Is the party going to end soon?

 OK, show me where the concept of "self-defence" is explicitly mentioned in the US constitution.

Militia Training by James G. Clonney (PAFA)

It's not. And proper statutory interpretation says that when a law explicitly includes certain elements (e.g., common defence, army, navy, militia,etc.), it is inferred that the omission of other elements (e.g., private ownership of arms) is deliberate and intentional. This principle has been employed to ensure that the interpretation of laws remains consistent with their textual formulation. 

I would point out that the miltia is mentioned in the US Constitution and that the power of congress over it granted under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 was one of the concerns high on the minds during the drafting of the Consrtitution. The other one being that the Feds had an Army. In the words of Elbridge Gerry:

• 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.
  • House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789

A far better way of framing the discussion of what the Second Amendment is about and how it was understood by the founders is more along the lines of this early version of the right:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense 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.
Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 §13 which was written by Thomas Jefferson

This version is more than backed up by the primary sources that are taken out of context, or just misquoted, by the gun crowd. Or as Patrick Henry scholar, Henry Mayer, said:

This is not, I repeat NOT, part of Patrick Henry’s legacy. Clearly speaking of the problem of militia organization, what he actually said is, “The great object is that every man [of the militia] be armed.–But can the people to afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance….”

 And Henry made it clear that he was addressing Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

Justice William O. Douglas addressed Miller and glossed it in his dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972) , which somehow is omitted in lists of SCOTUS cases mentioning the Second Amendment. Which is too bad since Justice Douglas was a member of the Supreme Court when Miller was decided, which makes him a very good source for how that case should be read.

Justice Douglas pointed out that in Second Amendment jurisprudence:

The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”
“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia – civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Id., at 178-179.

I should remind people that Justice Douglas was on the Court when Miller was decided, in addition to being one of the longest sitting justices. So, I would put his interpretation of Miller as being more autoritativre than Scalia's. But Scalia was correct in that Miller was not helpful to his reinterpretation of the constitution.

Which gets to my question: is the party going to end soon? Are people going to see the real history of the Second Amendment and constitution? Even more importantly, are they going to see that the Supreme Court has been acting outside its powers. After all, Judicial review is not in the US Consrtitution, but comes from the case of Marbury v Madison,  5 U.S. 137 (1803).

 A case that states “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.” 

Better yet, from the neglected case of Presser v Illinois,  116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886), which says:

Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

 The problem with the Heller-McDonald rewrites and the offspring thereof is that there was a Second Amendment jurisprudence, which said it applied solely to the Militia and the Federal Government's power over that body.

Let's bring it back to what it should be.

How The U.S. Ruined Bread

OK, admitted baguette snob here, but I will admit that not all US bread sucks. But definitely, Wonder Bread is aptly named since it is a wonder this stuff is considered bread. 

On the other hand, Europeans do have a totally different attitude toward bread. And there are laws on what makes a baguette proper. French TV has a plethora of videos about that.

And bad bread is yet more evidence that the US isn't a Christian nation.

Gives us this day our daily bread...

Told ya so!: Why 5 Key UK Industries Are on the Brink After Brexit

What got lost in the Brexit "debate" was that it was all about free movement. Think if one of the largest US states pulled out and suddenly had a border with the other states. 

It's going to be even more fun if Britain decides to rejoin the EU since the EU made all sorts of concessions the first time around. My guess, is that won't be the case this time.

I guess I should be happy that Britain finally uses the Euro. Alas, the return of the real old blue passport was a total fantasy.

And the Passport Standard is set by the Airline Industry, not the EU!

to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination

Let's start with defintion:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation uses a definition of terrorism that tracks with the Patriot Act. “Terrorism” encompasses “acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law” and “appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.” It distinguishes between international terrorism (acts occurring abroad) and domestic terrorism, which occurs primarily within the U.S.

I'm going to focus on (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. This is because terrorism requires an intent. Just killing people to kill people doesn't cut it no matter how many people get killed.

On the other hand, we are given a handwritten confession which states an intent:

"Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.”

Let's toss in that he shouted  "It's completely out of touch! It's an insult to the intelligence of the American people!" as he was being escorted into court. Which in my opinion caused him to waive any recourse to Miranda.

I know that he has shown an interest in the Unabomber. There are some other things I have heard mentioned about his possible intent, but I'm not going to bother with that stuff. First off, it's pretty much superfluous given the basic evidence out there (e.g., handwritten confession, possession of the murder weapon, possession of the ID, DNA and fingerprint evidence, etc.).  He's put enough out there to at least put him away for life.

 Mangione's actions and intent place definitely, show that he wanted to influence, or effect, the conduct of government through at least one act of violence. 

I would add that Mangione's supporters are his own worst enemies. Its too bad that insurance will not pay for a procedure to remove their heads from the assess.

As someone who has wanted to see healthcare reform in the US for a long time, I am disgusted by the actions of the people who are willing to lionise a person with a serious personality disorder.

The far better course of action would be to use the system to get healthcare reform.

While I would love to see Manione executed, that is the wrong course of action. It would be far better for him to be exposed for what he is (not someone to be idolised). And then stick him away where he may live out his life.

Or another inmate may terminate his life.

Jury Nullification and the Rule of Law

 Let's start with a definition:

The rule of law is a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are:

• Publicly promulgated
• Equally enforced (i.e., no person is above the law)
  
• Independently adjudicated
• And consistent with international human rights principles.

I was going to start this by asking what the Cato Institute and the Climate Defence Project have in common? Why Jury Nullification, of course. But the fact that these two groups that are fundamentally opposed, or should be, agree on this should bring someone to pause on this topic.

The proponents will say that it's not illegal, which isn't really true. It is hard to enforce in the US system because of the US Constitution and its guarantees of right to trial by jury, no double jeopardy, and probably a few other things that demonstrate what a piece of shit blotter it is compared to France's Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789, but the latter is much more of a bill of rights than a constitution. The Déclaration defines the relationship between the citizen and the state, which is why France has gone through five republics, a couple of Empires, and a Monarchy or two with it still around.

I don't have much hope for the US Constitution lasting much longer the way things are going.

But I digress to return to a concept which is well suited for the lynch mob than a society which claims to be based upon laws. The strongest argument against nullification points to the core principle of our judicial system: We are a nation of laws, not individuals. Elected officials create the law. They can be replaced with ones who legislate more in lines with popular opinion if they don't. Allowing juries to bypass this system has resulted in more miscarriages of justice than triumphs. In addition, we ask jurors to take an oath to judge based upon the facts; how is embracing nullification consistent with this promise?

Or as Mark Pulliam asks:

What do nineteenth-century anarchist Lysander Spooner,^[1] the O. J. legal defense team, some elements of the militia movement,^[2] the Los Angeles juries that failed to convict the Menendez brothers of murdering their parents and that acquitted the brutal assailants of Reginald Denny, and the activists who promote the idea of “fully informed juries”^[3] have in common?

I would toss in lynch mobs for good measure. Emmett Till is an excellent example of jury nullification in action: two guilty men get away with murder and confess to it afterward.

Jurors are supposed to play an important but limited function: to sift through the evidence (especially conflicting testimony) and apply their factual findings to the relevant legal rules, which are determined elsewhere. Jurors are not lawmakers.

Jury nullification in practise:
The Jury in the Emmett Till Case

Bad things happen when juries step out of that limited role and decide to act as a “conscience of the community”, or some other bizarre concept of "Justice". In the Jim Crow South, all-white juries frequently acquitted defendants accused of lynching blacks and other heinous crimes, not because the evidence was weak, but out of sympathy for, or in solidarity with, the defendant. Conversely, in the O.J. Simpson case, the predominately African American jury arguably engaged in nullification in 1995 when it acquitted Simpson of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole, and her friend, Ron Goldman, despite what most observers felt was overwhelming evidence of Simpson’s guilt. More recently, many Americans were outraged when a San Francisco jury—possibly motivated by nullification—acquitted Kate Steinle’s killer. There are many other examples, such as George Zimmerman, that come to mind.

After all, what is a jury acting outside of the law but a 12-person mob, modern-day vigilantes?  The supporters of Luigi Mangione claim they want him to have a fair trial, yet they ignore that someone was killed without due process. They look up jury nullification in the hope that Mangione will be like Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam. They ignore the handwritten confession, which is more innocently called a "manifesto".

Civil disobedience is a grave misconception in the context of a seated juror refusing to follow the law. Civil disobedience is resistance to unjust government action as a last resort. That is when disobedience is the only alternative to becoming a participant in an objectionable act. This will never be the case with a seated juror. A potential juror who objected to service could refuse to report to court or serve on a jury. A person with a moral objection to enforcing a particular law (say, punishing a defendant charged with private drug use or blockading abortion clinics) should disclose that objection during voir dire and be excused from serving in the case.

But, after a juror has reported for service, been screened through voir dire, been seated and sworn to follow the law according to the instructions of the court, there is no room for “civil disobedience.” A juror reneging on his oath is acting outside the legal rules. A renegade juror cheats the parties to the case out of their right to have the matter decided according to the law, on the basis of which the evidence and arguments have been presented.

Although the "jury-power " activists point to historical events where juries refused to enforce laws that they considered unconscionable, there is no assurance that a jury operating outside the law would only acquit in a criminal case; it could just as easily “nullify” the instructions by convicting a person who was technically innocent. Jury nullification strips the individuals who comprise society of their right to have the laws enforced. Nothing could be more tyrannical or despotic than the arbitrary decision of a juror, or jury that has refused to follow their legal obligation.

 The rule of law is essential to the preservation of liberty. Friedrich Hayek, perhaps this century’s pre-eminent theorist of libertarianism, the political philosophy of freedom, believed that the defining characteristic of a free society is the rule of law, meaning legal rules stated in advance, uniformly applied, without excessive discretion. In Hayek’s words: “[W]hen we obey laws, in the sense of general abstract rules laid down irrespective of their application to us, we are not subject to another man’s will and are therefore free.” Thus, it is the universal, non-selective nature of law that allows us to be free. In Hayek’s view, it is precisely because judges and juries cannot pick and choose what laws to enforce in a particular case “that it can be said that laws and not men rule.”

A lawless juror is no more heroic than a rogue policeman violating the law or a politician accepting a bribe. If a juror (or any other member of the political community) feels that a particular law is unjust—and in a society as large and diverse as ours, we can assume that someone, somewhere, feels that every law on the books is unjust—the remedy is to petition the legislature for reform, not to infiltrate the jury and then ignore the law.

Luigi Mangione and his supporters are dangerous to society, and counterproductive to the issue of health care reform. I wonder how much further we would be toward healthcare reform is they had used the system, rather than act as vigilantes.  They should be working to change the law, not capriciously applying it.

Luigi Mangione will be tried based upon the evidence. I hope the jurors are willing to properly apply the facts to the law.

Otherwise, the US system of justice is best exemplified by the trial of Emmett Till's assassins.

See also:
Mark Pulliam, Nullifying the Rule of Law

__ ___, Jury Nullification, good or bad? 

English text of the Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789

Switzerland During the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars

Like the US, Switzerland has a national mythology about its arms. In the Swiss case, being armed has contributed to its neutrality and never being "invaded". 

But like the US, Switzerland's myth isn't really true. But it makes them feel good.


 th

A little more Swiss history since William Tell is more of a legend than a real person. Think along the line of King Arthur.

 

And I have been to Switzerland a few times. You won't see a lot of people carrying guns in Geneva, but you will see UN and other groups dedicated to peace. Switzerland strengthened its gun laws in 2019 to keep it in line with the EU and the Schengen agreement.

NRA approved Art!

Let's hear it for responsible gun ownership! BTW, this is nothing new, Nikki Saint Phalle was doing this in back in the 1960s. 

"In shooting myself, I took aim at society and its injustices" declared Niki. And she's also born in the US!

 Oh, by the way, Here's this on Swiss guns:

That's not a laptop in this briefcase--More Mangione

Part of me would think that the powers that be would want to see firearms more strictly regulated after this event.

On the other hand, the MP5, in particular the SP5 or any other variant without a stock, is considered a pistol (as in MachinePistol 5). That means one can carry it concealed! 

And what better way to do that than in a briefcase, which is perfect for CEO personal protection!

From HKParts

There are also holster/harnesses for the 5K. M&L Custom Shop makes them.

Both of these are designed for the professional where concealment and quick deployment of weapon is essential.  So, this isn't going to be something a CEO will be carrying, but the well cared for CEO should have a protection detail in the current political climate.

Of course, if the average civvy wants to tote around an MP5K/SP5K, then there are a few options out there. A few companies make discrete subgun cases which can pass for a laptop/brief case. Not as quck to use as the H&K briefcase, but definitely a way to carry the gun and not get a lot of attention.

Although, I am not sure I would want to carry one of the briefcases around without a fair amount of range time with it. Toss in that it isn't as convenient as it appears at first.

Still, the thought that CEO personal protection can take out a threat is worth considering.

Thompson could have used a PA like leaspeed6 that morning!

How Sweden turns its trash into gold

I would have thought that other countries would have followed Sweden's example from back in the 1970s. But, no.

The United States government is far too under the thumb of big business to do this, which is rather bizarre. I say that because being truly "green", instead of "greenwashing" is actually a great business strategy. Not only is it good for the environment, but it is also good for the bottom line.

Toss in things like recycling electronics is something which business is SUPPOSED to do, but it doesn't.

Maybe they think all the heavy metals out there in the environment making people dumber is a good thing.

Don't get your hopes up about Luigi Mangione's defence.

Funny, but this comment has gotten lost in the shuffle. On the other hand, it doesn't look too good for KFA to be expending all this energy on a client with "overwhelming evidence" against him. She would be working on mitigations if she was a barrister in the UK. Septics are a little more liberal in allowing BS in the court system.

 Karen Friedman Agnifilo, may have been providing some insight into her legal strategy when she said, "the evidence is going to be so overwhelming" that an insanity defense is on the table.

 So, of course, she's going to be filing every motion imaginable and hoping not to piss off the court. Some Judges don't take kindly to attorneys who waste the court's time on defendants the attorney KNOWS happens to be guilty.

But, why should KFA give a rat's ass?  She's got the go fund me cash and it's her's even if Mangione does plead out to get the needle.

Think I'm BS'ing you? This clip has it straight from the horse's mouth. Start at around 45 seconds in for an eye opener.

https://youtu.be/S3WzawmtMTY?t=46

And I agree with much of what everybody is saying. But I think one thing I just want to point out is it looks to me like this -- there might be a not guilty by reason of insanity defense that they're going to be thinking about, because the evidence is going to be so overwhelming that he did what he did.
Karen Agnifilo Friedman, Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, Aired December 10, 2024 - 20:00   ET  https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/acd/date/2024-12-10/segment/01

Cut the BS--Mangione is going to trial with all the evidence being legally obtained.

 OK, My legal qualifications are: JD from the University of Maryland, LLM University of Exeter, England. Admitted to the PA bar in 1990, retired in 2023. Admitted to the DC bar,  EDPA (Fed), and MDPA (Fed). That said, I can give a legal opinion.

The picture is of the Blair County, Police Criminal Complaint, which can be found here:
https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20241209/233900-mangione12924.pdf

According to this document, the police were responding to a report of a male who resembled the person wanted for the shooting of Brian Thompson. 

 Mangione removed the mask and the police said they recognised him from the media. Then Mangione gave the police the fake ID used at the NYC hostel. Any searches according to this would be incident to arrest or an inventory search.

You get what the police will probably say in the clip of the press conference which starts at 10:50.

Unless the defence can come up with something substantial, Mangione's arrest appears to be legal based upon what I see here.

 More court documents can be found here:
https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/criminal-justice/luigi-mangione-court-documents-gun-charge-ME4VXEHIOFBK7FIO5STIXXWAPQ/

MAGA? This Railroad Could Cripple America's Economy

"The upgrades now rolling across this route will do a whole lot more than safeguard millions of journeys and a huge slice of the US economy. They could enable America to finally run truly high speed trains. An ambition which has harboured since forever."

You may be someone who doesn't understand how much railraods contribute to a country's economy: even the US. The US has neglected this segment of the tranportation sector to its detriment. But it's also been neglecting an even worse segment of the transportation infrastructure: the one that services the automobile (which includes trucking).

Was Luigi Mangione's DNA collected illegally?

Rosalind Franklin By MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology

 OK, this is called touch or trace DNA since it is found on an object. It doesn't need to be something that the cops gave him, since someone leaves this DNA pretty much everywhere. Yes, the Fourth Amendment analogue in Pennsylvania law has a broader guarantee of the right of privacy, but how intrusive was this would be my question? The police could just as well  get this DNA from the food he was eating at McDonald's as well as from something they gave him.

His defence could question the science, but that requires Mangione providing a sample of his DNA. Also, PA law says:

§ 58.2 . Authority of law enforcement officers.
The General Assembly has declared that nothing contained in the act shall limit or abrogate any existing authority of law enforcement officers to take, maintain, store and utilize DNA samples for law enforcement purposes. See section 506 of the act (35 P. S. § 7651.506). Failure to comply with this subchapter does not
form the basis for suppression of otherwise admissible evidence.

And Pennsylvania's law on DNA evidence (CHAPTER 58. DNA DETECTION OF SEXUAL AND VIOLENT OFFENDERS ACT) specifically mentions 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502 (relating to murder) as a reason for collecting DNA.

It sounds to me like this may be an attempt to diminish the size of the mountain of evidence which incriminates Mangione.

I mean, he was caught with the ID used to stay at the NYC hostel, the murder weapon, and his DNA links him to the crime scene. Of course, the defence wants to see this evidence suppressed. 

My opinion is that it will be allowed unless the defence can discredit the science, which would probably require Mangione to submit a DNA sample.

