People Of Color

The muck-rakers of the so-called "left "† are endlessly clever in contriving and using weaponized linguistic terms.   I have found it quite interesting to observe how they make up expressions, the intentions and objectives of which are to stir the emotions in the most negative ways, due in large part to the deeply negative connotations such terms carry (often tacitly), place them "out there" through various channels, and how such terms seem to so readily take root in the minds a great many people without having to bear so much as the least burden of scrutiny.

Terms such as "racism", "homophobia", "misogynist", "patriarchy", etc., are all good examples of how new terms were yanked from thin air, and old ones redefined through misapplication and consequent misuse.  The fact that these terms have so broadly succeeded in their goals as altering factors in the ways that people perceive and respond to specific conditions in the social aether is something at which one ought truly marvel, and be appalled.  The fact that human beings are so easily lead by their noses, in the relevant case here to their own effective destruction, should leave the hairs on us all reaching for the stars. 

Idioms of more recent vintages ("safe space", "gender fluid", etc.) connote notions deserving of naught but our backs, and yet have managed to stick.  This may testify to the innate corruptibility of the human animal, but it may also speak to the raw power of broadcast media, and perhaps a combination of the two.

But today's objective is to focus on a single term and the notion it conveys: "people of color".  

For many decades the terms issuing from the left have all carried the taint of bitterness, hatred, confrontation, envy, and a whole list of other negative connotations, one of the most useful among them being "victimhood".  "People of color" are, more than anything else, offered up in the perceiving mind as victims.  This is all very tacit, of course, but nonetheless set forth with great pressure.  People of color are victims first and foremost.  Somewhat paradoxically, they are also offered up as being so wonderful; as better than white people.  They are, in fact, the superior people who at the same time are victims of the white, which is tacitly implied with equal force to be not of color.  This is ironic when one realizes from a strictly scientific perspective that "white" is the presence of all color.  "White" people are the most colored of all humans, the "black" being absent of all color.  This alone should lend one a very strong hint at the patently ridiculous nature of the expression.  

But if we're going to play that tainted game, the results of which are naught but to cause ever deeper harm to human relations, then white people hold more claim to "people of color" than any other group.  

Naturally, that tidbit of truth is of no interest to the Weakman who, for whatever reason, has vested himself in the leftist world view.  For him, his truth is the only truth in spite of the utter absence of its demonstration.  Similarly, the views of all others are to him invalid and false, regardless of how perfectly proven.

Whether it was intended, and the likelihood is that it was, people of color have vested themselves in the negative, while at the same time voicing the more positive virtues of "love", "equality", "justice", and so forth.  When observing the average "man of color" in action, it becomes clear that their walk does not accord with their talk.  They make clear that their individual understandings of the various idealized terms that they so casually spew into the aether are either catastrophically lacking, or they intentionally misuse them pursuant to some unpublished agenda.

So-called "people of color" are not the only guilty/duped parties in all this.  There exists a large and vital contingent of lefties of the "white" vintage who actively aid, abet, and endeavor to foster the dangerous follies that these broken expressions are intended to work toward.  They do so in large part by their endless virtue-signaling, the subtext to it all being the wholly ego-absorbed message of "everybody look at me... I'm so special and evolved.  I'm so selfless... so much better than everyone else", the great irony there being that all this carrying on about themselves is the very antithesis of selflessness.  A more self-absorbed personality one would be hard pressed to identify.

The white regressive goes to extraordinary pains to gain the acceptance of his non-white compatriots, to the point of embarrassment.  And yet, when the thinking man stops to carefully consider the spew that issues from such people, we find that their words are rotten with implied racial bias and hatred, leaving one to wonder whether the white regressive is even aware of the truer nature of the things he utters.

For example, they go on endlessly about how the poor "man of color" suffers under the tyranny of systemic white racism (subtext there is that only white people can be racist).  Their argument extends from there to imply ever so tacitly that without the aid of the white man, those of color will continue to suffer economic and social failure.  The assumption that "people of color" are nearly universally failed seems a bit of a stretch.  That "people of color" are incapable of rising above squalor without the kind and able ministrations of whitey is about as disparaging an assumption as one can make.  It reflects the true inner state of the regressive mindset of those who identify as "left".  They rant endlessly that people of color are equal, yet their demands suggest nothing other than that they see such people are inferior, the only path to equal outcomes being accessible only through the white man's hand.  If we go with the assumption of equal potential, then the white regressive suite of views and the attendant demands become absurd on their faces, to the point of blatant idiocy.  Nobody who accepts that we as individual human beings hold broadly similar capacities for attaining prosperity can take seriously the thinly veiled racial bias of the regressive leftist, whose deeds contravene their claimed ideals and assumptions.  Their behavior represents the pinnacle of disingenuous hypocrisy, and a strong will to stupidity and outright evil.

"People of color" serves only to divide us.  There are evil whites over here, and over there are their victims, the poor, hapless, feckless, abused, and helpless people of color.  Oh, the humanity!  Once again we see just how nakedly ridiculous this all proves when one steps away from the emotional manipulation and examines the deeper implications.  That is the fly in the leftist ointment where this linguistic tactic is concerned: the moment a man decides to place all these slogans and other expressions under even the least scrutiny, the duplicitous nature becomes clear.  The man will right away become more curious and endeavor to dig more deeply.  Once that path is undertaken, there is no going back, and that is why the peddlers of leftist imbecility endeavor with such vigor to keep their people ginned up with raw emotions, that they have no time to relax, which might lead them to reflect.  Thinking is the one thing the Tyrant cannot tolerate in his useful idiots.  They must be constantly diverted from deeper thought by keeping their emotions wound up like watch springs about to come apart.

There is no aspect of the expression "people of color" that carries the least virtue.  It is a contrivance of pure evil, intended to destroy human relations such that they are reduced to a most rudely confrontational nature.  After all, were we to come together in natural friendship, the so-called "left" would have absolutely nothing left to peddle.  Their entire house is built upon the foundation of hate-ridden bitterness, envy, and confrontation.  They rarely, if ever, speak in positive terms, save their fog-bound references to the usual terms such as love, etc., but which never see any practical traction.  In practice, it is always the negative emotions based in hatred and fear that come to the measurable fore.  Lefties never swarm the streets to hug people, shake their hands, or share kind sentiments.  On the mean, those of the left, always move to hurt and destroy in fits of anger- and terror-ridden venting.  They are precisely those things against which they expend so much time and energy expelling their venom in projection. 

Its glaring absurdity notwithstanding, "people of color" has proven very effective in helping realize the intermediate goals of the left.  Today we stand more divided than perhaps at any other time in recent human history, demonstrating just how irrelevant logic, reason, truth, and honor really are to the average man.  Johnny Q. Public wants what he wants and does not much care how he comes to attain it, so long as he is not required to work, or think, and preferably with an appearance of propriety.  Given that, it is little wonder that he is so readily duped with the emotionally charged manipulations that are epitomized by expressions like "people of color", if they help him get what he wants...

The material solutions to this trouble are clear and quite simple.  However, the greatest problem of all is that of mind and the will to do what is needed to overcome the chicanery of those who intend to rule the world as a single despotic entity.  Unless enough of us choose the correct attitude, we are as good as lost.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes. 

