Illinois Gun Laws Pamphlet. Marxist Malapropisms, or How to Beat a Concealed Carry Rap.

Control! The govt. oozes lies and misleading propaganda to make you believe they control you. I saw a link to the Illinois Gun Laws pamphlet, and decided to take a look at the usual pap disseminated by "Common questions and answers" publications. Let's take a look at this:

First. we are directed to CRIMINAL OFFENSES
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961.
We must look to the definitions section to understand what, and whom, we are seeking to regulate or punish:

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 2 heading)
ARTICLE 2. GENERAL DEFINITIONS

(720 ILCS 5/2‑0.5) (was 720 ILCS 5/2‑.5)
Sec. 2‑0.5. For the purposes of this Code, the words and phrases described in this Article have the meanings designated in this Article, except when a particular context clearly requires a different meaning.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/2‑7.1)
Sec. 2‑7.1. "Firearm" and "firearm ammunition". "Firearm" and "firearm ammunition" have the meanings ascribed to them in Section 1.1 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act.
(Source: P.A. 91‑544, eff. 1‑1‑00.)

The Firearm Owners Identification Act is limited in scope, and falls within the authority of the "Police Power" of the State. I discuss police power in one of my previous posts, but keep in mind that it is NOT constitutionally derived power, but rather assumed power for the state to regulate for the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the citizens as such may pertain to "commercial activities". For instance, looking at the FOID act, we see that all of the objects of the regulation pertain to the commercial acts of selling or buying firearms. Look at the wording carefully. I'll emphasize with CAPS:

(430 ILCS 65/1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑1)
Sec. 1. It is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination that in order to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, it is necessary and in the public interest to provide a system of identifying persons who are not qualified to acquire or possess firearms, firearm ammunition, stun guns, and tasers within the State of Illinois by the establishment of a system of Firearm Owner's Identification Cards, thereby establishing a practical and workable system by which law enforcement authorities will be afforded an opportunity to identify those persons who are prohibited by Section 24‑3.1 of the "Criminal Code of 1961", as amended, from acquiring or possessing firearms and firearm ammunition and who are prohibited by this Act from acquiring stun guns and tasers.
(Source: P.A. 94‑6, eff. 1‑1‑06.) --- ALL THIS DOES IS PROVIDE FOR A SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING, BUT DOES MAKE IMPOSE ANY REQUIREMENT FOR LICENSING OR REGISTERING.
So, who are they addressing?
"Federally licensed firearm dealer" means a person who is licensed as a federal firearms dealer under Section 923 of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. 923). COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY

"Gun show" includes the entire premises provided for an

event or function, including parking areas for the event or function, that is sponsored to facilitate the purchase, sale, transfer, or exchange of firearms as described in this Section. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY

"Gun show vendor" means a person who exhibits, sells,

offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges any firearms at a gun show, regardless of whether the person arranges with a gun show promoter for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange any firearm. AGAIN, COMMECIAL ACTIVITY

The FOID Act does not identify or define OFFENSES commited pursuant to the act, aside from a petty offense.

So, it is clear that the FOID card is a Commercial Firearms License for use within the State of Illinois, and does not apply to private Citizens who possess their own firearms for personal use and protection. Moving on to the criminal statute.

(720 ILCS 5/1‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 1‑2)
Sec. 1‑2. General purposes. The provisions of this Code shall be construed in accordance with the general purposes hereof, to:
(a) Forbid and prevent the commission of offenses; THE FOID ACT DOES NOT LIST ANY OFFENSES OTHER THAN A PETTY OFFENSE, WHICH IS NOT CRIMINAL IN NATURE AND INAPPLICABALE TO THIS STATUTE.
(b) Define adequately the act and mental state which constitute each offense, and limit the condemnation of conduct as criminal when it is without fault;
(c) Prescribe penalties which are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses and which permit recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities among individual offenders;
(d) Prevent arbitrary or oppressive treatment of persons accused or convicted of offenses.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/1‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 1‑3)
Sec. 1‑3. Applicability of common law. No conduct constitutes an offense unless it is described as an offense in this Code or in another statute of this State. However, this provision does not affect the power of a court to punish for contempt or to employ any sanction authorized by law for the enforcement of an order or civil judgment.
(Source: P.A. 79‑1360.) AGAIN, THE FOID ACT DOES NOT DEFINE ANY OFFENSES, AND THE COMMON LAW DOES NOT APPLY DUE TO THE LACK THEREOF.

