You have the ‘ghetto pimps’ who just pander to the people of their community to maintain their level of power and prestige.
Some of the most heavily populated cities with the largest black population have continuously elected democrats for decades. But, for decades, their issues have not been reformed. Yet, they keep getting re-elected. Every election cycle they give speeches and promises of change, but no change ever amounts to any real individual independence and benefit for their community.
They USE the problems of their community for their own re-election and to maintain their power and position. They NEED these problems so they can use them to get elected. They use the problems as a tool to campaign against their political rivals. They paint their rivals as someone who will cause problems, yet, they, themselves, do not solve the problems they were elected to solve.
Changing names of streets and buildings do not really change the problem. They just hide the problem. Removing statues do not actually change any problems, they just hide the past and keep people from learning from the mistakes of the past. All the policies and laws that have harmed the black communities, are still in effect, under the watch of all those black politicians who get continuously elected.
Pushing their “image” of being for minorities and using the ‘ghetto pimps’ to further their self proclaimed image, they get people to think how they want them to think. They TELL the community how to act and think with all kinds of promises and handouts. The problems in the community are never really solved. So the is a perpetual existence of disparities in these communities that are never really addressed directly. Instead, government problems are offered as a sort of bandaid to the problems.
Since Joe Biden is racist in his idea that through his superiority, tells black people how they should act and think; how can blacks vote for him? THAT is a huge question. It’s puzzling that so many blacks who are fighting for equality and fighting against injustice and racism, support a guy and a party that has racial prejudice ingrained in their party platform. They support a party that puts black people in a box. That limit their individuality to what the party thinks they should and should not support. It’s clear black Democrats like this “box” because first, they are immune to it because they have made it out of the box and now use their position of power to shape the box and maintain their own power. But, again, how can impoverish, low-income, lower socioeconomic class minorities, even moderate and middle-income minorities, support such racially prejudice policies and agree with the box they are placed in?
The pseudo feeling of empowerment is like a mental drug. When the government subsidy hits the bank account, it feels great. Everyone loves government stimulus checks. They don’t consider who, how, or where it came from. Organizations that thrive on government subsidies use only a percentage of the money for their actual cause. The voters don’t hear about the high standards to qualify for the small business grants. All they hear about is how much money is out there. They also don’t detail how some of these grants are only for certain groups and aren’t even available, equally, all small businesses of the same industry. Some grants are only for women. That means and entire group of small business owners can’t even qualify for them simply based on their sex. Others are minority specific, which is good, but the consequence to this is that non-minority small business owners, who employ minorities, can not qualify for them either. If they need them, but can’t get them, and go out of business, that means those minority employees are also out of a job. So, a male small business owner who employs a majority of minorities can not qualify for a bunch of grants; which risks the jobs of minorities still. How can people fight inequality, while simultaneously support inequality of grant distribution? Again, it comes back to that pseudo feeling of empowerment; when it actuality is systemic government dependence.
Being financially dependent on government is modern civilized enslavement. This is the tool of democrats. To expand government programs with the image of “helping” those communities. But what that has done has just forced them to become dependent on these programs and to rely on government assistance. Once trapped in the cycle of government support, any effort to change these government subsidies is easily labeled as “anti-minority.” This is another tool of democrats. To vilify and frame government subsidy reforms as racist and harmful to the black communities; when, in fact, it is the very thing that has enslaved minorities. It almost secures votes.
Now, after decades and generations who have grown accustomed to government subsidies, it is viewed as ‘normal’ and ‘needed.’ Those who came out of this are indoctrinated with the idea that it was the government subsidies that helped them achieve personal success. They then in turn perpetuate the idea that government subsidies are a good thing for their community. And the generational cycle of government dependence continues; securing long term voting blocks for Democrats.
There still exists mass incarceration party due to mandatory minimum sentences imposed by the Democrat’s 1994 crime bill and subsequent amendments. Over-criminalization places greater hardships on people to be successful on their own. Mass government oversight and regulations make becoming financially independent and owning your own business even harder and more expensive. Massive costs of education caused by government subsidies to colleges leads to greater student loan debt and financial hardships for individuals. ALL of this almost forces people to fall back on the government for more help. Harder to find jobs with over-criminalization. Harder to start your own business. Regulations and taxes drive up the costs of daily goods. ALL of this forces people to struggle. All of this forces people to be government dependent. Democrats simply support economic slavery.
Then, they paint all of THEIR polices as some abstract ‘systemic racism’ of which THEY create, support, and avoid solving.
There is overwhelming evidences that shows the more government subsidizes something, the more expensive it becomes. This is a fact in the agriculture and education sectors. As government funds more of the industry, the more the costs of the industry rise. Then people are complaining that things are getting too expensive; so what do they do? They vote for more politicians who grow the government subsidies and are shocked when prices still go up even higher.
Meanwhile, these politicians send their kids to private schools, get them hired on a high paying jobs that they don’t even qualify for, have private chiefs, and have the best, highest quality health care; who aren’t even using the very subsidized things they advocate for. Yet, the people keep voting for these very politicians, year after year.
Republicans were started out of the Abolitionist (Abolishment of slavery) movement and their first leader was Abraham freak’n Lincoln. A guy that was way ahead of his time. Who fought supreme court decisions (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857) and fought to amend the Constitution (13th and 14th Amendment). Republicans fought for the Civil Rights Act in 1964 that Democrats filibustered. They were the party that deregulated a lot of industries that allowed for greater economic growth of private businesses and small business. They were for smaller limited government and empowering the individual to be successful. They rallied voters rights and voter registration drives that the Democrats fought against. They ran against Jim Crow politicians in the south. WTF happened?
Well, as time went on, and as government subsidies became more culturally normal and acceptable, these new generations of Republicans accepted them as useful too. And now, as it is painted by government dependent groups that government subsidies are ‘helpful,’ they embraced them for the furtherance of their career or protect it too. It’s virtually political suicide now to support reducing public subsidies. If they do this, Democrats and government dependent communities jump all over them as ‘racist” and “anti-minority.” Even non-minority communities have grown to depend on them and support the government subsidies.
Yes, there are a lot of blacks who are NOT Democrat. And, according to Joe Biden, they aren’t black. Literally, that’s what he said from his own mouth (see the video for yourself above).
In the late 1800s you had leaders like Booker T. Washington and Frederick Douglass. The Democratic party did soften it’s stance against blacks and segregation which allowed for the inclusion of blacks in the Democratic party. But these Democrats were classical liberals, which, more reflects the Republican party now anyway. Just look at what party all the blacks were with after the Civil War up to the 1930s (https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Data/Black-American-Representatives-and-Senators-by-Congress/). Once Jim Crow laws were really being enforced, suddenly, the only way to win was to join the Democrats. As Jim Crow laws were being resisted and dismantled, you start seeing blacks being elected as Republicans again. Hubert Humphrey (D), basically split the Democratic party in two with his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech calling for equal rights for all. Voting for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 40% of Democrats still opposed it. Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the Democrat filibuster of this monumental Act. But by that time, the Democrats had started changing their image. It was the Republicans who fought the hardest for equality, from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act; that’s 100 years of fighting for equal rights. Not the Democrats.
Now, the Democratic party is heavily leaning toward extreme liberalism which is collectivist in their view of minorities. In 1960, the NAACP President Benjamin Hooks was invited to address the Republican National Convention. President Reagan appoints Clarence Thomas as Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission who later become the first black Supreme Court Justice. President Reagan appoints Alan Keyes the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs. Condoleezza Rice was appointed by Bush as Senior Director of the National Security Council for Soviet and East European Affairs. And there are hundreds of predominate blacks who are not Democrats (but still only see minorities as a defined group within a box). Some, aren’t affiliated with the Republican party either. Odd how it’s racist to assume all black people play basketball but not racist to assume all blacks are Democrat… And it’s not Republican VS Democrat. There are other political parties, such as the Libertarian Party. Ironically, The Libertarian Party now most closely resembles the old Republican Party of the late 1800s.
That’s just to name a few.
And if you don’t know any of these people, or maybe just heard of a few, you are limiting your mind and opinions. You may be holding yourself in the box of minorities that the democrats have told you to be in.
But this proves that blacks don’t have to conform to the Democrat imposed definition of what it is to be black. They are free to think and act how they personally choose to. They can be Republican, Libertarian, Independent, or form their own party. But dismantling the generational indoctrination of Democrats deciding what is best for blacks will take generations as well, and it will take even longer since blacks are so conditioned to continually only vote Democrat.
We need to be absolutely clear about something. Looting, pillaging, and burning private companies and innocent small businesses in the community is not the same thing as damaging and burning tyrant oppressive establishments. But, burning tyrants should not be the first response to tyranny either. Continue reading
Think you know this guy? Well, let’s dig into who he is, what he has said, and what he has done for America. Continue reading
This is going to be a tough pill to swallow for the diehard “Thin Blue Line” crowd. But, it either exposes their blind sheep-like mentality or their willingness to understand a serious issue going on nation wide. What is the problem? The Police, nation wide, are so willing to violate the rights of all Americans. 4 problems with the majority of police, and The People’s solution: Continue reading
Emotions aside, we examine the recent “Stay at Home” orders issued by Governors and county Judges nation wide. Do they even have the power to order you to do so? Are they constitutional? Are they even ethical and moral? Continue reading
The Supreme Court uses logical tests to determine if something meets a certain standard. We The People, should do the same. This test, anyone can apply to any sort of policy, order, or legislation tests it’s support or opposition to freedom, and expands or contracts freedoms, for all or some people. Continue reading
I am speaking to all of you who proclaim that you are staying at home, during the Coronavirus, because you care about other people. Sounds very noble of you. So strong, so brave. Continue reading
Court cases helped shape what we know of our rights to be as we protest. Oddly, and sadly, most police officers don’t know the full extent of your rights as a protester. Whether they like it or not, protesting is the most Patriotic and America thing you can do! A helpful guide of your Protesting Rights and Notable Case law to back it up. Continue reading
It is amazing to see the sheer amount of people demanding that OTHER people forfeit, suspend, neglect, and give up their freedoms because of a fearful feeling imposed by unreliable stats and unconstitutional government orders. Even vilifying people who exercise their constitutional rights. What is the rationale behind this? Are their concerns legitimize? Continue reading
THE AMERICAN LIFE JOURNAL 