While I am very glad that the monstrously bad ruling of Roe v. Wade has been overturned —after all, the 10TH Amendment is quite clear about the States (or people) retaining authority in areas wherein the Constitution does not delegate the power to the federal government— it is necessary for me to impress to you that this could be the first step in voiding privacy.
You see, the decision of Roe held that there was a Constitutional right to the privacy of medical records from government —and there is, via the 4TH Amendment— the Supreme Court decided that ‘penumbras and emanations’ if the Constitution regarding that privacy invalidated the ability of the States to have their own laws in the area, expanding the power of federal government and thus their own power. With the overturn of Roe, we may be seeing the first steps into abolishing the notion of the Right to Privacy, as we have seen the court bend over backwards to validate ‘exigent circumstances’ and void the 4TH Amendment and it’s requirements that searches be authorized via warrant… and this may be the plan of those trying to manipulate the politics: overturn Roe, use the outrage to fuel the election of candidates who do not care about bodily autonomy, then destroy the legal notion of a right to privacy, and finally do away with bodily autonomy. (This would make Roe’s overturn moot: the government would be the decider of abortions, and more: it could force them [or pregnancy], as well as the gene-therapies.)
In the end, it’s very simple: we need to turn to God and pray, that we might walk in wisdom and righteousness. — This is not winning the war, but merely a single battle… and it is absolutely certain that there will be a counter-attack, whether or not this can be made into a trap or held, this is sure.
First the Buffalo, NY shooting, and now the Uvalde, TX shooting… sowing outrage and dissent against the concept of gun-ownership, while simultaneously just in time to allow the powers that be to try to distract you from things like the failed Disinformation Board being ‘put on pause’ (rather than disbanded), or the formula-shortage-for-you-but-not-illegals fiasco, or the inflation and package shrinkage. Any of the million things that impact you directly, the Powers That Be want to distract you from in order to further their own goals.
And what better distraction than mass-shootings?
Betrayal, at a Fundamental Level
There is a fundamental betrayal in-play here, aside from these events being played for obvious political points, and to illustrate the magnitude of this treachery by those who are ostensibly our leaders, let us employ what I’ve heard as an exercise in law-school: where a case is presented and the details are added or slightly changed and re-presented again to illuminate the subtleties of the law, of guilt and innocence.
Similarly, we will use a modified Uvalde as our case for this:
You are a juror, called in on the trial of one of the Uvalde, TX shooters; the facts and details of the case are given and witnesses take the stand, and the accused himself during his testimony he confesses that “I’d do it again, the bastards had it coming!” — what is your gut reaction there?
Now, in this context the ‘bastards’ in question are the police, and it was several of these who were shot, not the children — does this change your verdict? If so, how? If not, why?
Lastly, what if one of the ‘details’ in point #1 was that the accused was a parent, the father of one of the children, going to save his child from the danger, being hindered by the police? Does this change your verdict?
Now, you still might be inclined to call the father guilty, thinking “the police are there to stop the shooter. They have a duty to protect the public, that includes both the parents and the children.”… but this flies in the face of legal reality of Warren vs District of Colombia where the courts have ruled that there is no duty for the police to protect any particular private citizen: they have no duty to you, to children, to the elderly, their only duty is to the nebulous ‘public good’ (that obviously includes politicians and judges).
The answer is ‘probably’ — if the government leaders and authorities doesn’t see you as part of ‘their people’, why would you imagine that they would do anything for your benefit? Indeed, this is the betrayal that hurts and outrages us the most: those in leadership positions sacrificing their people to their own benefit, and this was illustrated as a counter-example of leadership in an excellent video titled “Why Leaders Eat Last”.
Much of this separation into us vs them in the realm of government authorities, at least at the local level, can be seen in the transition from “Peace Officers” to “Law Enforcement” — though some people note that the latter should more accurately be called “Revenue Enhancement Officers”, especially in cases involving asset forfeiture.
Law-Enforcement vs. Peace-Officers
The difference in peace officer vs law enforcement can be subtle, and difficult to articulate, but consider the scenario of teenagers doing stupid things: in the law enforcement mentality the laws must be enforced, and “throw the book at ‘em Dano!” whereas with a peace officer, it would be more typical to give them a lecture (maybe the proverbial ‘smack upside the head’ and “Don’t be dumb!”), take them to their parents, and resolve things there at the lowest levels: in one it is all about how the Rules must be followed, in the other it is about “keeping the peace” — sure, sometimes you need to arrest someone, peace officers did that too, but the focus was less on hard compliance-enforcement and more on the community itself (which does need rules — but the rules are made for the community, not the community for the rules)… and what we see now in our own police is the penultimate evolution of the Law Enforcement Mindset: a slavish enforcement of The Rules, though selectively, and a disregard to the community at-large. (The last form that Law Enforcement will take is that of pushing policies and rules that are literally illegal, justifying themselves that because they have authority they must be in the moral right, and anyone opposing them must be morally evil.)
The reason that the tyrants wish you disarmed, is precisely so that this may happen — Noah Webster said it very well, that with an armed population enforcing unjust laws cannot be done:
On that note, I wonder how long it will be before “I’m with the F.B.I.” will be seen with the same emotional-response of revulsion and disgust as “I’m a NAZI” would get you.
Since the start of 2022 we have seen the pushing of World War III, predicated and predicted from Putin and the actions of Russia in Ukraine — despite some of the areas in the conflict being Russia’s since the time of Catherine the Great (who died just a few years before the Louisiana Purchase) — being blamed for domestic problems like inflation and petroleum-production difficulties that started before the Russia/Ukraine conflict: throttling gas/oil production, paying for destruction of agriculture cropland, and so on.
All of these are being pushed into the public news-sphere as justification for the hostile stance that the U.S. leadership is taking against Russia, attempting to get the people onboard to actual war with Russia; this despite a very large purpose to avoid war in the general populace, and especially among veterans. (The tragic result of the “Afghanistan Pull-Out” is a defeat, and is one factor that the elites simply do not understand: morale is essential to operational capability.)
What we are seeing is a very wide split between the “Average Joe” and the ‘Elite’ (whether this is Trump or Biden) — where the Elite are signaling their willingness to spend the lives of the citizenry, in addition to pushing the blame for the policies they are implementing onto the ‘War’ with Putin/Russia. (Things like pushing “Electric Vehicles” onto an electrical production/distribution-grid that cannot handle the increased load, all while shutting down electricity production. — We saw this split illustrated in how, during the “lookdowns” and “mask mandates” the ‘Elite’ were given special and preferential treatment, excepting them from the very rules they forced on everyone else.
It is obvious that those in power in the U.S. see themselves as apart, separate and distinct, from the average man: above the law, beyond account, and completely protected. This protection is both government offices and also with corporations, a good example here could be the new Twitter censorship policies against anti-war sentiment; this underscores the point: the ‘elite’ see themselves as having no obligation to you, they see you as ‘other’ and expendable.
The Interconnected Elite
Then there’s the connections among the elite, surrounding Ukraine: (1) Biden’s, Romney’s, Kerry’s, and Pelosi’s children’s connections have been ‘fact-checked’ by Reuters, (2) and then there’s the World Economic Forum and it’s Young Global Leaders, which have connections to Zelenskyy, Putin, Trudeau, and Ivanka Trump.
It’s all theater… and you & I? We’re the ones who they expect to bleed and die to cover up their corruption — whether it’s ‘Russia, Russia, Russia!’ or ‘Chyna!’ or the hoard of illegals whose babies they’d rather feed makes no difference to them; what they’re trying to do is ramp up pressure on the Average Joe (via gasoline, electricity, & food) so that they perceive the release of war as the solution. — Even if the signals that they’re willing to have your children killed in a foreign war is mere virtue-signaling, the elite want prices on these that you cannot afford; they want to make ‘living’ or ‘surviving’ unaffordable… Why?