Looking further to the definitions of (720 ILCS 5/Art. 2 heading)
ARTICLE 2. GENERAL DEFINITIONS

(720 ILCS 5/2‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑4)
Sec. 2‑4. "Conduct".
"Conduct" means an act or a series of acts, and the accompanying mental state.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.) SO YOU HAD A CONCEALED WEAPON. WHAT WAS YOUR MENTAL STATE AT THE TIME? TO COMMIT A CRIME, OR EXERCISE A CONSTITUTIONAL, GOD-GIVEN RIGHT? EXERCISING A RIGHT IS NOT A STATE OF MIND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME.

(720 ILCS 5/2‑15) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑15)
Sec. 2‑15. "Person".
"Person" means an individual, public or private corporation, government, partnership, or unincorporated association.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.) THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING. ARE YOU A PERSON? GENERALLY THE WORD INDIVIDUAL WOULD MEAN A REAL PERSON, OR PEOPLE, BUT USED WITH THE OTHER WORDS GIVES IT THE MEANING OF BEING AN ARTIFICIAL ENTITY, SUCH AS A CORPORATION OR OTHER GOVERNMENT-CREATED ENTITY. PERSON DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN PEOPLE.

So, what constitutes a "crime"?

(720 ILCS 5/4‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑2)
Sec. 4‑2. Possession as voluntary act.
Possession is a voluntary act if the offender knowingly procured or received the thing possessed, or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient time to have been able to terminate his possession.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/4‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑3)
Sec. 4‑3. Mental state. THIS MUST BE PROVEN IN COURT!!!
(a) A person is not guilty of an offense, other than an offense which involves absolute liability, unless, with respect to each element described by the statute defining the offense, he acts while having one of the mental states described in Sections 4‑‑4 through 4‑‑7.
(b) If the statute defining an offense prescribed a particular mental state with respect to the offense as a whole, without distinguishing among the elements thereof, the prescribed mental state applies to each such element. If the statute does not prescribe a particular mental state applicable to an element of an offense (other than an offense which involves absolute liability), any mental state defined in Sections 4‑‑4, 4‑‑5 or 4‑‑6 is applicable. WE WILL LOOK AT THESE SECTIONS.
(c) Knowledge that certain conduct constitutes an offense, or knowledge of the existence, meaning, or application of the statute defining an offense, is not an element of the offense unless the statute clearly defines it as such.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/4‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑4)
Sec. 4‑4. Intent. NOPE, INTENT IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE OFFENSE SECTION.
A person intends, or acts intentionally or with intent, to accomplish a result or engage in conduct described by the statute defining the offense, when his conscious objective or purpose is to accomplish that result or engage in that conduct.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.) OKAY, SO YOU INTEND TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPPON UNDER THE EXERCISE OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

(720 ILCS 5/4‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑5)
Sec. 4‑5. Knowledge. THE CRIMINAL ACT STATES "KNOWINGLY". LET'S LOOK AT "KNOWINGLY".
A person knows, or acts knowingly or with knowledge of:
(a) The nature or attendant circumstances of his conduct, described by the statute defining the offense, when he is consciously aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstances exist. Knowledge of a material fact includes awareness of the substantial probability that such fact exists.
(b) The result of his conduct, described by the statute defining the offense, when he is consciously aware that such result is practically certain to be caused by his conduct.
Conduct performed knowingly or with knowledge is performed wilfully, within the meaning of a statute using the latter term, unless the statute clearly requires another meaning.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/4‑ (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑
Sec. 4‑8. Ignorance or mistake. (a) A person's ignorance or mistake as to a matter of either fact or law, except as provided in Section 4‑3(c) above, is a defense if it negatives the existence of the mental state which the statute prescribes with respect to an element of the offense.
(b) A person's reasonable belief that his conduct does not constitute an offense is a defense if:
(1) The offense is defined by an administrative regulation or order which is not known to him and has not been published or otherwise made reasonably available to him, and he could not have acquired such knowledge by the exercise of due diligence pursuant to facts known to him; or
(2) He acts in reliance upon a statute which later is determined to be invalid; or
(3) He acts in reliance upon an order or opinion of an Illinois Appellate or Supreme Court, or a United States appellate court later overruled or reversed;
(4) He acts in reliance upon an official interpretation of the statute, regulation or order defining the offense, made by a public officer or agency legally authorized to interpret such statute.
(c) Although a person's ignorance or mistake of fact or law, or reasonable belief, described in this Section 4‑‑8 is a defense to the offense charged, he may be convicted of an included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact or law were as he believed it to be.
(d) A defense based upon this Section 4‑‑8 is an affirmative defense.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
IGNORANCE OR MISTAKE IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, BASED ON THE ABOVE CONDITIONS. HOWEVER, BELIEF THAT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS FOR THE CARRYING OR POSSESSING OF A FIREARM, EXCEPT WHERE THE POLICE POWER, WHICH APPLIES TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY RELATING TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE AND MORALS, APPLIES.

I would go into more detail, but this would make for a very lengthy post. All I can say is, read the law. All of the law. Definitions and intent as well. The law does not provide penalties for open carry, only concealed carry, and then under specific circumstances. I think a weapons charge under this statute, based on open carry, is able to be beaten, with the proper attorney who actually looks at the law and challenges the system based on what the law says, and uses proper case law and precedent, avoiding any mention of United States citizenship or alluding to having engaged in a commercial activity. Once you possess the FOID card, and then violate the statute, you are nailed because possessing the FOID card is the nexus that lends the presumption that you are, in fact, requred to have one and therefore engaged in a commercial activity. Once you place yourself under the autority of the police power, your constitutional rights are gone, and the U.S. citizenship priviledges apply, which do not include the second amendment. If anyone is interested in learning how U.S. citizenship means waiving your second amendment rights just let me know and I'll show you a PowerPoint presentation detailing this fact. You can also look up 14th Amendment and Incorporation Doctrine. The Incorporation Doctrine says that courts do not consider all of the Bill of Rights to be "fundamental rights", and have not considered the second amendment to be a right of U.S. citizenship.
Is anyone ready to take up arms yet? It's about time!

State Sponsored Terrorism, Kidnapping, and Child Abuse

Like a master of illusion, the bureaucratic jack-booted do-gooders in Texas have commandeered the media, your reason, and some 416 children under the pretense that they are saving the more nubile young ladies from the ravishing clutches of perverted older men. To justify this assault upon a private culture that considers itself outside the pestilential creature that is government, words such as “statutory rape, polygamy, and cult” have been capriciously tossed about. Television shows have sought the counsel of experts in human behavior, linguistics, and body language to impugn the outward appearance, mannerisms, inflections, and thoughts of the women. The only indictment borne from the witch hunt is they don’t appear “normal”; hardly a justification for invading a private society on unfound accusations and terrorizing children and parents.

