Saturday, 15 October 2016

So Let Me Get This Straight...

So let me get this straight…

Item.  Photo ID cards should not be required at the voting precincts (and in fact should not even be asked for) because it is ‘racist’.  Come again?  Oh - because they cost money, and many poor people are blacks; ipso facto.  
   But what’s the excuse when people who are in a poverty category (even though such people need such an ID to qualify for their welfare ‘benefits;’ and so forth and so on, and on, and on…) can even have such cards for free??  ‘Oh.  Well.  Then…just - because.  Oh wait - I’ve got it: because it’s ’discriminatory’.’  How so?  ‘Well; to people who don’t have such cards.  Yeah; that’s it.  It’s discriminatory.’  
   Forget how it’s discriminatory.  It just is.  And that’s the magic word.  Along with ’racist,’ and ‘homophobic,’ and ‘white supremacist,’ and all those other demonizing words that the Left uses, in their (orchestrated) campaign to overthrow the federal constitutional republic of the u.S.A..1
   But to continue.  And in this same, ‘voting’ vein:

Item.  No cameras, hidden or otherwise, should be allowed in voting sites,2 because that is contrary to the spirit of a free country.  But to install a police state under Marxist control - with all of us constantly being monitored, by license plate cameras, CCTV cameras (some hidden in streetlight fixtures), and so forth, is another matter; because that is for ‘the greater good’.  
     What chutzpah.3

Item.  Farmers - or anybody - can’t collect rainwater on their property - say for ponds, for their cattle, or for drinking water for themselves - because, no 1, the federal government has jurisdiction on such an activity, and doesn’t want them doing it.  What?  Why not?? Because the federal government has jurisdiction over, quote, ’navigable waters’.  But what if such water can be proven not to run off into streams and rivers leading to ’navigable waters’? Ah, well; that leads to ‘because No. 2’: Just because.     
   Wouldn’t have anything to do with the federal government wanting all the citizenry to be subject to their control over their drinking water supplies, would it, boyos?  Not only for the ability to put certain chemicals in their drinking water - designed for people control (as in fluoride and lithium); or simply to poison them - but as well to control the very drinking water itself.  As a riff in the Kissinger observation that ‘he who controls the food supply controls the people’.4  
   But to continue.  And in the ‘for the greater good’ vein:

Item.  Based on the reasoning behind the position of the liberal wing of the SCOTUS on the constitutional acceptability, even mandation, of the ACA (the so-called ObamaCare), under the Commerce Clause, it is not so farfetched to presume that a liberal-majority of the SCOTUS would say - decree - that the American citizenry can’t use natural methods to deal with cancer, because such activity has an “adverse impact” on “commerce” -  i.e.: by avoiding paying Big Pharma for their products, such people are harming the economy, and so the federal government has the authority to put an end to people ‘self-medicating’ with natural substances.5    

You can’t make this stuff up.

Oh wait:

Obviously, you can.     

Or at least, these learned and august justices can.

Whom I would not let make any decisions in any government of mine.


1 The term ‘united States of America’ - with the ‘u’ uncapitalized - is to highlight the fact that there has been a hijack of this nation already, back in the late 1800s  Which needs to be redressed.   
   Another, albeit related, subject. 

2 And have you seen the undercover videos of precinct workers in the Clinton-Sanders primary, in a number of states, stuffing the ballot boxes, with votes for one of the candidates?  And, with all of those precinct workers being females, one can be excused in coming up with an educated guess as to which candidate that was…

3 This could well take over from the classic definition of such, of a young man killing his parents and then pleading for mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan.  They both have the key element of outrageous audacity about them.
   But on second thought, I prefer the original.  It would be very hard to beat that one.  In a fair fight; so to speak… 

4 As our drinking water supplies are being privatized, by the corporate likes of Nestle...
   A lot of money to be made in that ‘product’.  Let alone for the people-control factor involved; for the corporate-government complex, quietly wrapping its tentacles around us…
   ‘But you talk about the Marxists on the one hand, and then on the other, you talk about the fascists.’
   Indeed.  As two sides to the pyramid of power - with the same nest of vipers at the top - threatening to crush us, in the pincer movement going on, as we speak.

5 Some of the arguments put forth by Justice Ginsburg in that case (NFIB v. Sibelius - 2012) were of the likes of: “Under precedent [1937, and the New Deal revolution of FDR], the Constitution imposes no meaningful restriction on federal power…”
   The conservative professor from whose lecture on this subject I took this quote - Prof. Kevin  Portteus, of Hillsdale College; in Lecture 3 of their online series on ‘The U.S. Supreme Court,’ lecture titled ’NFIB v. Sibelius: Federalism’) - went on to comment, in a very perceptive observation, that, under such judicial thinking, “Congress can regulate practically anything that they believe to be in the public interest.”  
   Just so.  And though this argument, for the federal  government’s power under the Commerce Clause, was not accepted by the majority decision in this particular case, what was accepted was an argument that said, first, that Congress could not impose it (the 'individual mandate') as a tax, and no. 2, that Congress COULD impose it as a tax.
   Go figure.  About who is ruling us these days.  These dark days, for the American federal constitutional Republic.
   N.B. As for Justice Ginsburg: How come she and Kagan were not recused, either by themselves or by CJ Roberts, from the 'same-sex marriage' case and decision, for each having presided over such ceremonies beforehand??  That's a conflict of interest if there ever was one.
   But not to worry. It's all moot now, anyway.  Along with all the legislation that the Usurper has signed into law, and all the E.O.'s and P.D.'s that he has issued, and all the appointments that he has made - including to said SCOTUS, and lesser courts.  As he is removed from the office, for having occupied it illegally, and held for trial; on a whole host of charges by now, including fraud, perjury, and treason.  For Justice having caught up with him.
   And this nation.
   And the world, for that matter.
   But to continue, this particular blog.  And to wrap it up.

No comments: