Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Thursday, November 21, 2019

Short Message To "Christian" Businesses

So this is a kinda sorta response to the whole Chik-Fil-A issue. I've written a number of times about the diversity racket has weaponized the state to grossly infringe on the first, thirteenth and fourteenth Amendment rights and guarantees of Christian persons and businesses. These folks don't bother orthodox Jews. They don't bother observant Muslims. They are after one group. I'm not in that group but I recognize the threat these infringements pose to everyone. Don't think that the rat in your neighbors yard won't find its way into your yard. So let me remind my Christian friends about two relevant stories in your book that is relevant to what's going down.
Matthew 4:1-11 King James Version (KJV)

4 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

The above is the temptation of Christ. Important thing here is that he was promised everything in the world but said "no". Now one could say that since Jesus being the son of God knew that in the end he'd own everything anyway, there was no real temptation. Fine.
Job 1 King James Version (KJV):

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

9 Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

12 And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord.

Then a whole lot of bad stuff happened to Job, after which:

20 Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped,

21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord. 22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

Then more bad stuff ensued:
7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

8 And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal; and he sat down among the ashes.

9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.

10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

In the end:
Job 42 King James Version (KJV)

12 So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.

13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.

16 After this lived Job an hundred and forty years, and saw his sons, and his sons' sons, even four generations.

17 So Job died, being old and full of days.

Job, not being the "son of God" had little rational reason to not give up. Yet he stood by his faith. And that's the point here. These folks who are going after businesses and the like, do not like you, will not like you and wish you ill. They are a test of faith. They seek to break you and make it seem "reasonable" to compromise here and compromise there. It's only a little thing. Just say that so and so is OK. Just say such and such is fine. Just bake the cake. Just stop supporting...

I know a lot of people who like to claim that the only thing they fear is God. Right up to the point where that paycheck is threatened.

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Code Word Of The Day: Bribery

So over the past couple of days I've noticed that the following talking point has been floating around in regards to impeachment:


I assume this is going to be the hat, or one of them, that Dems will try to put on Trump. I suppose that they finally understood that impeachment actually requires the commission of a crime. So let's look at this. Bribery, as it deals with Trump acting as president is defined as:

a person commits the crime of bribery by giving or offering a public official or public employee something of value in return for some official action (or in exchange for the public official not doing something he or she is legally obligated to do), benefitting the defendant.
Since the president was talking to the president of Ukraine, then the charge would be that Trump was offering "something of value" to the president of Ukraine to do certain investigations. For the moment lets assume that Trump's conversation did in fact include a bribe. That is, Ukraine's president was not disposed to investigate Burisma or Crowdstrike but since Trump was offering US money, he decided to do so. IF that is bribery then how do we deal with Joe Biden?

Again. We already have Joe Biden on public record

The money shot:

I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk (sp) that they would take action against the state prosecutor and they didn't. So they said they had were walking out the press kind of said I'm not gonna go or we're not gonna give you the billion dollars, they said you have no authority you're not the president. The president said, I said 'Call him'. I said I'm telling you you're not getting a billion dollars. I said you're not getting a billion...
Now we have seen the Trump transcript. There is nothing in the transcript as blatant as what Joe Biden said. Nothing. The so called "witnesses" have either given 2nd and 3rd hand info or have made statements to the effect of "well it was strongly hinted at, or strongly implied".

But above we have a clear. Do this or don't get the billion.

So if we are going to convict people of bribery, which I'm all for, then Joe Biden is first in line. I will side with my fellow citizens who hate Trump, to try Trump, in a fair trial for bribery ONLY if they apply the same law to the Biden and Obama. Because if what Biden did (again, you can listen for yourself) is NOT bribery then there is no way to convict Trump of bribery in any fair trial. And why did I mention Obama? Well Biden made the claim that Obama knew full well that Biden was going to ask for the investigation into Burisma to be dropped ("Go ahead, call him"). So that makes Obama a co-conspirator in the bribery of Ukrainian officials. That's what we call "equal protection" and "equal liability" under the law.

My position is this:

International monetary aide has always come with strings and "asks". It's the nature of the beast. It's not always pretty. This line of attack (coup) is as shortsighted as it is stupid. Trump's lawyers will easily slap down this charge, particularly when that IG report comes out (provided it comes out prior to the senate portion of the show). So called news organizations are doing the public a disservice by not asking these talking heads why Biden hasn't also been charged. That very fact should leave you very suspicous of the events going on in DC.

Thursday, November 07, 2019

"So It's Treason Then"

The news I read this morning troubled me deeply. It should have troubled every citizen regardless of party affiliation, candidate preferences or the like. A lawyer for a "whistleblower" openly calling for a coup and actually trying to get it done crosses a line that every citizen should recognize.

Let me explain how this republic works, electorally, for those sympathetic to "resistance":

The election for president is indirect. The US has never had a popular vote for president. Most times the popular vote and the electoral vote align. However; every so often the math works out that one can lose the popular vote and win the electoral college vote. The latter is what matters under the US Constitution. Everyone since the founding has understood this. This is how it's done here. What is done elsewhere doesn't matter. That's how it's done here and for better and worse it has worked out to the extent that the US has become a very prosperous place with an extremely high level of personal freedom for its citizens.

In a stable government the losers of elections, no matter how bitterly fought, conceded defeat, congratulated the victor and went off stage left...and shut the fuck up. In stable governments, it has long been understood that one did not use your defeat to "resist" the duly elected official. You may make plans to run again, but those plans did not include fomenting a coup. The supporters of the losing candidate also understood that they lost this time with this candidate but there will be another election in x amount of time and if they so chose they could try again.