Despite the personal feelings of any of you, or of an assemblage of criminals, otherwise known as a legislature, it is not within the purview of the state to inspect, question, assess, or approve the behavior of private people or their cultures. I am not defending the act of having sex with 14 year old girls, as the unfounded accusations assert, but then again I have not had sex with girls of such age. However, if it had not been for “underage” girls having had sex in the past I can assure you all that humanity would not have progressed to this day. Yet, one has to ask themselves what is the issue which makes that act objectionable? Is it our perception that a dirty-old-man is gratifying himself at the expense of an unknowing and exploited child? Is it that such a precious treasure should not be exposed to such a vile and immoral act as sex? Is it possibly because the government has not given its approval to such unconscionable behavior, such as it has with legalized murder through warfare, capital punishment, rendition, torture…. etc.? If government lowered the legal age of consent to 14 years there is nothing you or your indignant self-righteousness could do about it. It would be “legal”.

When an “older man” has relations with a “young girl”, where is the state? The state does not prevent the act from taking place despite the law which rests on the books. Yet, where are the parents when the state violates young women? We have government mandated vaccinations which expose children to things more immediate and injurious by way of the compounds in the vaccine than the possible harm arising from contracting the illness to begin with. I comment on one sadistic jurist named C. Phillip Nichols from Prince George’s County, Maryland. My commentary can be found on my blog at http://markmccoy.com/blogspot. It is not hard to find. The Justice Department visits regularly. Malfeasant Nichols threatened parents with jail time if they failed to inoculate their children, despite the parent’s objections to introducing pathogens and agents to their children’s bloodstream. Nichols’ behavior smacks of bio-terrorism and disregard for liberty and parental autonomy. Likewise, the gumma which are confiscating children in Texas are on par with Nichols, sans bio-terrorism. Who is there to save children and parents from the abuse of government?

Why does the state not raid the homes of parents who allow or assist in their children joining the military to be used for imperialistic or corporate aggression? Are parents who place their children before the canon’s mouth for glory and political mischief any less culpable for the resulting harm than those who permit a young woman to take an older husband? How many of these allegedly “abused” girls have died as a result of their “illicit” union compared to the number of children sent to their deaths by the contrived and fallacious wars created by government?

Look at it like this. If sex with children was a priority for government then they would have raided the Catholic Church and the priests possessing priapic adolescent proclivities. If the state were concerned with polygamy it would look at itself and the “spousal” relationships it keeps with despots, tyrants, and dictators abroad. As a matter of fact, worse than polygamy is bigamy wherein one has many marriages. Every licensed marriage is a three-party contract between the two parties and the state. Talk about a slut, to use a vulgar colloquialism. If government gave a damn about morality it would immediately crawl into a hole and proceed to pull kitty litter over itself in order to spare us the stench. If people really cared about liberty, tolerance, privacy, and justice they would train their sights on usurpers and tyrants who deem to act on behalf of the consenting governed.

I do not believe it is within the purview of anyone to judge any people, culture, society, or behavior when their reason has been corrupted and replaced with the arbitrary and violent conscience of absolute power. If we are about ridding the world of evil then let’s start where evil is readily identified, known, and abundant; in the halls and offices of people serving that presumed master, government.

Fat, dumb, and happy in Amerika.

Let’s not mince words. The “Great American Democratic Experiment” has failed. “In what way?” you ask, shifting your gaze from your wide-screen plasma ejaculating NASCAR, football, and “So You Think You Can Dance” to address your tattooed, belligerent, corporate-branded, entitlement-minded children. You look about your overpriced, oversized, over-mortgaged home and entertain escaping in your fuel-hungry, overpriced vehicle. You inventory your legal plastic tender and contemplate the looming interest rate that will soon engulf more of your overtaxed income that serves to further bloat the swollen bellies of voracious malfeasants, traitors, terrorists, thieves, murderers, and vermin posing as legislators and law-makers lying greased and prone for their corporate sodomites.

The American Experiment that began with our founding traitors, terrorists, and landed-white-males standing on a Declaration of Independence and finally settling for a Constitution that embraced slavery, protected the privileged, and favored the mercantile, has accomplished exactly what it intended; that is, to feed the multitude a steady diet of propaganda, compensate them with fiat currency, commercially satiate their prurient desires, fatten them from the trough of government benefits, exact their allegiance, commandeer their children, and superficially educate them in preparation for corporate conscription.

The only involvement the so-called “We the People” have had in this experiment is to serve as lab rats for government to expose to war, deceit, division, and illusory wealth. And as sure as the carcinogenic fare was placed in front of their noses the rats consumed all their bellies could hold. What hath this experiment wrought for a so-called free people? It has produced evidentiary testament that speaks to blissful ignorance, voluntary servitude, moral abdication, spiritual prostitution, and cultural degradation. It is virtually impossible to live, work, eat, trade, associate, reproduce, or travel without the licenses, permits, or regulations of government sapping your common sense and free-will.

It would serve most of you well to forget these words and absorb the messages emblazoned onto your psyche by the corporate media, courtesy of your keepers. So-called “cults” who promote polygamy or “underage sex” are impugned, attacked, and their children confiscated; yet, parents proudly decorate their sons and daughters in the military regalia of an imperialistic despotism and allow them to be marched into foreign lands to die as glorious corporate mercenaries in not-quite-so-conquered foreign lands whose indigenous peoples exhibit more courage, temerity, and resolve than our morally exsanguinated and conscience bereft conquerors could ever hope for. Police routinely electrocute, shoot, or beat people, yet nary an indignant word is uttered by the masses because it was claimed to have been done “within established policy”. It is deemed unpatriotic to not tithe what the government commands. Never before has a society so immersed in technology, opportunity, and apparent capability been rendered so “fat, dumb, and happy” by relinquishing all that is theirs into the hands of arbitrary, corrupt, co-opted, and self-serving oligarchs.

As long as the din of platitudes flows past the Botox lips of the catatonic consumers inhabiting Gomorrah, Inc. by the incessant stream of National Anthems, Pledges of Allegiance, Oaths of Office, and Star Spangled Banners then the truth will lie as it has for eons; consistently and obviously etched upon the redacted words of history, ignored or re-written by those with power to perpetually subjugate those without.

King for a day.

I intended to write on this topic sooner, but wanted to see how Martin Luther King, Jr. was remembered over “his” holiday. For one day a year, we take time to recognize, acknowledge, honor, dismiss, forget, and deny a man that was murdered for standing up for what he believed. Decades after the dust has settled from King’s “rabble rousing”, we have relative equality, since people do not prosper under liberty, but ignorantly suffer under sophistic rights. Moreover, in a consummate act of patronization, we recognize a government holiday named after one of its victims. We give one day to recognize a struggle that took a lifetime, and a life.

King was not the first to posit civil disobedience. Mahatma Gandhi and Henry David Thoreau were both progenitors of that doctrine. After each generation of peaceful strides, government responded with more legal and institutionalized tyranny and oppression. Of course, King is lauded for making great strides in achieving racial, political, and societal equality, but is it that blacks are elevated to the same level as whites; or were whites lowered to the same level as blacks? If you have two glasses; one filled to the brim with rights, and the other half-filled with rights, and you wish to make them equal in volume, you don't necessarily need fill the lowest one, but may instead opt to empty the fullest one. This is the equality King achieved; or more accurately, the equality the government created.

I am not here to disparage King's work, his message, or the man himself. I greatly admire and respect what he stood for and accomplished. I've heard people refer to King as a failure for black people still not having true racial equality. I believe King was a success, as evidenced by his untimely murder. If there is failure to be assigned, then let it rest on the heads of all who have settled for the watered-down, diluted, manufactured, prescribed, defined, and regulated "privileges and benefits" the government dispenses to placate the otherwise restless rabble so as to keep them fat, dumb, and happy. We have failed. We have failed to protect that which we possess, individual sovereignty. We failed to remain vigilant over encroaching power. We have submitted to servitude, and self-delusion.

What did King accomplish, exactly? He stood defiant against institutionalized legal power. He stood defiant against the state. He was assaulted, stabbed, beaten, reviled, hated, and ultimately murdered. King did not die for what he believed. He died because he was shot. Let it be said that he was murdered for what he believed. He did not wish to die. If someone had said to him, "Dr. King, believing such things will cause your life to flee your body." I presume he would have given it a second thought, and then probably proceed nevertheless. However, his beliefs affected his opponents to such a degree that they moved to permanently silence him. His message was infectious and dangerous. What kind of world would this be if ALL men were treated as equals? Where would government get its power to soothe the pain of injustice it creates? What if all we had to do to defeat tyranny is to simply disobey?

Where King and I part ways is where he advocated passive civil disobedience. I fall more along the lines of the Black Panthers or Malcolm X. I agree with taking a passive, disobedient stand against tyranny, but I find when government or authority fails to honor that peaceful overture and instead compel allegiance, obedience, or action; then righteous, violent self-defense is warranted, by any means necessary. As Malcolm X said, "It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself." I understand why King took the tact he did. His foe is was, and still is, impressive, ruthless, violent, and pervasive. Violence turns many away from what would otherwise be a just battle. Yet, when one comes upon a battle and sees only carnage, if is hard to identify with the struggle when the reason for the bloodbath unknown to the observer. King needed to win minds more so than kill tyrants.

The government's response to "uppity black-folk" was the Civil Rights act of 1966. What were the "equal rights" Uncle Sam so generously gave to his subjects? If you look to Title 42 United States Code, Chapter 21, Subchapter I, Section 1981, it will tell you that "Equal Rights" include, in part, "… full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other." Where, in that legislation, do the words “rights” or “liberties” appear? Moreover, in order to achieve this equality, without acknowledging Creator-derived unalienable rights belong to blacks as well as whites, the government created the subordinate "white citizen" class and elevated, or laterally moved, the blacks to that subjugated group.

Instead of blacks being acknowledged to have unalienable rights, like the Declaration of Independence states belong to “all men”, prescriptive and diluted privileges were created, called "Civil Rights”, and offered to the People in exchange for their unalienable rights, and their allegiance. Government slyly created a slave class and tricked the blacks into staying right where they were, along with the ignorant and newly-subjugated "white folks". Honestly, I don't know why blacks wanted the same rights as whites. Blacks had to be forced into subjection, and whites hurriedly marched headlong into it.

After all the strife, struggle, battles, and deaths ,we have a legal pacifier shoved into the gaping mouths of the infantile masses. Subjects gladly trade what their Creator bestowed for what government creates. The government did not set a day aside to honor Dr. King's accomplishments and promote his message. The message they wish to convey is, if you exhibit audacity, arrogance, fearlessness, righteousness, and independence, then you too will suffer beatings, oppression, insult, and most likely death. This is what we are to remember on this government-made holiday. It is the reminder that Dr. King stood for something more important than life. He did not willingly succumb. For his petulance he was killed, and it would serve us well to not follow in his footsteps, and instead, accept the scraps off master's table and obey.

So, we have Martin Luther King for a day, and servitude for the rest. Pay obligatory homage to fallen heroes, but don't dare emulate them or suffer like-fate. Ignore what you possess by right of your birth. The government claims to be able to provide for your comfort and security. Surely you don't believe your Creator blessed you with anything comparable to the power of that malignancy called government. I urge you all to exhibit audacity and independence. Step outside your comfort zone. Venture off of the plantation. When "master" comes-a-stalking to get you back in line turn that passive disobedience into righteous self-defense. Why be King for a day when you can rule yourself for life?

Mark McCoy

Judge C. Philip Nichols, Jr. Found Brain Dead Behind the Bench

It saddens me greatly to inform you all that my harshly worded metaphors involving the too-long-for-this-world Judge Nichols may have contributed to his synaptic demise. Reports of his death have been greatly under exaggerated. View the body here.

