Tuesday, July 17, 2018

The "Why" Of Those Who Oppose Judge Brett Kavanaugh

There are many who are vomiting out objections to the appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to a position on The Supreme Court Of The United States. Their motives appear to be very various.

Among those motives are:
1. The fear that Roe Vs. Wade may be overturned and limit genocidal monster's ability to slaughter unborn children;
2. A fear that a Mr. Justice Kavanaugh will apply our Republic's Constitution in accordance with the intent of the authors of it and its amendments;
3. That fear extends to such probable rulings as will call halt to those tyrannical judges who "make law from the bench" and, much more horridly, amend our Constitution without going through the democracy-based amendment process required by that, most basic, law and, thereby, keep the most basic power in the hands of THE PEOPLE;
4. Those who fear that Judge Kavanaugh will be a part of a too long delayed SCOTUS ruling that our law-abiding (And legally presumed sane) fellow Americans have a right to "keep and bear arms "without "infringement" in the accordance with the views of such Patriots as: Presidents Washington, Madison, Jefferson; Benjamin Franklin; Patrick Henry; Samuel Adams; And, George Mason (Who feared such internal tyranny as is now the case in California and New York and maintained that a well armed citizenry was the best defense for our righs);
5. Those who hate such Christians as Judge Kavanaugh who prove their Faith through the fruits of good works as quietly given to family, community and the World; And,
6. Those that fully understand that they are inferior human beings when compared to Judge Kavanaugh.

SCOTUS, Trump & "The Right To Petition"


    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "The right to petition is protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
    In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
    Although often overlooked in favor of other more famous freedoms, and sometimes taken for granted, many other civil liberties are enforceable against the government only by exercising this basic right. The right to petition is regarded as fundamental in some republics, such as the United States, as a means of protecting public participation in government."
    MY NOTES
    There are those who attack President Trump's use of suggestions, for judicial nominations, from the Federalist Society as being enslavement to a "far right organization".
  • Those suggestions are, in fact, an example of the execution of the above-cited and most basic constitutional right.
  • The "grievance" addressed is the making-of-law and amending the Constitution from the bench by those judges who would take that power from The People as executed through their democratically elected representatives.

Monday, July 16, 2018

The Suppression Of Mobs


This is in response to Chicago's riot of this week.

Mobs are, as such, a probable “clear and present danger of death or great bodily harm” to others..
When such mobs are armed or commit such dangerous crimes as “Arson” (eg Both evident at Berkeley in recent days) they clearly demonstrate and multiply that “clear and present danger”---And justify the police or any good citizen to use any level of force (Including deadly force) to suppress that danger.

In fact, the failure of police (Or, if called up by Governors who understand their duties, the National Guard), to fire upon such extremely dangerous mobs as both individuals (ie By snipers under the direct control of a command officer) and by volley-fire in the case of any group attack is a gross neglect of duty.

Of course, free (ie Armed) citizens can assist the police by "marking" such and other violent criminals with holes [eg .222', 9mm, .32' (The diameter of "OO" buckshot),
.38', .45'].

[For general information, the hard touch of a triangular file to the lands of a gun's barrel and the lighter touch of a flat file to the firing-pin and extractor of such will negate the usual forensic information.]

[The above possibility of citizen actions may well be the reason that the mis-leaders of the Democratic (sic) Party have taken the lead in attempts to deprive our fellow citizens of modern-and-effective firearms. "Putting down" such dangerous animals is likely to reduce the Democrats power base.]

Thursday, July 12, 2018

A Cowardly SCOTUS


The Supreme Court Of The United States has, again, refused to review ( SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JEFF SILVESTER, ET AL. v. XAVIER BECERRA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 17–342. Decided February 20, 2018.) as to another attack on that part of The Bill Of Rights as should protect the ajudicated-and-individual rights of citizens to "keep and bear arms" (ie Without "infringement").

As a (Self-declared) "Avocational Historian" I suggest that SCOTUS is avoiding confronting this matter as they realize that it would require them to confront the intent of the Founders of our Republic and their legal reasoning as to that constitutional right as the primary test for rulings (As our Constitution does not contain any provision for "evolving standards" outside of its own provisions for amendment).

They might also be required to address the question: "Are there any constitutional grounds to deny those (Law-abiding and presumed sane) citizens, from 18 to 21 years of age any constitutional rights including those under the 'Second Amendment'?" 

The Congress should address those issues by such legislation as enforces this and other provision of The Bill Of Rights---Especially against: Judges "making law and amending our Constitution from the bench" as such Fascists as misrule California.

All should remember that depriving a citizen of this, individual-constitutional, right can legally only be done by a court of record, after a full "due process of law" hearing as would find each, individual, citizen too criminal or too dangerously mentally ill to "keep and bear arms".



                                 VERUM ET ARMA SUNT HOSTIS TYRANNI

Tuesday, July 03, 2018

SCOTUS, Religious Test & Defense

It appears that there are those (eg Democrats, Atheists, Tyrants) who will attack President Trump's nominee for a seat on The Supreme Court Of The United States:
1. On the basis of that most-excellent person's religious faith (If any);
2. With special regard to the case of Roe v. Wade.

Article VI (Clause 3) of our Republic's Constitution forbids any (Emphasis added) "religious test" for such positions as a Justice of SCOTUS.

It appears likely that some such opponents of our Constitution will, during hearings or debate, on such nominations attack (ie Probably by carefully composed, but indirect, questions)  any faithful nominee on their religious beliefs regarding abortion. 

The chairman of the Senate committee or sub-committee considering such a nomination must, instantly, rule any such questions illicit, forbidden and out-of-order upon the authority of the noted and exact prohibition provided as cited-above.