The attitude shown, illustrates how they are pushing Government Sponsored Genocide Via Starvation, Holodomor (as a verb) — or, if you want a more European experience of the Government being involved with starving citizens, consider the Irish Potato Famine; where the British had used about half of its military might to forcibly extract food while the Irish starved. Obviously, the British government held the exportation of food to be of greater importance than the Irish people themselves — how much do you want to bet that the US will do similar? Perhaps wringing their hands and crying “How can we interfere!? These are private corporations, and this would be interfering in contracts!” on the cameras, all while holding back their sadistic glee at the prospect of mass starvation?
All of these food-plant ‘accidents’, all of the energy production ‘difficulties’, all of the promotion of ‘contracts’ to superiority over law (see the defense of Pfizer & Moderna) aim for one point — evasion of accountability, even while forcing “let’s you and him fight”-styles of distraction.
Trump won’t help us, he’s still proudly touting his bioweapon; Biden won’t help, he’s just a puppet — our only hope is to turn to Jesus, pray, and look out for our fellow-citizen.
There are many issues that can, and should, be taken with this overreach, especially considering how certain people are pushing for a ‘Vaccine Passport’ system which could (read ‘will be’) be tied into economic rights, setting the precedent at least that “no one may buy or sell” dependent on some government controlled/approved ‘permission-slip’.
One thing to notice, however, is that the case wherein the Supreme Court found a Constitutional right to privacy of medical records, especially from the government, is now being threatened with being overturned…
Throwing Out the Bath-Water with the Baby
People have been commenting on the possibility of the Supreme Court overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, from those dramatically predicting (or threatening) revolt/civil-war to Karl Denninger’s prediction of ‘nothing’. — However, I think that this is exactly where our enemy wants to go: They *wish* to destroy all protections against instituting their stranglehold control over every aspect of your life, and what do they care if this causes a civil war? A civil war would be advantageous to them: for it would deplete both physical stores (the means of resisting) as well as erode the morale aspect (the will to resist); thus they win should Roe be overturned and cause civil war, thus they win if only Roe is overturned (for then there is no ‘precedent’ of the Supreme Court recognizing a Constitutional right to the privacy of medical records), thus they win if Roe is left in-place (for they hate life).
And so we find ourselves offered a ‘Gotcha!’ scenario, like when the Pharisees sent their disciples with this question to Jesus: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Cesar?” (If Jesus answered ‘Yes’ they would point out how Jesus was endorsing Caesar’s authority and claims, which included the blasphemy of claiming divinity, under Jewish law; if he said ‘No’ then they could convict him under Rome’s law.) — But here Jesus sidestepped the entire issue by asking for a coin, pointing out that Caesar’s image and inscription [name] were on it, saying: “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
We, too, need the divine wisdom of Jesus here: for on the one hand we are offered continued child-sacrifice, and on the other hand we are offered sacrificing the whole people into slavery — pray, for wisdom, and Justice, and mercy.
What do these three fallacies have in common? What purposes do they serve? What goals do these purposes advance? Are any of them reinforcing the others? Why, even should we consider them fallacies? (This one’s simple: because they lead to fallacious reasoning or modeling of the world.) …But I’m getting ahead of myself, let’s define and describe what I mean for each of these items.
The “Let’s Go Brandon!” meme is a masterful judo throw: taking the news’s own willful misunderstanding and formatting it in a way that cannot be purged by most social-media Terms of Service without being blatantly a political censorship. After all, it doesn’t use any profanities, it doesn’t contain ‘misinformation’, it succinctly expresses dissatisfaction with President Biden (and, arguably, the administration) and in order to understand this you need the context. — All of this is well and good, except that it’s obvious that Biden is a puppet, barely capable of reading a Teleprompter.
The Idea that “fraud vitiates everything” means that the fact that the 2020 elections were fraudulently conducted (both with voter fraud and with procedural/legal violations) to give Biden the ‘win’ means that we should instead give the win to Trump. — This fallacy is predicated on many assumptions, from the process of correcting an election to that of structures and forms of law and the legal system itself. A prime example here is ‘decertification’ which, as it turns out, simply does not exist. It is not a thing, legally-speaking.
Simply that the government can say and do whatever it wants, and you must obey; that the mere declaration has legitimacy (by its own existence) and therefore all lawful authority.
The commonalities of these fallacies can be summed up in a single word: Redirection.
Brandon: As noted in its description, this redirects away from the obvious fact that Biden is not the one in charge; it redirects the displeasure of the people from those who are pushing these disastrous policies onto the obvious scapegoat of Joe Biden.
Reinstatement: This redirects the will of people who want to see Justice, lawfully and rightly obtained, into something that will erode the law itself; there is no such legal thing as a Presidential ‘Reinstatement’, it simply does not exist. (The counting and certifying of elector’s votes that Congress does IS the official declaration that the votes are legitimate.)
Mandates: Our old friend, “Appeal to Self-Authority” pops its head up; this is, yet again, “my own position proves I am good, if I were not good I would not be in this position; therefore, whatever I say is good and the exercise of the authority granted in my position is as well.”
Let us term this the ‘Redirective Rule’ — and define it as:
The desire/tactic of the redirection of thought or mental model to escape properly Just accountability which permeates, at every level, the operations of our enemy.
The Purposes, and How They Work Together
By re-directing displeasure to Biden, the problem mentally shifts from the organization itself and those in positions of power to a single man; this, in turn, encourages the idea that ‘if we could just get rid of X, then things would get better.’ Combine this with ‘Reinstatement’ and those people in power can dump Biden, put Trump in, and continue their mission having appeased all those pushing for Trump (as well as many who were alienated by the policies that “Biden” put out). — This leaves in-place much of the framework that these authorities have been putting in-place, rather than destroying their mandates and the underlying ‘authorizations’ for them.
We are witnessing what Yuri Bezmenov’s lecture “The Four Stages of Ideological Subversion” as ‘Destabilization’ — where the subversion is concentrated on “economy, foreign-relations, defense-systems” — and what else would the shredding of the Constitution (e.g. via ‘Reinstatement’) do but give cover to those who are subverting our country and nation as they continue for the Coup de Grâce? (And you must remember that it was Trump who showed he favored Big-Business over small-business and the American people for the ‘quarantines’/’lockdowns’, especially for the ‘forgivable loans’ and bailouts that went to the corporations while pushing couch-change to the people to both shut them up and undercut any complaint by making them participant & beneficiary in bailouts.)
The TL;DR here is this: all of these fallacies have the ability to work together for the destruction of large portions of the American culture and its people. Those in power are guiding what Bezmenov termed ‘Destabilization’ in order to bring up a ‘Crisis’ which will allow all the bullshit they’ve been foisting on our people to become ‘Normalized’.
During the riots of 2020, we saw plainly the implementation of ‘Anarcho-Tyranny ’ — where the politically-disfavored were selectively prosecuted and the favored allowed to go free — and it is from here that we must recognize the nature of our enemies: they prefer to put all conflict into a “Heads, we win; Tails, you lose” and/or “Let’s you and him fight” setting. This is why they do not want a unified American people, but rather exploitable mindset-/identity-differences like ‘White’ vs ‘Black’… and we’ve seen them go out of their way to manufacture these differences: remember how the news media corporations pushed Zimmerman first as ‘White’, then after it came out that he was ‘Hispanic’ pushed forward the ‘White Hispanic’ label?
That is exactly what is in play here, and now. It is almost fractal in how it is set up, the small being an instance of the design of the large, structured to force the outcome that the aforementioned power-elite and enemies (and the intersection of these is essentially the sets themselves) wish, while simultaneously giving them deniability, removing responsibility/accountability, and covering their involvement.
Since this Redirective Rule is fractal in nature, we can see it in play on the Ghislaine Maxwell trial — All of the charges brought forth are on the sexual aspects; which conveniently sidesteps even talking about the purpose that these were to achieve: blackmail and corruption of officials to ensure foreign control of said officials and, thence, the control of the top positions of the government both elective and un-elected. Thus why we heard, from Trump’s own mouth, an admission not only that the Congress is controlled by a foreign entity, but that he believes such foreign-control to be right. — about how the international scope of things are being redirected into ‘national’, and the vast (multi-national) conspiracy- and espionage-organization is framed in terms of a small sex-ring.
This Redirective Rule applies even in the realm of the corporal world and the spiritual world. Framing things in terms of “It’s Israel!!” and directing all the focus there is, again, the Rule being applied: if the biggest lie the Devil ever got people to believe is he doesn’t exist, the second is that his agents (which, yes, can be nations) are where the responsibility/accountability ends. — This isn’t to say that the agents bear no responsibility, they obviously do.
The real issue is the framing:
Brandon: Frames the issue in figureheads, directing people away from the underlying corruption.
Reinstatement: Frames the issue in a manner that destroys Jurisprudence and law, masquerading as “justice!” while shutting out Justice.
(I.e. Why would you seek Justice-the-virtue, when you have ‘justice’ looks-like-its-correcting-an-error?)
Mandate: Frames things in an appeal to the government’s own authority, so that any objection might be re-framed as a “rebellion” and “rejection” of all the government’s authority.
BLM: Frames the injustice and corruption of Law Enforcement into a sort of “only for Blacks issue”, which is absurd because it’s been an issue since at least the War on Drugs made it profitable for police to be corrupt.
Antifa: While some of this is True Believer shit, there’s a good portion that are pulled into this either by deception. (e.g. “You don’t want the NAZIs to win, do you?”)
SJWs: Frames the natural desire for Justice into serving injustice, typically by twisting definitions, calling ‘good’ what is evil and ‘evil’ what is good.
I can’t tell you that tell you that Israel-the-State doesn’t deserve the US to declare war and crush it, because from the USS Liberty to 11–Sep–2001 & from the Maxwell Espionage-Ring to the War on Terror, they absolutely do… the problem is that unless we-as-a-people “get right with God” by turning to Jesus, we are doomed. Jesus is the only one that can save us from these fractal traps, He is the only one that can heal the absurd self-inflicted wounds of the mandates, He is the only one who can heal the damage and destruction inflicted on us by our enemies. — The TL;DR here is found succinctly in Psalm 127:1 “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”
One thing that is disturbing about these mandates is the so-called “religious exemption” — for two reasons: (1) that the ‘exemption’ is impotent and ineffectual, and (2) that implicit in the system is the subordinating of religious rights to the adjudication of some administrator or bureaucrat — and everyone advising to take the ‘exemption’ seems unable to realize this.
The arrogation of this power to judge what is and is not acceptable religious thought is downright insane. On the one hand, you have people who likely wouldn’t have even the philosophical tools to understand the consequences of the stated beliefs, much less the theological grounding to understand anything but the most direct quotations and constructions from a belief-set — do you think, for example, they would consider what the implications of claiming the body as Temple of the Holy Spirit are? (1 Corinthians 6:19–20)
Moreover, the consequences of the ‘exemption’ have no effect. (At least insofar as NM’s EO is concerned.) …if you take the ‘exemption’ you are still subject to the periodic testing that was always the ‘alternative’, even though we know this ‘alternative’ is really a threat along the lines of the old mafia-threat: “Nice shop ya have ‘ere, it’d be a shame if something were to happen to it…”
Thus it must be asked “then what is the real point of the ‘exemption’?”
Codification of the Appeal to Self-Authority
The obvious answer lies in both the subordination of religious belief to bureaucracy and the useless impotence of the ‘exemption’ in policy, tying them both together: a sort of moral cowardice (giving ‘legal’ excuses, allowing for avoiding accountability) galvanized with an arrogant refusal to abide by (or even acknowledge) the limits of authority.
This refusal to acknowledge the limits of authority is the consequence of a sort of circular-reference logic termed as “appeal to self-authority” which is essentially: (1) Those in authority are good; (2) I am the authority; (3) If I was not good I would not be the authority; (4) Therefore, since I am the authority, I am good; (5) To oppose me is to oppose my authority; (6) To oppose my authority is to be evil, because I am good, as proved by my authority.
— Thus we see why, on the philosophical level, asserting that there is no such authority as they claim provokes such an emotional response: to even question the limits and boundaries is equivalent to denying their goodness and calling them evil… to their emotional-attachment this is the equivalent of declaring your intent to kill them.
And this brings us to “policy” — this is their great scapegoat: by simply saying “It’s policy!” they protect themselves from criticism (after all, they’re following The Rules!). While simultaneously divesting themselves of accountability (“We didn’t make The Rules!”) — again another circular-logic trap: (1) The rules are good; (2) I enforce the rules, so I am good; (3) any objection to the rules is proof of your evil. And just as above, any dissent or disagreement marks you as a horrible person who wants to destroy all goodness.
If this all seems familiar, that’s because the Courts have been using this for decades: they invented ‘Absolute Legal Immunity’ for themselves, then use that as a shield from any criticism of their judgements or overstepping their authority, especially any Constitutional limits despite the Constitution being the origin of their authority.
Normalization of Coercion & Extortion
All this leads to a natural consequence: these ‘policies’ institute a system which is coercive and extortionate, with any dissent being summarily discarded — dissenters obviously being demonized as at least troublemakers, if not ‘lawbreakers’ — in other words: Welcome to Tyranny.
But, even worse, this is exactly what happens in Communism; consider the Soviet Union’s abuses of psychological incarceration: detractors were labeled as having mental illness, such as “sluggish schizophrenia”, removed from society via ‘institutionalization’, and God only knows how many were tortured. — All of this because such a system, established without real accountability, simply cannot exist in the presence of objections of conscience, or the opposition of good men, or true Justice and so must act against them all. In a sick way, the system acknowledges these and works to swiftly undermine, capture, isolate, and neutralize exactly such persons.
It is precisely this system which is being pushed on us, under the guise of ‘rules’ and ‘policies’, which bureaucrats and administrators can virtue-signal as being ‘good guys’ to the system by adhering thereunto rather than making the possibly-risky move of opposing these evil schemes which will be the normalization of coercion and extortion. Just look at the ‘mandates’ and how common it is to see or hear “I have to take the vaccine or lose my job.” — and the ‘alternative’ of “periodic testing”? It’s quite obvious that using a test with such high rates of false-positives, and which cannot distinguish between the various variants, is in-place only for the theater and inconvenience… and this says nothing at all about the invasiveness, discomfort, or possible malicious uses of these tests. (Imagine, if you will, infecting the tests so that the healthy would be contaminated in order to spread the narrative that simply testing does not work, and that the ‘unvaccinated’ are intrinsically a danger to themselves and others as a means to end the ‘alternative’ of testing.)
If these ‘policies’ and ‘rules’ and ‘mandates’ are allowed to stand, then we are as-a-people declaring that the normalization of coercion and extortion are acceptable in our society.
That our government, institutions, and corporations seem dead-set on implementing all of these — especially with the above sections in mind — there is a temptation towards demoralization: after all, who exactly are we?
That is what these people want you to perceive: they want you to think that you are alone, or part of a group too small to make a difference, and certainly not capable of simply saying ‘no’ or, even worse to their mindset, going on the offensive. — This is why they have been trying to control the narrative, via censorship and deplatforming and shadow-banning: they have very little real power, a lot of ‘influence’, and almost no real, actual authority. This is why they have to set up illusions, to make you ‘agree’ to their deceptions, and to keep you ‘controlled’.
So, instead of being demoralized, or angry, pray. Even if it’s only a few friends, family, or neighbors: pray — turn to Jesus — ask for wisdom, and then act.
I guarantee you that such is not the response that the evil powers want: they do not want you to have a community, they do not want you to have emotional or social support, they do not want you to appeal to the Judge about the injustices being pushed, they do not want your voice heard in Heaven (either now or in the hereafter) — I can’t promise you that God will miraculously act to remove these evils, I can’t promise you that you will be either comfortable or well-fed, but I can promise you that for the sake of Jesus, God will hear.
The Governor’s unlawful Executive Order is being implemented, the vaccine mandate is being pushed, with the aid of lies and false dealing and a cowardly refusal to stand against evil by the leaders in government. As we can plainly see, the “periodic testing” alternative is really just there to say “well, technically you aren’t required to get a vaccine”… just like technically you don’t have to pay your taxes.
The so-called “religious exemption” is false-dealing at its worst: by taking them at their word, allowing them to accept or reject your application, you are submitting to a religious test. You are literally agreeing to allow them to judge your beliefs as legitimate or illegitimate, and to allow or disallow [continued] employment based thereon. — What madness is this!? How can no-one see it?
NMSU is Dead-set on this Unlawful Activity
My place of employment is NMSU, and the administration there has been particularly unresponsive to any concerns, as in literally no response:
I am quite disappointed and frustrated with the leadership, especially as there has been no real feedback, discussion, or debate on the issues I raised before. (See this post.) — As I said in the last e-mail, I refuse to comply with this lawlessness — so, now what?
I am not going to merely sit back and watch as these people destroy my State, my University, and my people. While I may no longer be enlisted, I still love New Mexico and the United States, and the oath of enlistment still rings true: I am going to defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of New Mexico against these evil tyrants.
These administrators are either actively evil, or are so cowardly as to be functionally evil; they want us to simply roll over, to simply quit, to collapse in fawning obeisance over their every pronouncement. — It is quite obvious that they intend to push people who do not comply to either quitting or to committing an act of violence, so that they can run crying and screaming to mommy gov., but I have a better idea: as mentioned in my e-mail, the New Mexico Constitution allows for the collection of signatures of registered voters (per county) to compel the convening of a Grand Jury — if you’re in New Mexico, the required number of signatures are as follows:
The Constitution defines ‘Treason’ as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Now, to understand fully, we turn to a dictionary of the same period: Webster’s 1828 Dictionary and assess the definition of ‘levy’ — it is as follows:
LEV’Y, verb transitive [Latin levo; Eng. to lift.]
To raise; to collect. To levy troops, is to enlist or to order men into public service. To levy an army, is to collect troops and form an army by enrollment, conscription or other means.
To raise; to collect by assessment; as, to levy taxes, toll tribute, or contributions.
To levy war, is to raise or begin war; to take arms for attack; to attack.
First, note that ordering men into public service is a definition, and the President has announced he is doing just that; also note that the example of “levying war” is used as an example and includes raising/beginning war, and taking up arms for an attack.
Likewise, the definition for ‘war’ is similarly illuminating:
WAR, noun [G., to perplex, embroil, disturb. The primary sense of the root is to strive, struggle, urge, drive, or to turn, to twist.]
A contest between nations or states, carried on by force, either for defense, or for revenging insults and redressing wrongs, for the extension of commerce or acquisition of territory, or for obtaining and establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other. These objects are accomplished by the slaughter or capture of troops, and the capture and destruction of ships, towns and property. Among rude nations, war is often waged and carried on for plunder. As war is the contest of nations or states, it always implies that such contest is authorized by the monarch or the sovereign power of the nation. When war is commenced by attacking a nation in peace, it si called an offensive war and such attack is aggressive. When war is undertaken to repel invasion or the attacks of an enemy, it is called defensive, and a defensive war is considered as justifiable. Very few of the wars that have desolated nations and deluged the earth with blood, have been justifiable. Happy would it be for mankind, if the prevalence of Christian principles might ultimately extinguish the spirit of war and if the ambition to be great, might yield to the ambition of being good.
WAR, verb intransitive
1. To make war; to invade or attack a nation or state with force of arms; to carry on hostilities; or to be in a state of contest by violence.
He teacheth my hands to war 2 Samuel 22:35.
The Declaration of War
Now consider that the threat to remove governors makes it plain and leaves no doubt that the motivation and object of such actions is “obtaining and establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other” — that is, we have just heard a declaration that the federal government is utterly superior to the States and, implicitly, that the States are not [to be] sovereigns but rather subjects.
The Citizenry Threatened
President Biden also threatened the People directly, and on multiple levels. From things like travel to education, from employment to even children… the pervasiveness of the treats uttered in this speech is astounding.
Those Rejecting Unlawful Claims of Authority
Those who are rejecting these unlawful and tyrannical policies were threatened quite bluntly — “we’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin” — which is interesting on several levels:
First, is it not the ever changing list of things that you have to do to show subservience (like masks, or lockdowns), and rights you have to surrender (like attending church, or social gatherings) that should make people hesitant? (In reality, though, ‘defiant’ and ‘rebellious’ are better stances against this lawlessness.)
Second, is it not true that multiple times the reason given for vaccination is to “protect the vaccinated”? (A hidden admission that these vaccines are NOT effective.)
Third, the implicit ‘or else’ — as if those refusing are children, incapable of making their own decisions and dangerously close to getting discipline.
Those Attempting to Go About Their Business
Likewise, the declarations of the intent to use the Transport Safety Administration to molest the citizenry going about their business, to wit “the TSA will double the fines on travelers that refuse to mask” — a blatant declaration of the intent to violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines… what’s more, the entirety of response to the pandemic by governments (federal and state, in tandem) is violative of the prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishments: quarantining the healthy, shutting down people’s businesses, prohibiting the normal living of life, and the gathering together to worship.
It seems much of what government has done has increased the pain and suffering, and only just now are Sate governors saying “no more” — and good for them! — but what needs to happen is those enforcing these unlawful policies need to be punished, and more than the “slap on the wrist” punishments many egregious crimes are getting these days. (The truly vindictive sentences seem specially reserved for people like Kyle Rittenhouse who dare to defend themselves against the covertly-sanctioned and -supported ‘riots’.)
Those Who Just Want to do Their Job
And let us not forget the threats to people who just want to do their job, being left alone. It’s too late though: you may not have an interest in politics, but those in politics have and interest in crushing you. — The declaration that all federal employees must get vaccinated (the ‘or tested’ is a lie: a fiction that operates like the mafia’s “or else”), as with everyone who does business with the federal government.
So, in the end, it looks like aside from the threats, and the declaration of war against the States, is a big game of chicken — who is going to stop him? You? Your company? Your State? — this is an interesting proposition, and it is obvious that it is not Biden but those controlling him making these dares.
I, for one, will not comply with illegal orders — and make no mistake, forcing people to undergo medical treatment against their will is criminal — remember RAMP:
Return fire with aimed fire. Return force with force. You always have the right to repel hostile acts with necessary force.
Anticipate attack. Use force first if, but only if, you see clear indicators of hostile intent.
Measure the amount of force that you use, if time and circumstances permit. Use only the amount of force necessary to protect lives and accomplish the mission.
Protect with deadly force only human life, and property designated by your commander. Stop short of deadly force when protecting other property.
You always have the right to us necessary force, including deadly force, to protect yourself and others.(Link)
Texas, Abortion, Roe V. Wade, and the link to Vaccine Mandates
Finally it should be noted that Texas prohibiting abortion is an interesting development — while I condone, in the strongest possible terms, the Texas lawmakers that enacted it there is cause for caution:
This is NOT pro-life winning the war, this is the first time pro-life gaining ground in the battle.
Roe v. Wade’s USSC decision was such that found a Constitutional right to privacy of medical records, especially from the government.
As current precedent stands, it is unconstitutional on its face for government to demand access to medical record data… including vaccination status.
Therefore, watch challenges to Roe v. Wade, because they might just set up the legal-equivalent of a false-flag to overturn Roe v. Wade, and then surprise everyone with the “now ‘legal’” invasion of medical privacy legitimizing the government demands for vaccination status.
It’s not my best work, but I figure that getting it out now rather than later is preferable. The main meat of this is condensing the legitimacy argument of my EO-rejection into the first inside-page and expanding on the religious-objection on the back cover: