Hillary Clinton labelled ‘psychopath’ after ‘lying’ about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein

Sure, Sky News Oz is totally off to the right, but it's always fun to watch. Rita Panahi may not be totally correct about lefties, as is the case with most of the rest of the talking heads. I mean Oz has a lot of the policies they criticise as being lefty, with really strong immigration control to boot. 

 Australia's tough on immigration, as is the case with the rest of the commonwealth, is something I agree with. It's dumb for people on the left to want to support open borders for a plethora of reasons. Unless they are doing it to highlight the idiocy of US imperialist, warlike policies, but that action is really lost in translation.

Revenons à nos moutons!

I've made it clear that I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton even if ranked Choice was an option. She would definitely come in behind my write in votes dogs and Bozo the clown.

But this video shows what she is up there with 'Orrible 'Arris for bad candidates fielded by an awful party.

No Russians involved! Unless Russians run the DNC.

 

And about that photo of Ghislaine Maxwell at Chelsea's wedding: It's easily searchable at Getty Images. There are at least three copies: https://media.gettyimages.com/id/103183991/photo/chelsea-clinton-marries-marc-mezvinsky-in-rhinebeck-new-york.jpg?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=hwRpJ3P-iRaanxtDIQ_yWaQL3LNMJoz-ddvP7bP1ans=

The Real History of the Second Amendment: Debunking the Individual Right Hoax

 OK, I pretty much agree with him, but he neglects the complaints in the Declaration of Independence were:

• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. 

• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

This gets into the real history of the mindset behind the Second Amendment which is the conflict between a professional, full time standing army and a part time force (the militia). The Federal government had an army, and the states had their militias.

This precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 for a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

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.

 That's pretty much the Second Amendment's significance is a nutshell. But this video gives a better idea of how the topic plays out in proper Anglo-American/Common law jurisprudence. 

The US NEEDS to become a true multiparty democracy.

This comes from a quote from Brent McKenzie's When Separation of Powers becomes a Suggestion in Fulcrum, where he says:

The Framers assumed ambition would counteract ambition. What they did not anticipate was a political culture in which party loyalty would eclipse national loyalty.

Not true since the Founders understood that political factions, which we now call parties, could pose challenges to the system and had significant debates about them. Some saw them as a natural outcome of a free society. George Washington warned against the dangers of political factions in his farewell address, emphasizing their potential to disrupt national unity.  The contentious election of 1800 with its rivalry between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans proved him correct.

James Madison emphasized the need for a system that controls the influence of factions on governance  in Federalist No. 10. Madison believed that a large republic would help control the influence of factions, as diverse interests would make it difficult for any single group to dominate. Unfortunately, he didn't see the problem with the current duopoly system which allows for control of the political sphere by a small group.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention political factions, despite the founders dislike for them. It was thought that the effects would be controlled through the system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, as we are seeing, those checks and balances are ineffective and quickly eroding until we will see a constitutional show down similar to the English Civil War, where the legislature takes on the Executive branch. Unfortunately, this is something which the US Constitution does not truly address with its system for amending the constitution.

The issues of factionalism, demagoguery, and the balance of power that concerned the founders still plague us today. I would say they are as bad if not worse now than they were at the beginning of this experiment. 

The "Westminster"/Parliamentary system requires that any failure to pass a budget results in new elections. Of Course, it's "Westminster" since Belgium holds the record for the longest time without a government in peacetime, lasting 589 days from April 2010 to December 2011. This period began when Prime Minister Yves Leterme resigned, and no new parliamentary majority could be established despite extensive negotiations. And, as of February 2026, Brussels is experiencing another political stalemate, having gone 542 days without an elected government. This ongoing crisis reflects the challenges of forming a coalition in a bilingual political landscape, where parties often struggle to find common ground.

Yet another reason I'm glad I didn't apply for Belgian citizenship when I was living there, despite speaking all four languages and feeling an affinity for the place. I mean, the beer is the best.

Anyway, Belgium's political deadlock highlights the importance of strong federalism and regional autonomy, allowing local governments to maintain essential services even without a central government. Additionally, it demonstrates the need for political compromise and the potential risks of deep divisions within a nation, which can prolong governance challenges. 

While running a government like a business is generally a bad idea. Competition in this sphere to prevent monopolisation as well as cooperation between similar factions is helpful in preventing the ownership of the government by powerful factions. It's long past time the people took control of their government.

I can't say "took back control" since the system has never been one where the people are properly represented in the legislature. This has never, and will never, happen under the current system.

Sunday laws in a secular society

There's a reason that the US is a secular nation. And it happened because the religious people who founded this country knew the mischief that comes from having an established church.

That's because most of them came from, or were descended from people who were escaping state interference in religion. And that's pretty much the case for a good portion of my ancestors on my mother's father side who had been in North America before it was the United States.

It's also made clear in this video since there is no consensus as to WHEN the sabbath occurs. So, while a day of rest is found in Islam (Friday) and Judaism ("Saturday". Well, Friday sundown to Saturday sundown): It's not that cut and dried in Christianity. Most sects observe that day on Sunday, but not all of them do.

