Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

FROM BOSTON (where the American Revolution Began) A THREAT AND A WARNING—“WHAT CHANCE WOULD HIS [TRUMP’S] OUTSIDER MOVEMENT REALLY HAVE AGAINST THE FULL RESOURCES OF THE US GOVERNMENT? Demands for Reform will be met with Tanks in the Street, eh?

Trump could win — but not necessarily the White House (Evan Horowitz, Boston Globe, October 21, 2016)

One widening fear is that Trump simply won’t accept defeat, instead doubling down on his talk of a “rigged election,” leading to an uprising against the established political order. But there’s an obvious problem with this approach: It doesn’t lead to victory. What chance would his outsider movement really have against the full resources of the US government? And where’s the money in it?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/21/donald-trump-going-win/W9OJE03yH9FiB9fD5QMKxN/story.html

WHAT CHANCE WOULD HIS OUTSIDER MOVEMENT REALLY HAVE AGAINST THE FULL RESOURCES OF THE US GOVERNMENT?  This sounds like a threat against the people of the United States, to me: QUESTION OUR AUTHORITY, CHALLENGE THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR ELECTIONS, AND YOU WILL DIE…. am I right?  Ever so quietly, Mr. Horowitz is telling the American people: if you dare to question HILLARY’S authority, or the legitimacy of HILLARY’S election—then the government of the United States will bring out its tanks and run over you in the streets, right?  Just like Tienamen Square…. NOT so very long ago….like 27 years?

This was a followup to Horowitz’ curiously dated “October 17, 2016” article entitled:

“When you call the Election Rigged, Everyone Loses”

discussing Donald Trump’s comments during the Third Debate, which took place on “October 19, 2016” in which Trump refused to accept, in advance, the results of an election that hadn’t happened yet:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/17/when-you-call-election-rigged-everyone-loses/CxbmV9qmQCIGxNANlhM20J/story.html

I have to say, I just couldn’t disagree more!  When a major political candidate finally acknowledges, in 2016, that there is a possibility that the elections have been “rigged” or at the very least DRAMATICALLY manipulated, he is simply stating a completely obvious and widely known fact.

We need to eschew all convenient lies and accept what Al Gore might call certain “Inconvenient Truths”—elections in America since 2000 have been questionable when seen in the best possible light, but more likely constitute outrageous “continental and oceanic” frauds against the people from coast to coast.

The Boston Globe never (in recent memory) met a Socialist it didn’t like… but it is still disheartening to think that the City of the Sons of Liberty has sunk this low.  This is, quite simply, the diametric opposite of the Spirit of ’76 in Eighteenth Century Boston (and Virginia) which led to the American Revolution, when Patrick Henry famously intoned from the pulpit of St. John’s Church in Richmond:

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

A very dear old friend wrote back to me, after I announced that Trump’s position against acceptance had finally convinced me to vote for him, after many months of vacillation and hesitation:

OMG!  Maybe that should be WTF. This is what you got from the last debate?! How utterly depressing.  .  .   .   .   .  If you honestly think this clown would be safe in world politics, I fear for your sanity. I can’t begin to express what a disaster I think he would be as President, except to say that in a million years, I would never have believed I would find myself voting for Hillary, but he made it a necessity. Just one more thing to despise this bloviated windbag and egomaniacal twit!

I don’t necessarily deny that there are clownish and twitty things about Trump, but if he truly stands outside the current governmental-elite system, then he is worth his weight in god: I just couldn’t believe that he really was until October 19, 2016.

And, does being a Clown or a Twit really disqualify anyone from office?  I rather think history is against that.

Trump is often compared to Hitler in exactly this way, and the notion of Hitler as a clown is as old as the Three Stooges’ early production called “Nasty Spy” and Charlie Chaplin’s brilliant “The Great Dictator”—-not to mention later “Springtime for Hitler” and “The Producers”….or a thousand shorter skits involving Monty Python or other British Comedians.

Caricature and ridicule are very socially interesting and ritually powerful, as our dear old professor Dr. Victoria Reifler Bricker hath taught us to say, and understand.

The role of Royal Court Jesters in Royal Courts and the interplay between Kings and Court Jesters is likewise well-known and documented anthropologically and historically everywhere. The Maya God K— whether called Tezcatlipoca or Kakupacal, is iconographically represented as “The Jester God” and he is in fact the chief Deity of Mesoamerican Kings and Rulers, from the ancient Ahauwob of the Peten to the Huey Tlatoani of Tenochtitlan. Does that make them undignified or less royal, or does it inform us of the nature of nobility and royalty? What does it tell us that the words “Sac” or “Iztac” refer to things mythical and imaginary, and otherworldly and royal?

Hitler was obviously an actor who rehearsed a role. So was Ronald Reagan. Recently republished photographs from he 1920s show that Hitler learned his oratorical style and practiced it privately in front of the Camera. Well??? Some of his poses, while learning, were definitely funny. Most actors have to practice before becoming capable of world class, memorable presentations… Many people criticize Trump because he is not an actor—the express and explicit criticism is “he does not know how to act in public” or “he does not know how to act like a President.”

Adolph Hitler did not know how to “Act like a Fuhrer” when he was a painter or a corporal in Kaiser Wilhelm’s Army. Who disputes that?

Every lawyer who appears in Court either “represents” or “acts on behalf of” another—and a lawyer’s acting is not metaphoric, but in fact had better be Oscar winning or else the lawyer loses…. Hillary is a lawyer and she knows how to “act” her role much better than Trump. We expect our rulers to be excellent actors. We accept that they should wear costumes and take positions (i.e. pose artificially) and effectively dance around their enemies.

Congress Assembled “Acts”, as do Courts of Law, and “Leaders” in Parliamentary Politics, so what is surprising that Ritual and Theatre are so intimately linked. “Tragedy” was originally the name for the rituals of Dionysus…. So was Hitler a Tragic Figure or a Comedian? He may have been some of both. Hitler, like Benito Mussolini, was born a common man, not an aristocrat like Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Winston Spencer Churchill, who was born at Blenheim Palace, home of the Dukes of Marlborough for three hundred years now.

What seems certain is that, whether you regard him as a clown or a tragedian, Hitler’s “acting” is so memorable that it made an indelible mark on the world, and that, out of the 20th Century, even if Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt are memories consigned to Marx’s old Midden Heap or Dustbin of History…. the name and role of Adolph Hitler may well be remembered with mystery, awe, and fear…. and that is what my old Harvard Linguistics Professor, the late Calvert Watkins, would call “imperishable fame”, or “the immortality of the Gods”….

I think what I really took away from the Third Debate on 19 October 2016 (which Evan Horowitz apparently knew all about on 17 October 2016? to write about it in the Boston Globe?) is that Trump may be enough of a clown to really ACT FOR or REPRESENT me (and 150,000,000-200,000,000 or so) other “traditional Americans” against the current global elite.

For those of us in that category (150,000,000 or so “Traditional Americans”), the past eight years have truly been an abomination marking the final crystallization of life into the future predicted by  Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984.

Clowns stand, throughout the symbolism and iconography of the world, for established orders TURNED UPSIDE DOWN—and THAT is exactly what we need in America today—the Bush-Clinton-Obama Oligarchy MUST be stood on its head and shaken, the course of history must be reversed, and maybe this  possibly over-sexed Orange-haired clown is just the man to do what needs to be done….

Jerry O’Neil: Are you willing to give up your freedoms to big government? August 7

Posted: Sunday, August 7, 2016 9:00 am
By JERRY O’NEIL | 0 comments
Do you want a one-world government? Would it lead to world peace if the United States surrendered our sovereignty to a global government? Or does an all-powerful government always lead to genocide as happened in China under Mao, Russia under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, and Cambodia under Pol Pot?
While I understand the longing for peace in our time, I am against a tyrannous global government. Let us at least keep the freedoms we have protected under the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution. George Soros, Gov. Bullock, Sen. Tester, Common Cause and the Montana Public Interest Research Group are associated with Stand with Montanans, A Project of Common Cause Montana, and they are taking actions to repeal the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Their proposed repeal is at: https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment.
4560729 Asse Western Region Instory (copy)Snappy’s SparkNWMT Fair 250×300
If this group is successful in their attempt to amend the Constitution, I believe our freedoms of speech, press and association will become:
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech of the individual, or of the government approved press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble as long as they do not use their collective resources for political purposes, and to individually petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
They would also include in their amendment a provision to prohibit or limit candidates spending their own money on their campaigns, thus making it so the town drunk would receive as much campaign funding as the resourceful and sober candidate.
On June 23, I attended a meeting of over 200 people at the University of Montana Law School meeting room in Missoula. Jeff Clements, President of American Promise and co-founder of Free Speech for People chaired the presentation.
I asked Mr. Clements if the We The People Amendment would reinstate the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Law that limited broadcast ads mentioning an opposing candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election? I also asked if it would bar the NRA from sending out their postcards endorsing pro-gun candidates?
Some other questions I was prepared to ask him regarding the effects of their proposed amendment to the Constitution included:
— Will churches have to register with the government if they organize their congregation to lobby against abortions?
— Will the We The People Amendment make it illegal for corporations to own newspapers with which they can publish political editorials and endorsements prior to elections like the Copper Kings’ newspapers did before the advent of TV?
His answer to these questions was, “We will have to pass the amendment to the Constitution before we can find out the answers to these types of questions.”
One desire for many of the 200 people in the conference room is to overturn the decision in Citizens United v. FEC. That decision overturned the McCain-Feingold Act and permitted Citizens United, a non-profit group, to assemble together and publish a video expose of Hillary Clinton that would air within 30 days of an election.
Maybe that is why Hillary Clinton has publicly stated that if she is president, whether through Supreme Court appointments or constitutional amendments, she will overturn Citizens United.
I used to wonder how in so many countries around the world the people were persuaded to give up their freedoms without a fight. I now see how it is done. In 2012 the citizens of Montana agreed to remove the constitutional protections protecting our freedoms of speech, press, association and petition when they passed I-166 with a 75 percent majority.
I-166 was sold to the public on the catch phrase, “Corporations are not people,” but its ultimate effect will be to destroy the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution if the “moderate Republicans” and Democrats who met at the law school get their way.
Are we willing to limit the people’s rights and help the globalists institute a one-world government?
O’Neil is a resident of Columbia Falls and former Republican legislator.

http://www.dailyinterlake.com/members/opinion-are-you-willing-to-give-up-your-freedoms-to/article_a64921b6-5c26-11e6-b7b1-6f2e41d02161.html

CASTRATING THE CONSTITUTION and THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TOO! The World Stripped of Rights and Justice: the Bushes & the Clintons, Clarence Thomas & Sonia Sotomayor, Democrat & Republic, Liberal and Conservative, no longer mean anything….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkSkQgnEV-Q
What liberal commentator Rachel Maddow in the above Youtube Video does not want to admit is 
that Obama was selected to be President PRECISELY because he was the ONLY person who could implement the full extent of the Bush boys’ plan for dictatorship in this country.  The first three presidential votes of my life were disastrous denials of reality.  In 1980 and 1984 I voted for the lies of Ronald W. Reagan.  Then I voted for George H.W. Bush against Michael Dukakis in 1988 and I still regard these as one of the worst moral judgments of my life.  The Bushes paved the way for the Mule Obama Presidency by appointing the Vietnam Era Mi Lai Massacre Apologist Mule Colin Powell to ever higher positions of authority in the military, finally to Secretary of State, succeeded by “Auntie Tom” Mule Condoleeza Rice.  Mules are infertile animals, but the Mules in this case are actively castrating the American people and their constitution.  There is nothing uglier in the history of the world than the controlled deception that has been going on for the past 33 years……. ever since (again I am one of those at fault) the election of Ronald W. Reagan as false prophet for an American Restoration…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z48s0-vubUI&feature=player_embedded&noredirect=1

“Conspiracy Theories” are widely portrayed in the mainstream media as signs of weak minds or mental illnesss—yet “Conspiracy” means “Breathing Together” and again I ask:

Does Anything Ever Happen in Political Society WITHOUT Conspiracy?   The question is not whether the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (the last defender of legitimate currency and honest credit to sit in the Oval Office), the bombings of Oklahoma City, 9-11, 7-7 in London, Andreas Breivik’s shooting in Norway, the Batman Shooting in Colorado and Sandy Hook in Connecticut are “conspiracies”–the question is whether the US Government and allied governments are the AUTHORS of those conspiracies or merely the coincidental Beneficiaries….. Anyone who does not believe our constitutional freedoms are under attack by the United States Government is simply not paying attention.

http://unifiedserenity.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/skull-bones-322-georgia-guidestones-erected-3221980-33-yrs-ago/

http://unifiedserenity.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/obama-poised-to-carry-out-hostile-military-takeover-of-us/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrXyLrTRXso

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIpfFXux-bg

We as a nation and people are simply too “beaten down” to pay any attention at all; beaten down by the corrupt banks and financing system, beaten down by the corrupt courts and police and the complete evaporation of cultural values and social norms in every field of life.

Small Arms Treaty Negotiations July 2-27, 2012 in New York City—Aurora, Colorado Shooting at Major Media Event July 20, 2012?—Suspect Arrested without Resistance—If you REALLY believe this is a coincidence—you are the kind of BRAIN DEAD AMERICAN that Obama LOVES…..

HISTORICAL METAPHORS AND MYTHIC REALITIES—the enactment of truth

Isn’t it just amazing that less the 48 hours after the shooting, the Police in little Aurora, Colorado, already knew that former Medical Student James Holmes (a white-man with a crazy “Andreas Breivik” smile on his photos) bought all his guns legally?  They also knew there was no Islamic terrorism involved, immediately (well, how could there be, Holmes was a white medical student, right?—must be a conservative opposed to Obamacare, that’s obvious….isn’t it?  I’m just making a prediction now…but SO WAS THE OBAMA ADMINSITRATION when it predicted, just last year, right before Andreas Breivik’s attack in Norway, that White Middle Class American Males were going to be the principal terrorists to be profiled, from now on—my, what insight! what perception! what superb planning!) Wow, they weren’t even going to finish the search of his apartment until today, I wonder how they figured it all out so fast?  That’s just amazing police work if you ask me…. BRAVO AURORA, COLORADO!!!!!  Yeah, right….

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/vigil-held-us-massacre-batman-screening-023539143.html

“Police arrested Holmes — who was wearing full body armor and a gas mask, apparently to protect him from effects of his own tear gas — without encountering resistance by his car at the rear of the theater.

Holmes, who reportedly attended the University of Colorado medical school until last month, had no criminal record aside from a citation for speeding in October 2011, according to police.

Witnesses described chaos chillingly similar to that depicted in the Batman films, in which maniacal villains terrorize Gotham City.”

“”In the last 60 days, he purchased four guns at local metro gun shops and through the internet he purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammunition,” the police chief said.

He added: “My understanding is that all the weapons that he possessed he possessed legally, and all the clips that he possessed, he possessed legally, and all the ammunition he possessed, he possessed legally.””

To Anyone who thinks this wasn’t staged—-I would like to offer you a fabulous investment opportunity, in that it happens that I own all right, title, and interest to the Golden Gate Bridge…. but at the present time the costs of maintaining that wonderful American landmark have become prohibitive….

I have no insights into the mind of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, or Michael Bloomberg, but I am deeply insulted that they think I (and approximately 300,000,000 other Americans, plus the randomly relevant Mexican, Canadian, or European) am stupid enough to fall for this one.

THERE IS A SMALL ARMS TREATY BEING NEGOTIATED AT A CONFERENCE IN NEW YORK CITY RIGHT NOW (“The Arms Trade Treaty is the name of a controversial potential multilateral treaty that would regulate the international trade in conventional weapons. The treaty will be negotiated at a global conference under the auspices of the United Nations from July 2 – 27, 2012 in New York.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty, as of 3:07 PM on Saturday July 21, 2012).  It is widely expected that Barack Hussein Obama will sign this ridiculous piece of international police power over trade into effect on the final day of the conference, July 27, 2012.

Two weeks into this Conference a guy starts a shooting spree in a Cinemark-Century 16 Movie Theatre in Aurora, Colorado 20 miles from the site of Columbine High School in the suburbs of deadly Denver, Colorado (subject of Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” among other things).   He does so at the opening of what was already guaranteed to be a major media event—the opening of Dark Knight Rises—a film which glorifies Superhuman Monarchical Individual Heroism (traditional symbolic metaphor for All-Power, legally immune, Centralized Government)—and then stands at the back door of a theatre waiting to be arrested without resistance?  This is ALMOST as good a joke as the Terrorist Passport that fell from the sky and survived the incineration of Two Jet Aeroplanes and Three Buildings in New York City on 9/11.  The stupidity of the American people, apparently knows no boundaries, as P.T. Barnum so famously said as he built his own private empire (“Nobody ever went broke under-estimating the intelligence of the American people.).

“On Saturday, Obama promised justice to the residents of Aurora, Colorado, saying: “The federal government stands ready to do everything necessary to bring whoever’s responsible for this heinous crime to justice.”

He said the government “will take every step possible” to ensure the safety of all Americans.”

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/vigil-held-us-massacre-batman-screening-023539143.html

Exactly what steps were necessary given that the gunman had already (effectively) turned himself in?  OH, I almost forgot—obviously—OUTLAW ALL GUNS!  How could I omit such an obvious solution????

And did anybody else notice:

Half Mast Flag News

– Fly the American Flag at Half Staff Sunset until July 25, 2012-

A Presidential proclamation has been issued to fly the flag at half staff until July 25, 2012 in Honor of the victims of the Aurora, Colorado shootings.

http://halfstaff.org/

How many brave American soldiers died in around the world, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan without the Flags being  flown at Half Mast?  Were the Flags Flown at Half Mast after Hurricane Katrina?  Flags are only flown at Half-Mast for Politically-Self Serving Purposes—such as making speeches in favor of gun control in the week that separates the Aurora, Colorado Shooting from the end of the Small Arms Conference in New York City.

The senseless taking of life is deplorable—but as between mass murder and lies, I think that the greater crime is mass deception.  It is a shame that Mr. Holmes, apparently a very good medical student, will never be Dr. Holmes—his smile is so reminiscent of Andreas Breivik, and his role as patsy is so willing and compliant, that I think they must have a new “patsy” school somewhere that trains these guys to take the fall and play their parts to maximum possible effect.  Gone are the days when a Jack Ruby will have to step out of his sleazy bar to shoot the future Oswalds to make sure they don’t flap their lips and tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” about staged murder—all the world’s a stage, but the producers and directors are getting good at this after fifty years or more of practice…

It is a shame that so many people who went to a movie that night—as I myself did, far far away from Colorado, I’m happy to say—were shot.

But their families must take comfort—their loved ones deaths were not in vain nor were they senseless.  The triggerman has surrendered, and will either be locked for life inside a certain Maximum Security Mountain Prison in Colorado or else be put to death, but he did not engage on a random shooting rampage. The murders in Aurora were, and I make this prediction with 99% certainty, were planned, like Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, the Oklahoma City Bombing, and 9/11, in the White House, the White House Situation Room, and the United States Department of State and U.N. Embassy to the United Nations.

WAKE UP AND STAND UP AMERICANS!!!  LET’S START ARRESTING THE REAL CRIMINALS—the ones who stage killings to take away your rights.  Romney and Obama are, of course, of essentially one mind and one position on gun control: fool the people into complacence and then finally disarm them.

Here is the stridently Anti-Constitutional/Anti-Second Amendment Rights Article in Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-20/colorado-shooting-suspect-avoided-gun-reporting-requirement-1-.html):

Colorado Shooting Suspect Avoided Gun Reporting Rule

By Michael C. Bender and Jeff Bliss – Jul 20, 2012 7:34 PM PTThe suspect in the Colorado shooting bought two pistols, a semiautomatic rifle and a shotgun since May, avoiding federal reporting requirements and taking advantage of the state’s failure to pass significant firearms legislation since the Columbine massacre 13 years ago.

The suspect, James Holmes, 24, didn’t purchase the handguns from the same store within five days, which would have triggered a requirement for the seller to notify the U.S. Justice Department, according to a federal official who asked for anonymity and wasn’t authorized to speak publicly. Holmes hadn’t committed any offenses that would have raised an alarm during required background checks, the official said.

Colorado Shooting Suspect Avoided U.S. Gun Reporting Requirement

Julie Adams, left, holds her phone displaying a 2006 Westview High School yearbook picture of Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes in front of the Holmes family house in San Diego on July 20, 2012. Photographer: Gregory Bull/AP Photo

Law Enforcement Search Suspected Shooter's Home

0:50

July 20 (Bloomberg) — Police and firefighters in Aurora, Colorado, search the home of the suspect of a shooting of more than 70 people, killing at least 12. James Holmes, 24, was arrested after the 12:30 a.m. attack at a shopping mall that housed the theater in the Denver suburb, Police Chief Dan Oates said at a press briefing today. (Source: Bloomberg)

The shooting early yesterday killed 12 inside an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater. The incident renewed debate over gun laws, with advocates saying the slayings show the need for tighter controls. Lawmakers haven’t clamped down on firearms after earlier shootings gripped public attention, including one in January 2011 that wounded Gabrielle Giffords, then a Democratic U.S. Representative, in Tucson, Arizona.

“You get this fervor in people when something like this happens,” said Ron Teck, a former Republican state senator from Grand Junction, Colorado. He was a lawmaker when the Columbine High School killings took place. “I would be really surprised if anything actually does happen.”

Deadliest Shooting

The deadliest shooting in the U.S. in recent years occurred on the Virginia Tech campus in 2007, when Seung-Hui Cho took 33 lives, including his own. In the 1999 Columbine attack, two students shot 12 classmates and a teacher in the suburban Denver school before killing themselves.

After Columbine, a measure requiring background checks for purchases at gun shows passed the U.S. Senate and stalled in the House of Representatives. No major gun-control laws passed following the Virginia Tech shooting or after Jared Lee Loughner opened fire last year in a Tucson parking lot, killing six and wounding Giffords.

In Colorado, state lawmakers refused to pass new gun- control measures after Columbine. Voters responded by approving a constitutional amendment that required background checks before firearms could be purchased at a gun show.

A bill that would have eliminated Colorado’s background check system, known as InstaCheck, passed the Republican- controlled Colorado House this year and stalled in the Senate, led by Democrats. The measure was backed by the National Rifle Association, which said the check duplicates federal requirements.

Guns Recovered

After the attack in Aurora, authorities seized a Glock G22 and a Glock G23, both .40 caliber pistols, one Remington 870 Express Tactical 12-gauge shotgun and one Smith & Wesson M&P .223 caliber semiautomatic rifle, the federal official said.

Holmes used the shotgun, rifle and one of the Glocks in the shooting, Aurora Police Chief Daniel Oates told reporters.

Two of the guns were purchased at the Denver store of Bass Pro Shops, said Larry Whiteley, manager of communications for the Springfield, Missouri-based company. The store followed federal requirements and background checks were conducted, Whiteley said in a statement.

In Colorado, there are no specific rules that would prohibit those guns from being owned, saidRobert Brown, the agent in charge of background checks at the state Bureau of Investigation.

Waiting Period

Colorado doesn’t require gun registration and there is no specific waiting period to buy a firearm. Instead, purchases are approved as soon as U.S. authorities clear a list of 10 criteria, such as assuring the buyer isn’t a fugitive or an illegal alien, and the state conducts its own checks, including for restraining orders and juvenile arrests.

Residents can carry concealed weapons in Colorado. Sheriffs approve concealed-carry permits if applicants are at least 21, haven’t committed perjury and complete a gun-training course, among other requirements. The state also recognizes concealed- carry permits from 30 other states.

Colorado residents with a permit can’t carry a firearm in schools, some government buildings and on private property where guns are prohibited by the owner, Brown said.

‘Future Tragedies’

Congress should “prevent future tragedies” and pass stricter gun control laws in response to the movie theater shooting, Dan Gross, head of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement. The Washington-based group describes itself as the country’s largest pro-gun-control lobby.

The NRA, a membership organization that says it’s widely recognized as a “major political force” and the country’s “foremost defender” of Second Amendment rights, declined to comment on the gun-control debate.

“Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and the community,” NRA public affairs director Andrew Arulanandam, said by e-mail. “NRA will not have any further comment until all the facts are known.”

The NRA has persuaded state lawmakers to make it easier to buy and carry guns, said Adam Winkler, a University of CaliforniaLos Angeles, law professor who wrote about the subject in his book, “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms.”

Winkler pointed to states such as Arizona and Wyoming that don’t require permits to carry guns. Florida lawmakers in 2008 forced business owners to let employees and shoppers bring firearms on their property and leave the firearms locked in their cars.

Virginia lawmakers this year repealed a cap on buying more than one handgun per month.

“Tragic incidents like this don’t move gun-control laws,” Winkler said in an interview. “No matter how many people die, gun control reforms go nowhere.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Michael C. Bender in Tallahassee at mbender10@bloomberg.net; Jeff Bliss in Washington at jbliss@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Merelman at smerelman@bloomberg.net

***********************************************************************

and here is a similar article from UK Yahoo

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/batman-movie-massacre-weapons-bought-legally-031629075.html — the traditional rights of Englishmen have been suppressed for a long time since: “”the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,””  MacDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3036 (2010) SCOTUS, citing D.C. v. Heller.

Batman Movie Massacre: Weapons Bought Legally

Sky NewsSky News – 17 hours ago

The man suspected of shooting 12 people dead and wounding 70 during a screening of the new Batman movie in Colorado legally purchased four guns and 6,000 rounds of ammunition in the last 60 days, police have revealed.

More details about the bloody massacre at a cinema in Aurora, near Denver, – and the extent of the weaponry used – were outlined by officials at a news conference.

The gunman, who burst into a midnight screening of the firm and opened fire, was arrested shortly afterwards and has been identified as 24-year-old James Holmes, a loner who recently quit medical school.

Ten people were killed at the scene with another two dying later of their injuries.

Eleven people are still in a critical condition in hospital while only one of the dead has so far been identified .

Aurora police chief Dan Oates said Holmes had bought the four guns in local shops and the 6,000 rounds of ammunition over the internet.

All the weapons were purchased legally, he added.

Describing the rampage itself, he said: “As far as we know it was a pretty rapid pace of fire in that theatre.”

The gunman was wearing a gas mask and a bulletproof vest as he fired shots and hurled a gas canister at the movie-goers.

Holding back tears, an emotional Mr Oates also described the potential danger of booby traps the police face while trying to search the gunman’s flat.

His apartment is filled with trip wires and chemicals, leading to the evacuation of five buildings nearby.

The operation to search the flat would resume in the morning, Mr Oates said.

The police are also due to meet shortly with the victims’ families.

The news conference came after Christopher Nolan, the director of the new Batman film that was being screened at the time of the massacre, called it a “senseless tragedy”, that was “unbearably savage”.

The Oscar-nominated filmmaker cancelled the French premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises” and a media junket in Paris hours after the shootings.

“Speaking on behalf of the cast and crew… I would like to express our profound sorrow at the senseless tragedy that has befallen the entire Aurora community,” he said.

British-American Mr Nolan is director of the Batman trilogy that started with “The Dark Knight” in 2008 and of which “The Dark Knight Rises” is the final instalment.

US President Barack Obama said he was saddened by the “horrific and tragic shooting”.

He cut short campaigning for the November presidential elections to return to the White House, where flags were lowered in mourning.

The Queen sent a message of sympathy to Mr Obama.

The British monarch said: “I was saddened to learn of the tragic loss of life earlier today in Denver, Colorado.

“Prince Philip joins me in extending our heartfelt sympathy to you and the people of America at this time.”

But while the shooting side-tracked the US presidential race neither President Obama nor Republican challenger Mitt Romney addressed the volatile issue of gun control in America.

“There are going to be other days for politics,” Obama said from one key electoral state, Florida. From another one, New Hampshire, Romney said much the same.

Amid their calls for unity and prayer, neither Mr Obama nor Mr Romney said anything of gun control, an issue that has been all but absent from the campaign debate this year.

Both men have shifted with the times, moving away from stances that favoured tougher gun control laws.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun control advocate, said: “You know, soothing words are nice, but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it.”

Twenty years ago, polls showed that a substantial majority of Americans – nearly 80% in 1990 – supported stricter limits on guns.

But now Americans appear evenly divided between those who want tougher restrictions and those who want to stick with current laws – which allow easy access to guns in many areas.

**********************************************************************

“We only report the news, we don’t make it up!  That’s the GOVERNMENT’s job” (British Newscaster from 2006 Natalie Portman/Hugo Weaving movie V for Vendetta)

A New Red Dawn Over America—Obamacare & the Police Power in Arizona are Upheld—the Constitution again ruled DOA at the Supreme Court (full text of the Supreme Court’s Worst Two Decisions of the Week attached)

Chief Justice John Roberts is rapidly becoming my least favorite U.S. Supreme Court Justice in history.  First, in 2007, the debut innovation of “the Roberts Court” was Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, then a followup kick in the face of freedom under the name of Ashcroft v. Iqbal and now this week (on Monday, June 25, 2012) Arizona v. United States (Arizona v US) and, today Thursday, June 28, 2012, yet another day that will live in infamy: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al. v. KAREN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES (NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al v SEBELIUS SECRETARY OF HEALTH).

It’s been a really bad week for the Constitution and for the American people, and a very good day for  Obama’s flourishing Dictatorship of the Proletariat.  Oh yes, and what a nice present for Hillary Clinton as she celebrates lasting longer as U.S. Secretary of State than any other of the 96 individuals to hold that office—and we were all sure she was just a joke back in the early 1990s when she was pushing a National Health Care System which looked an awful lot like what we’ve got now with Obamacare.

First with regard to Arizona v. US: The expansion of the American Police State seems never-ending, as the late great Strom Thurmond’s States-Rights Democratic Party Platform very accurately predicted in 1948.   The great triumph of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States over the past 64 years is quite simply this: all oppressive acts of government, so long as they are applied equally to White people as well as Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and all others without Racial, and only with Economic and Political, Prejudice, will be upheld.  But try asserting any constitutional right other than your right to be on an equal footing with all other slaves, and man YOU ARE DEAD MEAT!!!!  States Rights got a minor boost last year when an individual right to sue under the Tenth Amendment was recognized, but this year the 162 year trend towards the complete suppression of State Sovereignty marches forward unabated….

The main issue regarding Arizona’s immigration statutes was whether the individual states of the Union have any right to make more restrictive laws regarding residence and citizenship than the United States as a whole.  Under the expressly anti-States’ Rights 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court said NO.  But, if the Arizona police want to go around harassing people on the highways, they are free to do so, so long as they are willing to say they suspect that every blonde-haired & blue-eyed caucasian must have recently entered illegally from Sweden or Norway perhaps….  The Supreme Court, these days, never seems to miss an opportunity to enhance the power of the police to oppress the population at large.

With regard to the “Obamacare” case, I can only say I’m NOT even as surprised by this result as I was not by the result in the Arizona immigration opinion.  Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt gave up his plan to “pack” the Supreme Court, there is no infringement on the economic liberty and personal choices of the American people which the Supreme Court finds too trivial to be worthy of Federal Enforcement.  The only comment-worthy deviation from predictions was that Chief Justice John Roberts in this case came up with the novel notion that the U.S. government can tax anything and anyone it wants to for any reason, including non-compliance with a mandatory insurance purchase requirement, and that this punitive tax or purchase choice makes it all “OK.”

Of all the commentary and punditry that came out on Thursday after the decision, two of the most “spot on” that I saw were first) the article describing John Roberts’ “Liberal Apotheosis”:

After Thursday’s Obamacare ruling, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts became a minor deity to some liberals for voting to save Obamacare. But just days before Roberts’ apotheosis, liberals lamented that the “conservative” Supreme Court was taking America down a dangerous path.  (http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-ruling-liberal-apotheosis-john-roberts-035207618.html)

The “Liberal Apotheosis” of John Roberts?  “Apotheosis” of course, means transformation into a god—and what did the pagan gods of Olympia or Pharaonic Egypt do?  Exactly what any god can do:  A “god” can work Miracles,  first Make and then Bend the all Rules, Change the Natural Order of Things….   I suppose my own religious notions, such as they are, posit an unchanging God defined by the phrase from the old BCP: “as it was in the beginning, it is now and ever shall be, world without end amen” which seems curiously absent from most Episcopal services these days.   I equate God with Nature, and while I believe rather fervently in Evolution, I believe Evolution operates according to certain utterly unchanging rules, such as the laws of thermodynamics, which even the discovery of man’s ability intentionally to split or fuse atoms could never quite change.

And yet the Godlike role of the Supreme Court in making and bending rules seems more than a bit undemocratic.   So that is the second part of the analysis we need to perform today: Was Roberts’ decision to side with Obamacare entirely a matter of political strategy?

 The American Concept of Constitutional Judicial Review predates Chief Justice John Marshall. The Supreme Court’s decision Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 412 (February 1, 1793)(Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, February 1 1793triggered the (I would now say very unfortunate) move to enact the 11th Amendment during the First Term of the Presidency of George Washington.  But Chief Justice Marshall’s notions of judicial review shaped the Court, much to his cousin Thomas Jefferson’s dismay and disgust.   I recall hearing the story of Marbury v. Madison and judicial review in my Freshman year at Tulane, from Professor Jean Danielson in Political Science H103, where I met my long-time college years best friend John K. Naland, now a long-time veteran of the U.S. State Department.  Professor Danielson explained the political genius of Marbury v. Madison was that it empowered the Court while respecting the political boundaries of the time.  Chief Justice Marshall knew that, as President Adams’ last major appointee, any decision made in favor of the appointment of Adams’ minor “midnight judges” including William Marbury would simply be ignored by the new Democratic-Republican administration of Jefferson (with James Madison as secretary of state and the defendant in the case) as an act of political partisanship on the part of a Federalist appointee favoring Federalist appointees.  On the other hand, to uphold Secretary of State Madison’s power to refuse to honor the appointments made by President Adams would seem like craven capitulation without legal or moral integrity.  So, in a result which no one ever anticipated, Chief Justice John Marshall carefully reasoned and soundly declared the statute authorizing the appointment of Magistrates in the District of Columbia to be an unconstitutional act in excess of Congress’ power under the Constitution—and the role of the U.S. Supreme Court as Constitutional arbiter of the United States was established forever—or, at least, for a long time.

That particular “long time” ended in 1936, which, as a another commentator/pundit on the Obamacare decision pointed out, was the last time in history that the United States Supreme Court overturned a major piece of Congressional legislation as Unconstitutional.    Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first term as President was unlike anything the United States had ever since, including George Washington’s First Term.   In Washington’s First Term, the constant debate in Congress was whether the Federal Government had power under the Constitution to do much of anything at all.  The spirit was decidedly “conservative” in the sense of cautious, even as a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal was being launched as a more formally organized “corporate” type of enterprise (the Articles of Confederation were much more analogous to a “partnership” among the States—with each partner having a nearly full veto power).

During FDR’s First Term, there were also many in Congress who asked whether the Federal Government had the power to do a great many of the things the New Deal proposed to do, from the NRA to the TVA (National Recovery Administration to the Tennessee Valley Authority).  But from 1933-1937, such questions were not asked in a cautious or even skeptical voice regarding what Congress and the Federal government could legitimately do, but in the desperate and panicked voice of people who saw and feared “you are taking our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor” from us.  Those people sought recourse against the reckless usurpation of Federal Power in the Supreme Court, and in the years 1933-1937, the Supreme Court struck down 29 Congressionally passed statutes signed by the President as part of the New Deal.

Roosevelt’s first hundred days and all that followed provoked an unprecedented clash between the Supreme Court Justices and the “New Deal” alliance of the legislative and executive branches. At Roosevelt’s instigation, Congress in the 1930s enacted a series of laws ostensibly, supposed, aimed at ending the Great Depression and restoring the nation’s economic well-being, but in fact aimed at shoring up the American Elite, especially the Banking system, from the threat of a Communist and/or Fascist revolution analogous to those taking place in Europe at the same time.  Of eight major “program” statutes to come before the Court, only two were upheld. Laws that were struck down included the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, and the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935.  The Court came under heavy fire for its decisions, and Roosevelt proposed a controversial plan to increase the size of the Court, presumably to ensure a majority sympathetic to the New Deal.

Shortly after the plan was proposed, the Court defused the issue by upholding a series of revised New Deal laws.  Dominated by economic conservatives, to which group even late 19th/early 20th Century “Progressives” such as Oliver Wendell Holmes were (by comparison, anyhow) the Court threw out numerous laws Congress enacted to protect workers and consumers. The conflicts peaked in 1936. The Court threw out twenty-nine laws during that period, but the last of these was in 1936, when when the court invalidated a federal law that limited work hours and prescribed minimum wages for coal workers.

Everything changed in 1937 when, FDR Proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 on March 9 of that year in one of his legendary “Fireside chats” whereby he jumped over the Congress and all Constitutional Separation of Powers and asked the American people directly to endorse and support his programs.  The public reaction was overwhelmingly negative, almost the first time the 33rd President had seen any of his initiatives draw such opposition.  But the Justices of the Supreme Court saw the writing on the wall—mene, mene, tekel upharsin—and when faced with the two major cases challenging Social Security (the ultimate authority and most direct antecedent for Obamacare), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the most massive fraud ever perpetrated on the American people—the law creating a “Social Security Trust Fund” with the bribed cooperation of the States—into which Social Security Trust Fund not one dime of real money (certainly not one dime of the 14 Trillion dollars paid since 1937 in Social Security Taxes) has ever been paid.

Helvering v. Davis (05-27-1937 Helvering v Davis 301 US 619 57 SCt 904 Jusice Cardozo endorses the SS Trust Fund Fraud) and Steward Machine Company v. Davis (Charles C Steward Mach Co v Davis) thus effectively marked the end of the Supreme Court as an independent branch of government.  The new mantra was not “that government is best which governs least” but instead, “The concept of the general welfare is not a static one”…. “Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.”   (Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 641, 57 S.Ct. 904, 909, 81 L.Ed. 1307, 1315 [1937])

From that time forward Courts held that there appeared to be only four (all extra-constitutional) prerequisites to a finding that a spending clause measure and condition attached to it are valid: (1) The federal power is used for a legitimate national purpose, i.e., promotion of the general welfare (Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 at pp. 585–590, 57 S.Ct. at pp. 890–92 [1937], 81 L.Ed. at pp. 1290–1293); (2) the condition is related to a legitimate national goal (Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra, at pp. 590–591, 57 S.Ct. at pp. 892–93, 81 L.Ed. at pp. 1292–1293; See also Note, Federal Grants and the Tenth Amendment: ‘Things As They Are’ and Fiscal Federalism (1981) 50 Fordham L.Rev. 130, 140–141); (3) the condition is related to the purpose of the federal funds whose receipt is conditioned (FCC v. League of Women Voters (1984) 468 U.S. 364, 104 S.Ct. 3106, 3132, 82 L.Ed.2d 278, 309 (Rehnquist, J. dissenting); State of Okl. v. Schweiker, 655 F.2d at pp. 407, 411); and (4) the condition is unambiguous (Pennhurst State School v. Halderman,  451 U.S. at p. 17, 101 S.Ct. at pp. 1539–40 [January 23, 1984])(Pennhurst State School And Hosp v Halderman).
It was in the spirit of such a “living constitution” that Chief Justice John Roberts allied himself with the enemies of limited government on June 28, 2012.  And it is in that sense, much like the Supreme Court in 1937, ruling in Roosevelt’s favor in both of the Social Security Cases, Helvering and Charles Steward above, that Chief Justice John Roberts “saved the Supreme Court” (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/did-chief-justice-roberts-save-supreme-court-103301790.html).  More likely, Chief Justice John Roberts just danced on Chief Justice John Marshall’s grave and said, “You think that failure to follow the Constitution is Judicial Treason?  Well, let’s see what you’re going to do about it now.”  According to that same article, Chief Justice Roberts had told the Senate at his confirmation hearings:
“Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them,” said Roberts at the time. “The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”

Now, strangely enough, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a very different kind of opinion in 1820:

The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty.  Cohens v State of Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257, 6 Wheaton 264 (March 3, 1820)

There is a great deal of confusion among the commentators and pundits, I think, about what “Judicial activism” really means.  I would NOT call Chief Justice John Marshall a Judicial Activist—although, indeed, he advocated throughout his 35 years on the bench a considerably more positive role for the Court in preserving the Constitution than Chief Justice John Roberts has shown to date.  “Judicial Activism” does not mean “striking down unconstitutional laws”—“Judicial Activism” as a term should be reserved for reshaping or restructuring the laws in the absence of Congressional Authority to do so.  The “Warren Court” from 1953-1971 was the epitome of “judicial activism”—the Supreme Court during those two decades effectively rewrote the laws of the United States and told CONGRESS and the STATES what to do, rather than vice-versa.

In the case of Obamacare, Chief Justice John Roberts acts his role as an umpire very poorly.  He has seen the foul, called it (under the commerce clause) and “covered it up” under the guise of the taxing power, which (in reality) is even less constitutionally justified than the commerce clause rationale (which at least has the past 75 years of tradition—however illegitimate, behind it).

And so was the U.S. Constitution rewritten in 1937 to allow for first the “relatively” modest program of Social Security and now, 75 years later—on the occasion of the 75th Annual Hunger Games (cf. Suzanne Collins, Catching Fire [2009] and Mockingjay [2010], both New York: Scholastic Press)—Obamacare comes forward to cap the fraud by, in Chief Justice John Roberts’ view—a non-coercive, mere “Tax” on those who do not buy governmentally mandated insurance… and of course, jail for those who do not pay their taxes.

SO WHAT IS THE SHORT-TERM SOLUTION?  NULLIFY OBAMACARE!  I should say that, without any hesitation whatsoever, I absolutely endorse and support the Tenth Amendment Center’s position on Obamacare (this Los Angeles based think tank is just one of the brightest stars on the Political Horizon—of our New Red Dawn):

Now that the Supremes have crushed Constitutional limits once again, the next step is to focus all our energy on a state and local level to NULLIFY this – and every other – unconstitutional act.
We have model legislation for yor state.  Ready to go right now.  Press your state reps to introduce this bill today, or for the next legislative session.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/federal-health-care-nullification-act/
Please SHARE this information widely!
*******
We need your help to continue this work, and help people take the next step at the state level.  Please join us, and help nullification happen!  Whether it’s $500 or $5, every bit of help right now is crucial!
Please visit this link to help now:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/donate/
*******
Thomas Jefferson told us that when the government “assumes undelegated powers” a nullification is THE “rightful remedy”
James Madison said that states were “duty bound to interpose….to arrest the progress of evil”
Today’s ruling is an assumption of undelegated powers, and evil is advancing.  The time to act in support of nullification in your area is NOW!  Please share the model legislation for Obamacare with as many people as possible, and please chip in as generously as possible to help us push this campaign aggressively.
While the task is difficult, our cause is just.
Concordia res parvae crescunt,
(small thing grow great by concord)
Michael Bolding
Tenth Amendment Center
==================================================
Our mailing address is:
Tenth Amendment Center
123 S. Figueroa St
Suite 1614
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Our telephone:
213.935.0553

AND WHAT DO I DO AS I WATCH ALL THIS TRANSPIRE?

I sigh.  I cry.  And sometimes I just want to lie down and die.  This is not the land of my birth, even though on the map it generally looks like it should be the same country as it was in 1960.

The transformation over the past fifty two years is simply horrific.  52 years was a key cycle of time among the Aztec, Maya, Mixtec, Tarascans & Zapotec in ancient Mesoamerica, and I can only say that I feel a certain sympathy for how an Aztec born in 1518 might have felt looking at the wreckage of his once proud nation in 1570 after 52 years of Spanish conquest, rape and pillage.  Like an Aztec born in the last year before the arrival of the Spanish, I have grown up and come to age watching my own people (the American Middle Class, especially Protestants of European descent) reduced to second class status, my people’s most attractive and beautiful women taken as prizes by the conquerors, my nation’s heritage and values denigrated, suppressed and taught in the schools as nothing but “heresy” from the New World Order.

I do speak Spanish fairly well and have spent many of the happier moments in my life in Mexico and elsewhere in the Hispanic World, from Bogotá to Barcelona, and I keep in touch with many friends and acquaintances of a Constitutional mindset from those parts of the world.  When they ask me what I consider to be the greatest single constitutional development under the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, I tell them without hesitation: N.A.D.A.  (aka Senate Bill 1867, you know, the statute that effectively repealed the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments that passed the Senate 93-7 last December).

Aurora I. Diaz & David Wynn Miller & David Rodearmal v. Hillary Rodham Clinton

SECOND NOTICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS REMOVAL v BANK OF AMERICA AURORA I DIAZ 08-18-10-BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER

None can ever be free until all are free.  Let me repeat that: NO ONE will ever be truly free until EVERYONE is free.  We do NOT have the right, under the constitution, to judge anyone as crazy or deprive them of freedom because of eccentricity or non-normative behavior, so long as such behavior is not physically injurious without the consent of the “victim.”  Where the object of any action, the “victim” consents to non-physical injury, the freedom to act must not be impaired or impeded in any way.

The use of linguistic, grammatical, lexical, semantic, semiotic, or syntactic, ambiguity in law is routine, but Bill and now Hillary Clinton seem to have perfected this stratagem as an art form.  Why should others, including the famous, infamous, notable, or notorious David Wynn Miller, not have the right to do the same?

AUGUST 2, 2010: NEW CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

  1. The Orange County Superior Court (The Honorable [Commissioner] Glen Mondo, West Judicial Center at Westminster California) reconvened and in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§241-242, infringed Aurora I. Diaz’ rights to due process and equal protection of laws in the following ways and means, by its minute order and oral pronouncements:
  2. Aurora I. Diaz informed the California Superior Court that she had retained counsel, although she had proceeded pro se in the past.
  3. The Commissioner of the California Superior Court informed Defendant that she would not be allowed
  4. In fact, exercising her rights under the First Amendment (Right to Petition, Freedom of Assembly), the Seventh, and the Ninth Amendment, Aurora I. Diaz had in fact retained as David Wynn Miller as her counsel and linguistic expert on the interpretation of contractual and statutory language at a trial-by-jury.
  5. Aurora I. Diaz paid the counsel of her choice $3,000.00 cash for representation in this and another case relating to two houses and he was available to return from Australia to represent her in this case during the same week as trial, but later in the week.
  6. The right to counsel of choice, under U.S. Supreme Court holdings, has never been limited only to licensed attorneys, especially for economically and situationally disadvantaged people.  See, e.g. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969)(See Exhibit H).

 

THE DEFENDANT’S NEED FOR LINGUISTIC COUNSEL FOR LEGAL DEFENSE

  1. A Defendant in an unlawful detainer case is at a severe disadvantage due to the structure of the laws of the State of California, which make it almost impossible, perhaps completely impossible, to raise an effective defense under normal circumstances.
  2. In fact, most licensed attorneys in the State of California will not represent a Defendant in an unlawful detainer case because no effective defense is possible.
  3. David Wynn Miller is known around the world for his theory of quantum language analysis of legal documents and texts.
  4. Defendant Aurora I. Diaz is a not a native speaker of English and believes that David Wynn Miller’s approach posits a worthy analysis of this state’s laws and applications of contractual obligations and procedures under deeds of trust.
  5. The Defendant asserts that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees her the right to her choice in the selection of her counsel and advocate.
  6. The Defendant asserts that the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution also guarantees her the right to her choice in the selection of her counselor and advocate.
  7. The Defendant finally asserts that 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1982 guarantee her the equal right with all other citizens and lawful residents of the United States to make and enforce contracts (according to her linguistic understanding) and to institute and maintain legal proceedings (including the presentation of linguistic analysis and evidence) for the vindication of her rights.
  8. David Wynn Miller is a controversial scholar and advocate of linguistic analysis is not favored by all commentators.
  9. However, it has long been held, as an axiom of First Amendment law that, although the government may disagree with every word one man or another speaks or rights, it is the duty of all who uphold the Constitution to defend to the death each man’s right to speak or write his opinions and conclusions freely.
  10. David Wynn Miller has devoted his life to the linguistic analysis of the law and the deconstruction of legal texts, which, to the average native-born speaker of English, are all but totally incomprehensible.
  11. David Wynn Miller’s theory of grammar and Syntax may not be the same as Noam Chomsky’s theory or that of non-Chomskyites such as Joseph Harold Greenberg, but the fact that his theories may not be taught in all departments of Semiotics or Linguistics does not mean that this Defendant should not have the right to fully take advantage of his advice and teachings and the application of his analytical theorems to the language of law in this case.
  12. It is even incomprehensible why “counsel” in a case such as the present case, so heavily dependent on the analysis and decipherment of dense legal texts, should be limited to “legal” counselors rather than “linguistic” counselors.
  13. Defendant Aurora I. Diaz would point out that even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has sought the assistance of and representation by Linguists and grammatical analysts in cases pending during the past year, see for example Rodearmal v. Clinton, in the United States District Court Case 1:09-cv-00171-RBW-JR     Document 29      Filed 08/27/2009     Page 1 of 29.  See Exhibit E: Linguistics in Law Amici Curiae Linguists

CALIFORNIA COURTS DENY RIGHT TO COUNSEL & JURY TRIAL & FALSELY IMPUTE AND ATTRIBUTE WAIVER TO DEFENDANT

  1. The California Superior Court refused to accommodate Aurora I. Diaz’ reasonable and modest request.
  2. At the same time, the California Superior Court in Westminster set this case for a NON-JURY trial on August 23, 2010, despite the fact that the Plaintiff had properly demanded a trial-by-jury on November 12, 2009, and again on December 7, 2010, all prior to her first removal to the United States District Court on December 10, 2010 (Exhibit F).
  3. Finally, in the minute order entered on August 2, 2010, Commissioner Mondo also stated that Defendant had “waived her right to notice” of the trial.  At no point was Defendant Aurora I. Diaz aware of having waived any rights, and in fact, the Judge did not engage in any colloquy or verbal exchange of any kind with the Defendant to inquire whether she realized that she was waiving any rights or what the consequence of these waivers might be.
  4. The entry of a “waiver” on an order without even inquiring of a Defendant whether she agreed or not to a waiver is an unconscionable act of oppression in derogation of this Defendant’s fundamental constitutional and human rights.
  5. In sum, Commissioner Mondo refused to respect the Defendant’s right to be represented by counsel, refused to schedule final trial so that Defendant’s counsel could be present, refused to schedule a trial-by-jury, and also forcibly deprived Defendant of other rights by falsely entering a “waiver of rights” on the part of Aurora I. Diaz, when no such waiver of rights ever took place.
  6. With regard to Civil Rights Removal due to denial of equal protection of laws, Defendant’s Notice of Removal is proper and timely because the Court’s order of August 2, 2010, was entered less than 30 days prior to the removal of this case, and is accordingly proper within the meaning of and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1443(1) and 1446(b), which states:

a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable, except that a case may not be removed on the basis of jurisdiction conferred by section 1332 of this title [28 USCS § 1332] more than 1 year after commencement of the action.

  1. Furthermore, Defendant submits that racially blind civil rights removal should be properly applied and allowed to the protection of disadvantaged classes which are denied equal protection and due process of law in Orange County, California (and the state of California generally) under color of California statutory law enforced, interpreted, and applied by the Superior Courts of Orange County include (1) a racially defined class (Hispanic residents of California), (2) a sex defined class (single female), and (3) a class defined by economic litigation (of defendants of wrongful eviction actions predicated on their status as victims of wrongful foreclosure) whose members are each denied and cannot enforce in the courts of Orange County, California.

Some Austrian thoughts for Americans Analyzing the first day after the passage of National Health Care Plan

Words cannot describe my COMPLETE lack of Surprise that Obamacare, National Health Care, passed.  It was Hillary Clinton’s priority in 1992-95, 18-15 years ago, and look where she is now?  The Oligarchy has imposed Collectivism on an unwilling Majority, certain, like Barbara Boxer, that the members of the Elite know so much better than the ignorant masses how to govern themselves than the people could possibly do themselves.  Individual Freedom, Individual Autonomy, the importance of the individual itself—all of these are obstacles.  Individualism must give way to acquiescence in the greater good, as if the “greater good” were not the sum total of individual well-being.  I say, as I so often have said in this blog, “Cry, the Beloved Country.”  We are on a path of self-destruction and ruination. 162 years after the Communist Manifesto, Barack Obama is President, Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State.  Cass Sunstein is a Czar….

National Health Care is the logical outcome and conclusion of the process that began with Social Security, and it is no more mandatory, coercive, or invasive of private liberty than the Social Security “tax”—universally forced purchase of a rather modest retirement pension which the government periodically loots and which has never been managed by true fiduciary standards at all.  Rather than talk about the wretched details, I would prefer to contemplate the radical roots of the problem: the replacement of Classical Liberalism with Socialism, which is no kind of “liberalism” at all.   The full article is quite long and I only intend to give a taste here.  The balance can be read at: http://mises.org/daily/4113, but (even though my current attempt to run as a candidate against Barbara Boxer has stumbled and doesn’t seem to be getting off the ground very well) I will continue my candidacy for U.S. Senator from California (realistic target date 2012 against Feinstein?) and I will work in support of a plan of Classical Economic Liberalism, in fact for “Capitalism and Freedom” to borrow the title of Milton Friedman’s book, and I hope that we will eventually escape from the wreckage that IS the Obamanation of today.

Austrian Economics and Classical Liberalism

Mises Daily: Thursday, March 04, 2010 by 

I. Introduction

Classical liberalism — which we shall call here simply liberalism — is based on the conception of civil society as, by and large, self-regulating when its members are free to act within very wide bounds of their individual rights. Among these the right to private property, including freedom of contract and free disposition of one’s own labor, is given a very high priority. Historically, liberalism has manifested a hostility to state action, which, it insists, should be reduced to a minimum (Raico 1992, 1994).

Austrian economics is the name given to the school, or strand, of economic theory that began with Carl Menger (Kirzner 1987; Hayek 1968), and it has often been linked — both by adherents and opponents — to the liberal doctrine. The purpose of this paper is to examine some of the connections that exist, or have been held to exist, between Austrian economics and liberalism.

II. Austrian Economics and Wertfreiheit

Writers have sometimes freely referred to “the Austrian ethical position” (Shand 1984, p. 221) and the “moral and ethical stance” of the Austrian economists (Reekie 1984, p. 176), denoting a position with strong (liberal) implications for politics. At first glance, this is surprising, since Austrian economists have been at pains to affirm the Wertfreiheit (value neutrality) of their theory, and thus its conformity to Weberian strictures on the character of scientific theories (Kirzner 1992b). Ludwig von Mises, for instance (1949, p. 881), stated that, “economics is apolitical or nonpolitical … it is perfectly neutral with regard to judgments of value, as it refers always to means and never to the choice of ultimate ends.”

That said, however, the fact is that all of the major figures in the development of Austrian economics habitually took positions on policy issues that they held to be somehow grounded in their economic doctrines. Mises, for instance, is widely recognized as probably the premier liberal thinker of the 20th century. In his magnum opus, Human Action (1949), he shed light on the connection between value-free economics and liberal politics:

While praxeology, and therefore economics too, uses the terms happiness and removal of uneasiness in a purely formal sense, liberalism attaches to them a concrete meaning. It presupposes that people prefer life to death, health to sickness, nourishment to starvation, abundance to poverty. It teaches man how to act in accordance with these valuations.… The liberals do not assert that men ought to strive after the goals mentioned above. What they maintain is that the immense majority prefer [them]. (p. 154)

According to Mises, economics teaches the means necessary for the promotion of the values most people endorse. Those means comprise, basically, preservation of a free-market economy. Thus, the economist per se passes no value judgments, including political value judgments. He only proposes hypothetical imperatives (if you wish to achieve A, and B is the necessary means for the achievement of A, then do B) (Rothbard 1962, volume 2, pp. 880–881, 1976b). A question that will concern us is whether the division between Austrian theory and liberal principles is as surgically clean-cut as this seems to suggest.

III. Methodological Individualism

Methodological individualism has been a keystone of Austrian economics since the publication of the first Austrian work, Menger’s Principles, in 1871. As Menger wrote in his Investigations,

The nation as such is not a large subject that has needs, that works, practices economy, and consumes.… Thus the phenomena of “national economy” … are, rather, the results of all the innumerable individual economic efforts in the nation … [and] must also be theoretically interpreted in this light.… Whoever wants to understand theoretically the phenomena of “national economy” … must for this reason attempt to go back to their trueelements, to the singular economies in the nation, and to investigate the laws by which the former are built up from the latter. (Menger 1985, p. 93, emphasis in original)

Methodological individualism was endorsed by the other leaders of Austrianism, to the point where Fritz Machlup (1981) could list it as the first of “the most typical requirements for a true adherent of the Austrian school.”

Perhaps because of the connotations of the noun, Austrians have stressed that what is at issue ismethodological individualism. Israel Kirzner (1987, p. 148) cites Machlup’s criteria of Austrianism, including methodological individualism as the first. He warns parenthetically, however, that this is “not to be confused with political or ideological individualism;” it refers merely “to the claim that economic phenomena are to be explained by going back to the actions of individuals.”

Lawrence H. White (1990, p. 356), too, seems to wish to distance methodological individualism from any hint of politics. White criticizes Max Alter for alluding to a “political” battle in this connection, commenting, “in fact the phrase methodological individualism was coined precisely to distinguish it from other varieties of individualism, including the political variety.”

But the interesting question is not whether the characteristic method of the Austrian School isidentical with individualism in the political sense (usually more or less a synonym for liberalism). Obviously, it is not. The question is whether the method itself has any political implications.

It is certainly possible for someone to adopt methodological individualism and not endorse liberalism (Boehm 1985, pp. 252–253). Jon Elster, for instance, is able to insist on the necessity of methodological individualism in the social sciences, while continuing to view himself as a Marxist (Elster 1985, pp. 4–8). Yet it is significant that Elster dismisses certain claims of Marx on the grounds of their inconsistency with methodological individualism.

In general, it seems clear that the Austrian approach in methodology tends to preclude holistic ideologies that happen also to be incompatible with liberalism, such as classical Marxism and certain varieties of racism and hypernationalism. To this extent, then, it is not simplymethodological individualism.

Political factors played a role in the debate over Austrian methodology from the start. The very fact that “nation” and “state,” understood as holistic entities, were not primaries in his system set Menger apart from important currents of economic thought in the German-speaking world of his time. Indeed, it was on the basis of Menger’s methodology that Gustav Schmoller, leader of the German Historical School, instantly politicized the whole debate. In his review of Menger’sInvestigations, Schmoller accused Menger of adhering to Manchestertum (laissez-faire), since his abstract and “atomistic” method might better be called “the Manchesterist-individualist” method (Schmoller 1883, p. 241).

Friedrich von Wieser (1923), himself one of the founders of the Austrian School, introduced a curious political note in discussing the origins of Austrianism. Wieser recalled how, as young economists, both he and Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk had been struck by the contradiction in classical economics:

While the chief accusation that was raised at the time against the classical economists in Germany concerned their [political] individualism, we found that they had become unfaithful to their individualistic creed from the start. As true individualists they would have had to explain the economy from the meaning of the individuals engaged in economic activity who were joined together in the economy. (p. 87)

Many decades later, Hayek, in a sense, concurred with Schmoller and Wieser. The central idea of his most extensive work on methodology, The Counter-Revolution of Science, is precisely the historical and theoretical connections between the denial of methodological individualism and the growth of socialism. Hayek (1955) assails “methodological collectivism,” with

its tendency to treat wholes like “society” or the “economy,” “capitalism” … or a particular “industry” or “class” or “country” as definitely given objects about which we can discover laws by observing their behavior as wholes.… The naive view which regards the complexes which history studies as given wholes naturally leads to the belief that their observation can reveal “laws” of the development of these wholes. (pp. 53, 73)

The supposed discovery of such laws has resulted in the construction of philosophies of history on which major socialist projects have been erected — Marxism, of course, but particularly Saint-Simonianism, the system Hayek dissects in his book. The Saint-Simonians were practitioners par excellence of scientism, the illegitimate application to the study of society of the methods of the natural sciences.

And it is scientism — the negation of methodological individualism — that, according to Hayek, “through its popularizers has done more to create the present trend towards socialism than all the conflicts between economic interests”(Hayek 1955, pp. 100–101). By the same token, political opponents of liberalism, in criticizing Hayek in this area, have assumed that his methodological individualism was closely connected with his political philosophy.

Marxist critics have made a further point regarding Austrian methodology. In their view, it stunts our understanding of social reality. According to Ronald Meek (1972), marginalism — including Austrian economics — took refuge in a schema centering on the psychology of isolated, atomistic individuals, thus (unconsciously) diverting attention from the crucial questions of political economythat had been the focus of classical economics (including Marxism). As a result, “real-life” issues, such as the division of the social product among competing classes — “those great problems of capitalist reality which worried the man in the street” (1972, p. 505) — have been systematically ignored.

This Marxist criticism would seem to be misguided, however. The abstracting approach of Austrianism pertains — necessarily — to its theory. Many Austrians, it may be conceded, have neglected to apply their theory to the understanding of concrete, “real-life” issues. That this failing is not intrinsic to Austrian economics, however, is shown by the fact that at least one well-known Austrian economist, Murray N. Rothbard, has devoted himself not only to “pure economics,” but also to highly important questions of political economy, both on a theoretical level and in specific historical contexts (e.g., Rothbard 1963, 1970; on methodological individualism, see Rothbard 1979).

IV. Subjectivism

Austrian economics begins with and constantly emphasizes the action of the individual human being (Mises 1949, pp. 11–29; Rothbard 1962, pp. 1–8). According to Lachmann (1978), for the Austrian School,

the thought design, the economic calculation or economic plan of the individual, always stands in the foreground of theoretical interest.… The significance of the Austrian school in the history of ideas perhaps finds its most pregnant expression in the statement that here, man as an actor stands at the center of economic events (p. 47, 51).[9]