† A common euphemism for "socialist", "communist", "progressive", "regressive", all of which are interchangeable terms for the same thing: forced authoritarian collectivist despotism.

More FAIL in the Rittenhouse Trial

 

It was pleasingly entertaining to watch judge Bruce Schroeder excoriate the prosecutor in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.  To witness a judge properly calling the prosecutor on the carpet for their misconduct before a jury seems the rarity these days.

That aside, one video clip shows prosecutor Binger asking Rittenhouse whether the defendant believed that terminal force in the defense of property was justified, asking the same question over and over several times with different examples of property in each separate case.  The tacit assumption underlying each of these questions, of course, was that it was not.  For example, and to wit:

"Is it justified to use deadly force to stop someone from lighting a dumpster fire?"

"No."

"Is it justified to use deadly force to stop someone from lighting an empty automobile on fire?"

"No."

And so it went for several more iterations.

There are at least three serious errors in all of this.  

Firstly, the prosecution should never have asked such questions, most especially given the tone that clearly  connoted with dishonest tacitness that it was never justified to use deadly force to defend "property".  I noted that Binger neglected to ask Rittenhouse whether it was ever OK to use deadly force to stop someone from setting fire to an empty house, or perhaps more illustratively, a large office building.

It is clear that there are cases where the use of deadly force is well justified in defense of inanimate property.  Would police just stand idly by as the city's fire-bug-du-jour lit ablaze an empty Empire State Building?  These days, who can say for certain, but there was at least a time not very long ago when police could be expected shoot a man stone dead in their tracks, were it clear to them that the suspect were about to set even a small house ablaze, were there no reasonable opportunity to stop them by non-terminal means.

It is also clear that killing someone in defense of a piece of chewing gun from being taken without permission may not be justifiable, making special note of "may".  I will avoid the overly strict philosophical discussion for the sake of mercy on readers.

These two extreme examples illustrate with good force and clarity that terminal defense of some property is in fact justifiable, while that of others might not be.  This perforce implies a border of some sort between the cases of acts justified and those that are not.  It is also intuitively clear that this border is no bright line in the sand, but rather a hazily-defined grey area where justifiability turns very much on context, this being a very critically important element of the issue.  Context is often king.  What is just in one context may not be in another.  This fact is also completely ignored by the prosecution, further bolstering my assertion of incompetence, vicious corruption, or possibly both.

It is also clear that defense of life and limb is also that of property, and is eminently justifiable at the lethal extreme.  As to the specificity of "limb", it cannot be credibly argued that one's arm, for example, is not their property.  The arm of a living being is integral to its living self.  It therefore follows perforce that such a limb is in fact the property of the being to which it is so intimately, naturally, and properly connected.

Would this prosecutor, or anyone else for that matter, assert that one may not use deadly force to prevent some third party from causing its destruction, removal, or other uninvited injury, regardless of how trivial it has been assumed to be?  Would they assert that one is obliged to allow another human being to so much as touch them, uninvited?  That is the direct and unavoidable implication of any claim that one is not justly entitled to employ deadly force in defense of limb, as well as of life itself, for defense of limb may very well prove itself to be defense of one's very life in certain cases.

If, for example, a stranger makes it clear that they intend on using the hatchet in their hand to remove your arm, but nothing more, the threat to limb nonetheless constitutes a reasonable threat to life.  Therefore, the use of lethal force in defense of limb is absolutely justifiable there.

It is further made clear in these simple examples that either prosecutor Binger is incompetent beyond all forgiveness, or he is dishonestly employing the tactical use of tacit partial-truths and outright lies to sway the jury's emotions pursuant to prosecutorial victory; truth, logic, facts, and justice be damned.

Secondly, the implicit assumption that "property" and "life" are separate issues was not, to my knowledge, established.  I've seen no hint of a reference to the prosecution's use of expert testimony to establish the veracity of the idea that one's life is not property, which I must assume should be a critical element of the fact patterns as part of the very basis of the prosecution's case.  And yet, Binger implicitly (and possibly explicitly in other instances of which I am not aware) asserts as fact that property and life are separate things, with the clear intention of disparaging any lethal act in defense of the former.  This strongly appears to be a desperation stab at trapping Rittenhouse into admitting that he believed that it is justifiable to take lethal action in defense of "mere" property, vis-à-vis infinitely precious life.  Binger's drama-queen act aside, his brand of lie is most dangerous not just to Kyle Rittenhouse, but to every soul living under the umbrella (some might say "pall") of American jurisprudence.  To allow this tacit assumption to stand on its own, and in this manner, is to place every decent man in America behind the cross-hairs of any and potentially every fool prosecutor seeking another notch in his quest for professional and perhaps even social advancement at the cost of the destruction of innocent lives, the preciousness and sanctity of which they otherwise sing praises like canaries on cocaine.

Perhaps this point is too subtle for some, but I would nevertheless ask where was the judge in all of that?  I like this judge, and I understand that being human he cannot be expected to see in real time that which I have the luxury of careful contemplation at whatever pace I may require to get things right.  But it stands nonetheless that allowing such poisoned barbs to pass unchallenged poses potentially serious threats to all, downrange.  Seeing only snippets, I cannot say that the judge missed this point, but neither do I know that he didn't.

One's life is in fact his "First Property".  In my opinion, both the judge and the defense should have called out the prosecution on this absurd, irrelevant, and dangerous line of questioning, if indeed they failed to do so.  I cannot tell because all I saw was an edited clip that did not provide all the details.  I nonetheless make this an issue precisely because it is so centrally important to the fabric of proper human relations, and if I do so redundantly, I say better that than to allow it to slip by, unnoticed and unchallenged.

Thirdly, Rittenhouse's responses of "no" to each query may not have been the correct ones to give, though I cannot assert this for certain in terms of the practicalities of testimony before a clearly and extremely hostile prosecutor who makes no secret of his attitude toward the truth v. winning.   I am, after all, not a lawyer.

In the luxury of my unthreatened liberty, I feel that Rittenhouse's responses of "no" to each of the prosecutor's queries about whether lethal force is justified, loaned validity to the grossly incorrect assumption that property is not justifiably defended with such non equivocation.  We have made it clear that in some cases it most certainly justified in using lethal force to defend property.

It may be that the philosophically more pure responses to the prosecutor's inappropriate questions might open the door to opportunities that one does not want to give his accuser, who is clearly on a fishing expedition in the desperate hope of hooking something, anything, that might save his clearly failing case.  I can see how defense counsel may have instructed Rittenhouse to respond to any such question with "no", keeping things as simple as possible.  But I also see a potential hazard there in that a jury may ask that if it is admittedly not justifiable to use lethal for in defense of property, why then was Rittenhouse entered into the fray with a rifle?  Was it not to defend property of others in Kenosha?  Was it only to defend the lives of people?

Perhaps these points have all been made clear - I do not as yet know.  But these are some of the pitfalls of allowing such issues to remain either unestablished with no clear answers, or even just partially so.  As long as any elements of such issues remain unanswered, the danger always lurks that people will fill in the blanks on their own with potentially disastrous outcomes.  Not everyone is competent to settle such issues on their own and without help and some direction.  Great injustice can be served most unintentionally.