Italian High Speed Rail: The Trains that Killed an Airline

I finally made it to Italy, despite having spent a lot of time in the French Alps, which happen to be literally next door. In fact, we were staying in Chamonix and went to Courmayeur, that happens to be in the Vallée d'Aoste someplace I've been wanting to visit for a long time.

Anyway, I was rather surprised that Italy is a leader in High Speed Trains. These two videos give you some ideas why I support HSR. 

So much for Making America Great Again if Italy is kicking the US's but in this regard. These trains leave Acela in the dirt.

 

Luigi Mangione's defence fund.

I was listening to an interview with one of the people from his "defence fund". She said that they wanted him to have the best defence possible,

That got me thinking because his best defence right now is to hope for a really good deal from the prosecution. Which isn't a very likely possibility from the Feds.

For those who don't know it, the feds have a 93% conviction rating. Mostly because they don't try cases they can lose. Federal practise can best be described as "Let's make a deal". In other words, you had better have something juicy you can offer the AUSA handling the case. They might knock down the charges so that Mangione gets life (which is indeed life since there is no time off for good behvaiour in the Federal system).

We used to get people to become cooperative when I worked for the US Attorney in DC by threatening to make the charges federal, since that would mean a "solid" sentence anywhere in the US Prison system.

But that's an aside since I was thinking that maybe some of those big, anonymous donors were health care companies who want to see Mangione have the best defence possible, since he is probably going to go down hard.

And the reality is that he's not as good of a defendant as people want him to be. As I have pointed out, even his mother thinks he could have done it!

To be honest if all of his supporters would shut the fuck up and work on this issue, I'm pretty sure that there would be change. But what have they done about this?  Have they supported serious health care reform?

Obviously not.

What don't you understand about "domestic violence"?

In the previous post, "Misinterpreting the Constitution", I mention the phrase "domestic violence", which has a drastically different meaning today from what the founders understood it to mean. While this video is fairly elementary (as in it's like my A level english course), it does make a few important points about language.
 

The major takeaway is that language of even a fairly recent time might be different from how we interpret it. And it's definitely different from what it was 240 some years ago. It's wrong to impose modern ideas on a text that old: especially if it is detrimental to modern society.

This next video gets into how when Shakespeare (Shakespear?) is heard in the original pronounciation, it makes the meaning clearer. Likewise, when the constitution is understood as a whole, it makes the meaning of the Second Amendment much more obvious that it relates to the militia, which is an institution that has changed drastically from how it was original conceived by the founders.

Another takeaway is that what people think pirates should talk like is the West Country Accent. I have to wonder if Shakepeare's English is coloured by his being from Warwickshire, which isn't exactly West Country, but it would have been signifiantly far away from London when he was alive. After all, the World's End Pub in Chelsea WAS way outside of London when it was built. Even where I live now wasn't as built up as it is now in the mid-1700s!

And people who have seen "Lost in Austen" will remember her visit to Regency period Hammersmith. I used to live in an area that was once farmland in the mid-18th Century and is now considered centre city.  But that's a lot of a digression other than life has changed quite a bit from the late 18th Century and we can't place modern ideas on texts written over 200 years ago. That probably even applies to something written 25 years ago.

Anyway, see also:

• Baron, Dennis, Corpus Linguistics, Public Meaning, and the Second Amendment, Duke Center for Firearms Law: https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/corpus-linguistics-public-meaning-and-the-second-amendment
• ___.    Guns and Grammar: the Linguistics of the Second Amendment, https://debaron.web.illinois.edu/essays/guns.pdf
• Amicus Brief NY State Rifle and Pistol Association, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/193271/20210921155937883_Amicus%20Brief.pdf

Misinterpreting the constitution.

 What would you say if I told you that there is a constitutional obligation of the States to address the topic of domestic violence?

It's in the Constitution at Article 4, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Of course, domestic violence in the constitutional sense isn't a battered spouse. Instead the founders knew that danger might arise from internal forces, It is the constitutional obligation of the people in the federal government to use whatever power is necessary to deal effectively with both threats. So, it is the federal government to “protect” the people from “domestic violence” as well as from “invasion.”

Yet another tenet of the gun rights crowd shot down since the constitution is pretty clear that it deals with matters of the common defence and insure domestic tranquility. Can't have armed bands running around threatening the constitutional framework. After all, Shays' Rebellion was one of the reasons for the adoption of the Constitution. 

The war for independence was a pyrrhic victory in that it left the "United States" in disarray and heavily in debt.  The founders could have just said, "fuck it, we made a mistake, let's not bother with starting a new nation."  Each state would go its own way.

But the mythology is that it was the colonists themselves threw out the British at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. Nevermind that the War for Independence went on for eight more years with a lot of help from foreign powers, particularly the French. And with that myth came the belief in "god, guns, and guts" made the US great.

But the War for Independence wasn't really the start of the colonists' aspirations, the glorification of the War for Independence leaves out that it was a reaction to receiving the bill for the French and Indian War. A war that led to British Troops being stationed in the colonies. It was their presence which led to these complaints in the Declaration of Independence:

• 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.

The founders understood the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment as relating to the Militia and the Common Defence, in particular the powers given to Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16. I would refer you to the analog to the Second Amendment created by Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Constitution of 1775.

What got me to write this was someone did a youtube video about American's love for guns which totally misstated the facts and presented the mythology of guns in the United States. We wouldn't be in the mess we are if it hadn't been for a radical reinterpretation of the US Constitution, in particular the Second Amendment, for a fantasy version of that text.

So, if you want to ask me "what don't I understand about 'Shall not be infringed'"? I have to ask if you believe that acts of domestic violence should be addressed by the state government?