They did not plot a coup of the winning candidate.

Trump's election was not the first time that squeaker elections have happened:

So all the grousing about changing the electoral college and the like is the talk of losers who prefer treason to admission of defeat. I've been calling out the treason for years now. I'm sure a lot of readers (regular and not) have rolled their eyes and thought I was speaking in over the top language. Hopefully, you now understand that I have not been.

It is simply unacceptable for an officer of the court to be declaring that a "coup has started" in anything other than an observation. This guy has clearly said that he wishes to "get rid" of the duly elected president and that he sees the resistance as a "coup" and is in support of that.

The Law and Crime website asked Zaid about his tweets:

Law&Crime also asked Zaid to clarify what he meant by the “we will get rid of him” tweet. “I referred to any lawful methods that exist, whether impeachment, if justified, or voting him out. My views are in sync with the majority of the country,” he said. “In fact, there are tweets I made that speak out against impeachment.”
So why hasn't this fellow been charged with anything? You can thank the 1st Amendment for that. Both sedition and treason require the use of or planned use of force. This requirement weighs heavily against Antifa and their street nonsense but for Zaid, it's his only cover.

For me, any candidate for elected office who cannot forthrightly reject persons who call for "coups", is not fit for office. As far as I'm concerned, each and every Dem candidate for office should be front and center to condemn this Zaid fellow. And even though the law requires force, as far as I'm concerned: It's treason.

Monday, November 04, 2019

Is "Bake That Cake" A Violation of The 13th Amendment?

Hello folks. Long time no post. I know. I don't get paid to do these posts so when time isn't available I don't post. Since I'm not going for cheap clicks by making inane commentary on the most recent event, I post only when I have had a chance to digest an issue, research it, if necessary and then post on it.

I'd comment on the impeachment fiasco but until there is an actual trial in the Senate there's not much to say. There has been no crime alleged. Impeachment requires a crime (misdemeanor or high crime, which I assume to mean felony). None has been alleged. "Improper" is not a crime. "Uncomfortable" is not a crime. The people who have come forward thus far have made claims that reverse the order of things. Intelligence agencies report to the president, who sets national priorities, not the other way around. So Trump doing something that an unelected agent is "uncomfortable with" is not a crime. So keep that in mind when watching or reading anything in regards to impeachment. Recall (if old enough) that Clinton was impeached because he lied to investigators in regards to Monica. The lie got him impeached because the lie was a crime. Nixon was similarly under investigation because an actual crime was committed that implicated him. Neither of these applies to Trump. I do believe that the Democrats are attempting to get a "process crime", a-la Flynn. Whether Trump falls into that trap remains to be seen.

Anyway, onto the subject at hand. So over the weekend, I was reading about yet another case where a state was trying to get a Christian creative professional to do some work for a homosexual organization and/or event. It's pretty clear that these organizations and the state are purposely targetting Christian businesses and the Fed needs to step in. The states where these clear violations of the 1st amendment are taking place are using so-called "anti-discrimination" laws in order to run around the 1st. Such that even if you don't blanket deny services to a homosexual, the simple fact that you decline to do a particular service for a homosexual or on behalf of homosexuals, you have thereby violated the right of the homosexual to have you do work for them or on their behalf.

Thus far the arguments I have seen have rested on the 1st Amendment prohibition against that state abridging free speech and against the state compelling speech. The second argument has been the 14th Amendment of states required to make sure all laws are equally applied (equal protection) to all citizens.

The 1964 Civil Rights act circumvents the 14th Amendment because it designates and allows "protected classes" of citizens Who can get the state to sue on their behalf any organization or citizen whom they think has violated their civil rights.

What I haven't seen raised, and perhaps I missed it, is a direct argument against involuntary servitude. It's been alluded to in terms of "compelled speech" which is another way of saying "involuntary speech", but I have not seen a direct argument that no customer of a business can demand that the owner of that business perform labour which he or she does not want to perform.

So for example, I had a car that I thought had a bad drive shaft. The car was 20 years old at the time and I took it to a specialist. We took it for a test drive so he could hear the sounds I thought were indicative of the problem. After the drive he said to me that he declined to do the work.

I was annoyed but it was his business and his labour (or those of his mechanics whom he is obliged to pay) and I couldn't force him to work on my car even though that was what his business was and even if the job would not fix the problem, it was my money to waste if I so chose.

The 13th Amendment states:

SECTION 1 Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

You'll note that the 13th not only abolishes slavery but it also abolishes involuntary servitude. That is in recognition that one can be forced to do labour while not being the property/Chattel (slave) of a person (or legal entity).

So the question here is, if a shop owner declines to "bake that cake" for the homosexual wedding, isn't the customer who demands that he does it, attempting to extract involuntary servitude? And, when the state steps in with its monopoly on legal deadly force on the side of the "customer" to force the baker to "bake that cake", isn't the state attempting to enforce involuntary servitude on the baker?

Can the state pass legislation that effectively stipulates involuntary servitude as a condition of being able to operate a public business?

And no, just because one is being paid doesn't make it any less involuntary. If the customer pulled a gun and put it to the baker's head to demand the cake (yes a total exaggeration, but take the walk with me), and after the cake is made, pays the baker would we consider that "voluntary"?

Again, I'm not sure if lawyers for the various companies and organizations have looked into this but if not I think they should. I know there are large legal implications of this argument, particularly around civil rights legislation but that should not stop looking into this.