Archive for October, 2013

Law vs. Morality: Revenge IS Justice!

October 11, 2013

“The strength of Sin is the Law.”

– 1 Corinthians 15:56 –

It was recently reported in the enemedia that there’s a growing Canadian (and worldwide) “backlash” against the criminals known as “muslims” for their gang’s crimes. The enemedia decries this “backlash” as uncivilized, “thuggish” behaviour.

And yet, I’d like to assert that it’s not “thuggish” to want to inflict some Justice on criminals (these “muslims”) for their ongoing crimes!

We’re tired of waiting for “our leaders” and their police gangs to protect us, as they’ve clearly abdicated their oaths of office by refusing to do so!

In fact, it’s clear that ALL politicians owe the world an explanation for why they continually insist that:

“Islam must be a valid religion because it’s god prescribes wanton random murder as the only sure way into it’s heaven! Whee!”

;-(

We’ve been told not to “hate” criminals for their crimes, as if hate were a crime!

But this “Hate” which our betters decry is, for instance, only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing injustices (like islam for instance)! Without hate, no one would be motivated to accuse these criminals of their crimes, and by doing so, hope to end them!

So I’d like to posit, in counter to their nonsense, that in reality, Revenge IS Justice!

(The only caveat being, of course, that trying to get and inflict subjective ‘revenge’ from and on someone for merely thwarting one’s own crimes, is only a perpetuation of one’s crimes, not any form of real, objective justice)!

Fred Bastiat noted something like “We all have the natural right to self defense; bad laws are those which try to deprive us of that right.”

That no-defense nonsense is indeed the current liberal myth – that you are somehow limited to the criminal’s own time-table and plans.

Liberals assert that we have a duty to Submit to other extortion – islam, for instance.

And yet it should never be allowed by such backwards people to be considered “illegal” to accuse these criminals (moslems) of their crimes, allegedly because the painful truth might offend them or hurt their feelings, & so “make” them commit even more crimes!

No problem was ever solved by ignoring it, & nobody is doing even these moslems any favours, by indulging their historic lies that islam is a “religion” (at all, much less one “of peace”) or a “race” (much less one of poor oppressed People Of Colour”)!

ALL moslems are criminals: by their own rules, they must endorse in public every word in the Qur’an, which tells them that they are so “superior” to all non-moslems, that it’s not only their right, but also their holy duty to their god, to extort, enslave, and murder all the non-moslems in the world, simply for the “crime” of not being moslems. So the Qur’an is a clearly-written, us-versus-them hate-crime book, endorsing a permanent might-makes-right death-threat.

ALL muslims are criminals, as being members of the ancient, ongoing global extortion racket called islam. In sharia law texts, muslims are SUPPOSED to be regarded as threats (as “objects of fear”) by all the unbelievers, whether or not the individual muslim has itself actually committed any crimes. That’s why we have laws against simply being a MEMBER of a crime-gang or ‘criminal enterprise’ because the threat is inherent.

ALL muslims are criminals, members of an extortion gang. We have laws against membership in a crime gang, even if one doesn’t specifically engage in any crimes beyond one’s own membership therein endorsing the general threat. Threats are crimes in themselves: they are psychological attacks, also known as intimidation, bullying, coercion, duress, harrassment, activist agitation, extortion, and “terrorism.” And even any “only” attempted crimes are still considered by civilized people to be crimes.

What sort of insane “law” pretends one has to accede to the criminals’ timetables and plans?! “If the criminal stops attacking (for whatever reason, known only to them) then you have to immediately stop defending yourself, too!”

Say a criminal attacks you, but runs out of bullets before managing to finish you off. They then run away, intending to re-load and then return to finish the job.

Obviously, you don’t know why they stopped, nor what they’ll do next (but the balance of probabilities says that, since they’ve already chosen to attack you first, there’s no reason to imagine they suddently became enlightened saints) so why shouldn’t you follow them to make sure?!

They retain all their free-will rights to commit further crimes, while you are limited to their whims and timetables, like some robotic imbecile – the “law” pretends you are limited to immediate defense only, and aren’t allowed to counter-attack at all!

And yet all crimes are routinely counter-attacked well after the facts, sometimes even years later, in the courts of law: by the time when any criminal gets to trial, they aren’t immediately endangering anyone, their crimes are in the past!

“So why punish them at all?” (as liberals might argue!)?

Because they must pay for their past crimes!

Both the falsely-divided “criminal” and “civil” law branches are based on the same idea: You pay for what you take!

This is both how and why revenge IS justice!

All liberal “laws” (What Mark Levin describes as “positivist” laws) are, in fact, crimes.

The only principle any one ever need agree to, is of course the Golden Rule of Law which defines all situational morality as “Do Not Attack First.”

From this agreement, we gain trust, progress, and civilization; this “social contract” means our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack (therefore innocent) others first. Period.

The rest are all symptoms, and all sub-sequent valid legislation depends on that Rule: Every law is an if/then warning which says, in effect: If and when you choose to attack first in this, that, or those ways, then this, that, and these punishments will apply to you.

Bad laws are crimes because they attack first. At “best” they are only ‘ethical’ lists of rules and excuses amerliorating bad, attack-first criminal premises.

A “Judge’s” only job is to determine rational cause-and-effect (who started it) and all irrational criminal excuses or alibis are based on the opposite, victim-blaming slanderous pretense.

It should therefore be easy for any judge to see if a law is bad (an attempt to deprive citizens of due process, by disregarding any need for evidence by slanderously insisting on asserting that they are Guilty Until Never Proven Innocent, and so must impossibly prove a negative in order to defend them selves).

Bad laws are slanderously “pre-emptive” first attacks, like all gun control laws:

“Since you DO own a gun, therefore you WILL use it to commit some crimes, SO we must now stop you by ‘defensively’ attacking you first – for your own good, of course!” There’s no if/then; they are threats, not valid warnings. Pretty much every “law” any liberal ever passes, is some form of extortion like this.

Guns exist. They will never again not-exist. More laws do not equal order. In general, no force or police or laws are necessary among free citizens who can and will govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of force or police or laws are enough for a people who CANNOT – or will not – govern themselves.

Other bad laws depend not on what your free-will choice of what you might DO might eventually be, but on their subjective yet objectifying definition of what you ARE: in islam’s prejudicially slanderous us-versus-them and might makes right sharia code, all weaker groups – foreign infidels, women, children, slaves – are openly and officially pre-discriminated against, encoded right into their system of criminal laws.

Bad (“defensively pre-emptive”) laws are crimes because they attack first.

Unfortunately, there’s only so many symptoms of “Do Not Attack First!” one can address with “laws” of morality, only so many right answers, before one must veer off into exploiting the almost infinite number of sorta almost right,(but really wrong) answers, in order to keep up the pretense that the legislators are actually doing something responsible to earn their pay and to continue to enjoy the right to govern others – a point which, after whence reached, societies decline into criminality and empires fall into ruin.

Kosovo IS Serbia!

October 6, 2013

Here’s my response to THIS IRHAB-IA NONSENSE:

KosovoJeSrbja

Косово је Србија!

October 6, 2013

Here’s my response to THIS NONSENSE:

KosovoJeSrbja

America is really $200 TRILLION in DEBT right NOW

October 1, 2013

Re-posted from here:

Obamacare: Is It A Divide-And-Conquer Distraction?

October 1, 2013 by

Obamacare: Is It A Divide-And-Conquer Distraction?

PHOTOS.COM

In March of 2010, Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as “Obamacare”) into law amid a host of economic uncertainties and unwanted Federal Reserve bailouts. Two years before, Washington had confirmed the passage of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) measures that had already met with disapproval from, according to some polls, more than 80 percent of Americans. In the meantime, the Occupy Wall Street movement was gaining momentum, involving elements of both traditionally Republican and traditionally Democratic organizations. Self-proclaimed “conservatives” and “liberals” were beginning to find common ground on issues ranging from the overall fiscal system to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The consensus was clear: Government had grown corrupt, power-hungry and ultimately destructive to every citizen regardless of his political affiliation.

However, certain hot-button issues always seem to flood government rhetoric and the mainstream media whenever the U.S. citizenry begins to unify, causing renewed rifts and luring Americans to fight among themselves while the cruise ship on which we are floating sinks into the abyss. Those on the left believe Obamacare is a genuine attempt to institute socialized medicine, and they love it. Those on the right believe Obamacare is a genuine attempt to institute socialized medicine, and they despise it. But what if Obamacare’s government-controlled healthcare plan is only a secondary pursuit, while cutting America down the middle is the first goal?

Consider this: The launch of Obamacare comes at a time when the official national debt of the United States is about $17 trillion and the national deficit is some $1 trillion per year. Keep in mind that when Obama was elected in 2008, the official national debt stood at only $10 trillion. That means the Obama Administration has added more than $7 trillion in debt in only five years.

While mainstream talking heads with low IQs proclaim victory for the Obama camp because of a supposedly “shrinking” deficit, what they either fail to mention or are too stupid to understand is that the official reporting of the deficit does not account for real deficit expenditures each year. The official deficit does not include what government number crunchers call “unfunded liabilities,” like Social Security and Medicare, or off-book agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The average taxpayer suffers the costs of such expenditures yet is never counted in official statistics. If one were to tally our true national debt, including “unfunded liabilities,” it would stand anywhere from $120 trillion to more than $200 trillion. The true deficit skyrockets to more than $5 trillion per year (and growing) when such programs are included.

It is hard to say whether Obamacare costs will be openly included in official debt numbers or hidden like most entitlement programs. The point is the government has been lying for quite some time, under multiple Presidents, about the real state of the U.S. economy.

When the White House claims in its talking points that government-assisted healthcare will require a net payment of only $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years, what method of accounting is used? Is this the total cost or just the “official cost” minus off-book liabilities? Even if this ends up being the full and complete spending required, how can Washington afford to burn another $1.1 trillion on top of $5 trillion a year already in the red?

If our national debt continues to climb exponentially, as it has in the wake of the Administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Obama, will we see another $7 trillion or more added to the “official” number in the next five years?

According to The Washington Post, Obamacare is now a fact of life, even in the face of a government shutdown.

But is this claim really true, or is it just empty posturing? You may like Obamacare, or you may hate Obamacare; but the fact remains that we cannot afford Obamacare at this time. So my first question to proponents of socialized medicine would be: Where is the money going to come from? More taxes? How can Obamacare be funded by increased taxes, when the average median household income has fallen every year for five years in a row.

How about more taxes for the super rich? Four hundred of America’s top earners brought in an average adjustted gross income of $202 million in 2009. If each of these people were taxed 100 percent of his annual income, the resulting $80 billion in revenue would still not be enough to fund Obamacare, let alone our already existing massive debts.

If taxes won’t do the job, what about foreign treasury investment?

U.S. Treasury holdings by foreign creditors witnessed a record sell-off in June of this year, and subsequent purchases have not covered the loss in recent months.

The majority of all Treasury purchases by foreign investors are short-term bonds, meaning international faith in America’s ability to cover its debts has fallen considerably. Creditors now want only bonds that mature quickly, so that they can be liquidated at a moment’s notice. Foreign investment in the United States is currently either static or dropping, depending on the country, meaning no extra cash flow for Obamacare.

At bottom, Obamacare is doomed to failure. The money simply does not exist in order to cover the cost. The math does not add up. Period.

Now, I can understand hard-core socialists being too unintelligent to wrap their heads around this problem. After all, the average socialist thinks government funds will infinitely expand to meet the needs of infinite demand, as long as public wealth is “harmonized” in the process. Socialists are utterly unable to imagine that the money may run out one day, thus decimating the economy.

But what about the establishment? Is the establishment really unaware that Obamacare is unsustainable? I think not. The government creates our false economic reality on a daily basis. It receives the hard financial data and then spins it to suit its particular needs. Government officials are the people who are exposed regularly to our dire fiscal position, yet we are supposed to believe that they are “not aware” of their own crimes. Obama and the banking elites who pull his strings are fully conscious that our economy is on the verge of complete collapse, and they are aware that Obamacare will never survive. So why continue with the charade if there is no mathematical possibility that the program will succeed?

Social division is the only plausible answer. Universal healthcare has been a longtime pursuit of the left, and many Democrats are willing to forgo or completely ignore other dangerous political developments surrounding the White House as long as they finally attain socialized medicine. I have personally engaged in numerous debates with Obama supporters, pointing out his transgressions against the Constitution and the Mideast, his close relationships with the banking elite, and his willingness to throw aside his own promises. Amazingly, some of his supporters admit that Obama is monstrous in many respects, but they still defend him on the basis that “at least he’s going to give us free healthcare.”

In this way, the establishment has retained about 30 percent of the American population as political cannon fodder to be exploited at will by the Obama Administration. And if a government shutdown takes place over Obamacare measures, that percentage may climb as citizens are duped into believing that Tea Party Republicans and their “unwillingness to compromise” are to blame for the situation.

The establishment knows that a financial crisis is upon us, but it wants you to believe that the collapse was caused by “political gridlock,” foreign fiscal schemes or “conservative hubris.” It does not want members of the public to draw any connections between their suffering and the international banking elite behind the greater catastrophe. Obamacare is a red herring, smoke and mirrors, a distraction. While we battle over a program that will never find adequate funding anyway, the rest of the economic system crumbles.

Brandon Smith,
Personal Liberty Digest™