The ultimate answer is that asking what I don't understand about "shall not be infringed" removes the Second Amendment from its historic and consitutional context. One which needs to be read as a whole since Marbury v Madison said that such an interpretation is "form without substance" it makes the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction since It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.

see also:

• Baron, Dennis, Corpus Linguistics, Public Meaning, and the Second Amendment, Duke Center for Firearms Law: https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/corpus-linguistics-public-meaning-and-the-second-amendment
• ___.    Guns and Grammar: the Linguistics of the Second Amendment, https://debaron.web.illinois.edu/essays/guns.pdf
• Amicus Brief NY State Rifle and Pistol Association, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/193271/20210921155937883_Amicus%20Brief.pdf

 

Yet another US gun ownership myth being blown apart.

 This is a clip from "Warriors of the Dawn: Indigenous Weapons and Tactics of King Philip's War" by Atun-Shei films (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMXKXoA1_gQ ).

People talk about the Pilgrims, but they neglect Jamestown's Starving time. This occurred during the winter of 1609-1610, when two-thirds of the Jamestown colonists died of starvation, disease, and Indian attacks. Any firearms they had weren't very helpful.

As this native American interpreter points out, as I have as well, firearms during this period were expensive. They aren't inexpensive now either with the low end being around $200 for a new handgun. Maybe one can buy a beat up, used one for less than that.  AR-15s start arround $450 and go up,  with something like an H&K 556 at around 3k or Knight's Armament KS-1s being around 5k.

But a modern firearm is machine made, whereas firearms in prior to the 19th century were pretty much handmade. So, think about buying something like a Purdey, Holland and Holland, and Westley Richards did make firearms for the British Military. Maybe that's why they have a thing for overpriced guns for the army.

 The US war for independence bankrupted the country. Toss in the colonists would probably have lost if they didn't get help from France, or use stolen British arms.

CRYPTO CRASH: THE REAL REASON FTX COLLAPSED

OK, I've been saying that cryptocurrencies are a bad investment and generally not a good idea. But this is really interesting since he's saying that the Chinese have cornered the crypto market, caused a "run on the bank", and don't allow for cryptocurrencies in their country.

To quote Mr. Spock: "Interesting."

Wanna buy some tulips? How about an NFT of the Brooklyn Bridge?

Why proper regulation of firearms in the US is going to be difficult

It's not that I don't support gun regulation, but it's going to be really hard given the amount of guns in the US.

 

Getting them off the streets is going to require following Australia's example of having a massive gun buyback. But imagine how much that will cost. Toss in the Aussies funded their buyback with a tax.

it also seems there are a lot of these going on as is, but there are a lot of guns out there.

Why Luigi Mangione Says His "Manifesto" Should Be Tossed.

This is the best explanation I have seen on this subject. Too many people on the internet are ignoring the law.

Luigi Mangione and the real elephant in the room

OK, while I support gun regulation: I am on the outs with a lot of the groups who are "working" on this effort. This is due to their support for duopoly candidates, who caused the problem. But it has gotten even worse with this incident.

Legislators who denounce "ghost guns" use this as a springboard for a "discussion on healthcare". I would hope that the reaction would have been different had Mangione been a mass shooter, but I am not so sure. His admiration for the Unabomber and use of assassination seems to be passed over.

If anything, this incident is a side show to distract from the real issues out there. In this case, his use of a ghost gun, which is a definite issue in the "gun violence" sector.

According to the Department of Justice, the number of ghost guns recovered by law enforcement skyrocketed from 1,758 in 2016 to 19,344 in 2021, a surge of more than 1,000%. Nearly 700 of those weapons were involved in suspected homicides or attempted homicides.

OK, other than the gun rights crowd, not too many people are paying attention to this.

So, while I know the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted, I doubt that the US will ever be able to address its gun violence problem. (BTW, anyone for using "domestic violence", US Constitution Article 4, Section 4, for some fun?)

I would also add that the US's tendency toward violence is actually quite frightening.

Searching Mangione with suspicion makes it constitutional.

 I'm with Jim Giza who is a former marine and a 23-year police veteran with the Baltimore Police Department. He was one of the first officers to qualify as a both a member of his Agency’s SWAT unit and Hostage Negotiation Team. He later served as Program Coordinator for the Johns Hopkins University Police Executive Leadership Program, where he planned and coordinated a unique educational program for the United States Secret Service.

I hope that the stop-and-frisk of Luigi Magione, which apparently is what it was, meets the U.S. Supreme Court’s criteria of reasonable suspicion and articulable justification for confronting an American citizen, searching same for possible weapons, and arresting that individual for illegally carrying a firearm (“Luigi Mangione faces tough legal challenges, says Baltimore lawyer with ties to family,” Dec. 11). In Magione’s case, he was charged not only with illegal carrying but also possession of an illegal gun — what is known as a “ghost gun.”

I also hope the police report documenting the stop-and-frisk is based on more than a tip or that it “looks like him.” It will be up to a judge to entertain a possible argument by a defense lawyer that Magione’s arrest was illegal by not meeting the stop-and-frisk criteria promulgated in Terry v. Ohio. If not, any so-called evidence seized or charges filed will be null and void.

Whether a challenge to the arrest will be made, time will tell. The extradition question may not be even be the offing. It goes without saying (but I will say it anyway) that it is tough being a cop in a free society and high-profile cases like this one can prove it.

As I said in a previous post, police officers are given latitude to search a suspect for weapons, which they found in this case.

The only reason the defence wants to try and challenge this is that Mangione was caught with the murder weapon, a substantial amount of cash, and his "manifesto", which is basically a confession. Not that there isn't other evidence tying Mangione to the crime scene, but this significantly hinders the case,

Luigi Mangione "the biggest staged perp walk"?

I kinda had to wonder if his lawyer ever heard about a guy called Jack Ruby when she made that comment. I mean she's supposedly a really well qualified criminal defence lawyer.

Anyway,  I wake up to this headline:

EXCLUSIVE:  Diddy and Luigi Mangione are TARGETS after brutal stabbing at Brooklyn prison as insiders claim gangs plan to 'make an example of them'

Seriously, any criminal defence lawyer worth their money SHOULD know that a high profile client like Mangione will be a target: despite the adulation he's getting from the masses. I was wondering how long it would take before this became an issue.

The prison consultant went on to say that from his experience, high-profile inmates are advised to be "careful about who they are associating with" because anyone in MDC will have an "agenda". He added that Diddy's and Luigi's teams would warn them to keep to themselves and avoid problems, such as minding their business and not taking any bait if called out.

"Some will admire them [Diddy and Luigi], but you will just need one person to make an example out of them." Justin stated.

Well, I hope she's gotten her hands on all that money the little scumbag has raised, then she can laugh all the way to the bank if the law of Karma rules here.

Hey, what kind of trial did Brian Thompson get when Mangione popped him?

The REAL ISSUES in the Luigi Mangione Case as I see it.

 OK, despite the amount of people who want to deny the mountain of evidence that this kid did it, the media is pretending he has a chance of being found not guilty. But I'm going to agree with another lawyer who said he's seen juries do crazy things.

Anyway...

He was caught with more than enough evidence that links him to the crime, which is why his lawyers keep harping on his arrest and search being unconstitutional.  He had the murder weapon, the ID used in NYC, and his manifesto, which is pretty much a confession. I'm not going to go into the law of confessions, but it would be nice if all these talking heads would start mentioning that.

Mistrials and Jury nullification. OK, a mistrial doesn't result in an acquittal--it does result in a new trial. Also, as long as there is one juror who is willing to find the defendant guilty, there will be a hung jury. So, 11 jurors can ignore the law and evidence, while one wants to convict. And a hung jury results in a new trial.

Of course, the judge and prosecution should be weeding out the people who would engage in jury nullification. While not toally illegal, it is contrary to the judicial process where the juror is supposed to apply the law according to the facts. Here is a sample jury instruction that addresses that matter:

6.1 Duties of Jury to Find Facts and Follow Law 

            Members of the jury, now that you have heard all the evidence, it is my duty to instruct you on the law that applies to this case.  A copy of these instructions will be available in the jury room for you to consult.

            It is your duty to weigh and to evaluate all the evidence received in the case and, in that process, to decide the facts.  It is also your duty to apply the law as I give it to you to the facts as you find them, whether you agree with the law or not. {my emphasis} You must decide the case solely on the evidence and the law.  You will recall that you took an oath promising to do so at the beginning of the case.  You should also not be influenced by any person’s race, color, religious beliefs, national ancestry, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, or economic circumstances.  Also, do not allow yourself to be influenced by personal likes or dislikes, sympathy, prejudice, fear, public opinion, or biases[.] [, including unconscious biases.  Unconscious biases are stereotypes, attitudes, or preferences that people may consciously reject but may be expressed without conscious awareness, control, or intention.] 

            You must follow all these instructions and not single out some and ignore others; they are all important.  Please do not read into these instructions or into anything I may have said or done as any suggestion as to what verdict you should return—that is a matter entirely up to you.

The federal case is a good point for getting a conviction since the feds win most of the cases they take to trial. I call US Federal practise "Let's make a deal", because unless you can come up with something that interests the Feds, they will hammer your ass.

And in this case, it's the death penalty.

I don't have a lot of time for this kid or his supporters, which should be pretty apparent by now.

Luigi Mangione--I'm going to say it again

 OK, if all the people who are denying the mountain of evidence against this spoiled, rich kid who probably has a personality disorder would shut the fuck up and work toward something positive, like health care reform, it would make sense.

But they aren't.

Instead they are supporting a murderer for some fucked up reason.

Supporting this scumbag is getting fuck all done for health care reform.

Got it????

Innocent until proven guilty?

 OK, I get it. According to the US Constitution there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, or at least a judge makes a conviction if the defendent pleads guilty.

BUT

In this case, we have video evidence tracking him that day. He's ID'd and caught with the murder weapon and the ID he used to check into that NYC hostel. I think there's some DNA evidence linking him to the crime in there as well.

And his manifesto is basically a confession, which pretty much takes it out of any exception out there.

It's pretty hard to deny the kid is guilty. And he's not really a very sympathetic defendant.

Hell, even his mother said she could she him doing it!

Unless you have a thing for rich, spoiled brats who might have a personality disorder and wish that he isn't guilty despite the rather overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So, I'm guessing that his supporters are upset that their insurance is denying the procedure to get their heads surgically removed from their asses.

Oh, and for people talking about Luigi's search being illegal--there's something called "search incident to arrest".

Which is something I'm suprised all those "experts" out there aren't mentioning, but US legal education is crap.

Anyway,

Search Incident to Arrest.—The common-law rule permitting searches of the person of an arrestee as an incident to the arrest has occasioned little controversy in the Court.²⁴⁰ The Court has even upheld a search incident to an illegal (albeit not unconstitutional) arrest.²⁴¹ The dispute has centered around the scope of the search. Because it was the stated general rule that the scope of a warrantless search must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances that rendered its justification permissible, and because it was the rule that the justification of a search of the arrestee was to prevent destruction of evidence and to prevent access to a weapon,²

Let's see, the cops are interrogating a suspected murderer who might be armed...

Of course, the defence wants this evidence suppressed. I mean he's caught red handed with the murder weapon and a confession.

As I said, the people who support him need their heads surgically removed from their anuses.

What really explains Luigi Mangione fandom

I don't get how a rich, spoiled brat like Mangione can get sympathy for what he did, which is to plan out the killing of a person. He shoots his victim in the back and then runs because deep in his heart Mangione knows he committed a crime. Yet, there are people who support him. They way people found Ted Bundy attractive. Anyway, Reason pretty much sums up how I feel about all this:

Mangione committed a heinous crime: murder. And like an odious person is entitled to a legal defence, the victim is a victim of a crime whether we approve of their morality or not.

A smart kid like Mangione could have worked toward health care reform in a more constructive manner. I don't have sympathy for Mangione. And you need to examine your values if you do.

More militarised police--The Carabinieri

As I said before, Europe has had militarised police for a long time. In this case, the Carabinieri, which has been around longer than the country it serves (remember Italy was only unified in the late 1860s). And don't let the fancy ceremonial uniforms deceive you, the Carabinieri are a very professional police force.

As this video points out, the Carabinieri are loyal to Italy, not a political system. Well, they did support the King as opposed to the fascists. This loyalty led to most Carabinieri joined the resistance!

And while I like GIGN (Groupe d'intervention de la Gendarmerie nationale), GIS (Gruppo Intervento Speciale) are pretty top too. In there with Borstar and Bortac. Sometimes the best special forces units go unnamed.

Quite frankly, I would like to have a militarised force like the Carabinieri around if they put country over politics.

The United States is going under the sea.

Of course, I am talking about the ocean liner that was once state of the art, not the country. Well, at least not yet. 

I have mixed feelings about this since I have seen it in person. Toss in that it was a fast sailing ship, although I think that speed may not have been environmentally friendly. But it did use steam propulsion. This boat would definitely be more comfortable than even flying in the upper classes. Especially since you wouldn't have jet lag.

It wasn't the slower passages of other ships, but it still had that luxury that not being in a rush will afford you.

Anyway, it's strange that this is happening under the administration of someone who claims he wants to Make America Great Again.

Well, it won't be in the transportation sector.

 

How the founders understood the Second Amendment

 Is totally different from it's current interpretation, but this is something I have gone into ad nauseum.

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense 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.

Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776--written by Thomas Jefferson.

Pretty much all the quotations taken out of context by people who want to trash the Constitution in the name of "original intent" point to this being the concern. Far more primary source material backs me up.

For example, if one actually reads the speech where patrick Henry says "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."

On the other hand, this is the actual speech:

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal
Constitution (3 Elliot’s Debates 384-7)
Virginia, Saturday, June 14, 1788.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the friends of the opposition have to act cautiously. We must make a firm stand before we decide. I was heard to say, a few days ago, that the sword and purse were the two great instruments of government; and I professed great repugnance at parting with the purse, without any control, to the proposed system of government. And now, when we proceed in this formidable compact, and come to the national defence, the sword, I am persuaded we ought to be still more cautious and circumspect; for I feel still more reluctance to surrender this most valuable of rights.
As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of “arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.” To the state legislatures is given the power of “appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects. If the states have the right of arming them, &c., concurrently, Congress has a concurrent power of appointing the officers, and training the militia. If Congress have that power, it is absurd. To admit this mutual concurrence of powers will carry you into endless absurdity— that Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the other. The rational explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power of arming them, &c., and that the state governments shall have exclusive power of appointing the officers, &c. Let me put it in another light.
May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties, and when you speak of arming the militia by aconcurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world for trusting your safety implicitly to implication.
The argument of my honorable friend was, that rulers might tyrannize. The answer he received was, that they will not. In saying that they would not, he admitted they might. In this great, this essential part of the Constitution, if you are safe, it is not from the Constitution, but from the virtues of the men in government. If gentlemen are willing to trust themselves and posterity to so slender and improbable a chance, they have greater strength of nerves than I have.

Note that Henry says:
To Congress is given the power of “arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.” To the state legislatures is given the power of “appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

This is an exact quotation ofThe United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 16, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C16-1/ALDE_00013673/.  The current interpretation of the Second Amendment wouldn't do very much to stop violation of the Second Amendment by Congress's interpretation of it in the above cited article.

In fact, the founders would find current the US Military to be far more of a violation of their intent in the Second Amendment as exemplified by the Henry and Jefferson.

Furthermore, there is no Constitutional authority for Judicial Review.

That comes from the case of Marbury v Madison, 5 US, 1 Cranch 137 (1803). Marbury v Madison, which also deals with clauses in the Constitution:

It has been insisted at the bar, that, as the original grant of jurisdiction to the Supreme and inferior courts is general, and the clause assigning original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court contains no negative or restrictive words, the power remains to the Legislature to assign original jurisdiction to that Court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited, provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United States.

If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance. Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all. It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.

  So, the US Supreme Court has decided that the first part of the Second Amendment is "mere surplusage" despite the word that a "Militia" is "necessary to the Security of the Free State".

Then I say why not ignore the rest of Marbury v Madison since some of the complaints of the revolting colonists concerned the abolition of legislatively enacted laws by an unelected official:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

The Justices would do well te remember that they are not acting under authority of the US Constitution, or US History, when they abolish gun laws using a misnterpretation of the Second Amendment.

There are a few conservatives I like--Tucker Carlson is one,

And this is one reason I do:

 

In fact, we share this opinion.

Bad Hasbara on Bad Hasbara

 It's nice to be able to laugh at a genocide, especially since that's pretty much what the world has been doing for over a year now. This is the show Bad Hasbara laughing at the Bad Hasbara bot.

Would you trust Siri with your life?

The Civil War We Forgot: the Pennamite War

For Doggone, who likes to talk about this. I did see a historic plaque to this on my travels. It was outside Coldspring, NY.

 

If no person is illegal...

Does this mean that you believe that slaves should legal?

After all, slaves are people.

But the issue isn't the person, but their status. Whether it is a slave or an unlawfully present person.

Yes, the person isn't "illegal", but their presence in the country is not legal. 

The right to enter one’s country, to stay in a country which one has legally entered, and to leave any country including one’s own, have been perceived as basic since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948. When individuals claim human rights relating to freedom of movement, they are referring to the same facts and situations that states are concerned with when they assert jurisdiction over their own nationals and over resident aliens. The international law of jurisdiction is the means by which states allocate competence, between themselves, for the prescription and application of authority over events inside and outside their national boundaries.

The only people who have a right to come and go freely into a country are the citizens of that country. It's discretionary otherwise.

And people who haven't complied with the law are not lawfully present in the country.

I don't think it's the best idea to allow people who are not willing to comply with immigration laws to become citizens.

Let's stop playing games with Immigration and get serious about it.

Artificial Intelligence--I told you so....

This story is so wild, that I had to fsct check it to make sure it was for real. While I agree with the politics espoused by the "sentient" AI, it demonstrates that machines are not to be trusted.

Israel likes to point out that it has a lot of "experts" in High Tech.  Case in point, comes from this article in the Jerusalem Post:

I am back in Israel in search of the country’s secret, not-so-secret weapon: world-class software engineers...

Israel is the perfect place for an essential development center in this AI revolutionary moment. It is the perfect place for Modelcode, which is building AI for AI, the DNA source code for software that transforms every field on earth. Israeli engineers and Machine Learning gurus and Artificial Intelligencers are fresh off the battlefield, experienced in inventing and assembling novel applications, and rightly confident in their abilities to solve impossible problems. This is not the AI of theory and whiteboards. This is the AI of nailing real-world solutions, of shipping products, of saying when you see an intractable obstacle, "Ein Baya." No one does this better than Americans – and Israelis.

The Israelis puff their competence as a military force and as a technological haven. On the other hand, this shows that technology really is something that needs a human check. On the other hand, the Nazis used gas chambers for their genocide, the Israelis have developed Lavender to assist in theirs. The Zionists can use machines as well as their WWII allies.

OK, if Zionism came about in the 19th Century, why did the Holocaust happen? a couple of hints Haavara and Kastner, but that stuff is now coming to light.

Now, the Zionist cause has its technology turning against it. Didn't they learn the lesson of the Golem?

Anyway, I definitely would not trust AI on a question of my survival.

US roads are falling apart.

OK, while people may complain about subsidies for public transportation, they seem to forget that not taxing private cars for the privilege of driving is also a subsidy. Then there are also the toll roads.

Unfortunately, we will not have an educated discussion of this topic.

YOUR DEVICE AND EMAIL HAS BEEN COMPROMISED

 I have to laugh at these email since I haven't used Microsoft products for some time now.

First off, it would be much more convincing if they said what OS and version of it I was using, but since they don't...

They don't have accress to my computer.

I switched to Linux in 2010 and like the duopoly parties of US politics haven't looked back.

Linux is pretty much virus and malware free. Toss in that I use two factor ID and long, strong random computer generated passwords now.

You don't have access to any of my devices and I report your messages to the authorities.

Have a nice day.

Trump wants to annex Canada. Que le spectacle commence !

 Trump has got to be one of the most ignorant people to lead the United States: and that's a pretty bad statement.

While on paper the US has a military advantage, Trump shows a link to George Washington. Washington thought he was a miltary genius, but he was another arrogant property investor who just happened to have started a world war.

One which the British decided to make the colonists foot the bill for, which led to the War for Independence. Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that the real war which should have been lost in the 18th Century was not the one for Independence, but the "French and Indian War". The reality was that French didn't really care about their North American territories (the Caribbean and South American ones being more significant).

However, had the French put a bit more effort into supporting their Native Allies and pushed harder in other parts of the world, things would be vastly different.

On the other hand, the Québec Act was something that also stirred up the American Colonists. 

M. Trump will acquire a population of rather militant francophones who have the advantage of speaking a form of French which most people don't learn in school!

Tabernac! Osti!

While I can understand Québecois when it's written, there are some accents which are totally incomprehensible to me. And trust me, it's a standard joke in the Francophone world that Québecois is very different from what the French Ministry of Education and Foreign Ministry would like people to speak like.

Unfortunately, the Québecois haven't picked up on septante, huitante, and nonante, but that's another matter. I'm going to give a plug for someone who has been helping me cope with Québecois (and finally understand what Martin is saying in Jésus de Montreal, "street slang"). https://maprofdefrancais.ca/

Actually, I sort of can understand it with a transcript: « Sacrament, voici l’agneau sans taches, osti. Y est coloué (cloué) par nos impurs désirs tabarnak! Ç’a pas de câlisse de ciboire de bon sens, ça , viarge bout de crisse! » « Certain, osti » « J’ai-tu mon câlisse de voyage, moé?! » « moi aussi tabernacle » tabernacle »

 

The fun bit is that the Acadiens (Cajuns) have a bit of a headstart on the francophonisation. They have the accent.

 It's gonna be La revanche des berceaux with a vengence when we francophones get more militant!

TIGUIDOU !!!!!

Stop the rise of Oligarchy if you want a truly free society.

 Nothing like George Monbiot to sum up some of the thoughts I have been having. True this video is a bit long, but he makes a lot of good points.

And Cécilia Jourdan on how France has so many more political parties than the one US Party that is in power.

Yes, just one US political party which tries to hide the fact that there is no real difference between the two parties, as the man says.

Please comment if you know, or can provide the exact quote, by the African politician (I think it's Nyerere) who said something alone these lines in response to Western Politicians pushing "democracy" on their one party systems: "Does having having two parties make you twice as democratic as we are? Three, three times as democratic?"

Shocking Report Shows How Democrats Protected Biden

OK, I left the Democrats in 2016 when they ran Hilary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. It would be nice if more people looked into third parties to get some change in the political landscape. 

Whose side are you on?

 This is for the Christians who ignore the Arabic members in their family of faith. The ones who don't condemn the persecution of the Palestinian Christians:

This carol refers to the Massacre of the Innocents, in which Herod ordered all male infants under the age of two in Bethlehem to be killed, and takes the form of a lullaby sung by mothers of the doomed children. 

Appropriate given that the majority of victims of the current genocide are children.

Stop talking about the sanctity of life if you are not doing what you can to try and stop this.

Merry Palestinian Christmas

 There is a segment of the Community which claims to be Christian and "Bible believing" that needs a serious refresher course on the subject of the nativity. You will get more than your share if you hang around Palestinians. So, let's begin with Amer Zhar, who is a politician, comedian, lawyer, and vocal advocate for Palestinian rights:

 And a little more of Rev. Munther Isaac:

 And uncivilized.media for how this plays out:

 Unfortunately, the supporters of the Zionist state neglect how much the Levant is the cradle of the Chrisitian faith. They also ignore that Christians are being driven out of this land despite their long connections to it (like, from the beginning).

A message from Father Issa Thaljieh, Greek Ortodox priest at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, Occupied Territories @fatherissathaljieh  

Let's not forget the Pope, who is far more aware of the situation in this regions than most Western Politicians.

And so I leave you with this Christmas Wish: