A rant

This government is no longer legitimate nor does it deserve the consent of those it would subjugate rather than govern.

A reminder to the 49%-51% of those who voted for President Donald J Trump and were disenfranchised by the barefaced fraud of this so-called election, a reminder;
“That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
I sincerely doubt that many today would recognize those words, (they are part of the Declaration of Independence), and fewer still will have the testicular fortitude to put into the necessary practice to revivify the basis of our now moribund Republic.
We have gotten soft, apathetic and timid to the point where we, like abused lapdogs will lick the hand of he/she that holds the whip.
This government is no longer legitimate nor does it deserve the consent of those it would subjugate rather than govern. I am disgusted with those who have allowed this travesty to occur and have suborned the sedition and treason up to and including the current sitting President who had the power to change it, but apparently not the will.
To quote Founding Father Samuel Adams; “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Shun them!

There can be no argument from either side, however, that there has been real and, most likely permanent harm to businesses, family incomes,and public trust resulting in major damage to the very fabric of our society.

Romans 16:17-18
King James Version

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Shunning is the act of social rejection, or emotional distancing.

Social rejection occurs when a person or group deliberately avoids association with, and habitually keeps away from an individual or group.
This can be a formal decision by a group, or a less formal group action which will spread to all members of the group as a form of solidarity.

It is a sanction against association, often associated with tightly knit organizations and communities.

Targets of shunning can include persons who have been labeled as apostates, whistleblowers, dissidents, strikebreakers, or anyone the group perceives as a threat or source of conflict.

Social rejection has been established to cause psychological damage and has been categorized as torture or punishment.

Shunning can be broken down into behaviors and practices that seek to accomplish either or both of two primary goals.

  1. To modify the behavior of a member. This approach seeks to influence, encourage, or coerce normative behaviors from members, and may seek to dissuade, provide disincentives for, or to compel avoidance of certain behaviors.

Shunning may include disassociating from a member by other members of the community who are in good standing. It may include more antagonistic psychological behaviors (described below). This approach may be seen as either corrective or punitive (or both) by the group membership or leadership, and may also be intended as a deterrent.

  1. To remove or limit the influence of a member (or former member) over other members in a community. This approach may seek to isolate, to discredit, or otherwise dis-empower such a member, often in the context of actions or positions advocated by that member. For groups with defined membership criteria, especially based on key behaviors or ideological precepts, this approach may be seen as limiting damage to the community or its leadership.

Shunning is usually approved of by the group engaging in the shunning, and usually highly disapproved of by the target of the shunning, resulting in a polarization of views.

Those subject to the practice respond differently, usually depending both on the circumstances of the event, and the nature of the practices being applied. Extreme forms of shunning have damaged some individuals’ psychological and relational health.

In many “civil” societies, kinds of shunning are practiced de facto or de jure, to coerce or avert behaviors or associations deemed unhealthy.

This can include:

*restraining orders or peace bonds (to avoid abusive relationships)
*court injunctions to disassociate (to avoid criminal association or temptation)
*medical or psychological instructing to avoid associating (mask wearing, “social distancing”, quasi-legal orders resulting in penalties and fines or restrictions on access to public facilities)

Shunning is often used as a pejorative term to describe any organizationally mandated disassociation, and has acquired a connotation of abuse and relational aggression. This is due to the sometimes extreme damage caused by its disruption to normal relationships between individuals, such as friendships and family relations. Disruption of established relationships certainly causes pain, which is at least an unintended consequence of the practices described here, though it may also in many cases be an intended, coercive consequence. This pain, especially when seen as unjustly inflicted, can have secondary general psychological effects on self-worth and self-confidence, trust and trustworthiness, and can, as with other types of trauma, impair psychological function.

Shunning often involves implicit or explicit shame for a member who commits acts seen as wrong by the group or its leadership. Such shame may not be psychologically damaging if the membership is voluntary and the rules of behavior were clear before the person joined. However, if the rules are arbitrary, if the group membership is seen as essential for personal security, safety, or health, or if the application of the rules is inconsistent, such shame can be highly destructive. This can be especially damaging if perceptions are attacked or controlled, or certain tools of psychological pressure applied. Extremes of this cross over the line into psychological torture and can be permanently scarring.

A key detrimental effect of some of the practices associated with shunning relate to their effect on relationships, especially family relationships. At its extremes, the practices may destroy marriages, break up families, and separate children and their parents. The effect of shunning can be very dramatic or even devastating on the shunned, as it can damage or destroy the shunned member’s closest familial, spousal, social, emotional, and economic bonds.

