Wednesday, March 24, 2021

Ninth Circuit Ignores Second Amendment

Ninth Circuit Goes Back to English Law in the Middle Ages, Says Pre-U.S. Law in Hawaii Allows State’s Open Carry Restrictions

A federal court denied a challenge to Hawaii’s prohibition on the open carry of firearms in a lengthy and scholarly opinion released Wednesday — finding that Hawaiian law and practice both predate and supersede a broad application of the Second Amendment.

“Hawai‘i law began limiting public carriage of dangerous weapons, including firearms, more than 150 years ago — nearly fifty years before it became a U.S. territory and more than a century before it became a state,” the opinion explains in language foreshadowing the method of inquiry and eventual ruling in favor of anti-gun regulation.

So we now make Constitutional decisions that restrict the Second Amendment based ignoring the Bill of Rights!

"The thorough (and admittedly non-exhaustive) historical inquiry, necessarily long and time-consuming, begins by invoking 'a series of orders to local sheriffs that prohibited ‘going armed’ without the king’s permission' which were promulgated by “King Edward I and his successor, King Edward II.” The final laws cited in this section are two explicit prohibitions on the public carrying of firearms which were upheld by the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1876 and 1882."?

That means the very reason for the Second Amendment -- the British King's efforts to deny Americans our right to keep and bear arms (as in Concord and Lexington) becomes precedent to ignore the Amendment! 

This absurdity is followed by a reconstruction era Arkansas court, before the 14th Amendment jurisprudence developed, denying the right. What remains of the Amendment if I cannot go about armed?

The alleged conservative majority on the Supreme Court needs to clearly announce that our individual right to keep and bear arms trumps state restrictions, no matter how old the legal error which allowed them may be. Once we had a Federal Common Law until SCOTUS said it never was... 

Wednesday, March 17, 2021

Tribunals of Conscience

Private Tribunals of Conscience
Their History and Why They Matter
Ralph Fucetola, JD

Tribunals of Conscience and Crimes Against Humanity

Over the past century and more, various private Tribunals of Conscience have focused the moral judgment of humanity in situations where official bodies have either failed to hold violators of human rights to account or have been themselves the perpetrators of horrific acts that shock the conscience.

These nongovernmental, private expressive associations must be distinguished from international legal tribunals, such as the Nuremberg Tribunals and the International Court of Justice, which are examples of multinational courts established by governments under international law to try cases of making war and of war crimes.

International Criminal Tribunals

Discussing the impact of International Criminal Tribunals, a recent paper from the Netherlands noted,

“The idea that a ruler’s power cannot be absolute, that there must be standards beyond the ruler to protect his citizens, has become the foundation stone of international human rights law. But the idea of international criminal law, and international criminal tribunals, goes a step further. In the extreme case where the ruler commits or condones crimes against his people, it takes not only the formulation of norms, but also the administration of punitive justice out of his hands and up to the international level, even to the point where he himself can be tried on criminal charges. . . .

Yet the symbolic power of international criminal tribunals may be far greater than their legal authority and capacity would suggest. In the cases of Georgia and Kenya, the threat of an ICC investigation appears to be spurring national investigations. Above all, in the former Yugoslavia and in the situations the ICC is currently investigating, the existence of the investigations has given local civil society actors room to discuss "difficult subjects" related to the recent past, such as the occurrence of massacres, the use of mass rape as a political instrument, the use of child-soldiers, and the issue of accountability in whatever shape.” [1]

Crimes Against Humanity

International Law is ambiguous with regard to Crimes Against Humanity (CAHs).