Regardless of how this trial ultimately resolves, the questions raised here remain of central importance to the proper liberties of Freemen.  These questions should be asked and answered properly by the courts such that precedent is clearly set, that no prosecutor in the land is thenceforth able to claim ignorance when they improperly bring severe charges against someone on this basis.  Judges should be dismissing such cases with prejudice and should be holding in a cell without bail any prosecutor who would dare engage in such professional misconduct, pending the appropriate charges and trial.

These seemingly subtle and at times even trivial points of philosophy should never be improperly weighed as for their significance, especially in a land where the institutions of jurisprudence are as terribly broken as they are here in America such that absurdity tends to rule, leaving little to no room for actual justice.

Be well, and as always please accept my best wishes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Illogic Of Grosskreutz's Self-Disproven Claim Of Surrendering

 

The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three people during rioting in Wisconsin in 2020, killing two, has been a disaster for the prosecution since day one.  What I am assuming had to be their star witness, Gaige Grosskreutz, effectively sent the prosecution's case to the bottom for brunch with Davey Jones.

Though now a moot point, given he was forced by defense counsel to admit he gave false testimony, it nonetheless pays to consider Grosskreutz's self-discredited central claim that he was shot while surrendering.

Grosskreutz initially claimed to have been raising his hands in surrender, his pistol admittedly still in his grasp. Let us examine that for sense, looking to the hypothetical case where the claim was not a lie. Would Rittenhouse have been wrong to shoot?

If one is surrendering, they do not have a weapon in their hands. So long as they remain armed, they are not in fact surrendering, but must be taken to be lying. Criminals, for example, lie all the time - it is one of their stocks in trade. When in a circumstance of effective warfare, a defender cannot afford the luxury of assuming that an armed opponent poses anything but a clear and present danger to life and limb, no matter the opponent's protests of "I surrender". Grosskreutz was armed, was not to my knowledge issuing a verbal surrender message, and claimed to have been raising his arms. This does not in any reasonable way convey surrender to outside parties.

The most basic midbrain sense tells us that when surrendering, one relinquishes all visible control of weaponry; that you will not so much as appear as a threat. If you do not wish to be targeted as an imminent danger to others, you empty your hands prior to making any other bodily gestures and hope for as much distance between yourself and anything that might be viewed as a weapon, as possible. It requires no feat of intellect to figure this out, first time, in situo.

Some will argue that if someone is sufficiently frightened or nervous, they might not come to that sense immediately. Let us assume it is so, doubtful as it may seem to anyone with a lick of sense. In that case, you have no business being in the situation in which you have voluntarily inserted yourself. I am confident in my assumption that nobody forced Grosskreutz to enter a riot zone, armed with a handgun, and to join in the felonious acts of his compatriot rioters. It also appears that nobody forced Grosskreutz to discharge his weapon in the midst of an active and ongoing riot, with no clear (or even claimed) defensive purpose. Grosskreutz's discharging of his weapon could not have been reasonably taken by Rittenhouse as anything less or other than an immediate threat to his own life, given that Rittenhouse was being actively hunted by several armed assailants across lines of battle that at that time were very clearly defined.

We therefore see with good reason that Grosskreutz was there in concert with the rest of the rioters, was armed with a handgun, and was at least willing to cause unjust harm to innocents. This much cannot be denied with any credibility.

We also see that if you voluntarily place yourself in such a situation, minus the wherewithal to handle adverse contingencies which arise, that you make yourself the victim of your own incapacity when things go awry. If you are thereby killed or maimed, the results can, at most, be chalked up to a tragic confluence of unfortunate choices. In the kindest case, Darwin will have harvested your deficient self and there is nobody to blame but sad circumstance. More likely, however, full onus rests with you for having made so poor a series of choices in the context of your inadequate nerves, and that you thereby effectively ended up committing suicide by stupidity, or being maimed by equal virtue.

That Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz was fully justified even if what the latter testified had been the truth. Raising your arms in surrender with a gun in your hand is tantamount to begging to be treated as a clear and present threat, the logical result belonging to the fool and nobody else.

There are those, apparently mostly of a "left" bent so to speak, who either cannot or will not see things from the standpoint of someone defending their life from imminent apparent destruction. I have observed that such people generally look at such situations only from the standpoint of the one they view as being the victim, in this case Grosskreutz. "He was surrendering!" will be their emotionally charged justification for improperly seeing Kyle Rittenhouse sent to prison. What they fail to acknowledge is a young man's position as being hunted down by a mob of wild rioters.  

Even if Grosskreutz was truthful in his initial claims, put yourself in the place of Rittenhouse, standing before someone who had been chasing him with a handgun, had discharged that handgun without just cause, and was now raising that weapon in concert with utterances of "I surrender" (the latter of which was not the case, but I am purposely trying to make the best case in Grosskreutz's favor). Which gesture is one to heed, the spoken word whose veracity cannot be verified in the tiny split of a second required to make a decision, or the act of raising a hand with a gun in it?  There is no question as to the correct answer here, which is the latter.  

It may be seen as an unfortunate feature of being human, that we are not capable of discerning intent in the ways that some people assume. In this case, those who think Rittenhouse should not have shot Grosskreutz are sadly mistaken and their goodly intentions toward him and their tilted ideas of justice hold no validity in the matter. Even if we assume surrender, Grosskreutz's actions would utterly belie that intention, indicating very much its opposite and thereby presenting Rittenhouse with the reasonably perceived and very immediate choice of shoot or stand idly to be shot, maimed, and likely killed.

That is the best case in favor of Grosskreutz and it fails with stern misery to bolster the prosecution's proceeding. It does, in fact, demolish it in utter totality.

There is a lesson in all of this, and it is an old one: if you do not want to become a victim of warfare, the first thing you decide is not to go willingly into the fray. It is no great stretch to assume that Grosskreutz holds sufficient intellect (it doesn't require much) to come to the reasonable presumption that there would be lively action that night. Taking a sidearm would seem to suggest his recognition of that fact. He willfully placed himself in a position from which he could have removed himself at any moment by simply walking away. He chose to do otherwise and then engaged in positive acts against another human being for which he was rightly taken to task. There is no possible argument, short of proof of brain lesions to the point, that could in any way excuse his behavior, and even then his having been shot by Rittenhouse could at most be chalked up as a sad tragedy.

Let Rittenhouse be acquitted, come what may. Let the truth, particularly as here exposed for all to see, serve as an object lesson to those whose stunted views on such matters stand in dire need of correction. If one does not wish to be injured, then threaten no injury. Better yet, remove yourself from dangerous situations. Stay home; have a beer; read a book; chase your girlfriend around the kitchen table. Do anything, but do not join a rioting mob because that is asking for trouble that nobody needs and nobody in their right mind wants.

Be well, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Endlessly Minute Divisions Of Matter

Way back in the Stone Age called "the '70s", one of my engineering professors took some time to cover a topic that would today fall under what we call "nanotech". This was a few years before William Gibson wrote Neuromancer. It was the offshoot of a safety discussion where we were warned of the potential dangers of tiny particles floating about in the local air and getting into lungs and other mucous membranes of the body. As engineers, we would likely have to deal with such matters with ever increasing likelihood as time wore on. The man was something of prophetic.

Interestingly, my professor seemed to have been considerably better educated on the dangers than are most doctors today. Note how the feckless stooges who peddle the mask narrative concern themselves with only pulmonary exposure. Nobody appears to be addressing concerns of contact with skin, eyes, inner ears, open wounds, and so forth. Lungs are not the only path to the soul, as it were.

My professor went to some length to discuss the truer nature of the hazard potential posed by what he referred to as "endlessly minute divisions of matter" floating freely about. This, before "nano-" became a commonly misused word of the unwashed mass of first-world humanity. He emphasized that the trends in manufacturing stood to place ever greater emphasis on smaller and smaller particle technologies. This was not immediately obvious to the common man in 1976. But he went to pains to describe the nature of such particles and how they move and why casual protective measures such as masks (vis-a-vis full-face respirators, the two being VERY different instruments) were insufficient to the task of protecting one from these dangers.

So here I am, nearly fifty years later, witnessing a raft of apparent fools peddling bald-faced lies to the world about the virtues of the N95 mask. 

Whether the lies we are told are intentional, or the product of the feckless bumbling of fools makes no difference; the result is the same.

Those who think that even an N95 mask makes a difference sufficient to protection are fooling themselves.  Even space suits are of no matter if the protocols for effective use are not followed.

Given the long and very clear nature of human beings in the context of their political behaviors, there can be no doubt about what is going on here, which is the latest example of a huge power grab by Themme, the costs of which are paid by the rest of us.  Anyone taking all this handwaving as anything but political theater is thinking and behaving in a dangerously foolish manner.  Do yourselves a huge favor and throw off your misplaced confidence in anything that "government" tells you, for in all likelihood they are lies or, far worse, the admixture of lies with truth such that the discerning what what is to be believed becomes vanishingly close to impossible.

Be well, and until next time please accept my best wishes.

The False Logic Behind Covid Mandates

 

Evil gallops roughshod over the land.  It always has, but in times past the horsemen endeavored to hide the fact with some respectable effort.  That is no longer the case.  Fine examples of this are the various and manifold mandates that have been vomited forth by the several American governing bodies into the laps of those to whom these bodies' respective members have sworn oaths of good faith and competent service.

Fundamental human rights possess two clear and distinct aspects: the claims embodied therein, and the resultant obligations of one man to his fellows in the context of each man's validly demonstrable equal claims.  For example, if I hold my claim to Life and you hold equal claim to it, then I am bound by logic to respect your claim as I expect you to honor mine.  This is the Golden Rule made manifest.

As can be readily seen, the nature of our mutual obligations to one another is negative, meaning "thou shalt not"; a requirement to not act.  This means that one is to refrain from taking any positive action in violation of another's rights, i.e., a valid claim to something, such as one's life.  One's life, being their First Property, I may not commit murder.

The commandment is properly summarized by "thou shalt not trespass against thy fellows".

Though with us now a long time, false-authority requirements of positive action have, until recently, been relatively limited in their reach, most often couched in tacitly veiled double talk by corrupted political hacks of various sorts and stations.  A very fine example of this can be seen in the manifestly absurd and deeply violative mandates with respect to the so-called "pandemic" of the so-called "covid-19" virus.  

I have recently read that the state of Maine is now requiring everyone there to be vaccinated against covid-19 and that some court has upheld the fiat.  The underlying logic is the diametric opposite of provably proper obligations between men, requiring people not to refrain from action (negative), but rather to require them to take specific action (positive).  Unlike in times past, this mandate is in no way being soft-peddled to the public through subterfuge, but rather it is being rammed down our throats with no apologies.  This represents a fundamental philosophical shift away from the proper respect of basic human rights, toward a blatantly tyrannical position that forces compliance where there exists no authority to do so.

The reasoning here is that the individual is obliged to take positive action to protect the rights and other interests of his fellows.  While taking such action may be validly viewed as morally praiseworthy, it is in no way validly demonstrated as being morally obligatory.

For example, if one is walking the lonely streets of Chicago at 2 AM and witnesses a rape in progress, it cannot be validly demonstrated that he is in any way obliged to render aid and service to the victim.  By the logic in question, walking away from a crime in progress would itself constitute a crime due to the individual obligation to render aid to the victims of actual crime.  This, of course, is a can of worms the implications of which are far reaching, none of them good.

If the obligation to positive action were ever to be upheld as valid in Law, a very explicit door to bald-faced tyranny will have been opened, thereby lending false license to "government" at all levels to force obligations upon people that would constitute nothing less that naked, objective chattel slavery of the servant individual to the master state.

The message in these mandates pose a clear and present threat to every living individual on the planet, the precedent they would set comprising a rather large nail in the coffin for all human rights, planet-wide.  These unsupported and morally invalid mandates must be resisted and rejected utterly if there is to be any future hope for humanity.  It would be difficult to overstate the significance of the dangers posed by these recent developments that require forced positive-action on behalf of one's fellows.  This is the very essence of authoritarian collectivism, its central pillar.

Refuse, resist, defy.  Endeavor for non-compliance with that which disparages and trespasses upon your freedom.  Make Themme work ever more exhaustingly for every scrap of tyranny-stolen booty that they attempt to take from us.  Leave them feeling hollow and meaningless and irrelevant in everything they do and experience.  Invokke Theire rage against us.  Force Theire hands to go that extra mile in their evil work, petty or grand, such that they are ever more required to expose to those whom Theye violate their true faces.  Leave Themme no avenue by which to escape their condign shame and guilt, that the quality of their very lives are drive to the status of mere existences so miserable, they will find themselves at the nexus that forces their hands to make the decision to step down or contrive to destroy it all.  Remove from Themme the profit motive for their crimes.  Make the cost far outstrip the payoff.

Tyrants can yet be stopped, but time runs thin on that, for as technology advances by the hour, the leverage wielded by those who presume, grow longer and longer, their moral inhibitions ever closer to vanishing.  When single fingers can cause the deaths of millions, you then know that humankind has passed into a sphere of immense danger.  We have been in that sphere for the better part of a century, wherein the moral constitution and practical survival instincts of the wielders were the only things that kept us from going over the precipice.  The moral objections to universal annihilation of humanity have certainly attenuated greatly in the intervening years and, in my estimation, have effectively disappeared from reality as meaningful deterrents against imprudent action.  Far more worrisome, those practical survival instincts appear to have take an immense hit, as demonstrated by the openly absurd behaviors that Theye and their useful idiots now commonly and daily manifest before television cameras.

Do not make the grave error of assuming that such people with such fingers would not dare exercise such power.  If and when the Tyrant perceives a clear and present danger to himself, he will hesitate for no measurable interval to set you and your entire family to the sword.  If the Tyrant perceives the threat as immediately existential in nature, I hold small doubt that he would put the entire human race to extinction.  If he's going straight to hell, the rest of the world will follow him close by. Theye are precisely sufficient to the evil and insanity required to destroy all humanity in preference to giving up their power.  This attitude is made manifest ever single day with little effort to hide their truer intentions, not to mention their utter contempt for us all.

All hope is yet to be lost, but I suspect that the ever onward march of technology, when placed in the hands of those in whom we have so foolishly vested our trust, stands to close off every path to self-salvation.  Pray if you are so moved, but always bear in mind the old adage, "God helps those who help themselves."

Until next time, please accept my best wishes...

Just a few moments ago I gave the following response in the form of a comment to a video I saw that addressed the clear dementia of the current and purported president of the United States, Joe Biden. It's not the first time I've made mention of the points and to be honest, I often feel like a broken record, but I also recognize that being so is the only way that people may one day finally twig to the truth of things. The manner and degree to which Americans have been cowed and fooled by the propaganda ministers remains a source of borderline disbelief for me. That some people, and far too many of them, could be so willfully ignorant and at times outrightly stupid, is something around which I cannot wrap my thoughts no matter how hard I try.

It all seems almost paradoxical that anyone could choose to be so wholly blinded to the most basic sense. This phony baloney "pandemic" is a perfect case in point. There is so much wrong with all of it, and yet countless millions of Americans (forget the rest of the world) have swallowed the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. How is this even possible? Do I live on the same planet? Is it me? Am I the one who has gone off the deep end? Seriously folks, I doubt my sanity at times, given what I witness because it makes no sense to me at all.

That aside, the video in question points out just how cognitively impaired Biden appears to be, citing our decaying relations with foreign nations, the now and once again faltering economy, etc., to which I commented:


Given all these results, the economy going into the toilet etc., it should be clear that the fedgov has far too much power. The sword has two edges and when you put scoundrels into office, which is what we do most of the time, things get worse.

 

GOVERNMENT makes it so. Not the people. Government.

And whose fault is this? Yours. Mine. Ours. It's all our fault because we are all too corrupted with lassitude and fear to do the jobs of governance ourselves, the way it is supposed to be. We have allowed ourselves to be convinced that "government" is the only thing that saves us from chaos and destruction, which is ironic in the wake of the truth that it is "government" that has been the cause of virtually all chaos and destruction in the world.

WE are supposed to be the governors; not a mob of psychopathic lunatics whose ideas and intentions are questionable on their best days. But we don't want to do it, so we hand our lives over to maniacs who rob us and reduce and degrade us to the greatest degree of servitude to THEM with which they feel they can get away. And we allow it. Hell, we demand it much of the time. We are like a race of small children who look to mom when they get a booboo, only it's adults who look to "government" for answers every time something is perceived as having gone amiss. It's all a very sad joke, and every last stinking one of us are living it and urging it on as we complain about how bad things are. But we never DO anything of substance. Vote harder? Write your congressman?

So until we proceed to misbehave in serious fashion, we will get ever more of what we say we don't want. And we will deserve ever last grain of the degradations and idiocies that they heap upon us.

We're not worthy of freedom and we will remain unworthy until such time as we cowboy up and reclaim our self-respect BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

Our corruptions as a population will be our undoing, and it is that to which we are now all bearing witness, whether or not we will admit it.

Once again I ask: is this what you want for your children?  Is this the world you wish to hand over to posterity?  Will the young be left with even enough sense to curse us for having yoked them with mere existence, devoid of anything worthy of life?

Slowly I am getting old and don't have much time left on this world, so perhaps I stand within arm's reach of no longer caring.  But what of you younger people who have children, or perhaps grandchildren?  Is this really an acceptable legacy to leave those you presumably profess to love?  Are you so corrupted with fear that you will not stand tall and say "NO FURTHER!!!"?  Thus far, it appears to be the case.  Why?  

What is so sweet about your current state and status that you would allow a small cadre of ravingly mad tyrants do you, your community, your state, and your nation in this manner?  What goes on at this very moment is so baldly idiotic that no man with a whit of sense, decency, and courage is going to look at it and say that this is valid and representative of reality.  This is ham-fisted political theater, courtesy of the "state", all intended to... well, what, exactly?  I'd say to train you ever further to blind and unquestioning obedience, this pandemic lie being perhaps the prime example of just how ridiculous the play has become.

And yet accept it, many of us do.  Far too many of us.  Is there no bottom to the depth of degradation and danger to which Theye can subject you where you will finally stand up and refuse?  Thus far, the answer is a clear and unequivocal "no".  What a shame, that a race of meat-eaters has allowed itself to be slowly and cunningly switched over to a diet of grass.

It will be interesting for an old goat like myself to sit back and watch to see what ultimately transpires here in these United States.  I cannot say my sense of optimism has been sharpened in any measure of late.  Fool that I am, I nonetheless maintain some shred of hope that we the people will somehow hit bottom and that it will not have come too late and that we will rise in our terror and disgust, and find the right targets and smite them and slay them and, having returned at least in some reasonable part to sense, go about setting things back to the rails of proper human relations.

May humanity find the Good Way.

Until then, please accept my best wishes.

"Government" Is The Result Of Human Corruption

 The reason this world has "government" is because of the corruption of the average human being.

Governance is the responsibility of every human being.  But instead of rising to that requirement of freedom, we demur, content to leave that role to others.  We entrust fast talking strangers with our liberties, health, happiness, and prosperity, yet fail to hold them to that trust.  Our corruption as individuals and as an abstract collective is so deep and vast, that when those in positions of ostensible authority violate us, the most we seem to do now is complain.

It is because of our failures to treat ourselves with respect that those in whom we have vested the Public Trust consequently have no respect for us and treat us with such open contempt.  Until that changes, the scoundrels we install in public office will continue to encroach upon us.

The solutions are simple and rest with every last one of us.  

They may not, however, be easy - but what's your life worth?  Those of your children?

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Amendment XXVIII

 

We are living in historic times, which means not only are certain things tough, but that we stand at a nexus, our choices likely to affect the quality of our lives from this point forward, as well as those of our posterity for long years and decades to come.  It therefore behooves us to make our choices carefully. Let us go not from pan into fire, but rather let us move with strong and intelligent force to preserve our liberty and cultivate it towards ever greater perfection.  This would prove a diametric departure from what we have been doing since at least the time of the Civil War, since which we have gone in the precise opposite direction, allowing those in positions of practical power to ever elide our Rights, most often under the pretext of some crisis, real or conjured.

To that end, I propose we call an Article V Convention of the states and in that forum, put forth for ratification a Twenty Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.  This Amendment specifies in clear language the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of integrity and performance to which all sworn Public servants must adhere and comport themselves during their tenures as such.  

Amendment 28 further specifies the punishments to be meted in cases where such servants, the Instruments of "state" and "government", violate their oaths of good faith and competent service.  Those punishments are severe, to say the least, often including long prison sentences at hard labor, and may include death as the ultimate penalty.  In addition, their families shall not rest immune in any case where they may be deemed as having shared culpability in the relevant crimes, profited from them in any way whatsoever, regardless of how indirectly, or having had even the least hint of something being amiss, failed to report their suspicions to the people.

The objective of this Amendment is to make the work of anyone in "government" so fraught with real and immediate danger where failure, mishap, and criminal acts are concerned, that none but the most pure of heart, utter competence, and steadfast trustworthiness would so much as consider such positions of Special Trust.  The consequences of failure, much less criminal action, for those who choose to become Instruments of governance, must be precisely so severe in order to dissuade all but the most pathologically criminal among us to eschew the burdens of Public service for the sheer terror that the gravities must rightly instill.   As for that tiny minority of willful miscreants, the punishments stand to cross their names from the gene pool.

Therefore, and in further pursuance of the goal of holding "government" on an infinitesimally short lead, I present for your edification and the ostensible salvation of humanity's last remaining bastion of hope for its own freedoms, the rightful and proper Twenty Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Amendment XXVIII

Because individuals holding Public office or any other appointment of public service, the nature of which constitutes a position of Special Trust, they must be sternly held to a higher standard of behavior.   Intention of any governing action is irrelevant to the actual results that arise therefrom by those sworn of oath in positions of Special Trust, or those appointed or otherwise contracted to act in such capacities, for which such an oath shall stand implicitly.  This shall be true of all who act in such capacities, whether they have declared the conditions that would lead to such actions legislatively or by policy; have issued orders to act pursuant to such declarations, fiats, mandates, or to such an effect; or have obeyed such orders and made manifest actions such that the Rights of any Free Man is breached, regardless of the manner or degree to which it has occurred.  It is only to the results of such choices to act to which the People, meaning every individual American, must turn their attentions, considerations and judgments, where either declarations stand to result in such violations, or actions made pursuant to any Declaration of Law or Statute, regardless of validity, result in the violation, diminution, or other disparagement, infringement of, or trespass upon, the Rights of Free Men.  No man holds the least authority to violate the Rights of his Fellows, regardless of any purport or other claim to such authority.  While this is true of all Individuals, it is an order of magnitude more so of those who choose to take up the mantle of the Public Trust.  For that reason, we amend this Constitution as follows.

The purpose of this Amendment is to address the unjust results of those Servants of the Public Trust who fail to uphold their sworn oaths, whether through design, incompetence, or mishap, and to specify the hazards all such individuals shall face for the commission of Crimes and Violations against those to whom they swore their Oaths of Good Faith and Competent Service.

Free Men stand under the constant threat of those who would see them subdued and reduced in status in some form and degree, effectively subjecting them to some condition of unwelcome servitude.  As holds with any Individual, when those in positions of "government", in any form or fraction thereof, becomes the source of such threats or manifestations of violation, the risks to life, limb, and other properties of Free Men are acutely set to hazard and damage.

This Amendment seeks to reduce the means and abilities by which any Instrument of Governance may be set against the Free Men of America by outlining in detail the limiting reins to be placed upon all such Instruments, as well as the hazards of correction and punishment faced by those who attempt to subject Free Men to limitations, violations, or any other diminution, insult, or other disparagements of the Rights of a Free Man, regardless of how seemingly minor, innocuous, or necessary.  It further reasserts the powers of Free Men to resist violations by “government” by whatever means a Free Man may deem fitting under a given circumstance, the sole exception being where a duly sworn and issued Warrant has been served, in which case a Free Man may be required to submit to governing orders until such time as the narrowly declared issue in question shall have been resolved.  Those orders may in no measure or manner exceed the specifications of the relevant Warrant and such Warrants shall not be specified in overly broad language, but shall restrict themselves to the narrow relevancies of a Crime suspected of having been committed.

Let it be made clear that there exists no manor or degree of violation, or pretext regardless of purports to gravity or necessity, which authorizes any violation of the rights of a Free Man who has not been convicted of an explicitly defined and actual Crime without the benefit of due process which will have arrived at a verdict to convict with the integrities of fairness, honesty, transparency, and truthfulness.  Furthermore, there shall be no "State's secret" held by a State's prosecuting authority that shall be held in value above that of a Free Man's Life or Liberty such that it remains a secret where the least exculpatory value exists therewith, that value to be determined in every case by a jury of no less than twelve members of the Accused's peers. There shall be no secret Courts or special Courts of any sort whatsoever, all those currently extant to be stricken from authority, dismantled, and dissolved, its members such as judges and prosecutors debarred for twenty years from holding any position of Special Trust at any level of governance, with no exceptions.

I. Definitions

This section shall set forth and define all special terms used in this Amendment

Act of Governance

Any action undertaken by an Instrument or group thereof under the authority of either a duly sworn Warrant, or as the result of witnessing the real and immediate commission of a Criminal Act.

Any action taken by Free Men in defense against Violations or other Crimes committed by Instruments, or other Free Men.  Such actions may also be taken when “government” proves itself unworthy of the Public Trust, rendering such Instruments unreliable as to the proper discharge of the duties to which they swore Oaths of Good Faith and Competent Service.

All Free Men shall be compelled to submit to valid Acts of Governance in the presence of a validly sworn Warrant.

Acts of Governance do not include Acts of Violation.

Act of Violation

Any action undertaken by an Instrument or Free Man that results in the unjust breach of any Free Man's Rights, the sole exception being those acts committed in the service and execution of a duly sworn Warrant, or where any Individual defies those authorities, in which case he may be forced into compliance.  Such Acts of Governance shall adhere strictly to the specifications of the relevant Warrant, lest they devolve into Acts of Violation. 

Any question as to the validity of a Warrant shall require no action be taken pursuant thereto, until such time as the question is settled or the Warrant corrected.

Amended Crime [Violation]

An Amended Crime is one where the perpetrator has made sufficient reparations to his victim for each criminal act to assess said victim as having been remade as whole in terms of every loss suffered at the hands of the duly convicted perpetrator or perpetrators.  

A sufficiently Amended Violation shall be deemed as a Crime whose debt to the victim or victims shall have been paid such that a Death Penalty and even a Prison Term may possibly be avoided, but only with the consent of the victims.  But in any event, the convicted party shall be debarred from any position of Special Trust for the remainder of their lives, the same holding for all members of their immediate family, as well.

Crime [Violation]

For the purposes of this Amendment, a Crime is any Unamended Violation committed in trespass of the Sovereign Rights of Free Men who cannot be demonstrated prima facie to have committed any criminal act warranting governing action.  Such action may only be undertaken by Instruments where criminal action is being witnessed as taking place in real time, or has been alleged under oath and affirmation by an individual or group thereof, resulting in the issuance of an actionable warrant which shall most narrowly specify the actions to be taken and the service of which shall be confined strictly to its specifications and other instructions.  All Warrants shall be served without initiating force, such being permitted only after the named subjects of such a Warrant have initiated acts of violence against the servers of such Warrants.  Any actions taken outside the metes and bounds of such specifications shall call for in-depth investigation by third-parties unrelated to any individual or his related organizations or agencies, to determine whether such excursions from specifications were reasonably avoidable, and thereby punishable.

Any Individual, whether Instrument or Free Man, who bears intentional Formal false witness against any other Individual, whether Instrument or Free Man, shall face the same hazards as those to which he or they put, or would have put, the falsely accused.

Criminal

n. Any Human Individual living within the territorial borders of the United States of America who has committed a Crime, or is living under Criminal Debt, having been previously and duly convicted of a Crime.

adj. That which constitutes a Crime.

Criminal Debt

That which is owed by a human Instrument of Governance in consequence of having been duly convicted of a Criminal Act in a Court of Law, by a jury of one’s peers to those of whom they have been convicted of having violated.  

A Criminal Debt may include material assets, as well as time such as that comprising a prison sentence, or a death penalty. 

Anything penal or compensatory in nature as assessed against a Public Instrument duly convicted of a Crime as part of what they owe in restitution to their victims and/or as punishment for the deeds of which they have been duly convicted.

Formal/Formal Act

A Formal Act is one made so as to incite or initiate an official Act of Governance.

Any act committed as part of an Act of Governance, such as a trial, arrest, investigation, sworn deposition, grand jury testimony, etc..

Free Man

Any Human Individual not living under Criminal Debt.

Instrument, “Government Instrument”, "Public Instrument"

Any individual who has been elected to Public office or Public Position, whether by the People, by a Public Body, or by any other means whatsoever.

Any Individual appointed to any Public office or other Public position by any means whatsoever.

Any Individual hired as a Public employee to any Public position whatsoever.

Any Individual Publicly contracted to discharge any Public duties whatsoever.

This applies not only to Individuals, but any group thereof imaginable that might be elected, appointed, hired, or contracted pursuant to Public duties.

These three terms are perfect synonyms.

Furthermore, an Instrument is also the product of any individual, or group thereof in positions of Special Trust and Service, the enactment or other application of which results in Acts of Governance upon Free Men.  Legislation enacted, whether Law or statute, policy, or any other fiat, declaration, mandate, or circumscription of any sort, bearing upon the Rights of Free Men are all Instruments.

Public

Anything or anyone vested in the Public Trust

Anything funded through taxation, whether in whole or in part, directly or otherwise. 

All Public personnel occupy Positions of Public Trust.

All Public endeavors are vested of the Public Trust.

The specifications of this definition apply to any and all levels and forms of governance/"government", whether federal, state, county, city, or village, etc..  There is no form, level, type, category, or degree of “government” to which this definition does not apply.  All Public business, positions, and endeavors fall under this definition. 

 No Public office, agency, Instrumentality, goal, objective, or endeavor may be labeled or categorized as not being Public.  Any such mislabeling or  false categorization, or misuse, or misapplication shall constitute a Crime.

Public Trust/ Special Trust

"Public Trust" and "Special Trust" are perfect synonyms and are interchangeable.

A Special Trust is the trust of the People, taken as individuals and as an abstract collective, provisionally and conditionally granted to Instruments for the purposes of the discharge of their Public duties, all of which fall under the provisions of their sworn oaths of Good Faith and Competent Service.  This trust is special in that it is assumed that those so vested shall not violate in any manner or in any degree and any time, or for any reason whatsoever, whether through intent, accident, or misapprehension.  To violate the Public Trust is to have committed the most grave sort of Crime.

The primary condition of the grant of Governing Authority and Privilege is that an Instrument never violate the Public Trust, whether through intent, incompetence, or mishap.  Any such violation immediately divests the Instrument of his position of Special Trust and places him at risk of facing charges for a Crime or immediate defensive action of those whom he violates.

Restored Man

The moment a Criminal Debt is discharged in full, the convict is restored to full Rights and may no longer be referred to as “convict”, save to explicitly state the fact that he was once convicted of a Crime.

In the case of Instruments, restoration is limited as specified herein.

Unamended Crime/Violation

An Unamended Crime is one where the perpetrator is either incapable of, or unwilling to make whole the victims upon whom he has committed a Violation.

In the case of incapacity, the Crime committed may not be regarded as being aggravated beyond its customary measure.  For example, in the case of death resulting from the Crime, there is no means of restoring a victim to wholeness.

In the case of no will to amend, the Crime committed may be regarded as being aggravated beyond the usual measure of such a Crime.  For example, in the case of theft, the perpetrator refuses to return the stolen items to his victim, despite his ability to do so, or provide said victim with a suitable replacement.

An Unamended Violation shall stand prima facie intent against its victim.

Violation

A violation is any act committed by an Instrument, as such, in trespass against the Sovereign Rights of any individual.  Prevailing circumstances provide no defense for Instruments who act to violate Free Men, but may provide mitigating relief in cases of Amended Crimes where sentencing is to be considered.  Unamended Violations and Crimes are perfect analogs.

Any Violation committed that was based on information proven false, shall not constitute a crime, provided all good restitutions are made.  In such cases of “innocent” violations, those ultimately responsible for providing false information shall be held to account for their failures in the relevant instances.  This responsibility includes all individuals making official statements of facts they cannot substantiate as being true.  Such individuals may be Instruments, witnesses, or those of other involvements in the relevant matter.

Regardless of circumstances, any Instrument who commits a Violation, or contributes to the commitment of a Violation, shall at minimum be held responsible in part or in whole for reparations to the victims.

Any and all contraventions, breaches, breaking, nonobservance, disobedience, defiance, flouting, neglect, ignoring, or disruption of one's sworn Oath of Good Faith and Competent Service constitutes a Violation.  All Unamended Violations are Crimes.

II. Limits of Action

Under no circumstance, including those of declared “emergencies” and “crises” shall any Instrument be empowered to violate the inherent Rights of Free Men within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America, nor those of any American citizen who may be abroad of those bounds.

The Bill of Rights, as embodied in Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, reign supreme, all other considerations and purports to governmental authority waning to near vanishing in the shadows of those enumerations, most especially Amendments II, IX, and I.

III. Waiver of Rights

Where matters concerning the duties of an Instrument’s office and position are concerned, prior to perfection of the Instrument, the individual must agree to a waiver of certain Constitutional protections.  The waiver shall include the following:

1. Right to privacy
2. Right to free speech (limited)
3. Right to remain silent
4. Right to not self-incriminate
5. Right to legal counsel

Pursuant to these waivers, all Instruments agree to answer fully and with complete candor and honesty, with no omissions of truth, all questions put to them during official investigations of possible Crimes and Violations committed by themselves or other Instruments against Free Men.

Refusal to answer in the ways required shall constitute a Crime in sé, shall constitute prima facie proof of one’s criminal intent, and shall result in one year at hard labor with no possibility of parole, for each count. 

Instruments deemed by investigating and prosecuting authorities to be of a lesser culpability, may trade sentencing for information deemed to be of extraordinary value by said authorities in pursuit of those of greater culpability.  Under no circumstance shall a sentence be reduced below that of one year at hard labor.

In all cases the Instrument shall lose his position as such and shall be forever debarred from securing any position of Special Trust.

These restrictions, as they apply to their tenures of service as Instruments, shall remain in effect for twenty-five years as of the last day of their service as an Instrument. 

IV. Amended Violations

Any Instrument convicted of a Crime or other Violation and who amends his Criminal deeds sufficient to the victim’s assessment shall have their penalties reduced in severity as judge and victim(s) shall agree.  

In all cases, the Instrument shall lose his position as such and shall be forever barred from securing any position of Special Trust.

V. Unamended Violations

Any Instrument convicted of a Crime or other Violation and who is incapable of making proper amends due to the nature of the Crime in question or other incapacity, shall endure the full force of penalties, but may be shown consideration if the victims accede to it unanimously, and only at the behest of the relevant Court.

In the case where the violator refuses to make amends when he is otherwise able to do so, the Crime shall stand as aggravated and the convict shall bear the full force of penalties, with neither consideration nor mercy, his victim(s) having no say in the case for leniency or other mercy.

In all cases, the Instrument shall lose his position as such and shall be forever barred from securing any position of Special Trust.

VI. Penalties and Exoneration 

Those convicted of Crimes or other Violations as Instruments of government shall bear the following penalties:

1. Immediate loss of office/position, as well as all benefits, Rights, privileges, and protections attached thereto.
2. Prohibition from holding any Public office or other position of Public Trust, whether elected, appointed, hired, or contracted, for life.
3. All properties and other assets of the Instrument and his immediate family shall be forfeit.  Any properties transferred to other parties, which can be demonstrated to have been so transferred as a measure to avoid forfeiture, including those so transferred within  two years prior to having assumed his first position of Special Trust, shall come nonetheless equally under forfeiture.
4. Any family member, friend, or other associate of the Instrument who can be proven to have had knowledge of the Crime(s) in question and who failed to come forward to expose said Crime(s) shall be held equally guilty and shall endure equal penalties.
5. Unamended Crimes shall be punished with not less than one year at hard labor and not more than life at hard labor, save those that constitute Treason, which shall punished by Public execution.
6. Instruments may not be pardoned for their Crimes by anyone, including the President.  Any attempt to pardon a convicted instrument shall constitute a Crime.
7. Any Instrument falsely convicted of a Crime and who has been exonerated through sufficient post-trial evidence shall be immediately restored in all ways to his pre-conviction condition.  All parties responsible for such miscarriages of justice shall be held criminally culpable for the results of false conviction, including all witnesses who bore false testimony.  There shall be no exceptions.
8. Any failure of responsible parties to bring the proper charges against those for whom formal charges have been made and for which a prima facie case exists, shall be guilty of a Crime and shall be punished without trial to not less than one year at hard labor.
9. Any Instrument convicted of intentionally obstructing justice pursuant to his service as an Instrument, or that of any other Instrument, shall be sentenced to not less than twenty years at hard labor with no possibility of parole.
10. Any Individual convicted of knowingly making a false formal accusation, or intentionally bearing false witness against an Instrument shall be guilty of a Crime as defined in this Amendment.
11. Any Individual convicted of having caused the false conviction and punishment of an instrument shall be sentenced trebly to that which said Instrument received.  The individual shall be held accountable for all material losses incurred by the victim of such a crime.

VII. False Accusation

Pursuant to truer justice, and given the severity of the penalties for Instruments convicted of Crimes or Violations, government Instruments must enjoy proper protection against false accusation.  To that end, anyone who falsely accuses an Instrument of Crimes and/or Violations in a Formal manner shall face the precise same hazards of those whom they so accuse. Intent to falsely accuse or bear false witness must established beyond reasonable doubt.  Where false accusations have been made where it can be demonstrated that proper care would have lead to no charge, the accusers shall be punished by ninety days at hard labor.

VIII. Defense Against Crimes and Violations

Free Men retain the right to resist Crimes and other Violations perpetrated against them by government Instruments, using any means they deem necessary to preserve the integrity of life, limb, freedom, and other property.  It is only by the non-violent presentation of a validly sworn and issued warrant that a Free Man may be compelled to cooperate with Instruments in the immediate term.  Any violence initiated by Instruments in the service of a warrant renders the warrant invalid, void, and without force of Law, leaving subject(s) of the warrant free to take defensive measures.  Any violence initiated by the subject of a valid warrant gives the serving Instruments leave to take defensive measures to affect service and preserve life, but nothing more.  All such services must be recorded in real time to the best ability that current technologies may provide.

Anyone who acts in false defense against actions ultimately proven valid, those false actions may be deemed as aggravating factors if the actor is convicted of crimes which are directly related to said valid acts. 

Free Men may convene courts of their own making to address Crimes and Violations, particularly when it is deemed that governmental courts have not, cannot, or will not discharge their duties in accord with the protections against Crimes and Violations.  Such failures in themselves constitute Crimes and shall be treated in accord with the specifications of this Amendment.  The convening of such courts renders all who become administratively involved with the proceedings as Public Instruments for the tenure of said proceedings, and shall bear the precise same obligations and face the identical risks, hazards, and penalties as any other Instrument in the discharge of the relevant duties.  They shall be required to take the Oath of Good Faith and Competent Service prior to assuming the duties in question.  In all cases the Oath shall be assumed.

IX. Limited Restoration

All Instruments convicted of Crimes shall be restored to their Rights upon completion of their sentences, with the following exceptions.

1. They may never again seek positions of Public Trust, doing so constituting a felony to be punished by not less than one year at hard labor and not more than five years at hard labor.
2. All restrictions of Article III of this Amendment as apply to their service as an Instrument shall remain in effect for the remainder of their lives.
3. They and their immediate family shall remain under official scrutiny for twenty-five years after the date of lapse of their sentences.
4. Immediate family members shall be debarred from securing any position of Special Trust for a period of twenty-five years from the date of conviction of an Instrument.

X. Oath of Good Faith and Competent Service

Prior to perfecting any governmental Instrument, the individual(s) in question must take the following oath, which shall remain in force for the duration of the Instrument’s tenure.  The requirement to answer questions relating to duties of said tenure shall persist for not less than thirty years after lapse:

“I , <state full name>, do solemnly swear under pain of penalties I acknowledge and to which I  accede in advance, to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and to defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. 

I do further solemnly swear, under even penalties, to abstain from committing Crimes and other Violations of the Rights of those to whom I swear this oath, the entirety of the People of the United States of America.

I do finally and solemnly swear, under pain of even penalties, to make whole all those whom I unjustly damage, whether through accident, incompetence, ignorance, or intent.  Any refusal to make my victims whole shall stand as prima facie proof of my criminal intent against them.

Pursuant to the above sworn oath, I hereby waive my Constitutional Rights in all matters as they may relate to every facet of my sworn duties of office, and my position of Special Trust as a Public Servant, as specified in Article Three of the Twenty Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.  Namely, I waive my right to Right to privacy, my Right to free speech, my Right to remain silent, my Right to not self-incriminate, and my Right to legal counsel.  

I vow to answer all questions, officially put to me as they relate to the relevant matters of my duties with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I swear this oath of fealty, good faith, and competent, honest, and honorable service to every individual man, woman, and child of the United States of America.  

I so swear this oath in the full capacity to do so with informed will, understanding, and consent without mental reservation or other impediment.  

I swear this affirmation and oath upon my honor, my freedom, my fortune, and my life.

Thus endeth the Amendment.

I submit that it is only through the brute force of so seemingly draconian a set of specifications that we, the People, hold even the least hope of holding the Tyrant at bay.  We are all witness to the mania of the various agents of "government".  We are all witness to the endless destruction and misery caused by these mobs of criminally insane lunatics who pilfer, rape, rob, threaten, and murder their ways through careers in crime under the imprimatur of "the state".

If we do not end Themme, Theye will end us.  It is really that stark and simple.

Until next time, please accept by best wishes.