 I'm not sure whose Heritage the Heritage Foundation seeks to recreate, but it is in no way mine.

The US was founded as a secular nation, and that is in the Constitution. The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits Congress from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another. It is often interpreted as requiring a separation of church and state, ensuring that the government does not interfere with religious practices or promote any particular faith.

The people who created the United States knew that intention very well and misguided people who don't understand the constitution should avoid messing with it. 

Besides, these laws once existed, but they were repealed.

The British Judge's black sentencing cap (AKA Black cap)

I thought I did a post on my own blog about this, but this odd, little relic of court dress still exists in judicial garb: despite the abolishment of the death penalty. According the the UK Courts and Tribunal Judiciary's website:

 The black cap
The black cap – based on court headgear in Tudor times – was traditionally put on by judges passing sentence of death.
Since the permanent abolition of capital punishment in 1969, there has been no need for the cap to be worn. High Court Judges still carry the black cap, but only on an occasion where they are wearing full ceremonial dress.

 And Scott Turow writes in On Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer’s Reflection on Dealing with the Death Penalty:

A friend of mine has just been made a High Court judge. Among the majestic paraphernalia that he has had to acquire—the scarlet robes, the wigs full-bottomed and otherwise, the pressed white gloves, the satin gaiters, the silver buckles and so forth—is a square of black silk, the Black Cap, that the court usher places on top of his wig before he pronounces the death penalty: or rather, would have had to place on top of his wig had the death penalty not been abolished in England thirty-eight years ago. 

Which is a good place to  move into WHY I am writing this.

They aren't flat pieces of cloth as the image to the above left demonstrates. Although, they do look like flat pieces of cloth when put on an actual head. In reality, they are more like floppy mortar boards (square academic caps), which this picture taken on a larger head on the right demonstrates better.

But they are flat with a hole in it. There are pictures of a couple of them at the Old Court House Law Museum, but I am going to post the one I have below since it shows the hole a bit better.
https://ehive.com/collections/204776/objects/2234527/death-cap-black

https://ehive.com/collections/204776/objects/2234734/death-cap-black 

You can sort of get an idea of what they look like in that one since you can make out the bottom triangle in the pictures (the Old Court House's and mine).  It's the little flaps hanging off to the side.

Sentencing caps are made from three pieces of cloth.

1. one flat square for the top
2.  a flat square with a hole in it for the middle
3. and a triangle with an indentation for the half hole in it for the bottom

you get  a better idea if you look at the bottom picture, since it's hard to see what they look like since they are black.

Also, when it's put on a full size human head the little flaps, which are what is called the skull on an academic cap, aren't as visible. The triangle bottom is like taking the skull, but leaving it open and flexible so it can flop around. You can see them in some of the pictures of a real cap.

Does that make sense, or do the pictures help?

Anyway, I'm getting annoyed with people saying it's a flat piece of cloth. Anyone who says that has never actually seen one in real life.

Although, these things are relics from when there was capital punishment, yet they are still part of a British Judge's full regalia. So, I'm surprised there isn't more knowledge about these things. I don't want what little is out there to be tainted by inaccuracy.

I'm also surprised that they are hard to find. I haven't put much effort into inquiring with Ede & Ravenscroft. On the other hand, Judicial wear is, according to the website (
https://shop.edeandravenscroft.com/pages/legal-specialist-contact):

These garments are hand cut and made to order in our bespoke workrooms.

Please contact us to discuss your requirements.

I guess the death penalty is not genteel enough to be discussed.

So, you will have to make an inquiry to Ede & Ravenscroft if you want one from them.

But someone should be able to crank these out on something like an Etsy for those of ghoulish to want an authentic one.

I'm hoping this helps those people.

And this gets to a great time to put in a plug for my favourite pub owner and hangman, Albert Pierrepoint. He ran a pub in Lancashire from the mid-1940s until the 1960s. 

On the other hand, he was one of the last official hangman in Britain. who executed between 435 and 600 people in a 25-year career that ended in 1956. His father Henry and uncle Thomas were official hangmen before him. 

There's a great film about him called Pierrepoint: The Last Hangman, or just The Last Hangman. But that's not really accurate since after Pierrepoint's resignation, two assistant executioners were promoted to lead executioner: Jock Stewart and Harry Allen. Over the next seven years they carried out the remaining thirty-four executions in the UK. On 13 August 1964 Allen hanged Gwynne Evans at Strangeways Prison in Manchester for the murder of John Alan West; at the same time, Stewart hanged Evans's accomplice, Peter Allen, at Walton Gaol in Liverpool. They were the last hangings in English legal history. The following year the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 was passed, which imposed a five-year moratorium on executions. The temporary ban was made permanent on 18 December 1969.

So, nothing like a bit of trivia about the death penalty 

Now, will someone correct this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cap

Stop Israeli destruction of Christian Holy sites!