“Unlike genocide and war crimes, which have been widely recognized and prohibited in international criminal law since the establishment of the Nuremberg principles, there has never been a comprehensive convention on crimes against humanity, even though such crimes are continuously perpetrated worldwide in numerous conflicts and crises. There are eleven international texts defining crimes against humanity, but they all differ slightly as to their definition of that crime and its legal elements.” [2]

While the phrase “Crimes Against Humanity” (Class C Charges) was used in the post-World War II imposition of “victors justice” against CAH perpetrators on the losing side, “the charge of crimes against peace was a prerequisite to prosecution—only those individuals whose crimes included crimes against peace could be prosecuted by the Tribunal. In the event, no [independent] Class C charges were heard in Tokyo...” [3]

The failure of governments to respond to public concerns regarding CAH necessitates and justifies private persons constituting themselves into private associations for the purpose of condemning violations of basic humane standards.

Before the earliest Tribunals of Conscience there were several important international campaigns which contained elements later developed by the Tribunals.  These include campaigns against slavery which started even before the beginning of the 19th Century. Often led by concerns of conscience, by religious libertarians such as the Quakers, the anti-slavery movement included a major element of the Tribunals:  the public condemnation of acts seen as immoral. [4]

Similarly, private commissions of investigation were established to oppose the horrific abuses in the Congo during the early 19th Century when that territory was a personal fiefdom of the King of the Belgians.  Slavery enforced by brutalities, including dismemberment, was widely condemned and various private campaigns, often led by clergy, investigated and condemned the violations of humanitarian standards.  It was one of those campaigns where the phrase “Crimes Against Humanity” was first used. [5] Later the phrase was used in reference to the genocide against Armenians by the Ottoman Empire. [6]

Tribunals of Conscience

Various nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have sought to define “Tribunals of Conscience”. 

The National Lawyers Guild, for example, has posited the following:

“A Tribunal of Conscience is a People’s Tribunal. Such tribunals date back more than six decades to the era of the Russell Tribunal on US war crimes in Viet Nam and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of People (Algiers, 1976). They provide an alternative forum for those who find no recourse in the formal institutions of the state or the international community. They are the place where the people judge the crimes of the state, not where the state judges the people.” [7]

Perhaps the earliest self-denoted Tribunal of Conscience was that convoked by B. Russell and J-P. Sartre regarding the War in Vietnam, in 1966.  After two public sessions in Europe the Tribunal published a strong condemnation of United States' actions in Vietnam in 1967.

Russel quoted Robert H. Jackson, the Chief Nuremberg Prosecutor, in justification of the establishment of the Tribunal:

“If certain acts and violations of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them. We are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” — Justice Robert H. Jackson [8]

The Russel/Sartre Tribunal encouraged subsequent private efforts:

“Additional tribunals have been conducted in the following decades on the same model, using the denomination Russell Tribunal. E.g., The Russell Tribunal on Latin America focused on human rights violations in the military dictatorships of Argentina and Brazil (Rome, 1973), on Chile's military coup d'รฉtat (Rome, 1974–76), on the situation of Human Rights in Germany (1978), on the Threat of Indigenous Peoples of America (1982), on Human Rights in Psychiatry (Berlin, 2001), on Iraq (Brussels, 2004), and on Palestine (Barcelona, 2009–12).” [9]

These efforts have also continued beyond the Russel/Sartre model. The “Permanent Peoples' Tribunal was established at the behest of a member of the Senate of Italy in Bologna in the late 1970s.  It has held 46 sessions regarding separate Crimes Against Humanity over the ensuing decades. [10] These sessions have reviewed situations involving CAHs primarily against peoples who are not recognized as “nations”, such as the population of Western Sahara or the Kurds, who live in several Middle Eastern nations.

Recent Developments

Other Tribunals of Conscience have included the 2009 Agent Orange Tribunal of the International Democratic Lawyers Association [11]; the 2020 Belmarish Tribunal regarding the persecution of Julian Assange [12]; and the 2019 China Tribunal which states:

“The China Tribunal is an independent people’s tribunal established to inquire into forced organ harvesting from, amongst others, prisoners of conscience in China and to investigate what criminal offences, if any, have been committed by state or state-approved bodies, organisations or individuals in China that may have engaged in forced organ harvesting. “ [13]

During the 2020-2021 period of the “Declared Pandemic” the Natural and Common Law Tribunal for Public Health and Justice was established to hold the perpetrators of what the Tribunal found to be the “Genocidal Technologies Pandemic” accountable.  It entered a formal judgment against various state-actors, politicians, businesses and NGOs for their various roles in triggering the false-flag “pandemic” and rushing “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines, including novel class of “gene altering” injections into production and deployment. [14]

Humanity Benefits from Tribunals of Conscience

“What”, the skeptic may ask, “is the value of private Tribunals of Conscience to humanity?”

We live in a world where the promise of global peace and prosperity has become a distortion used to empower globalist elites with their demonstrated eugenocidal agenda (most recently, through the Declared COVID Pandemic), where relations among nation-states resemble the brutal behavior of thugs -- a true Hobbesian international order. The new religion of this world is Statism, the worship of the institutions of the States, including their judicial institutions and administrative indiscretions.

As the lack of intellectual viability of Statism in its various racial, religious, national, international, bureaucratic, imperialist and other forms becomes increasingly exposed and become, perhaps, increasingly irrelevant in an economically globalized, blockchain-enabled, post-singularity world, an alternative to state-sponsored "justice" is needed.

The juridical subjects of International Law, "International Actors," include nation-states (even micro-states like the Vatican), a certain few private associations (like the Red Cross or Sovereign Knights of Malta), and international agencies like the UN along with its associated institutions (such as certain privileged NGOs and "specialized agencies" -- WHO and FAO, for example). Not included in this list are actual private persons, natural or cultural Nations, even juridical persons such as private associations and registered corporations.

The humans and human organizations with which we usually interact are missing from the globalist structure of international relations.

We individuals do not exist in the currently dominant Statist view of international law.

In the eyes of Globalist International Actors, we real people and our private associations are little more than disregarded entities. This state of affairs is entirely unsatisfactory to humane individuals.

Consider the long march of human history and how treating individual humans as objects led us to endless millennia of Statist imperial warfare, culminating the 20th Century's killing fields and nuclear incinerations.

Consider the historic role of Statism in the imposition of what libertarian philosopher and lawyer Lysander Spooner saw as the Great Monopolies: the horror of slavery, vicious state churches, the legal "incapacities of women" and the King's trade monopolies – all Statist institutions which have repeatedly perpetrated Crimes Against Humanity.

How can humanity trust the very Statist institutions which have so violated humane standards, by committing Crimes Against Humanity to exact meaningful justice for their own misdeeds, no matter how egregious?

Even as the vicious old concepts, chattel slavery, religious and racial bigotry, institutionalized inequality of women and various others, have become anathema to civilized people, the very concept a "sovereign" State, not subject to the same rule of law that applies to private persons, must also be rejected. States and their political elites must be subject to true Justice or there is no Justice.

Clearly, that justice will not come from the very source of the criminality.  Private persons of conscience must take the lead to expose and publicly condemn Crimes Against Humanity.  This is the role, which is of inestimable value to humanity, of Private Tribunals of Conscience.








[7] /








Also to be posted at:
International Journal of Natural Health, Science and Policy

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

Trump's Last Stand?


Here is a Link that Reports SCOTUS Actions

22 February 2021 UPDATE:  Election Cases denied Certiorari with Justice Thomas writing dissenting opinions.


On 19 February 2021 the Supreme Court will consider granting Certiorari (accept the cases onto its docket) for several of the pending presidential election fraud cases, including the cases brought by Sidney Powell and Lin Wood.  These include the Georgia and Pennsylvania cases.  If 4 of the 9 justices agree to accept the cases then the Court must hear them.  If 5 of the 9 agree with the plaintiffs that massive election fraud occurred then the remaining question is what remedy will the Court impose. The Court can refuse to consider the cases (if no justice want to discuss the case, it is automatically dismissed under Rule 46), grant immediate Certiorari or request a BIO, a Brief in Opposition, and consider the request for Certiorari later.

