Rev. Munther Isaac and other Palestinian Christians sends you Christmas Greetings

Just remember when you celebrate Christmas, Bethlehem is in the occupied territories and is divided by Israel's "security wall".

But even more importantly, Palestinian Christians are being persecuted by the Zoonist state.

Israel's Attack on the USS Liberty from a sailor on that ship.

I've known about this since I was a kid. It didn't make sense until recently when I put the connection between the Zionist lobby and lack of support for the US Constitution.

Fuck, I'm a dual national and I know that I obey US law when I'm in the US and UK law in the UK, but some politicians don't know they need to follow US law.

Make US politicans realise they took an oath to serve the United States, and not Israel. 

As a Tory, I would prefer the US be a part of the Commonwealth (e.g. Canada), and not a truly foreign power.

Is Marwan Barghouti a 'Palestinian Nelson Mandela'? • FRANCE 24 English

Alana Hadid, Gigi and Bella's older sister, says that we should be pushing for Marwan's Freedom. I learned that Marwan's my age and the Israeli Occupational Forces killed his dog when he was a kid. So, You can bet I support this man geting his freedom.

Seriously, he is the best man to lead Palestine to its freedom.

Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro explains how Zionism is anti-Semitic

Sarah Hurwitz, Melanie Phillips, John Fetterman, and other hard core Zionists need to learn about the history of their ideology. I'm sure they will change their opinion pretty fast.

And something from Miriam Margolyes:

What if Bernie had run in 2016?

I think he would have won. After all, he represents a state which is a historically red state. However, despite what Fox News tells you, The Democratic party is in no way "left wing". They preferred to lose with Clinton than win with Sanders.

After all, he is  a threat to the big donors for the duopoly.

Trump isn't.

How to insult an Arab, from a real Arab

Comedian Amar Zahr to set you straight on a few things. And, yes, the Quaran does mention Jesus and Mary.

Another Zionist tells the truth.

I'm sorry that the pro-Zionist line has not been challenged until fairly recently. Fortunately, this has resulted in their being arrogant enough to start admitting to their failings. Unfortunately, they aren't seeing what they are and how they are coming off to the rest of the world.

Politicians who decry "socialist" policies such as public health care, good education, and housing are paying for foreigners (Israelis) to have that while making US troops into mercenaries.

 

Cryptocurrency explained.

 

Ever wonder why 10+ million died during the Holocaust, despite the existence of ZIonism?

We've seen how "holocaust education" is supposed to teach "anti-semitism", not to condemn genocide. We've also seen that the Zionists didn't care about the Allied War effort (The assassination of Lord Moyne). After the war, the Zionists proceeded to ethnic cleanse the Palestinians (see the film to Tantura).

Also, check out the work of Leni Brenner, Tony Greenstein, Alan Hart, and Ilan Pappe.

Anyway, here's the answer. 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/yitzhak-shamir-why-we-killed-lord-moyne/amp/%7Cwebsite=Times/

"Never again" only applies to Jews.

Zionists don't get that saying "Never again" is totally meaningless if it only applies to Jews. And Jews weren't the only people who suffered under the holocaust.

But if they want Yad Vashem (the Israeli Holocaust museum) to be next door to Deir Yassin, site of Jewish ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, then they are pretty clueless about the topic.

And why the ethnostate of Israel needs to go.

If it was wrong for the Germans to have done, then it's really wrong for Jews to do now.

Sarah Translated:

The best political ad that needs to be seen

Introducing #AZAPAC, the Anti-zionist America Political Action Committee. If we are going to talk about independence and making America Great Again, then the US needs to put the US first: not support a rogue state in the middle east which has destabilised the region since at least 1947. 

Given they helped the German War effort (look up the assassination of Lord Moyne and Havaara Agreement,  along with the work of Leni Brenner, Tony Greenstein, and Alan Hart) and how they use the Holocaust to stir up fear. 

Yet, they can commit Genocide while saying never again.

It's time to make AIPAC register as to what it is an agent of a foreign state whose interests run contrary to those of the US.

And the word is...

I asked in a previous post what was a "Word for extremely overstretched, overwhelmed???

And "Corybantic" is indeed the word.

Corybantic means wild, frenzied, or uncontrolled, often used to describe music and dancing that is ecstatic or agitated. It is derived from the Corybants, who were priests of the goddess Cybele known for their emotional and energetic rituals.

I'm memorialising it so it's not forgotten.

Former Maine State Senate President Majority Leader Rick Bennett on the two party system

 OpenPrimaries is having a video chat with Rick Bennett on this topic:

“I’m running as an independent because Maine’s next chapter can’t be dictated by party bosses in Washington or by the special interests pouring dark money into our elections. Too many politicians today are more focused on partisan point-scoring than problem-solving. The system thrives on conflict, not resolution, and the issues that matter most – housing, our economy, our schools – get lost in the noise.”

I definitely agree with him as my posts on the duopoly and US politics bear out. It's nice to see someone admit that they cannot work within the duopoly system, especially if they were a part of it.

I may be comment adverse, but I have been known to sign petitions to get candidates and parties on the ballot that I do not support. Especially since that's about the only way to break the duopoly lock on the electoral process.

It's time to consider moving to open source. (Billionaires Owning Everything Just Got Worse…)

I am thoroughly amazed that the information sector didn't go to open source for a lot of reasons. But this person points out how much we give up by supporting big tech. 

For that matter, this gives a really good reason to get a true multiparty democracy since the duopoly did eff all to prevent this. 

Word for extremely overstretched, overwhelmed???

 I just got off the phone with Dog Gone (yes, she's still around) and we were trying to figure out a word she used to describe how I tend to do way more things at once than most people do. Not boasting since it's way more of a fault than an asset.

On the other hand, it would be nice to remember the word.

I'm thinking it may be "corybantic". 

Yeah, I would have picked Henry VIII...

There's a joke about the Russian Tsar during the Kievan Rus picking a religion: 

The Tsar calls for representatives of all the world's religions to tell him about their faiths. The Islamic representative tells him that he will go to heaven and have 72 virgins if he dies for the faith.
--"Yeah, go on..." --"You can have as many wives as you want" The Tsar is getting interested. --"but have to give up eating pork." goes on the Islamic rep --"That shouldn't be too much of a problem." 

--"And you'll have to give up drinking alcohol."
--"GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE."

 Anyway...

This does seem probable. 

The Big Beautiful Eff Up.

I don't suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, but I do have to wonder how someone with a CV like his could become US President once, let alone twice. For example, Donald Trump's business ventures filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection six times between 1991 and 2009, primarily involving his casino and hotel operations. These bankruptcies allowed his companies to restructure their debts while continuing to operate.

He made his "fortune" using other people's money.

And pushing the envelope.

In this case he's building a questionable multimillion dollar project on the US White House during the middle of a government shutdown. People are doing without services while he builds something which will not last.

I'm not sure that is a real tribute to US political stability.

The issue that the White House is a historic building factors in as well. I've lived in historic districts pretty much all my adult life. In one house, I was severely limited as to what I could do to the exterior: any changes had to be approved by a committee. I now live in a very modern house, yet it is also historically protected as part of post-War reconstruction! There are some really ugly houses that are practically untouchable due to that protection. Fortunately, mine isn't that protected despite it's "historic significance".

 Some historic listings even limit what one can do to the interior.

Yet, Trump can destroy a significant portion of the US White House with no problem.

Do you wonder why people are questioning this? 

The US isn't fascist, it's an Oligarchy and has been for some time. It's quietly been one. The wealthy have lived in their mansions in peace for some time, although the large mansions are becoming difficult to keep: even for the super wealthy.

The real wake up call was the 2016 election where Bernie Sanders was sidelined for Hillary Clinton, resulting in Trump being President. Amusingly, this happened through the electoral college: an institution meant to prevent such occurrences.

There needs to be a significant change in US politics, but I don't see that happening in an Oligarchy. 

'Wha’ll be king but Charlie' - Scottish Jacobite Song

There's a lot of irony here in using a Jacobite song: especially since the movement is pretty much dead. Unless you're a septic or out of touch with the world. 

On the other hand, the current King is Charles, which was a poor choice for a name since Kings named Charles haven't had good runs so far.

He should have gone with Arthur.

But, the first Charles did rule during the start of the English Civil War, which is similar to the Civil War that is brewing in the US. One where the Constitutional power will be divided up to put paid to the myth of three equal branches. 

Any Parliamentary system needs to have the power in the legislative branch with a weak executive head of state.

Otherwise, it does seem appropriate since Trump isn't very much of a leader. He's the cartoon villain. The heel of World Wrestling Entertainment kayfaybe. 

AI is denying your healthcare (and it's getting worse)

More on why I think that Luigi Mangione is a total dickbrain. I mean he's supposed to be this tech genius, but he missed that it's Artificial Intelligence that is causing health care to deny claims. Lots more on this topic, but things would be vastly different if he had gone the AI route rather than blaming a human who was doing a job.

A new, far more evil set of players come up.

But they are harder to hit: especially if he's working solo. 

If Cryptocurrency Was Honest | Honest Ads

This is a humourous take on why crypto is a scam. 

And Robert Reich giving a more serious take on this issue.

How to break the two-party hold on American politics

The problem with the "no Kings" movement is that they have no idea what they are talking about, which I affirm as someone who has lived in monarchies (UK, Canada, and Belgium). 

The real issue is the duopoly, which is realy only one party pretending to be different. The duopoly is the tool of the oligarchy, which is disgustingly obvious if one wants to admit it.

The US needs new players and parties that actually represent the people.

Digital Blackout: AWS Outage Plunges Millions into Disarray, Revealing the Internet's Fragile Core

The internet would be much better if it were decentralised and out of the hands of the oligarchs. As this points out, it's only as strong as its weakest link: which seems to be the oligarchs.

The fallacious thinking of the "No Kings" anti-Trumpers

 It’s nice to say ignorant things like « no kings » when Canada has a king and things are much better. The even more important aspect of that is that Canada IS BRITISH NORTH AMERICA!

Anyway, your tweedledum-tweedledumber two party system is responsible for the issues you decry: not just Donald Trump.

As is the US Constitution, which gave you the first Trump administration through the electoral college.

And for that matter, you might want to look up the history of the insurrection act and how that « trumps » posse comitatus. 

So, you need to work to destroy the oligarchs and the two party system if you seriously want to get the power in the hands of the people.

Only a real multi party democracy will do that.

A Canadian view on "no kings"

Just remember that Canada is British North America and you don't need to take a guess about alternative history.

And you would be having new elections if you were like Canada and still had a king.

 

What if America had More Political Parties? - TLDR News

There are many advantages to ending the duopoly, but I am not sure I would go with the parties and the leaders proposed by this. While I talk about the Westminster system, coalition governments are much better than the gridlock which is endemic to the US system.

The fallacious thinking of the "No Kings" anti-Trumpers

They are ignorant of the fact that you would be having new elections if you still had a king because you would be under the Westminster system. Failure to pass a budget bill requires that the government disolve because of Loss of supply, which implies a loss of confidence in that system.

Toss in that Prince Andrew has been stripped of his titles and honours (except that of prince) because of his association with Epstein by King Charles.

Think about that when you say ignorant things about having a Constitutional Monarch.

Also, realise that the taxes levied by Britain on the Colonies were the bill for the war caused by George Washington. I'm sure things could have come to a screeching halt had the British asked for money up front instead of letting things slide during that conflict.

Just look up Benjamin Franklin's Albany Plan of Union for how the British could have stopped any seeds of independence arising.

Because you might be living under a French system where militarised police (Gendarmes) are the norm had the British not funded the defence of the colonies.

Think about that.

There's a reason this man is looking so smug.

Windows 11 Is a Lost Cause. Truly Destined for the Garbage. Don't Upgrade.

I am amazed that hacker, open source culture didn't prevail in the computing world. 

Wozniak v Jobs

The old Apple II, which was something you could configure anyway you wanted. The iPod that allowd you to listen to YOUR music, not something pushed on you.

Like having Rachel Maddow invade my French Jazz playlist. PUTAIN DE MERDE!  Je me fous complètement de la politique américaine.

 OK, maybe the last statement isn't exactly true.

But, I don't want tech oligarchs running my life. 

 

Meet Hugh Jeffreys, a right to repair advocate

I want to give a shout out to this person since he caught my eye with a video about fixing an old MacBook Pro. This, of course, would be something of interest to me since one thing leading to electronics ending up in landfills is planned obsolescence. 

And there are lots of reasons electronics shouldn't be ending up in  the waste cycle, but the tech giants couldn't cre less about your health and well being. So, heavy metals (and I'm not talking music) in the environment isn't something they are too bothered by.

So, good on you, Hugh!

Bring Down The Government!

Or why is this man looking so smug?

The bottom line is that if the US had a Westminster system, the government would be dissolved and there would be new elections.  One of the characteristics of a government run under this is a llegislative body with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) supply" (rejecting a budget).

Loss of supply occurs where a government in a parliamentary democracy using the Westminster System or a system derived from it is denied a supply of treasury or exchequer funds, by whichever house or houses of parliament or head of state is constitutionally entitled to grant and deny supply. A defeat on a budgetary vote is one way by which supply can be denied. Loss of supply is typically interpreted as indicating a loss of confidence in the government. Not all money bills are necessarily supply bills. For instance, in Australia, supply bills are defined as "bills which are required by the Government to carry on its day-to-day business"

It's also amusing that septics in their ignorance don't realise that the English Civil War was about who had the power: the monarch or the legislature.

The legislature won.
The

Dell sells Linux computers!

I moved from the Microsoft operating system a while back, I'm guessing in 2011 from my old blog posts. I have a serious dislike for tech giants having worked with computers for over 50 years (I started young), The hacker culture runs strong in me.

Besides, most tech pros use linux/unix.

Getting a linux computer for me meant using an old computer, or one that had originally been configured for windows (or Mac OS). I didn't realise that Dell sold them. The only drawbacks are you can't get these in most retailers and there's a five week wait: https://www.techradar.com/best/linux-pc#section-best-linux-mini-pc

On the other hand, this is a computer which is built for Linux.

For those of you who want to try this OS, you can make a trial USB drive and see how you like it:

 

Windows AND Linux Security - What Should You Know

There is more reason to switch to linux and ditch the tech oligarchs than you know.

Find a COMPATIBLE Linux Computer for $200+: Roadmap to Linux. Part 1

I have been seriously thinking about returning to Linux for the reasons mentioned. Apple's Mac OS is based on Linux, but has proprietary things which force you to use their products. It's also fairly stable, which can't be said about Microsoft. 

The one sickener for the switch is that Macs have some excellent tools for multilingual people. 

We Went to a Crypto Conference: We Left Terrified

You can't trust banks or financial institutions, but you trust something which is based on computers?

What type of stupid are you?

RIP Jane

I have to admit that she was one of the people in my circle. She actually preferred dogs. So long, Jane.

 

Will Trump cause the collapse of the US Government?

 Perhaps it's time to admit that the US is a de facto Westminster Parliamentary Democracy. That is a system where the lower house of parliament has an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) supply" (rejecting a budget). This automatically leads to a call for new elections. 

Loss of supply occurs where a government in a parliamentary democracy using the Westminster System or a system derived from it is denied a supply of treasury or exchequer funds, by whichever house or houses of parliament or head of state is constitutionally entitled to grant and deny supply. A defeat on a budgetary vote is one way by which supply can be denied. Loss of supply is typically interpreted as indicating a loss of confidence in the government. Not all money bills are necessarily supply bills. For instance, in Australia, supply bills are defined as "bills which are required by the Government to carry on its day-to-day business". 

A similar deadlock can occur within a presidential system, where it is also known as a budget crisis. In contrast to parliamentary systems, the failure of the legislature to authorize spending may not in all circumstances result in an election, because some such legislatures enjoy fixed terms and so cannot be dissolved before a date of termination, which can result in a prolonged crisis. 

Wouldn't calling for an election to see how popular the government make far more sense than this? 

Other than it would put paid to the myth that the US system lives with compromise. Your governments would make Belgium or Italy look stable if you went to a parliamentary system.

Civil War? The REALITY You NEED to Understand

Adam Kinzinger on why talk about civil war is misguided.

And the US Constitution does not give you a right to fight the government, which is pretty explicit in Article III, Section iii. That defines the only crime mentioned in the US Constitution: Treason.

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

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

And your Second Amendment right as a "constitutional militia" is

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

After all, a document which is suppose to insure domestic Tranquility isn't going to tolerate a civil war.

Anyway,

I'm sick os seeing the Second Amendment misinterpreted to mean things which are not in the US Constitution.

Show me where it actually mentions "self-defence"! 

Christopher Hitchens on The Rise of Political Violence

This man was a genius. May he rest in peace.

Christopher Hitchens on Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

An interesting reflection on this event.

This makes the situation all the more ironic if true:

America's Downward Spiral With Political Violence

What the supporters of "gun rights" fail to comprehend, despite their saying guns are "inanimate objects" is that "inanimate objects" can be turned against them. 

It's also poor policy to allow your opponents to be well armed.

Unfortunately, the concept of "gun rights" has allowed for the US to have way too many guns in the hands of the wrong people.

London Broadcasting Corporation's James O'Brien asks, 'Why are Charlie Kirk's words suddenly off limits?' Especially since Kirk did say about gun deaths on April 5, 2023, "I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."

 

The best sentence I've read on this subject is: "I don't support what happened to Charlie Kirk, but he did."

How can you condemn me if Kirk said, "I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."

If it's wrong to quote Charlie Kirk's words then it probably was wrong for Charlie Kirk to make those comments in the first place.  

Anyway, here's Tim Black for a final comment:

SCOTUS doesn't understand the phrase "ultra vires".

I'm not going to repeat what the role of the US Supreme Court is, but it is not to create laws.

It's is to interpret them according to legal method.

Not to follow flights of fancy and create meanings which aren't there. 

Especially since it's power of judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution! The power of judicial review was formally established in the 1803 Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). 

In contrast, the US Constitution makes it clear it deals with matters of common defence. This is set out in the preamble. In other legal systems, the preamble, or whatever you wish to call that statement of intent, is considered important because it sets out the intent.

So if something starts with "A well regulated Militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE", that might give you a clue that the text relates to the militia. This is very true if it is silent on other purposes.

I'm not going to get into how many times common defence terms, such as, but not limited to Army, navy, militia, etcetera are mentioned in the Constitution. But I will tell you how many times personal uses of firearms, such as self-defence, are mentioned.

Not once. Zero, never.

And since the concept of the militia as conceived by the founders is pretty much non-existent, the Second Amendment has fallen victim to desuetude:

In law, desuetude is a doctrine that causes statutes, similar legislation, or legal principles to lapse and become unenforceable by a long habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time. It is what happens to laws that are not repealed when they become obsolete. It is the legal doctrine that long and continued non-use of a law renders it invalid, at least in the sense that courts will no longer tolerate punishing its transgressors.  

So, Scalia, the buffoon that he was, stated incorrectly:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. 

It most certainly is the role of the court to declare it extinct. Unfortunately, Scalia wears his ignorance with pride with his statement about the standing army.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown. --Elbridge Gerry, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, 20 Aug. 1789, Annals 1:749--52, 766--67  

And can't forget this precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776:

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

One of the evils the Second Amendment was supposed to protect us from was the establishment of a standing army, which Scalia should have known. It's a big topic in Anglo-American legal history. 

So, it IS NOT the role of the court to improperly modify the US Constitution to its personal prejudices which have no basis in reality. It was bound by the text of the US Constitution as well as the precedent of US v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) which referred to Aymette v State (21 Tenn. 152 [1840]):

To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he had a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive.

Miller's true holding was:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.    

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --   

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."   

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

This precedent should not have been overturned based upon nonsensical reasoning from outside the text of the US Constitution.

The ultimate point of this is that the US Supreme Court acted outside of its powers and as such, the cases coming from DC v Heller are not valid since the US Constitution is silent on what they created.

The only correct way to create "gun rights" would be to amend the US Constitution: not by judicial fiat.

When we hang the capitalists, they will have sold us the rope

Charlie Kirk is the product of misrepresenting the Second Amendment to make it anything other than a declaration that the militia, that is the non-professional, part time defence force, should be protected.

The text says nothing of personal uses, in particular self-defence. In fact, the constitution makes it clear it only addresses the common defence (preamble: "provide for the common defence").

The phrase "self-defence" is absent from the text. 

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

Anyone who wants to change the meaning of this, or wishes to imply that it applies to anything other than the common defence should be precluded from the practise of law.

In fact, the founders could have just said "fuck it, we screwed up" given what a mess they made with the war of  independence.

They didn't: they wrote a POS called the US Constitution.

Which includes something which was so insane as to be counter to their intent of "securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." 

I hope Scalia is burning in hell for his trashing of the law and the other Justices need to admit that they massively fucked up with Heller-McDonald and their progeny.

It's about the common defence,

Not a personal right. 

And show me where in the US Constituion it mentions a personal right to weapons, especially for self-defence, if you think I am wrong, or don't know what I am talking about. 

But, you can't do that because the text is silent on that topic.

Note: I added the photo since Charlie Kirk said gun deaths were 'worth it' to keep Second Amendment. I am not cheering his death, but this is an important point to add to this statement since his advocacy for this nonsense definitely contributed to his death. If it's wrong to quote Charlie Kirk's words then it probably was wrong for Charlie Kirk to make those comments in the first place.

"I don't support what happened to Charlie Kirk, but he did." 

The Black Cap

The black cap – based on court headgear in Tudor times – was traditionally put on by judges passing sentence of death.

Ok, if you look this thing up on the internet it's usually called a "flat sheet of cloth" or "a plain square of black cloth", which is completely wrong.

This is demonstrated by the model's head being covered by the thing in the third picture. 

I would desribe it more like a floppy mortar board with the top portion being a square on top of a piece with a hole in it where the head fits in.

 There's a lower part which is a triangle. This is like the thing on a mortar board where one's head fits in.

But the real hole isn't that big, which is why it looks flat on most adult heads, but you can get an idea of how it works on the more lifelike (and larger statue). 

So it's actually a square with a triangle under it.

The lower triangle drops down when the cap is on the head. You can see the points sticking out on the bottom of the lower picture.

You can also see them on the top picture, but not as obviously. 

So, a better way to describe the thing is that it's like a floppy mortar board. 

It is in no way a flat piece of cloth. 

And, yes, this the the real thing.

Since there is a definite hole it it, the reason one corner is pointing out is that's the only way it can be worn. Unless the wearer wants the corner on the bottom to blindfold him.

I'm not a tailor, but I would create a pattern for this which would be three silk squares 33cm (13"). The first wouldn't have a hole and would be the top. The next two would have holes in the centre. One would be sewn onto the top. The other one would be folded in half to make a triangle. It would be sewn onto the hole in the middle piece.

 

 

America’s Revolution Was Built on a Secret Deal

I have to admit that I've been beginning to believe this was the case. Lots of lofty language, yet very little follow through. Toss in that the French Revolution scared the crap out of the powers that be in the United States.

The real impetus for the war for independence wasn't lofty ideals: it was the British victory in la Conquête. This victory got rid of any French influence in North America, but ending up causing friction with the colonies.

Which could have been solved early on by making the colonists pay for their defence during la Conquête. 

 

Anyway, this doesn't make the War for Independence seem like such a lofty cause if all the talk of liberty was just a cover for law breaking.

Just remember that Tory means conservative. And that Canada is North America had it sought its independence through lawful means. And that doing it lawfully would have saved a lot of lives.

Business Opportunity!

 OK, for some of us 1-800-GOT-JUNK is definitely not the way to go because it's not junk when we're clearing the house. I know this from having moved 4 time in the past few years. 

On the other hand, one wants to downsize, but getting a lot of stuff to a charity, or having a curbside pickup isn't an option. People would steal from the boxes I put out.

I have a fairly sizable library of books that I am going to have give up. Toss in that I haver to downsize. And there are definitely treasures in all this. Stuff that could be sold on eBay, but I don't haver the time.

I would love to see a clean out service like 1-800-GOT-JUNK that would try to see this stuff REUSED, not contributed to the trash mountain. And an estate sale isn't always a feasible choice due to time constraints.

So, I suggest setting up a clean out service with a conscience: you try to sell or give to charity what is truly unsalable. Charge a fee At this point I would pay US$500-1000 for a service like this. 

Republicans TURN AGAINST Israel In Historic Flip

"When the war ends we will not go back to the pre-October 7th Status quo..." 

 Yeah, because it's going to be a free Palestine and Israel will no longer exist in its current state.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is gone. No big loss.

You would think I would be in deep mourning about this, but you are wrong.

There hasn't been any truly public media in the US for a long time. Commercials made their way into the public broadcasting long ago in the form of "underwriting". Money owns the narrative, which is why third parties and renegades such as Bernie Sanders got little coverage. The duopoly happily owns the US media.

And US media has long been consolidated in the hands of a few. You didn't need much of a brain to figure out that there were no real dissenting opinion. That was until the internet set it free. Then Speaker's corner came to your computer instead of having to get a soap box in Hyde Park. Of course, the Internet isn't really moerated so anyone can pretty much say anything.

It's nice to have media that are moderated with varied and informed opinions, but the US doesn't have that.

People say that Trump will bring fascism to the US, but the US has never really been a truly liberal democracy. It's had its propaganda, and the US is the best in the world at doing it: see Paul Weber's Propaganda: Nobody Does It Better Than America.

After all, the US Constitution does start with the words "We the people..." despite it having been mostly written in secret!

American propaganda, however, is much cleverer. American propaganda, they patiently explained, relies entirely on emotional appeals. It doesn’t depend on a rational theory that can be disproved: it appeals to things no one can object to.

And the US's most obvious propaganda is called ADVERTISING!

But don't worry, the Internet allows access to all sorts of opinions other than those given on main stream media. And media consolidation may drive more people to those alternatives. 

Ones that are free of propaganda.

and advertising.

It's been a while since we last heard from Rev. Dr. Munther Isaac

I'm glad to see that more evangelicals are realising that the current state of Israel isn't the "Israel" of scripture. The rest of them need to realise that Israel has been openly destroying ancient and historic Christian churches in Gaza.

I don't know how anyone can feel good about supporting a rogue state like Israel.

And you can try and attack me, but I will speak the truth about how Zionists would have killed Churchill if they had the chance during WWII, They attacked the British despite the Balfoour Declaration, and use assassination as a poltical tool against their allies.

Remember the USS Liberty.

Native Americans had open immigration

And look at where it got them...

 

So, you're telling me there's full employment of US Citizens?

 

Also, mix economic groups so that low income workers live in areas, or have easy access, to places where the jobs are.

This is gonna toss a spanner in the US discussion of race...

I made comments in previous posts such as; 

"US Black history should have a basis in African Cultures such as the Mali Empire and the Kingdom of Benin (not the modern country)."

And something along the lines of my wanting to be Kosovar to feel European, which sort of relates to the meat of today's post.

Meet the Bozo people!

Yes, there is an African ethnic group called the Bozos. They are part of the larger Mande ethnic group located predominantly along the Niger River in Mali.

And Mali has a long tradition of slavery:

The slave trade in Mali has a long history, with slavery existing since before the Mali Empire and continuing through the Trans-Saharan slave trade. Today, an estimated 200,000 people in Mali are still held in forms of servitude, often linked to descent-based slavery practices that persist in various forms. Slavery in Mali exists today, with as many as 200,000 people held in direct servitude to a master. Since 2006, a movement called Temedt has been active in Mali struggling against the persistence of slavery and the discrimination associated with ex-slaves. There were reports that in the Tuareg Rebellion of 2012, ex-slaves were recaptured by their former masters. Moreover, the phenomenon of descent-based slavery still persist in different ethnic groups. 

 As I said, the issue of reparations is much more complicated than most people realise.

But back to the Bozos! I wonder how many "African Americans" have Bozo in their genetics?

This is gonna make the discussion of the slave trade far more interesting because Africa is like the Balkans in that there are loads of ethnic groups with even more sub-groups like the Mande and the Bozos.

And slavery is part of African culture. 

Here’s When You Can Actually Lose U.S. Citizenship: Denaturalization Explained

OK, this person makes it very clear about how this process works. I mentioned Danelo Cavalcante in the previous post. He was a murderer who came to the US illegally.

And he killed someone in the US.

To be quite honest, if someone doesn't want to follow the law to become a citizen, then they shouldn't be in the country.

Unless, you want some serious criminals, like Cavalcante, living here.

The US has enough problems it doesn't need to import more.

Canadian Prime Minister talks about immigration

 I have to admit that I think the left should be more inclined toward strong immigration laws, unless of course they want to bankrupt the nation. Or have taxation problems like California.

International law only guarantees a right of entry and exit into a nation for citizens. It's a privilege for everyone else. And it's a good idea to have some sort of background check for citizenship.

Unless you want things like the manhunt for Danelo Cavalcante to become a frequent event. That cost Pennsylvania taxpayers between $3.4 million and $3.5 million. Which only went mostly for overtime and was in addition to normal operating costs and didn't include the help from outside agencies. 

Sure, it's fun to laugh at Trump and others who talk about unlawfully present criminal aliens, but it's a different thing when you have to actually deal with the problem.

Emma Lazarus's poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty is not an official policy. In fact, that belief is something I am sure Fox News hosts would have a field day with.

It's nice listening to other voices like the Canadian PM. And knowing what it takes to live and work in Canada (my cousin did it), I would like to see the US protecting its citizens and not the unlawfully present and paying foreigners less than citizens when there isn't full employment for US citizens. 

We shouldn't be celebrating America, we should be mourning it!

This is Rev. Mather Byles, a Boston Loyalist known for saying “Which is better — to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?” Yes, there were Loyalists in Massachusetts.

And being a tory didn't mean they were adverse to independence, but that they preferred that it come peacefully and thoughtfully. After all, there is a British North America for those who want alternate history: it's called Canada.

The really interesting question would be what would North America be if the "French and Indian War" ("La Conquête") gone the other way?

An aside, an additional stanza sung second was previously part of the standard lyrics to "God Save the Monarch" in the UK:

O Lord our God arise
Scatter his enemies
And make them fall
Confound their politics
Frustrate their knavish tricks
On thee our hopes we fix
God save us all

It fell out of favour with Queen Elizabeth the Second of England (First of Scotland).

But it sums up the current state of US politics very well.

And I'm sure the good reverend is smirking at the current state of affairs up in heaven as the founders look at the nation in horror.

(There's a reason I couldn't participate in a "No Kings" Rally...)

 

The attack on Al-Aqsa and Christian sacred sites– A Shame on those who claim to be religious.

As sacred sites face aggression and our identity stands tested, this message is more than just a speech — it’s a wake-up call for those who claim to follow a deity, or to be spiritual, across the globe. When sacred places fall, it is a warning to every believer that the violence is not just flesh and blood, but it is spiritual.

Christians ignore that ancient churches are being destroyed in this conflict. The most sacred sites of the nativity are being threatened. If those who claim to be religious forget what it means to be holy, then it will forget to be holy itself.

And I call myself an atheist. You religious/spiritual types disgust me.

The Constitution Isn’t a Living Document — It Was Built to Resist You

They didn't want you to have arms to resist, or defend yourself. They wanted you to bear arms in a militia to preserve the system (Art I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 and article III, Sec. iii). 

You are the yahoos who would come later.

What they don't tell you about the War for Independence

Ever wonder why the story about the war for independence seems incomplete? I mean it goes from Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill to the ratification of the Constitution. It's pretty obvious that the film is missing a lot from the {history} book. 

That's because it IS incomplete! The war for independence was a GMFU! Someone should have pointed out that they got into the whole mess because of a war (French and Indian, Seven Years, La Conquête, Le Grand Dérangement, etc.). Starting another one is a BAD idea, but no... 

Anyway, one of those poor broke American soldiers was my ancestor (or ancestors) who was (were) in the Pennsylvania line at Morristown. They served because some rich kid bought his way out of militia service.

And remember that according to Franklin, the main reason the Albany Plan of Union proposed in 1754 was rejected was that “The colonial assemblies and most of the people were narrowly provincial in outlook, mutually jealous, and suspicious of any central taxing authority.”

And those clowns thought they could fight a war. Them and what army?

Oh, yeah, the French, the Spanish. and having the war become a world war (look it up).

How US Agriculture Built the ICE Crisis

People need to realise that getting unlawfully present people to do the work is not the answer to immigration. Would people on the left support slavery?

How the Elite rigged Society (and why it’s falling apart) | David Brooks

OK, I can get alone with true conservatives since I share some of their values. But the US isn't conservative, or Christian, as David Brooks points out. I agree with him when he says, "A key factor of the educated elite is not that they are pro-conservative, they are anti-left. (@5 :00)".  Ths pretty much explains the differences.

What If America Had More Than Two Parties?

One of the main reform which needs to happen before the US can truly see "democracy" (or a republic). I like to quote Julius Nyerere: "The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them." On the other hand, there needs to be different parties to avoid the consolidation of power caused by the duopoly.

And the there really isn't a difference between a democracy and a republic:

Well, other than the founders had an unrealistic idea that the Roman republic was somehow stable and democracy was the equivalent of nihilism.

More Armalite--the weapon of terrorism

 In this case, the AR-18.

 And The US once again proves that its gun problem effects the rest of the world.

The US should have enacted strict gun control had it been serious about the GWOT, but we know that was a joke. And we have defence distributed on top of it all. 

David Hogg needs to join the Green Party.

I said I am on the outs with most of the "Gun Violence Prevention" crowd lately and David Hogg's ejection from the DNC is yet another glaring example of why. I don't know what he is hoping to do, but it won't get done through the duopoly. The Dems have a habit of talking progressive, but doing nothing significant about it.

Instead, they hope to get people that they can point to and say, "They are progressive" while the rest of the party sits in the malaise that Hogg finally pointed out.

But hoping to get a solution from the parties which are the problem is going to prove fruitless: especially if you are trying to get reform by attacking their standard operating procedure. There's a reason that the primaries are pretty much meaningless.

And what has changed in regard to your pet issue? If anything, it's much easier to buy a gun now than it was when I was your age. And fully automatic weapons are more freely available along with talk of silencers being struck off the NFA list.

Just think of the carnage if the Parkland shooter had one of those!

I could get into how the duopoly uses the "hot button" issues to avoid addressing real problems. After all, I've been pointing out how meaningless Juneteenth is. After all, what is the state of the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

Anyway, David, we have a couple of issues in common: political change in the US, in particular election reform, and Firearms Regulation/Second Amendment. I can tell you that you are being overly optimistic if you have any hope in bringing about change within the Democratic Party/Duopoly.

And while making the switch to a third party is something I did myself: you  have to commit to getting new parties in the game, which the duopoly have hindered. But that's the only way for change to come about.

 It's the big donors, not the average person.

Juneteenth is a BIG LIE

This may be more legend, than reality as my previous post pointed out.

The big one: Granger may not have read the proclamation.

Longstanding urban legend places a historic reading of General Order No. 3 at Ashton Villa; but no historical evidence supports this claim.^[41] There is no evidence that Granger or any of his troops proclaimed the Ordinance by reading it aloud. All indications are that copies of the Ordinance were posted in public places, including the Negro Church on Broadway, since renamed Reedy Chapel A.M.E. Church. 

Secondly, despite the Union victory, Slaves were not freed, as this points out. And to recap this from yesterday:

Although this event commemorates the end of slavery, emancipation for the remaining enslaved population in two Union border states, Delaware and Kentucky, would not come until December 6, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified.^[44][c][e] The federal amendment also put a definitive end to chattel slavery and indentured servitude in New Jersey, freeing approximately 16 elderly individuals.^[f][47][48] Furthermore, thousands of black slaves were not freed until after the Reconstruction Treaties of late 1866, when the Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole tribes were forced to sign new treaties that required them to free their slaves.^[49][50]

The freedom of formerly enslaved people in Texas was given state law status in a series of Texas Supreme Court decisions between 1868 and 1874.

OK, the video isn't totally accurate since it doesn't get into the fact that the Emancipation Proclaimation only freed slaves in most of the Confederate Territory, not all of it. That's an important point, which is being left out of this. The video also continues the nonsense about Grainger's General Order. It only gets good when it gets to the truth of the matter: the General Order didn't do a lot for the slaves of Texas.

I would start watching at 4 minutes in.

If the point of this is to commemorate the end of slavery, then there is probably a much better date for that. But has slavery ended if prison labour can be used in a similar way?

Emancipation Proclamation:
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/emancipation-proclamation

from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons. 

Grainger's General Order:
https://ironbrigader.com/2020/06/18/general-gordon-grangers-general-order-number-3-announced-the-end-of-slavery-in-texas/ 

SCRAP JUNETEENTH. IT WASN'T THE END OF SLAVERY IN US TERRITORY!

This woman is RIGHT!!!

Ever wonder where this came from? I mean unless you were listening, this event came out of the blue. OK, I'm going to be lazy and quote Wikipedia, and not even bother to remove the footnotes, just because this whole thing isn't really worth my time.

Texas was the first state to recognize the date by enacted law, in 1980. By 2002, eight states officially recognized Juneteenth^[97] and four years later 15 states recognized the holiday.^[54] By 2008, just over half of the states recognized Juneteenth in some way.^[98] By 2019, 47 states and the District of Columbia recognized Juneteenth,^[99] although as of 2020 only Texas had adopted the holiday as a paid holiday for state employees.^[100]

In June 2019, Governor of Pennsylvania Tom Wolf recognized Juneteenth as a holiday in the state.^[101] In the yearlong aftermath of the murder of George Floyd that occurred on May 25, 2020, nine states designated Juneteenth a paid holiday,^[102] including New York, Washington, and Virginia.^[103] In 2020, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker issued a proclamation that the day would be marked as "Juneteenth Independence Day". This followed the filing of bills by both the House and Senate to make Juneteenth a state holiday. Baker did not comment on these bills specifically but promised to grant the observance of Juneteenth greater importance.^[104] On June 16, 2021, Illinois adopted a law changing its ceremonial holiday to a paid state holiday.

Spurred on by Opal Lee, the racial justice movement and the Congressional Black Caucus, on June 15, 2021, the Senate unanimously passed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act,^[132] establishing Juneteenth as a federal holiday. It passed through the House of Representatives by a 415–14 vote on June 16.^[133][134] President Joe Biden signed the bill (Pub. L. 117–17 (text) (PDF))^[135][136] on June 17, 2021, making Juneteenth the eleventh American federal holiday and the first to obtain legal observance as a federal holiday since Martin Luther King Jr. Day was designated in 1983.

So, if you're like me, you didn't notice this "holiday" this year, but I have various reasons which make that an easy thing to do. I can say "Juneteenth Quoi ?" or more like "Juneteenth, quoi c'est bordel?" And most people should be doing that since the 1980s and 1990s, the holiday has been more widely celebrated among African-American communities and has seen increasing mainstream attention in the US. In other words, it popped into the consciousness around 120 years after the fact. And it may be more fiction than fact since.

Planters and other slaveholders from eastern states had migrated into Texas to escape the fighting, and many brought enslaved people with them, increasing by the thousands the enslaved population in the state at the end of the Civil War.^[9] Although most lived in rural areas, more than 1,000 resided in Galveston or Houston by 1860, with several hundred in other large towns.^[37] By 1865, there were an estimated 250,000 enslaved people in Texas.^[9][8]

Despite the surrender of Confederate General-in-Chief Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865, the western Confederate Army of the Trans-Mississippi did not formally surrender until June 2.^[9] On the morning of June 19, 1865, Union Major General Gordon Granger arrived on the island of Galveston^[38] to take command of the more than 2,000 federal troops recently landed in the department of Texas to enforce the emancipation of its enslaved population and oversee Reconstruction, nullifying all laws passed within Texas during the war by Confederate lawmakers.^[38][39] The order informed all Texans that, in accordance with a Proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all enslaved people were free:

The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor. The freedmen are advised to remain quietly at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts and that they will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere.^[40]

Longstanding urban legend places a historic reading of General Order No. 3 at Ashton Villa; but no historical evidence supports this claim.^[41] There is no evidence that Granger or any of his troops proclaimed the Ordinance by reading it aloud. All indications are that copies of the Ordinance were posted in public places, including the Negro Church on Broadway, since renamed Reedy Chapel A.M.E. Church.^[42]

On June 21, 2014, the Galveston Historical Foundation and Texas Historical Commission erected a Juneteenth plaque where the Osterman Building once stood signifying the location of Major General Granger's Union Headquarters believed to be where he issued his general orders.^[43]

Although this event commemorates the end of slavery, emancipation for the remaining enslaved population in two Union border states, Delaware and Kentucky, would not come until December 6, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified.^[44][c][e] The federal amendment also put a definitive end to chattel slavery and indentured servitude in New Jersey, freeing approximately 16 elderly individuals.^[f][47][48] Furthermore, thousands of black slaves were not freed until after the Reconstruction Treaties of late 1866, when the Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole tribes were forced to sign new treaties that required them to free their slaves.^[49][50]

The freedom of formerly enslaved people in Texas was given state law status in a series of Texas Supreme Court decisions between 1868 and 1874.

So, this make be the biggest commemoration of a non-event that ever happened because it wasn't the actual end of slavery in Texas and the General may never have made a speech telling the slaves of a plantation in Galveston that they were free!

And for that matter, there was still slavery despite the Emancipation proclamation!  

I did a post about Juneteenth being relatively unknown until recently. Google Trends analysis of searches on "Juneteenth" only show a massive interest starting from the end of May 2020 to around the 23rd of June.  There was minimal interest in this "holiday" prior to that date.

You weren't crazy if you were wondering why you had never heard of it before 2020,

And you were among a very small group of people if you DID know about this prior to this year.

While the media tried to make this sound like something which had been around for a long time, the reality is that the Juneteenth this was steamrollered over us. Wired points it out in their Why Juneteenth Went Viral. Wired's piece tends toward this being something contemplative, but I do question the interest in Juneteenth, as opposed to Odunde, as being virtue signalling.

It's no coincidence that the movement to celebrate Juneteenth came during the Black Lives Matter riots (sorry, but more than one city was trashed and these were counterproductive as fuck. So, fuck you, I'll call them as I see them). It's more of the meaningless virtue signalling to try and calm the rioters.

But it was a small group of people who made this a thing as Protocol's How a Group of Creatives made Juneteenth 'spread like wildfire'. Yeah, "creatives" as in advertising types. Not just any advertising types, but ones connected to the social media industry.

I am trying to break from the surveillance economy,. Not only do they keep tabs on you, but they try and influence your opinion.

I cried "bullshit" about Russiagate.

I'm crying "bullshit" about the virtue signalling relating to Black Lives Matter. Nothing significant will come from the past few months. If anything, those events will make matters worse. I know they increased gun sales.

I am already certain that Trump will be reelected. Even if he isn't, the Democratic candidate isn't onside.

So, what was the point of it all?

I prefer substance to Bullshit, but the bullshit is piling up like the trash on the streets of Philadelphia and NYC.

{OK, Given that Juneteenth isn't really that meaningfull, this was pulled from Wikipedia and a couple of my previous post on the issue. This is a "holiday" that needs to GO AWAY because it's BS].