Shunning contains aspects of what is known as relational aggression in psychological literature. When used by church members and member-spouse parents against excommunicant parents it contains elements of what psychologists call parental alienation. Extreme shunning may cause traumas to the shunned (and to their dependents) similar to what is studied in the psychology of torture.

Shunning is also a mechanism in family estrangement.

Since early this year there has been a concerted effort through social pressures by “experts” and questionable restrictions of personal freedom by local officials, to, in effect, shun those who either can not or will not succumb to the mandate to wear masks, socially distance or coerce others to do so in public places. There has been
a palpable and distinctive split in the citizenry between those who believe the ever changing explanations justifying these somewhat Draconian measure, resorting to virtue signalling and attempts at public shaming of others and those who believe that the decision should be an individual one.

There can be no argument from either side, however, that there has been real and, most likely permanent harm to businesses, family incomes,and public trust resulting in major damage to the very fabric of our society. It is unlikely that even should this official overreach and social shunning of “non-maskers” cease tomorrow that the damage will be repaired soon, if ever.

There is no easy answer or magic action that can undo the damage. Those who have been shunned have little recourse except to band together and return the shunning. Refuse to patronize businesses that enforce the shunning of non-maskers. Work to replace those politicians who have exercised a power they had no right to exercise.Attempts to dispassionately reason with unreasonable people has proven to be a non-starter. The time has come to fight fire with fire and fight shunning by shunning those who have excluded us in return.

The argument will be made that innocent people will be hurt. I say there are no innocent people in this. There are either those who have promoted and enforced the shunning or those who have passively accepted it. In this case, you are either with us or you are against us. There is no middle ground here, there is no compromise…and the other side drew first blood.

True or Woo?

The endgame

We are rapidly approaching the mother of all tests. If Joe Biden wins as predicted by all the polls and all the mainstream media, will have to conclude that the “white hats” spoken of were at best a morale boosting farce. If on the other hand, Donald Trump wins, even the most dedicated skeptics will have to admit that the “Qanons” were more reliable than the entire mainstream media.

And if “the storm” begins, everyone will be forced to acknowledge that the “Q anons” were the real thing from the beginning.

Item: a Q post from 2017 contains some intriguing dates. People assumed at the time of the reference was to November 4, 2017. However, in retrospect, it is clear that the year was never specified and “the next several days” does not refer to the time of the post, but the time of the predicted events.

“My fellow Americans, over the course of the next several days you will undoubtedly realize that we are taking back our country, (the land of the free), from the evil tyrants that wish to do us harm and destroy the last remaining refuge of shining lights.

By order of the President of the United States, we have initiated certain fail-safes that shall safeguard the public from the primary fallout that is slated to occur on 11-3 upon the arrest announcement of Mr. Podesta, (actionable 11-4). Confirmation, (to the public), of what is occurring will then be revealed and will not be openly accepted.

Public riots are being organized in serious numbers in an effort to prevent the arrest and capture of more senior public officials.

On order of the President of the United States, a state of temporary military control will be actions and special ops carried out. False leaks have been made to retain several within the confines of the United States to present extradition and special operator necessity.

Rest assured, the safety and well-being of every man, woman, and child of this country is being exhausted and full. However, the atmosphere within the country will, unfortunately, be divided as so many have fallen for the corrupt and evil narrative that has long been broadcast.

We will be initiating the emergency broadcast system, (EMS), during this time in an effort to provide a direct message, (avoiding the fake news), to all citizens.

Organizations and/or people that wish to do us harm during this time will be met with swift fury-certain laws have been pre-lifted to provide our great military the necessary authority to handle and conduct these operations, (at home and abroad).”

News item: “the National Guard has deployed across 12 states.”

News item: Maurice Johnson announces a month-long national lock-down of England.

News item: France is now in a new national lock-down that will last at least a month.

News item: Swiss authorities have suggested that another nationwide lock-down is an inevitability.

I strongly suspect that the new European lock-downs, which are being instituted despite the fact that there has not been a significant increase in the number of new cases, the hospitals are not overloaded, the number of deaths is not increasing rapidly, and the number of patients are observably less seriously ill than they were during the previous lock-downs, are related to the coming events rather than to a 2nd wave of coronavirus.

May you live in interesting times.

Reflection on election

A song written by “Crowded House” front man, Niel Finn and release in 1986, pretty much sums up my thoughts n today’s Presidential election.

There is freedom without

Try to catch the deluge in a paper cup

There’s a battle ahead

Many battles are lost

But you’ll never see the end of the road

While you’re traveling with me

Hey now, Hey now

Don’t dream it’s over

Hey now, Hey now

When the world comes in

They come, they come

To build a wall between us

We know they won’t win

WWG1WGA

You say you want a revolution-Part deux

Some here may not know that roughly 70’ish days ago, on or about the peak of rioting and anarchy, the top military and civilian government officials, meet several times to consider whether to advise Donald Trump to activate the insurrection act option. The military was strongly opposed to this action, at that time. It was decided to hold off till after the November 3’rd election, to “better” view want might be necessary.

You say you want a revolution? Part Deux

Insurrection

A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence.

Under federal law, it is a crime to incite, assist, or engage in such conduct against the United States.

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

INSURRECTION. A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.

2. The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 8. gives power to congress ” to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.”

3. By the act of Congress of the 28th of February, 1795, 1 Story’s L. U. S. 389, it is provided: Sec. 1. That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion, from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States to call forth such number, of the militia of the state, or states, most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders, for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as be shall think proper. And in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

4.-2 That, whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States to call forth the militia of such state, or of any other state or states, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of congress.

5.-3. That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the president, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the president shall forthwith, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time.

The Insurrection Act gives U.S. presidents the authority to deploy active duty military to maintain or restore peace in times of crisis. The Insurrection Act was invoked numerous times in the 20th century, most famously when Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division to enforce the desegregation of public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas.

But the origins of the Insurrection Act date back more than 200 years to a bizarre chapter in American history—when Aaron Burr plotted to raise an army and establish his own dynasty in either the Louisiana Territory or Mexico.

Burr, a decorated Revolutionary War officer and senator from New York, served as vice president during Thomas Jefferson’s first term. Burr had grand political aspirations, but they were dashed after he killed his rival Alexander Hamilton in a duel in 1804.

The details of Burr’s plot were never clear, but it involved mustering an army to invade Mexico under the pretense of a war with Spain, and then keeping the conquered land for himself. Burr thought he had an ally in General James Wilkenson, commander of the U.S. Army and first governor of the Louisiana Territory, but when rumors of Burr’s plot leaked into the newspapers, Wilkenson turned on his co-conspirator.

In a letter sent on October 21, 1806, Wilkenson spilled the details of the plot to Jefferson without mentioning Burr by name. But Jefferson had already grown concerned enough about Burr’s strange activities that Jefferson had sent his own letter to Secretary of State James Madison asking if the Constitution granted him authority to deploy the army to stop a rebellion.

General James Wilkinson, the Insurrection Act

In his reply, Madison said no. “It does not appear that regular Troops can be employed, under any legal provision against. insurrections,” wrote Madison, “but only against. expeditions having foreign Countries for the object.”

Both Jefferson and Madison were strict interpreters of the Constitution and wouldn’t dare exercise authority that wasn’t explicitly written in the founding document, so they needed to convince Congress to give Jefferson that power. And to do that, they first needed proof of Burr’s conspiracy. That’s where Wilkenson’s letter comes in.

“Jefferson was looking for a legitimate source of authority on Burr’s plot and he was willing to believe Wilkenson, even though historians suggest that Jefferson knew darn well that Wilkenson was a liar with his own suspect reputation,” says John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College. “But Jefferson needed a source to move the gears to try to stop Burr, who was his biggest fear.”

Armed with Wilkenson’s “proof,” Jefferson issued a proclamation on November 27, 1806 that laid out the plot and enjoined all military officers, both state and federal, to “to be vigilant… in searching out and bringing to condign punishment all persons engaged or concerned in such enterprise, in seizing and detaining, subject to the disposition of the law, all vessels, arms, military stores, or other means provided or providing for the same, and, in general, in preventing the carrying on such expedition or enterprise by all lawful means within their power.”

“Jefferson essentially puts a bounty on Burr’s head,” says Fea, and within weeks, an Ohio militia seized boats belonging to Burr’s ragtag army and raided a private island on the Ohio River that served as a military encampment.

But Burr evaded capture and rumors continued to swirl that he was recruiting soldiers en route to the Louisiana Territory and soliciting help from Britain to establish his spinoff nation in the West. Jefferson still refused to deploy the standing U.S. Army to track down Burr and quash the rebellion once and for all, a reticence that was mocked by his political enemies, the Federalists.

“Jefferson, to his credit, says I’m not going to act unless the Constitution says I can act,” says Fea. “The Federalists take a much broader view of the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn’t outright condemn it, then it’s OK.”

Jefferson stuck to his principles and in December of 1806 asked Congress to pass a bill “authorising the emploiment of the land or Naval forces of the US. in cases of insurrection.” This legislation, known as the Insurrection Act, would take another three months to become law. When it was finally signed on March 3, 1807, Aaron Burr had already been in custody for 11 days.

“The Insurrection Act was last invoked in 1992 under President George H.W. Bush, after Peter Wilson, then-governor of California, requested help to quell widespread riots after four police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King were acquitted.

In 2005, after Hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana and the Gulf Coast, President George W. Bush explored expanding the Insurrection Act to place command of the region’s National Guard under federal control. Ultimately, Bush declined to invoke the act, although it was eventually amended in 2006 to broaden the scope under which the president may act under the law.”

Some here may not know that roughly 70’ish days ago, on or about the peak of rioting and anarchy, the top military and civilian government officials, meet several times to consider whether to advise Donald Trump to activate the insurrection act option. The military was strongly opposed to this action, at that time. It was decided to hold off till after the November 3’rd election, to “better” view want might be necessary.

They were talking about instantly arresting specific Governors of States, and Mayor’s of several cities, and their city council members supporting the Rioting, Anarchy, and declaration of intent to “Burn” America down. There was actually talk that they could be held for treason, given that part of their oath of office, includes upholding the Constitution of the United States of America.

I actually think this shocked some city and state leaders, to the level they pooped themselves in true fear……and they stopped the rioting almost instantly.

The “Brown shirt” faction of the Democrat party has already spoken about civil unrest should President Trump be reelected. There is no reason to believe that they are any less serious about these actions than they were about the riots in Minneapolis, Portland and Seattle.

If a Declaration of Insurrection is declared in 2020 or early 2021, I expect broad impact on day to day life… and should the civil unrest begin on, or just after November 3rd, I expect a declaration to happen on November 6’th or shortly after that.

4th estate or 5th column

Twitter has shut down a newspaper’s account (The NY Post) because it is reporting things Twitter does not think you should hear, and that the entire mainstream media support this corporate censorship of the press, likewise gets a shrug if not applause.

Doesn’t it seem kind of weird that the biggest corruption scandal in American history is entirely AWOL from the mainstream media? No? Exactly. I’m not surprised either and that may be the scariest thing about this unprecedented flex toward soft totalitarianism.

Here’s the strangest part of the unanimous mainstream media blackout of the outrages of the Biden Crime Clan. It’s that we aren’t more shocked. Imagine ten years ago if someone told you that all the mainstream media outlets would give a full and complete pass to a presidential candidate in October whose brat was there in black and white hustling influence and dollars from foreigners (let’s not even get into what’s there in full and atrocious color). We all knew the media was garbage back then, but if someone told us that the media outlets would conspire and consciously decide to jointly to refuse to report on it (except in the vaguest “GOP Pounces!” terms) we would think he was nuts. Why, they would be all over it.

Fast forward to 2020 and that’s exactly what has happened (aided by giant corporations who own the social media platforms) and we’re like “Oh, yeah, figures.” And that Twitter has shut down a newspaper’s account (The NY Post) because it is reporting things Twitter does not think you should hear, and that the entire mainstream media support this corporate censorship of the press, likewise gets a shrug if not applause.

This should shock the hell out of us. But no one is surprised.

Yeah, I’m sure the short-term advantage in this election gained at the cost of any remaining shreds of credibility will be totally worth it for the media in the long run. When that mean old Trump is gone, things will totally go back to normal.

No. No they won’t.

Look, I hate the mainstream media and would detonate it like Eniwetok Atoll given the chance, but nothing I could ever do could even approach inflicting the damage upon it that the mainstream media has inflicted upon itself.

The clock is ticking. Support great conservative candidates who can win back purple seats.

Ten Great Deceptions Designed to Destroy the Republic-CONTINUED

There are at least 10 major lies that are now so ubiquitous that most people never question them. We will list them over the next 5 days leading up to the election

In the last ten years or so it has become increasingly evident that you are either believing what the left (or the diet pill manufacturer) is saying or you are paying attention to reality.

There are at least 10 major lies that are now so ubiquitous that most people never question them. We will list them over the next 5 days leading up to the election:

Lie #5 – Biology is an Illusion
There are no true genders; only states of mind. After 35 years in clinical practice, after hearing just about everything noble, demented, or delusional, this still astounds me. Have you ever had a conversation with someone speaking “word salad?” This is it. And the ultimate goal of this lie? The elimination of the family and the stable, present father.


Lie #6 – If you Love America, You’ll Destroy It
Violence means “I love you.” This is the core BLM deception. Because they care so very much, they are driven mad by normal citizens who are minding their own business, so mad they are compelled to burn down stores, attack you while you’re dining out, break into cars, set fire to your home, and tear down historic landmarks. This lie strikes me as particularly interesting since they also claim to be the advocates of minority’s, women’s and children’s rights. “I hit you ‘cuz I love you” is the excuse of every single narcissistic abuser I’ve ever met.

Scripture for today:

Isaiah 32:17

And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance forever.

Continued tomorrow.