There is a scenario in which D. J. Trump may still return to the White House in triumph.

But to understand how, we need to start in 2018 when Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Opinion in the case of Abbott vs Perez. [1]  This was a Texas electoral fraud case in which, as we have also seen this year, the trial courts refused to hear any evidence of fraud. When the case got to the Supreme Court the Chief Justice wrote that the Court could determine whether there had been fraud, or not, even in the absence of evidence presented in the courts below, by taking judicial notice of the actual voting statistics which are part of the public record.  The court does not need to know the who or how of the fraud to determine whether or not there was fraud. In the Perez case the Court looked at the voting records and decided there had not been fraud.  

This means if the Court decides to take on the presidential election fraud cases, those cases can proceed rapidly to a decision based on the public record of anomalous shifts in the votes among the candidates in the "key states."

That there were anomalies is widely accepted:

"This report studies 8,954 individual updates to the vote totals in all 50 states and finds that four individual updates — two of which were widely noticed on the internet, including by the President — are profoundly anomalous; they deviate from a pattern which is otherwise found in the vast majority of the remaining 8,950 vote updates…" [2]

However, it will be up to the Court to finally determine the outcome of the 2020 election.  Assume that 5 justices decide there had been fraud.  What is the proper remedy?

Will the Court simply say, try again better next time?  Or will the Court determine that the contested State electoral votes are invalid and no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes?

In that case there was no president after January 20th, and no vice president either.  That has two astounding results. 

First, the Speaker of the House would be Acting President. The Senate would be divided 50/50 with no presiding officer to cast any tie breaking vote.

Second, the choice of president falls to the House which under the Constitution has until March 4th to choose a president from among the top electoral vote getters.  Each state gets one vote. Since the Republicans have a majority of the state delegations to Congress, they can easily choose Trump.

The divided Senate gets to choose the new vice president from among the top two electoral vote getters.  I suspect the evenly divided Senate will not be able to choose a vice president before the March 4th deadline. 

After that date the office would be vacant and the new president would have authority under the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution to nominate a vice president, subject to Congressional approval..

And that is how Nancy Pelosi might end up as Acting President for a few weeks, succeeded by the once-and-future President Trump.


[1] I wrote about the Perez case here:


Thursday, February 11, 2021

Speaking the Unspeakable: The First Amendment & Violent Overthrow

Is it Lawful to Advocate Violent Overthrow of the Government?

The legal system of the American Federal Republic, arising from the libertarian principles of the Declaration of Independence, has a number of unique features, not widely shared in practice in other large nation states.

These include, preeminently, the First and Second clauses of the Bill of Rights -- the guarantees that the government will be strictly limited regarding our most important personal liberties.

The Founders of the Federation were gentlemen who were among nearly the last generation to receive a classical education, including literacy in Latin and Greek, with an emphasis on the history of the Roman Republic and its convoluted legal system.  They intended that the American Republic was to be established on a stronger tradition of law, the English Common Law, than had been possible for the Romans.  The Romans did not keep their republic -- rather, they lost their republican liberties, becoming mere subjects of an imperial system -- also a clear and present danger for Americans.

When Benjamin Franklin was asked, at the end of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, what type of government was being planned, he is reported to have said, "A republic, if you can keep it."

The Founders knew history and determined the new American Republic would not make the mistakes of the earlier republics.  Here, we were promised, the rule of law would restrain the power of politicians.

Thus the Bill of Rights, with its First Clause asserting the individual's right to free speech and communication, religion, association and petition and its Second Clause recognizing the individual's right to keep and bear arms (which is what guarantees the First) were imposed on the new government through general popular support as amendments to the original Constitution of 1787.

The American legal system developed based on a fundamental law in which the Legislative Power is told it "shall make no law" regarding certain subjects:  the subjects listed in the First and Second clauses. These have, as the Supreme Court earlier remarked about the First, a "preferred position" in our legal system.

This introduction leads me to the purpose of this blog entry.  These strong Constitutional Protections have actual application in the case law.  For example, regarding (IMHO) one of the most difficult areas of First Amendment jurisprudence -- the area of extreme political speech.  

Specifically, the question is, when is it  lawful, under American jurisprudence,  for an individual to engage in speech actually calling for the violent overthrowing of the government.  

The events of 6 January 2021, when large numbers of citizens visited the Capitol to "speak truth to power" and Congress reacted with fear and loathing, abandoning the Capitol, show this is not just an academic question.

Yes, the courts have considered this question.  Given the history of the revolutionary movements of the 19th and 20th Centuries, there is well developed law regarding this question.

That law was aptly reviewed by President Trump's lawyers in their Brief against the Second Trump Impeachment.  

The full Brief is here:

Below are several pages from the Brief which review the cases on Advocating for the Overthrow of the Government [emphasis added]. Based on the case law, my conclusion is that it is lawful to advocate even the "necessity" of the use of violence to overthrow the government.  A speaker may even "incite" violence against government, so long as incitement to immediate violence does not occur. 

"The fatal flaw ... is that it seeks to mete out governmental punishment ... based on political speech that falls squarely within broad protections of the First Amendment. Speech and association for political purposes is the kind of activity to which the First Amendment offers its strongest protection.125 Restrictions placed on freedom of speech are evaluated “against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”126 

Thus, “[o]ur First Amendment decisions have created a rough hierarchy in the constitutional protection of speech” in which “[c]ore political speech occupies the highest, most protected position.”127 The Supreme Court has further acknowledged that “[t]he language of the political arena . . . is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.”128 A rule of law permitting criminal or civil liability to be imposed upon those who speak or write on public issues and their superintendence would lead to “self-censorship” by all which would not be relieved by permitting a defense of truth. “Under such a rule, would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is in fact true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so . . . . The rule thus dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.”129 In only a few well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech may the government punish an individual for his or her words.130

Even political speech that may incite unlawful conduct is protected from the reach of governmental punishment. Indeed, “[e]very idea is an incitement,’ and if speech may be suppressed whenever it might inspire someone to act unlawfully, then there is no limit to the State’s censorial power.”131 The government may not prohibit speech because it increases the chance an unlawful act will be committed “at some indefinite future time.”132 Rather, the government may only suppress speech for advocating the use of force or a violation of law if “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”133

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court formed a test that placed even speech inciting illegal conduct within the protection of the First Amendment.134 In that case, a leader of the Ku Klux Klan was convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law.135 Evidence of his incitement was a film of the events at a Klan rally, which included racist and anti-Semitic speech, the burning of a large wooden cross, and several items that appeared in the film, including a number of firearms.136 The leader of the protest proclaimed that “[w]e’re not a revengent [sic] organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might be some revenge taken. We are marching on Congress July the Fourth, four hundred thousand strong.”137 

The Court held that, “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit [the government] to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”138 The Court explained that “the mere abstract teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.139

Thus, under Brandenburg and its progeny, government actors may not “forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”140 Absent an imminent threat, therefore, it is expressly within the First Amendment to advocate for the use of force; similarly, it is protected speech to advocate for violating the law..."


125 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269 (1964)(The First Amendment “’was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.’” (quoting Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957)).

126 Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969) (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)).

127 R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 422 (1992( Stevens, J., concurring); see also Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 787 (2000)(Kennedy, J., dissenting)(“Laws punishing speech which protests the lawfulness or morality of the government’s own policy are the essence of the tyrannical power the First Amendment guards against.”); Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 588 U.S. 310, 349 (2010)(“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”)

128 Watts, 394 U.S. at 708 (distinguishing between “political hyperbole” and “true threats”) (citing Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, 383 U.S. 53, 58, (1966)).

129 New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279.

130 Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 521-22 (1972). 

131 Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 580, 121 S.Ct. 2404, 2435, 150 L.Ed.2d 532 (2001)(emphasis added)(quoting Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 673, 45 S.Ct. 625, 69 L.Ed. 1138 (1925)(Holmes, J., dissenting)).

132 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 253–54 (2002)(quoting Hess v. Indiana, 414

U.S. 105, 108 (1973)(per curiam)).

133 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) (emphasis added) (per curiam).

134 395 U.S. at 447.

135 Id. at 445.

136 Id. at 445-46.

137 Id. at 446.

138 Id.

139 Id. at 448.

140 Id.

Thursday, February 4, 2021

Is the End of the USA Unthinkable?

A Texas State Rep wants Texas to leave the Union again [1] and become an independent nation again. [2]

Maybe the second time's the charm...

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -- United States Declaration of Independence

For the first time in a century and two thirds we face the real prospect of irreparable differences among large geographic areas of the United States of America. Many fear that we are on an irreversible path toward a civil war between the over-populated coastal urban centers and the food and fuel producing interior regions they depend upon.  

This civil war would be a struggle for control by the urban elites or autonomy for the interior regions. The electorate appears nearly evenly divided, with no clear majority, although the Regime Party currently looks like it holds all the levers of power...

This time it must not be like what happened in 1860/65 when the Federal Government destroyed dozens of American cities and about a million and a half Americans died in the war and subsequent famine (mostly, BTW, former slaves) during a failed attempt to split the Federation.

Would people support an Institute for Peaceful Secession which would study how peaceful secession and dismantling of the Union could occur?

The Institute could study relatively peaceful examples from history, like the Czechoslovak "Velvet Revolution" and the break-up of the USSR or British Empire.

What would we actually have to do to peacefully replace the United States of America and its authoritarian legislative, judicial, executive/military bureaucracy with true guardians for our liberties? 

Maybe that new structure could be called the American States' Common Market or the New American Confederation.

Americans would most likely need a free trade treaty among the States. This could include joint international border controls, but free internal travel and trade for citizens of the States.

That was the original concept of the Confederation that existed before the Constitution and is within the purview of the Declaration of Independence which reserves to the people the "...right, [the] duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

But the first step toward making a New American Republic a reality would be studying and publicizing how to do it peacefully.

A bit over twenty-five years ago the largest government on earth, that of the USSR, disappeared nearly without warning. 

Many areas, like Ukraine, which had been part of the empire since the 1700s, became independent nations again.  

Just a few years before that the head of the Red Army bragged that the "correlation of forces" had shifted decisively to the USSR and against the West.  We all know what happened and the suffering of millions as the old regime collapsed without any planning.  

While the peoples of the former USSR are now much better off than before, it took a quarter century for them to be able to enjoy the freedoms they had at least partially regained.

We could face similar horrific hardship unless we plan for the devolution of the Third Republic (the First was under the Continental Congress, the Second was under the Articles of Confederation and the Third is under the often violated Constitution of 1787).

There is already a private body known as the Uniform Law Commission which can serve as a model. It developed the Uniform Commercial Code among other model state laws. [3] 

Another approach would be for those States, like Texas, that are distressed by the CCP-backed Coup of 6 January, when Congress was panicked into approving the stolen election, to demand the convening of the Convention of the States to revise the Constitution of 1787, as provided in that document. [4]  That body could reform the Federal System and perhaps preserve the Union.



[2] Texas Declaration of Independence, 1836

[3] "The Uniform Law Commission, also called the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, is a non-profit, American unincorporated association. Established in 1892, the ULC aims to provide U.S. states with well-researched and drafted legislation to bring clarity and stability to critical areas of statutory law across jurisdictions"

Thursday, January 28, 2021

Free Douglass Mackey

 Blogger Known as "Ricky Vaughn" 
Arrested by Feds for 2016 Thought Crime

[Douglass Mackey] A Florida Man Arrested 
Over 2016 Election Memes Designed To "Trick" Hillary Voters  

Beware of "Speaking Your Mind" in the Banana Republic formerly known as the United States of America.

 Apparently the Regime Department of Justice believes this is a crime. Note carefully the words used.  Emphasis added to show that the Regime seeks to criminalize speech and association in violation of the (former?) Constitution, and especially the First Amendment, which the Supreme Court during an earlier political era had held to have a "favored" position in the legal system of the aforesaid Republic:
  "Starting in at least 2015, MACKEY participated in numerous Group DMs. These groups, which at times included dozens of individuals, and at times had overlapping membership, served as forums for the participants to share, among other things, their views concerning how best to influence the Election. Among other things, MACKEY and the members of these groups used the Group DMs to create, refine and share memes and hashtags that members of the groups would subsequently post and distribute."

Thursday, January 7, 2021

Rubicon or Reichstag at the Capitol?

"The Revolution Will Be Televised."

What happened at the Capitol yesterday was likely triggered by False Flag agents.  

Zero Hedge has identified that with photos. [1] To all our sorrow, an unarmed veteran, Ashley Babbitt, was killed by government agents in the Capitol.

What happened was, unfortunately, a False Flag which fooled the patriots there.  It may have been exhilarating while it happened, and second guessing it won't bring back Moment, the result is that the Demoncrats and RINOS are gloating; they think they have their Reichstag Fire.

When President Trump told the crowd on the morning of January 6th that he would, as I took his words, walk with them to the Capitol, and then did not, he made two mistakes.  

First, he should have known that there would be agents provocateur waiting to mislead his supporters. There was no significant security at the Capitol.  While the White House was surrounded with crowd control barriers, nothing much but yellow ribbons blocked the  way to the Capitol.

The patriots should have kept away from a Congress that was looking for any excuse to crack-down on the Deplorables.  

Second, having said what he said, he should have been like "Yeltsin on the barricades" and done as he said.  I don't think his motives were wrong, just that he didn't think it through to see how the Left would use what happened. 

Nonetheless a Rubicon has been crossed. Not by Trump who will now be (?) welcomed into the Retired Presidents Club, but by the patriot movement. 

False flag or not.  

It might be time to re-read Yeats poem on the failed Easter 1916 Irish rebellion against the British. That was followed by the successful rebellion of 1919-21.

Yes, "A terrible beauty is born."  [2]



Why did they take the building? 
Because they were patriots and had enough.  
Why did they evacuate the building? 
Because they are patriots and law-abiders.  
What was their mistake?


After the patriots failed to keep control of the Capitol, after Trump threw the Liberty Movement under the bus, I re-read Yeats' poem Easter 1916 -- it's worth reading in the context of the past few days: Then I wrote a blog entry entitled: Rubicon or Reichstag? I believe the events of January 6th, now being used by the Deep State like the Reichstag Fire was used in 1933, will prove to be a real turning-point for the Liberty Movement. A Rubicon has been crossed. Electoral politics or reliance on the Courts will not save American Liberty and the Constitutional Republic. There is no legitimacy remaining in the Federal System. It is over. All we have left, in the words of Walt Whitman, is to "Obey little; resist much." The Stars and Bars paraded through the Capitol is not unlike the raising of the Old Russian Flag over the Kremlin in '91. No turning back now. The coming forced vaccination with the barely tested, gene-altering Agenda 2030 "COVID" vaccine will be the next test of the Liberty Movement's resolve. It is likely to be, as the illegitimate "President Elect" promised, a "dark winter."

Sunday, December 27, 2020

Was the 2020 Election Legitimate?

How can we trust the 2020 election results?  The Supreme Court, in 2018, showed us the legal process. 

In 2018 Chief Justice Roberts wrote the decision in the Texas redistricting case of Abbott vs Perez, holding that the Supreme Court could take judicial notice of official voting results statistics to determine whether or not fraud had occurred.  In that case the statistics showed no fraud.  The same principle could be applied to the current situation, if any of the pending cases are accepted by the Court, confirming massive vote fraud and invalidating certain key state electoral votes.

Whether we can trust the vote will depend on the courage of at least 5 members of the Court.