 I've been posting about this for a while. Israel persecutes Christians, yet the Christian Zionist community doesn't stand by their fellow Christians. 

I mean if shooting Christians who are praying or seeking shelter in a church in Gaza doesn't get you going, you need to reassess what you say you believe in.

That said it's time Christians challenge Israel’s colonial actions and takeover of Sebastia’s archaeological site; which is home to a 4th-century church built over the traditional place where John the Baptist was beheaded.

 

Anyway, look up my posts on how Israel persecutes Christians.

But I think most atheists are better Christians than a lot of people who claim to be Christian.

Crypto is a scam.

Nothing I haven't said before. Just don't pay attention to people selling "get rich schemes" (e.g., crypto, gold, etc.).

 

Libertarianism: Live Free...OR DIE!!!

Anyone familiar with me knows I have a low opinion of libertarianism. Like its leftwing twin, anarchism, it is a utoppian idea which falls apart quickly. The big difference between the two is that libertarianism wants to get rid of regulation and let the oligarch foxes run the chicken coop.

That said, this shows how the utopian ideal doesn't work.

The best part is that they defunded the police with the obvious consequences.

 

Amelia isn't going to cut it in the US. She supports ICE.

 I am going to change my previous post where I said " I think she would be more of an ICE supporter."

 No think about it: she DEFINITELY supports ICE.

She's not a symbol of resistance, she's a racist authoritiarian.

The Joke's over. If they think that the British police are authoritarian, then they are truly deluded with this bullshit.

 No think about it. She's the greaseman cheerleader for ICE.

Not sure what to think about Amelia.

Although, when George describes a television presenter as "That posh bird that gets everything wrong" in Hard Day's Night seems appropriate.

For those who have been lucky enough to have missed this trend, Amelia is a character from the educational game "Pathways: Navigating the Internet and Extremism". The game was designed for the British government to help young people recognize and avoid online radicalization. However, she has become a viral meme, often associated with far-right ideologies, which has shifted the game's original intent. Amelia parrots right-wing, often racist, talking points, connecting her celebration of stereotypical British culture with anti-migrant and Islamophobic tropes. Her England is that of an American who has never visited the place.

For example, she likes eating fish and chip in a pub, which is wrong on several levels. Traditionally, Fish and Chips came from the chip shop, or "chippie".  And pubs didn't sell food back then. Well, at least not like the ones like Wetherspoons does now. Even more importantly, Pubs are quickly vanishing for economic reasons:

The UK is experiencing a significant decline in the number of pubs, with projections indicating that one pub is set to close every day in 2025 due to rising operational costs and reduced consumer spending. This trend has resulted in thousands of job losses and highlights the urgent need for government intervention to support the struggling pub industry. 

  

Next comes her accent, which is rather posh since she is supposed to be from Yorkshire (Pathways mentions East Riding amd Bradford). Something like Jodie Whittaker's accent n the clip below would be far more appropriate. I can't imagine someone talking like Amelia and lasting long up there. Amelia belongs in Downton Abbey, not Yorkshire. And Highclere Castle, which poses as Downton Abbey, is in Hampshire, which is in the South of England.

But there are so many things wrong with the Amelia memes it's hard to get upset about, such as her in this D-Day landing craft full of Americans. Or are they Danes?  Since I see a Danish flag in the background. Toss in another vid has a giant Danish flag in it!

Someone mentioned something about her and Minnesota, but I can't see Amelia shedding tears for people who are fighting people deporting furriners. She is definitely more of an ICE supporter than opponent.

I believe the memes have her fawning over Nigel Farage. So, she's a definite loser, unless she secretly hopes for England to become the 51st State: after Wales and Scotland devolve and join the EU.

Well, as another line from the scene I mentioned from Hard Day's Night goes: "The new thing is to care passionately and be right wing."

And she does like dogs: although for seriously silly reasons.

A message from the Mayor of Bethlehem about Christians in Palestine

 There's a reason those 1,000 "Christian Influencers" didn't visit Bethlehem. That trip was such propaganda that it's not worth thinking about.

What's worth thinking about is how they can let other Christians be persecuted.

 

Don't forget Palestinian Christians

 And this comes from the Instagram page forgotten_christians:

Palestinian Christians living under Israeli occupation face daily hardships: movement restrictions, checkpoints and permit systems that limit access to work, schools, hospitals, and holy sites, alongside land confiscation and settlement expansion that squeeze livelihoods and community life. 

In Christian villages like Taybeh, residents have faced repeated Israeli settler attacks and intimidation targeting homes, farmland, and church property, creating fear and insecurity with little accountability.

For some reason, Christian Zionists neglect Palestinian Christians and their persecution by the State of Israel. Unless it blows up in their faces the way it did for Mike Huckabee, but even he turns a blind eye to the persecution of Christians and the destruction of churches.

 

The real problem here is that the Palestinian Christians are the "wrong sort of Christians" to get support from Evangelicals who support lsrael. we need to bring back the 1975 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379.