It is not allowable to excuse so ruling on the basis of "Senatorial Courtesy" or the informal customs of the Senate's "Old Boys/Girls Club".

Sunday, July 01, 2018

Lessons From Annapolis Newspaper Shooting

The domestic terrorist who shot up The Capital Gazette [Annapolis (MD)] newspaper office was able to murder five and wound two of our fellow citizens:
1. With a legally purchased and commonly had hunting weapon; And,
2. In police saturated Annapolis where it only took about one-minute for them to arrive [Uncommonly rapid for almost all the USA).]

If, and only if, one/more of those journalists had ready (ie Concealed carry) access to a modern and effective firearm, they might well have popped-up and put all rounds (eg Best with hollow point bullets) into the head of that monster---Reducing the "body count".

[At age 70-plus I self-trained and that within 40-hours, with a semi-automatic handgun, to: At the common distances in such offices; Charging, side-to-side, at the target; And, placing seven of eight rounds in the head of the silhouette target. An experienced instructor could do that training in less time. (A very few hours each month are required to keep up those skills).]

Since most of "The Media" and governments dominated by Democrats (eg Maryland) are intensely opposed to our law-abiding and legally presumed sane citizens having such ready access and such modern weapons, the staff of The Capital Gazette were offered up on the bloody altar of "Political Correctness". That betrayal of reality ignores the fact that the defensive (Often by "mere" display) use of guns by those good Americans prevents harm to innocents at a rate many, many, times that inflicted by criminal misuse of firearms.

VERITAS ET ARMA SUNT HOSTIS TYRANNI


Friday, June 29, 2018

Mexico Waging War Vs. USA

The drug-lord ruled semi-nation of Mexico has aided those fleeing, rather than fighting (As they have been disarmed), the like semi-governments of Central America to travel through its land and to and, too often, across our Southern Border.

THAT IS AN ACT-OF-WAR BY MEXICO AGAINST THE UNITED STATES! 

The USA should NOW: Advise all of its citizens, in Mexico, to leave that semi-nation asap; Stop all aid to Mexico; Stop all direct and indirect money transfers to Mexico; Put halt to all trade agreements with Mexico; And, shut down all of Mexico's consulates in the USA--Until we have absolute proof-positive that Mexico's government is stopping such movements of illegal immigrants through its land (And check for compliance on a monthly basis).



Discrimination; And Application(s)


“1 a :  to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of
b :  distinguish, differentiate <discriminate hundreds of colors>
2 :  to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially :  to distinguish from another like object
intransitive verb
3 a :  to make a distinction <discriminate among historical sources>
b :  to use good judgment “

Such discrimination can be as to properly selecting:
1. Mind-and-spirit elevating classical and jazz music vs that “rap” and “hip hop” ravings as support murder and abuse of women; 
2. The essential teachings of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Sikhs as support peace vs those of the Nazis, Atheistic Communists and Muslims which inflict terrorism on the world; 
3. Such poetry as reflects craftsmanship vs the unorganized flushing of apparently random non-thoughts as come from the distorted minds of those who claim to be poets;
4. The facts that young Black youths commit more violent crimes than those of other races (As properly noted by the Rev. Jessie Jackson as to groups of youths as might be following him down a dark street) vs the claim that acknowledging such reality is race “discrimination”;
5.  The fact that the family, based on pairings of women and men has been the basic unit of (Most) civilizations which have gone beyond primitive hunting-gathering societies vs.the false claim that homosexual couples provide the same value-to and maintaining-of civilization;
6. That the intent of the writers of the Bill Of Rights as to the "Establishment Cause" was to keep only the Federal Government from establishing an official "National Church" vs those who maintain that the "free exercise of religion" should be limited to the insides of homes and places-of-worship;
7. The views of our nation's founders that an armed citizenry is basic to controlling tyranny vs the position that they should be disarmed “for their own good”; And,
8. Those immigrants who legally come into the USA with those skills and cultural conditioning as will improve our Republic Vs. those who: Illegally enter the USA in violation of our democratically enacted laws; Bring with them diseases; Bring other parents' children and cast them on our stressed social services agencies OR sell them into child prostitution; Increase the common good of the USA by providing goods and such services as do NOT depress wages or steal jobs from the poorest of our fellow citizens.

If no one else does so, at least journalists  should use the best definitions of words.


Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Questions For SCOTUS Nominee(s)

Upon today's news of Mr. Justice Kennedy's retirement from our Republic's Supreme Court, I have elected to ride my "Hobby Horse" into the "conversation" about who will  take the seat vacated by him. 

I  am not interested om which candidate is selected and, without doubt, confirmed by the United States Senate.

I am concerned that President Trump, The Senate and, most importantly, The People know the nominee(s) answers to the questions provided below.


1. Do you agree or disagree that the original Constitution of the United States could not be ratified without a Bill Of Rights, that resulting in the latter document being the first ten amendments to the first?
2. Do you agree or disagree with President Thomas Jefferson that the intent of the authors of the Constitution (ie As the above-noted "Package Deal") is to be considered when involved in interpretation of that document?
3. As to the Second Amendment, do your agree or disagree that we can clearly understand the intent of those authors be understood from the comments of Presidents Jefferson, Washington and Madison---And, the other patriots who established our Republic?
4. Do you agree or disagree with the statement that the "Shall Not Be Infringed" clause of the Second Amendment is the strongest statement of a limit-to or prohibition-against Federal acts in violation of the above-noted "package deal"?
5. Will you actively support  the declaring the rights under the Second Amendment as due every citizen without regard to membership in  a "militia" and applicable to all law-abiding (And legally presumed sane) citizen over the age of 18-years and that in all of the Several States and the other jurisdictions of the USA
?