On a personal note, I voted for the Libertarian Party (candidate: Dr. Jo Jorgensen) as I have for the past 40+ years, nonetheless, it is clear to me that the claimed outcome of 2020 election, unless Congress or the Supreme Court intervene, is not legitimate due to massive fraud.

Ralph Fucetola JD

  The following is from an unverified source, posted on social media.

The Dominion vote counting tabulators have been forensically analyzed, pursuant to Court Order and state legislative investigators. Not surprisingly, just as alleged by Trump’s Legal Team, Sidney Powell and forensic experts, experts have confirmed the Dominion vote counting tabulators are connected to internet (illegal) manipulatable (illegal), designed to allow programmed cheating for the voting algorithm and vote switching to favor a designated candidate. (illegal)

In addition to hundreds of thousands of falsified vote dump ballots for Biden in the wee hours in the swing states, election officials counting truckloads and suitcases of secret ballots for Biden, the Dominion vote tabulators were programmed to give an approx. 26-30% advantage to Biden. Each Biden vote counted 1.26 and each Trump vote counted .74, they thought that was enough to swing the vote in Biden‘s favor it was not...

Here’s a couple other huge statistical red flag anomalies that just don’t add up. Biden allegedly received 80M votes, more than any candidate in US history, but only won 17%, 523 of the counties in the country. In 2012, Obama won 873 counties and received 63M votes? See 2020 color precinct map, the blue guy won? Trump has nearly 90 million followers on Twitter but only got 73 million votes. Biden has 19 million followers on Twitter but got 80 million votes

In the 20 bellwether counties in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that typically forecast a presidential election, Trump won 19 of them across these states, yet Biden still won?

In the swing states, Trump was up on election night 5-10%, hundreds of thousands of votes in each of those states. Then we went to bed believing Trump had won reelection. However, in the early morning hours, between 3-3:30am, on the day after the election, Nov. 4, when election counting centers were supposed to be closed, there were inexplicable, coordinated, sharp vote dumps/spikes on the counting graphs in amounts seemingly calculated to catch Biden up. In Michigan, the vote spiked 141,258 for Biden, 5,968 for Trump, in Wisconsin 143,379 for Biden, 25,163 for Trump, in Georgia 136,155 for Biden, 29,115 for Trump, same in Michigan and Pennsylvania. See Navarro vote change chart and vote spike graph, clear evidence of fraud.

One more interesting fact, in these same states, voters elected republican senators, house members and other down ballot candidates, but not the leader of the Republican party, President Trump?

The swing state Legislatures and now congress are hearing compelling, overwhelming evidence of election fraud and security failures, Congress, or SCOTUS must decide this election.

Trump has Three primary pathways to reclaim this election that he actually won by a landslide...

1. When the electoral votes go to Congress one member of the house and one member of the senate must object to the swing state votes. That is followed by a debate/discussion on the house floor and then a vote regarding which set of electors votes get counted democrat or republican, or not counted. Each state delegation has one vote in the house; there are 26 clearly red states, five purple states in 19 blue states. Trump wins;

2. There are numerous cases making their way to SCOTUS, or in the house themselves that could result in a determination that the swing state votes should be disqualified. If no candidate gets 270 electoral votes, the vote for President of the United States is decided by the House of Representatives. Again, each state delegation has one vote in the house, there are 26 clearly red states and five purple states in 19 blue states. Trump wins;

3. It is likely in the DNI investigation into foreign election fraud and the various FBI investigations into the Biden family, that there is evidence of financial, influence peddling, treason, voting fraud and other criminal wrongdoing and compromised to China, by the Bidens. I suspect Trump and others know this. Biden’s transition and security briefings have been halted. Kamala has still not resigned her Senate seat. Biden may likely be confronted with the choice to concede the election, or be criminally prosecuted. Joe will fold like the house of cards that he is to save his family. 

Trump is elected.

Truth will out...God Bless the USA  ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿป  ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