Friday, July 15, 2016

Clarence Thomas On Rights And Responsibilities

From here:

Clarence Thomas is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Born in Pinpoint, Georgia, he is a graduate of the College of the Holy Cross and Yale Law School. Prior to his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991, he served as an assistant attorney general of Missouri, an attorney with the Monsanto Company, a legislative assistant to U.S. Senator John Danforth, assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education, chairman of the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, and a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In 2007, he published My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir.

==========

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on May 14, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s 164th Commencement ceremony. (A bit wordy - even compared to me! - but inspiring nonetheless!)

President Arnn, members of the board of trustees, assembled faculty, families and friends, and, most important, members of the Hillsdale College Class of 2016, I am both honored and grateful to participate in these commencement exercises. It has been some years since my wife Virginia and I have been to Hillsdale together. Of course we have known Dr. and Mrs. Arnn for many, many years, and we have been quite close to Hillsdale throughout his tenure. We admire the work that is being done here to educate young men and women—one of whom, Hillsdale graduate David Morrell, a wonderful young man, served as one of my law clerks a few years back.

This has been a most difficult term at the Court. The difficulty is underscored by the sudden and tragic passing of my colleague and friend, Justice Antonin Scalia. I think it is fitting to say a few words about him. Many will focus on his intellect and his legal prowess. I do not demur on either count. But there is so much more than that. When I think of Justice Scalia, I think of the good man who I could instinctively trust during my first days on the Court. He was, in the tradition of the South of my youth, a man of his word, a man of character. Over the almost 25 years that we were together on the Court, I think we made it a better place for each other. I know that he did for me. He was kind to me when it mattered most. He is, and will be, sorely missed.

As the years since I attended college edge toward a half century, I feel a bit out of place talking with college students or recent graduates. So much has changed since I left college in 1971. Things that were considered firm have long since lost their vitality, and much that seemed inconceivable is now firmly or universally established. Hallmarks of my youth, such as patriotism and religion, seem more like outliers, if not afterthoughts. So in a sense, I feel woefully out of place speaking at commencement ceremonies. My words will perhaps seem somewhat vintage in character rather than current or up-to-date. In that context, I admit to being unapologetically Catholic, unapologetically patriotic, and unapologetically a constitutionalist.

In my youth, we had a small farm. I am convinced that the time I spent there had much to do with my firm resolve never to farm again. Work seemed to spring eternal, like the weeds that consumed so much of our time and efforts. One of the messages constantly conveyed in those days was our obligation to take care of the land and to use it to produce food for ourselves and for others. If there was to be independence, self-sufficiency, or freedom, then we first had to understand, accept, and discharge our responsibilities. The latter were the necessary (but not always sufficient) antecedents or precursors of the former. The only guarantee was that if you did not discharge your responsibilities, there could be no independence, no self-sufficiency, and no freedom.

In a broader context, we were obligated in our neighborhood to be good neighbors so that the neighborhood would thrive. Whether there was to be a clean, thriving neighborhood was directly connected to our efforts. So there was always, to our way of thinking, a connection between the things we valued most and our personal obligations or efforts. There could be no freedom without each of us discharging our responsibilities. When we heard the words duty, honor, and country, no more needed to be said. But that is a bygone era. Today, we rarely hear of our personal responsibilities in discussions of broad notions such as freedom or liberty. It is as though freedom and liberty exist wholly independent of anything we do, as if they are predestined.


Related to this, our era is one in which different treatment or different outcomes are inherently suspect. It is all too commonly thought that we all deserve the same reward or the same status, notwithstanding the differences in our efforts or in our abilities. This is why we hear so often about what is deserved or who is entitled. By this way of thinking, the student who treats spring break like a seven-day bacchanalia is entitled to the same success as the conscientious classmate who works and studies while he plays. And isn’t this same sense of entitlement often applied today to freedom?

At the end of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was asked what the gathering had accomplished. “A republic,” he replied, “if you can keep it.” Nearly a century later, in a two-minute speech at Gettysburg, President Lincoln spoke similarly. It is for the current generation, he said,
to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
So many who have gone before us have done precisely that, dedicating their lives to preserving and enhancing our nation both in war and in peace, taking care that those who have given the last full measure of devotion have not done so in vain.

Being at Hillsdale College, it is appropriate that we should reflect briefly on our ancestors’ understanding of what was to be earned and preserved. America’s Founders and many successive generations believed in natural rights. To establish a government based on the consent of the governed, as the Declaration of Independence makes clear, they gave up only that portion of their rights necessary to create a limited government of the kind needed to secure all of their rights. The Founders then structured that government so that it could not jeopardize the liberty that flowed from natural rights. Even though this liberty is inherent, it is not guaranteed. Indeed, the founding documents of our country are an assertion of this liberty against the King of England—arguably the most powerful man in the world at the time—at the risk of the Founders’ lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Over the lifespan of our great country, many occasions have arisen that required this liberty, and the form of government that ensures it, to be defended if it was to survive.

At the risk of understating what is necessary to preserve liberty and our form of government, I think more and more that it depends on good citizens discharging their daily duties and obligations. Here I resist what seems to be the formulaic or standard fare at commencement exercises—a broad complaint about societal injustice and an exhortation to the young graduates to go out and solve the problem and change the world. Having been a young graduate myself, I think it is hard enough to solve your own problems, which can sometimes seem to defy solution. And in addressing your own obligations and responsibilities in the right way, you actually do an important part on behalf of liberty and free government.


Throughout my youth, even as the contradiction of segregation persisted, we revered the ideals of our great nation. We knew, of course, that our country was flawed, as are all human institutions. But we also knew that our best hope lay in the ideal of liberty. I watched with anguish as so many of the older people in my life groped and stumbled through the darkness of near or total illiteracy. Yet they desperately wanted to learn and gain knowledge, and they understood implicitly how important it was to enjoy the fullness of American citizenship. They had spent an aggregation of lifetimes standing on the edge of the dual citizenship that is at the heart of the 14th Amendment.

During the Second World War, they were willing to fight for the right to die on foreign soil to defend their country, even as their patriotic love went unreciprocated. They returned from that horrific war with dignity to face the indignity of discrimination. Yet the desire persisted to push our nation to live up to its ideals.

I often wondered why my grandparents remained such model citizens, even when our country’s failures were so obvious. In the arrogance of my early adult life, I challenged my grandfather and doubted America’s ideals. He bluntly asked: “So, where else would you live?” Though not a lettered man, he knew that our constitutional ideals remained our best hope, and that we should work to achieve them rather than undermine them. “Son,” he said, “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.” That is, don’t discard what is precious along with what is tainted.

Today, when it seems that grievance rather than responsibility is the main means of elevation, my grandfather’s beliefs may sound odd or discordant. But he and others like him at the time resolved to conduct themselves in a way consistent with America’s ideals. They were law-abiding, hardworking, and disciplined. They discharged their responsibilities to their families and neighbors as best they could. They taught us that despite unfair treatment, we were to be good citizens and good people. If we were to have a functioning neighborhood, we first had to be good neighbors. If we were to have a good city, state, and country, we first had to be good citizens. The same went for our school and our church. We were to keep in mind the corporal works of mercy and the great commandment: “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Being wronged by others did not justify reciprocal conduct. Right was right, and two wrongs did not make a right. What we wanted to do did not define what was right—nor, I might add, did our capacious litany of wants define liberty. Rather, what was right defined what we were required to do and what we were permitted to do. It defined our duties and our responsibilities. Whether those duties meant cutting our neighbor’s lawn, visiting the sick, feeding the hungry, or going off to war as my brother did, we were to discharge them honorably.

Shortly before his death in 1983, I sought my grandfather’s advice about how to weather the first wave of harsh criticism directed at me, which I admit had somewhat unnerved me. His re-sponse was simple: “Son, you have to stand up for what you believe in.” To him, that was my obligation, my duty. Perhaps it is at times like that—when you lack strength and courage—that the clarity of our obligation supplies both: duty, honor, country.

As I admitted at the outset, I am of a different time. I knew no one, for example, who was surprised at President Kennedy’s famous exhortation in his 1961 Inaugural Address: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” That sentiment was as common as saying the Pledge of Allegiance or singing the National Anthem, as pervasive as shopping at Army-Navy surplus stores. Today there is much more focus on our rights and on what we are owed, and much less on our obligations and duties—unless, of course, it is about our duty to submit to some new proposed policy.


My grandfather often reminded us that if we didn’t work, we didn’t eat, and that if we didn’t plant, we couldn’t harvest. There is always a relationship between responsibilities and benefits. In agrarian societies, that is more obvious. As society becomes more complex and specialized, it is more difficult to discern. But it is equally true. If you continue to run up charges on your credit card, at some point you reach your credit limit. If you continue to make withdrawals from your savings account, you eventually deplete your funds. Likewise, if we continue to consume the benefits of a free society without replenishing or nourishing that society, we will eventually deplete that as well.  If we are content to let others do the  work of replenishing and defending liberty while we consume the benefits, we will someday run out of other people’s willingness to sacrifice—or even out of courageous people willing to make the sacrifice.

But this is Hillsdale College, which is like a shining city on a hill. This College, in the words of your mission statement, “considers itself a trustee of a heritage finding its clearest expression in the American experiment of self-government under law.” The very existence of Hillsdale connotes independence, because Hillsdale, like America, was founded on the idea that liberty is an antecedent of government, not a benefit from government.

Let me offer you, this year’s graduates, a few brief suggestions about making your deposits in the account of liberty. Today is just the end of the beginning of your young lives, and the beginning, the commencement of the rest of your lives. There is much more to come, and it will not be with the guiding hands of your parents—indeed, they may someday need your hand to guide them. Some of you will most assuredly be called upon to do very hard things to preserve liberty. All of you will be called upon to provide a firm foundation of citizenship by carrying out your obligations in the way so many preceding generations have done. You are to be the example to others that those generations have been to us. And in being that example, what you do will matter far more than what you say.

As the years have moved swiftly by, I have often reflected on the important citizenship lessons of my life. For the most part, it was the unplanned array of small things. There was the kind gesture from a neighbor. There was my grandmother dividing our dinner because someone showed up unannounced. There was the stranger stopping to help us get our crops out of the field before a big storm. There were the nuns who believed in us and lived in our neighborhood. There was the librarian who brought books to Mass so that I would not be without reading on the farm. Small gestures such as these become large lessons about how to live our lives. We watched and learned what it means to be a good person, a good neighbor, a good citizen. Who will be watching you? And what will you be teaching them?

After this commencement ceremony ends, I implore you to take a few minutes to thank those who made it possible for you to come this far—your parents, your teachers, your pastor. These are the people who have shown you how to sacrifice for those you love, even when that sacrifice is not always appreciated. As you go through life, try to be a person whose actions teach others how to be better people and better citizens. Reach out to the shy person who is not so popular. Stand up for others when they’re being treated unfairly. Take the time to listen to the friend who’s having a difficult time. Do not hide your faith and your beliefs under a bushel basket, especially in this world that seems to have gone mad with political correctness. Treat others the way you would like to be treated if you stood in their shoes.

These small lessons become the unplanned syllabus for learning citizenship, and your efforts to live them will help to form the fabric of a civil society and a free and prosperous nation where inherent equality and liberty are inviolable. You are men and women of Hillsdale College, a school that has stood fast on its principles and its traditions at great sacrifice. If you don’t lead by example, who will?

I have every faith that you will be a beacon of light for others to follow, like “a city on a hill [that] cannot be hidden.” May God bless each of you now and throughout your lives, and may God bless America.


"Executive Orders" Are NOT Carte-Blanche Decrees or Fatwas!

Here's what I've learned about them so far:


Executive orders can only LEGALLY apply to legislation for which Congress actually writes them into it - i.e: "This and that part of this law can be managed by the President!"

.......

From:

http://patriotupdate.com/executive-orders-where-is-this-administration-getting-this-authority/

executive orders are defined:

    United States presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law (Enumerated laws found within the United States Constitution) when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress (The representatives of the American people) that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[1] Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review (Not by them that want to interpret what common sense laws state. Nor are judges there to judge the standard by which they are judged by), and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution.

There is NO constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders.

The term executive power Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, refers to the title of President as the executive. He is instructed therein by the declaration “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5 or face impeachment. Most executive orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President’s sworn duties,[2] the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.

    An executive order of the president must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the president specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the president.

Therefore, if the executive order is not congruent with the United States Constitution, then it is simply “null and void,” period. There is no judicial interpretation, no compromise nor debate. Why?  It is because neither this nor any other administration has the power nor the authority to act out of their scope of authority.

    “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)

    “Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.” (Thomas Jefferson, Elliot, p. 4:187-88.

    “…the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding. In the same manner, the states have certain independent power, in which their laws are supreme.” (Alexander Hamilton, Elliot, 2:362.)

    “This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land.… It is not the supreme law in the exercise of a power not granted.”(William Davie, Pennsylvania, p. 277

    “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution” (Alexander Hamilton, concerning the supremacy clause The Federalist Papers, #33.)

    “There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, #78.)

So, how is it that this administration gets away with what it gets away with? I can tell you.  They do so due to the ignorance of the American people who have not taken the time to know the difference.


=======

http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/michael-savage-heres-how-to-stop-obama-amnesty/

If the executive order is based on a statute, Congress can change the statute, thereby nullifying the order.

Michael Savage noted that the only instance in which Congress could not nullify an order is if the president is acting according to an exclusive power granted to him by the Constitution.

“But Obama’s executive order on immigration is not such a case,” he said. “It is not constitutionally based. Congress has the power to repeal a presidential order or terminate the underlying authority on which the action is predicated.”

=======

"Executive Orders" which violate the Constitution, are illegal.

Being illegal, they are crimes: extortion attempts and attempted thefts, as well.

As Alexander Hamilton noted in his Federalist Paper No. 78: “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

Re: the 1886 Supreme Court decision Norton v. Shelby County: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties, affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Further, there is the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

.......

From:

http://moderncombatandsurvival.com/survival/3-riot-control-gizmos-for-active-denial-systems/

As far back as Lincoln, the US Supreme Court has told the Prez that they have over stepped their bounds and to stop that stupid stuff. Here's the ruling on an executive order: Up and until Congress signs off on the order, that order he has issued can have an effect on only 2 groups. #1 are Federal Employees. #2 are Federal Agencies. Period. End of Story. Unless Congress signs off on them they are not binding on Mr and Mrs John Q Public.

Example, during the Korean War the iron workers at a iron company went on strike. Truman signed an executive order ordering the company nationalized. Said the steel they were producing was considered a badly needed national resource. Congress never signed off on it. Supreme Court slapped him down, told him he couldn't do that and to give it back. The company was not a government owned business and could not be effected by an Executive Order

This, of course, doesn't mean that before Obombo's Executive Order could be slapped down that the various bully boy outfits (aka all the Alphabet Soup armies) couldn't do a lot of damage.


...

Judicial Watch: Obama Travel Cost Taxpayers over $79.5 million

Judicial Watch obtained records from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security revealing the Obama family’s August 2015 vacation on Martha’s Vineyard cost taxpayers $465,420.49 in Secret Service expenses alone. This included $457,310.33 in hotels, $271.56 in car rentals, and $7,838.60 in air/rail travel.
The government doesn’t share this willingly. The records were obtained through our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on November 24, 2015. Judicial Watch sued the Department of Homeland Security, of which the Secret Service is a part, because it failed to respond to 19 FOIA requests from Judicial Watch since July 21, 2014, ( Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:15-cv-01983)).
The new records reveal that Secret Service expenses for presidential travel included:
  • Trip to Seattle and Los Angeles July 2014:$237,731.05 on hotels, $19,888.70 on rental cars and $1,451.40 on air/rail travel – for a total of $259,071.15. This trip was solely for fund-raising, specifically to boost the treasuries of two “super pacs” for congressional candidates in the mid-term election. Judicial Watch previously reported that Air Force transportation expenses for this trip cost taxpayers $2,425,085.50 – bringing the grand total to $2,684,156.60.
  • Trip to Westchester, NY, and Providence, RI,  August 29-September 1, 2014: $63,177 on hotels and $1,801.45 on rental cars – for a total of $64,978.45.This trip was for fundraising and attending the wedding of an MSNBC host. Judicial Watch previously reported that Air Force transportation for this trip cost $1,539,402.10 – bringing the grand total to $1,604,380.50.
  • Trip to  Martha’s Vineyard, August 2015: $457,310.33 on hotels, $271.56 in car rentals, and $7,838.60 on air/rail travel – bringing the grand total to $465,420.49. This was the sixth year for the Obama familysummer getaway to Martha’s Vineyard.
  • Trip to Palm Springs,  February 2015:$149,101.36 on hotels and $9,199.38 on car rentals – for a total of $158,300.74. This trip was reportedly to meet with leaders from 10 Southeast Asian nations to discuss North Korea, China and trade. But, the president also played golf, held several Democratic fundraisers, and filmed an episode of “The Ellen DeGeneres Show.” Judicial Watch previously reported that Air Force travel expenses for the President totaled $1,031,685 – bringing the grand total to $1,189,985.70
  • Trip to  New York CityJuly 17-20, 2015: $266,186.04 on hotels and $1,112.31 on car rentals – for a total of $267,298.35. This outing was a weekend getaway for the president, his daughters and some of their friends. The president also attended a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Manhattan. Judicial Watch previously reported that Air Force travel expenses for the President on this trip totaled $309,505.50 – for a grand total of $576,803.85.
  • Trip to  Los Angeles, October 2014: $140,640.94 on hotels and $3,118 on car rentals – for a total of $143,758.94. On this trip, the president designated a portion of the San Gabriel Mountains as a national monument. He also attended a Democratic National Committee fundraiser. Judicial Watch previously reportedthat the President’s Air Force travel expenses totaled $1,176,120.90 – for a grand total of $1,319,879.80.
  • Trip to Los Angeles, June 18-21, 2015:$311,922.11 on hotels and $21,269.71 on rental cars. This trip was for a speaking engagement with the U.S. Conference of Mayors and for Democratic National Committee fundraisers in private residences in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills – for a grant total of $333,191.82.
The First Family’s Martha’s Vineyard vacation, their sixth in the past seven years, was spent at the lavish Blue Heron Farm in Chilmark, a seven-bedroom, nine-bath, 8,100-square-foot estate, sitting on 10 acres of farmland. The estate features 17 rooms, expansive water views of Vineyard Sound, an infinity pool, and a tennis-basketball court. It rents for $50,000 a week. Judicial Watch previously reported that the First Family’s travel aboard Air Force One for this trip cost taxpayers $619,011.
The current grand total of known Obama travel-related expenses now stands at $79,630,433.93
Taxpayers should be incensed that the Secret Service’s resources are wasted to provide security for endless golf excursions, political fundraisers, and luxury vacations. President Obama’s travel is a scandal.  You can count on Judicial Watch to continue to expose this abuse of the office and of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

The Final Solution To The African Problem

Haha - NO, you racist liberal nazis! Despite the alluring title, it's not what you had hoped for!



I have a real solution, but the victim-blaming liberal racists won't want to hear it, because admitting there is a problem is the first step in solving it, and their motto has always been: "There's No Money In Solutions, so Please Give Generously - AGAIN!"

Throughout history, blacks have failed to produce stable societies and invent things. Sure, they can - and always have - blamed whitey for "stealing" it all from them, but that implicitly admits that whitey is naturally smarter and more focused than they are.

The real reason blacks are lazy, impulsive, and promiscuous, is simply melanin poisoning.

Studies done on whites show injecting them with melanin makes them (you got it!) much more lazy, impulsive, and promiscuous.

So the solution to allow blacks to reach their full intellectual and emotional potential will probably be to develop a simple beta-blocker to counter these effects. Over to you, "Big Pharma!"

What's that, you say? "There's No Money In Solutions, so Please Give Generously - AGAIN!"?

Oi, vey!!!

;-(

Monday, July 11, 2016

ALL Idolatrous Ideologies Are ONLY Crime Excuses!

IDEOLOGY (IDOLATRY):


Idealized ideas (idols) are subjectively relativized GENERALIZATIONS, preferably removed (or 'abstracted') from any situaitonal, circumstantial causes and effects.

i.e: "Freedom;" "Speed;" "Value" and synonyms for same ("Liberty") etc. --- without having to reference freedom FROM or TO, WHAT, exactly?! (etc)!

Not to mention "Peace!" much less (even worse) "World Peace!"

These are 'emotive' trigger-words, designed to induce emotions (whether good or bad) and avoid thought.

AS IDOLS, THEY ARE USED AS PREDETERMINISTIC EXCUSES FOR NOT HAVING TO EVER LEARN FROM ONE'S MISTAKES, OR AT ALL, BECAUSE WE CAN'T LEARN, BECAUSE "ALLAH" WON'T LET US! OR BECAUSE "HISTORICAL SOCIETAL FORCES" PREVENT US!

;-(

It's also why criminal idolaters prefer to use flowery emotive metaphors (lies) when speaking.

.......

From:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/wnd-news/kill_the_whites_spill_their_blood/#comment-2776398421

Ideology is "abstracting" a concept out of its situational circumstances to achieve the "ideal" result - a model which is by definition one of double-standards, where one can have rights without responsibilities, hope without fear and pleasure without pain. Since this imagined state is technically, literally impossible, and can only even be attempted let alone actually achieved by offloading one's responsibilities onto others, by stealing their rights, it can only ever be a list of excuses for extortion, and an attempt to re-label crime as "good."

Implementing an ideology usually involves forming an ever-larger gang to force people to improve.

This includes the most monstrous slavery proposal of all: "Globalization," or the domination of the entire world by a plutocratic global kleptocracy which will enslave and genocide all of humanity.

But extortion and slavery is hardly an "ideal" condition for humanity, no matter how the "Submission" is packaged or the slavery is sold to us. Extortion-imposed slavery of individuals to group-might-made-rights isn't really all that "sociable," even when it's called "socialism." Extorted slavery is still really only a crime.

Liberals want to change people for things ("for the good of the sustainable global environment").
Conservatives want to change things for people (improve living conditions, invent medicines etc).

Not-so-coincidentally, making up such "rules" for the "sure and certain" achievement of nebulous hope, aka "Faith!" (i.e: to achieve eternal happiness etc) by offloading one's security is the historical purview of "religious" fantasies presented as facts, a preposterous attempt also known as "LYING."

Overcoming fear is part of objective scientific truth, which is fact presented as fact.
(True) hope is part of subjective speculative philosophy, presented AS speculation.
(False hope/fraud or Greed) is religion: opinion presented as fact, aka lying.

Further, "idealists" (idolaters) pretend that, since they can wrongly conceive of something which cannot exist without effort, (their proposed "idealized" ideal state of existence) simply because they devoutly wish for it and want it to exist, "so" it "does" (or did, once) already exist! Already inclined to feel entitled to have rights without responsibility, they must then pretend they're entitled to their impossible dream because an "enemy" must have stolen it from them! So they make up an oppressive slave-master to blame in order to justify their violent attacks on same (preferably a group so large it has no leader and no way to defend itself from their fraudulent victim-blaming slanders, like the "white males" group)!

CAPISCE?

That pretty-much defines Marxism and Marxists: they are "idealist" extortionist gangster criminals.
It's also the defining characteristic of all other criminal enterprises (Islam, the Nazis, the Mafia).

Rousseau claimed people can be happiest only after giving up all their rights to the government/state entity, under what he falsely called the social "contract;" because if, with great power comes great (and painful) responsibility, then with no power comes no responsibility, and slaves are happy, as allah knows. Submitting to a slaver-god is the only way to be happy and free of fear, giving up the risks of scary free will to 'God' is the only way to ensure one's' eternal security ... as a slave.

Conservatives are realists in that they know one cannot achieve anything without effort/ working for it, and one can only have rights with concomitant corollary responsibilities. Individualists are not slaves. Leftists are literally psychotic (thought-killing) backwards fantasists, who insist that since something could go wrong, so it will go (and probably already has gone) wrong, so they must act by attacking other people first in order to prevent or correct it.

Ideology is nothing but a list of lying alibis: fantasies presented as facts, in order to ignore and reverse cause and effect to excuse the criminals' crimes. All criminals are psychopaths who fear the fear of painful thinking and personal responsibility, and as such they are hypocrites who always try to extort other people in order to impose their desired double-standards where only they have rights and others only have responsibilities to them.

And the best way for criminals to pre-emptively control one's potential victims' reactions to one's crimes is to tell them that there are no real crimes nor criminals, because they ("we") are really only ever helpless victims, and that there is no real cause and effect by which they could judge if they are being attacked first by the criminals, (if such things even existed) or not.

Criminals are always conspiring to subvert their victims' sense of self and dignity, by blaming them for daring to defend themselves, equating and conflating defensively counter-attacking with being as bad as the initial predatory criminal aggressions they are attempting to defend themselves from.

So they insist: "You have no right to self-defense, or to own a weapon, you racist! And you also have no right to even notice my attempted criminal conspiracy against you, because since it has failed to happen, there was no harm and so no foul, either - at most your noticing my intended attempted and conspired theft-crimes against you was only a case of a slanderous "theory" on your part!"

And of course being all for subjective double-standards, this won't apply to their own slanders, where they go after the largest groups and extort endless "reparations" from "white males," or "the Jews!"

Since idiotic "idealists" have to act like idiots to sell this nonsense to sane people, "Ideology"

should be spelled "idiology." The word "idiot" used to be spelled "ideot" anyway!

.......

Bottom line?

HOPE IS NOT A "PLAN!"

So pretending it is one, outs the idolaters as lazy, lying, hypocritical psychotic criminal parasites!

More Violent "Protests" - Or Open Rebellion?

From here:

WEEKEND OF RAGE

I think we’re dangerously well beyond the point of calling these things protests. This weekend’s Black Lives Matter “protests” involved blocking highways, throwing explosives at police, shooting up police stations, hundreds of arrests, and even calls for a black run government. This of course comes on the heels of 5 dead cops at a Dallas BLM “protest”.
Radical Agenda EP166 - Weekend of Rage
Radical Agenda EP166 – Weekend of Rage

It would seem to me, the blacks are waging a second civil war and whites are still pretending they have some kind of constitutional right to do so. It’s like we’re trying to play chess and they are operating by the rules of a street fight (see none). As is often the case, the left has put decent people on an uneven playing field against the degenerates who are tearing their society apart.

It’s to a point we cannot even count on the law to be enforced or obeyed by the government itself. Allen Scarsella is still sitting in a Minneapolis jail after shooting five people in self defense at a Black Lives Matter demonstration last November. He is being held on $500,000 bail. This weekend Michael Strickland, a former contributor at The Gateway Pundit and Progressives Today, was jailed in Portland, Oregon after he pulled a gun on a gang of thugs at a black lives matter protest. Michael has a concealed carry permit in Oregon and can legally carry a weapon. He was being threatened and he pulled the gun on his would-be assailants, and he was still charged with menacing and disorderly conduct. He is being held on $250,000 bail.

Our society is being torn apart, and anyone who dares to defend it goes to jail. Even if they are eventually found not guilty, being held on exorbitantly high bail for months, in a cage with the same criminals you were trying to defend against, well, that’s quite the deterrent.

I wanted to go to the GOP convention in Ohio this week, but I have decided I just plain cannot afford the risk. There is no way I would go there without a weapon, because we know there will be masses of violent criminals bused in from all over the country. I’m not worried about BLM or La Raza, I’m more than capable of defending myself. The thing I’m worried about is, those animals could compel me to defend myself, and I could go to jail just for obeying the self defense statutes of Ohio.

I’m glad I live in New Hampshire, far away from all of this madness. But of course, the white guilt industrial complex is inviting the madness here too. A Black Lives Matter march is scheduled for July 16th in Manchester. Imagine that. An event hosted by a bunch of people who fled multiracial hellholes, inviting multiracial hell into their 96% white state.

Just across the border in Lowell Massachusetts, a Syrian “refugee” sexually assaulted a 13 year old girl in a public pool.  Emad Hasso, 22 years of age, is accused of touching the girl’s upper thigh and asking how old she was. The girl old him she was too young for him and walked away. Hasso then allegedly followed the girl around the pool. While swimming, he again approached her, touched her upper thigh and asked her age. Miller said the girl responded that she was a “little kid, leave me alone.” At that point other people at the pool, including the lifeguard, saw some of the interaction between Hasso and the alleged victim and intervened.

Hasso is being held on $25,000 cash bond. Interesting how much lower bail is for a Syrian sexual predator than it is for an American citizen legally defending himself.

In nearby Vermont, 15 “refugees” have been diagnosed with tuberculosis, which is a fantastic testament to how well they have been “screened” prior to entering the country. But if you don’t think being exposed to TB is an enriching experience, then you’re just an evil racist who hates diversity.
There is no safe space. There is no way to protect yourself that can reliably be respected by the State. In the end there will only be non-whites, dead whites, and white outlaws.

Let us know how you feel about it all at 747-234-2254 or RadicalAgenda on Skype.

Join us, this and every Monday, as well as Wednesdays and Fridays from 5-7pm Eastern for another exciting episode of the Radical Agenda. It’s a show about common sense extremism where we talk about radical, crazy, off the wall things like militant black separatists.

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Golden Rule of Law vs Brazen Rule of Criminal Chaos

How to define a "crime" and a criminal? EASY! Crime and immorality is attacking first.

Here is the most basic, logical binary principle of law, which enables us to tell the difference between a law and a crime:

...

At all levels of human interaction, from the individual to all increasingly-large group levels (family, clan, tribe, nation, state) the Golden Rule of Law defines all situational morality most simply as "Do Not Attack First" and so enables the social contract to exist, by gaining us trust, economic progress BECAUSE of that trust (because we aren't wasting our time plotting attacks and defenses), and civilization, wherein we all agree to it - it's a free-will conscious contractual choice - and so enables us to realize that our only real right is to not be attacked first, and also that our only concomitant responsibility is to not attack (therefore innocent) others first.

In other words, I can do nothing either TO you, or FOR you, without getting your express consent first.

This is both how and why even the largest gang or group, "the state," has no inherent right to fraudulently, slanderously or pre-emptively "defensively" accuse any of it's real live individual human citizen component parts of any crimes by attacking them first; it's why we have "Innocent UNTIL PROVEN Guilty," and not, as criminal liberals always seem to prefer, "Guilty Until (Never) Proven Innocent!" Even 'the state' has no right to attack first!

And it's based on the fact that one can only have rights with reciprocal responsibility; to have rights without responsibility is to commit theft by extortion or fraud, as all criminals desire: to have rights (like, to your stuff) without any responsibility (like, for earning or paying for it). Even the falsely-sundered "criminal" and "civil" laws agree: you must pay for what you take.

So, the (Binary) Basics In Law are: "Do Not Attack First," and "You Must Pay For What You Take" (Rights only come with agreed-on, concomitant corollary Responsibilities).

Even small children already inherently, instinctively know this as the:

"But Mom! THEY STARTED IT! Rule."

...and it's also been the linchpin of all civilizations, The Golden Rule was coined first by Confucius in the correct, "Negative" rights way (as Mark Levin puts it) as "Do NOT Do Unto Others" which pre-dates the false, nannystate and micro-managing criminal "positivist" Christian phraseology, of "Do Unto Others" which can be endlessly exploited because it subjectively attacks all others first, pretending one can do whatever one wants TO everyone else, as long as one excuses one's self first by claiming to do it FOR them.

It's part of the Doctor's Hippocratic Oath: Primum Non Nocere, or: "First, Do No Harm" and it's even encoded right in the UN's own founding charter, which defines the #1 war-crime as "to be the aggressor in war."

Even liberal social engineers admit it exists, in their so-called "Precautionary Principle" caveat.

And a somewhat garbled version was even developed hypothetically into Star Trek's "Prime Directive."

Even the so-called 'Ten Commandments' are really only symptoms of this most basic binary moral Principle: the first five are "Fear and Obey," while the second five are "Do not steal" i.e: "Greed NOT; Be Fearful!" i.e: do not attack first. The criminal opposite would be "Fear NOT; Be Greedy!" (see islam's sharia crime "law").


In fact, all valid sub-sequent legislations are based on this one main principle: to be a criminal, one must have intended to attack first; after all, choosing to attack first, defines one's self as the predatory criminal aggressor, and they as one's innocent victims; there's no two ways about it. Bearing in mind of course that threats (i.e: intimidation; bullying;  harassment; coercion; duress; activist agitation; extortion; terrorism) ARE attacks, and that attacking second (counter-attacking) is a de rigeur requirement for the existence of all deterrent and punitive justice.

All valid laws are put as: "If you choose to attack first in these ways, then these (not necessarily proportional) responses will occur." They are warnings, not threats, because they involve if/then free-will cause and effect.

Idolatrous false laws, on the other hand, are pre-emptive slanders, and so are crimes in themselves, such as gun control laws: "SINCE you own guns, SO you will use them to commit crimes, SO we must take them away from you and attack you first, to defend our selves!" They are frauds; victim-blaming attacks and crimes in themselves.

...

The slanderous exact opposite of The Golden Rule of Law, is what I call the brazen rule of crime and chaos: "It is our holy right and duty to always attack all the others first! The best defense is a good offense!"

Deciding to obey this ages-old jungle-law of group-might-makes-right only inflicts distrust, stagnation, and barbarism.

For instance: islam's idolatrous sharia holds not that "If you choose to attack first in these ways, then these punishments will apply" but in stead, that: "If you ARE a member of these (slanderously, falsely and prejudicially defined as criminal simply for existing) groups, THEN these punishments restrictions and criminal attacks will be inflicted upon you!"

And those non-protected groups are all based on might makes right: infidel foreigners, women, children, and slaves, WILL all be officially and "legally" discriminated against, in sharia!

Same goes for any and all "group" rights scenarios; when some or any groups (of individual humans) have more and less rights than other groups (of individual humans), then they give non-members LESS rights, by definition; UN-equal protections under the law; thus, group rights "laws" are really only crimes in them selves.

Corporations, (despite the past frauds of bribed "judges," falsely defined as the "Legal FICTION of the Corporate Person,") are only groups or gangs, and so should not have any human rights at all; they are only, in fact, exercises in criminal negligence conspiracies.

Say you or I, as individuals, went before a judge and said: "Your Honor, I want to take risks which will only affect other people, for gains which will only accrue to myself!" he'd probably tell us to get lost, or jail us for attempted criminal negligence, right? Obviously, us asking for responsibility-free rights which will harm innocent others is an illegal scheme.

But if we declare our selves to be in a gang of potential criminals, as a "corporate" group, then suddenly the ages-old might-makes-right excuse seems to kick in, and we're automatically granted "limited liability" (no-responsibility rights) status! Hey presto, the (dis-)corporate ring of power renders us invisible to all real human legal culpability! Neat trick eh!

;-)

FINALLY, it's implicit in morality that when one chooses to NOT agree with it, to NOT agree to not attack first, one is thereby reserving the false right to attack (thereby innocent) others first - and, by doing so, one is projecting a criminal psychological threat attack, and is thus immoral by pretending to be merely "amoral."

.....

Criminals believe in the fake Golden Rule, ("Do Unto Others as you would have done unto yourself") which enables them to pretend they are entitled to do anything to others which they have done to themselves; i.e: "I'd LOVE to be oppressed and ruled with an iron fist by ME, even if I wasn't me!"

This fake 'golden rule' is really only the same brazen rule of criminal chaos which asserts one is allowed to do things TO one's victims, as long as one can pretend to be doing those things FOR them!

This enables them to make fake, one-sided criminally negligent "contracts" to and with them selves which they can them pretend also apply to other people:

And, "if I punch myself in the head first, then that entitles me to punch you in your head, too!"

"Trust me, this hurts ME more than it does you!"

They also get to pretend that, when they CHOOSE to take personal "risks" (like, of being caught for their crimes) then their victims owe them the loot in compensation for all the trouble they took stealing it!

Just like how on The Sopranos, the mob always called their crimes "earnings!"

All criminals believe in having rights (like, to our stuff) without concomitant corollary responsibilities (like, for having to pay for or otherwise earn it) and that the ends (their enrichment) justifies the means (screwing over their victims).

.......

THIS IS WHY CONFUCIUS' ('NEGATIVE RIGHTS') VERSION IS RIGHT, AND THE CHRISTIAN ('POSITIVIST') ONE IS WRONG:

Morality and Law are pretty simple, as Mark Levin notes: “negative” rights based on the Golden Rule of Law (most simply defined as: Do Not Attack First)!

It means, in principle, that everything is disallowed except that which is specifically allowed – between two or more people, this means I don’t have any right or responsibility to do anything either TO, or ‘FOR,’ you, without your express permission! So this ‘social contract’ means that our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack (thereby innocent) others, first!