Judge C. Philip Nichols, Jr. Expresses His Death Wish

His Malfeasance, the Marquis de Sade Nichols

Parents face jail for not vaccinating their kids
Maryland officials frustrated by lack of compliance with immunization policy

I am sorry to say that due to the ignorance of many people who visit this link, and their propensity for violence and threats, that I am temporarily taking this post off line. After reviewing my web analytics, it seems that some of the search terms being used indicate people using them to send hateful messages to me.

It is not suprising that in this country, as it exists today, one cannot express himslf in whatever way he sees fit without ignorant, intolerant, and possibly violent people retaliating. I stand by what I said about Nichols. It is despicable that a man hiding behind the judiciary would order parents to put something into their children's bodies which they do not agree with. And when such a brigand threatens to take the children away and poison them by force, a parent has every right to resist with whatever means they have at their disposal.

That is not the promotion of violence. The government initiates violence and when people defend themselves the government then points the finger at them and cries "violence!"

I'm trying to do an update on this story to see where it stands. In the mean-time, visit the links above and make your feelings known.

Thanks to all you ignorant, un-thinking, reactionary, sanctimonious, and violent people for making my point.

In defense of the "N" word.

First, I make no apologies for what I say. I have thought it through, weighed the consequences, and acted accordingly. I believe that I will probably be assailed by the ignorant, superficial, and juvenile; but it is up to them to become informed. It is not up to me to pander to the ignorant.

I am no fan of the word nigger. I have used the word in the past. I have never called a black-person, African-American, person-of-color, negro,....or any of the other "persons" classified and renamed in feigned attempts at political correctness. As a matter of fact, I've never called anybody a nigger. I've used the word in conversation, in reference to, anecdotally.... but never in directly addressing another human being. When I did use it, I was speaking out of ignorance. The society in which I grew up afforded me many opportunities to be intimately familiar with many sorts of bigots, racists, and other ignorant persuasions.

Do I apologize for my ignorance and use of the word nigger? No. Of course not. I will apologize for a deliberate act, but not one that arises from not knowing. How did I come by my ignorance? Growing up in the 60's and 70's I was afforded access to much of the civil rights unrest. I heard the word nigger used often when referring to unruly and audacious blacks. "How dare those niggers!" was the objection I recall. The unfortunate thing is, many of those people are still with us; possessing the same point of view and harboring hate and disdain for blacks.

There is a huge inequity in that blacks are given a pass at using the word nigger. If the word is so offensive then it is color-blind and not just offensive to blacks. What if the word became a slur against, what is commonly referred to as "white-trash"? If white-trash were referred to as niggers then would the word lose it's status as a racial slur? I hear blacks refer to each other as "nigger", "nigga" and "my nigga". I guess it's possible that some blacks would be offended at being called nigger even if done so by another black, but I don't think the same level of outrage and indignation is reached when within the same race.

The puzzling thing is that black people don't mind being treated like niggers by the government. Following the Civil War and the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States black people were drawn into federal subjection and then bestowed with "civil rights". Civil rights are created by government, regulated by government, and can be taken away by government. I have never heard anyone in government acknowledge that, not only blacks but all people have natural, unalienable rights that originate with their Creator and are outside the purview of government. Yet, the so-called "civil rights leaders" keep leading the black people by the nose ring in the pursuit of their "civil rights', and thereby deceiving them into neglecting their natural, unalienable rights. If there is such a thing as a nigger, and I'm referring to the immoral, disingenuous, fraudulent, dishonest, unscrupulous, and vile actions of a person who would rather choose, and lead others to, servitude and subjection, then I'd say that many of the civil rights leaders fit that bill. This is not to vilify those who are pursuing civil rights without knowing the true nature of civil rights and believe them to be striving for all rights.

If someone is going to be offended by the word nigger then they should be equally offended at being treated like one. Nigger is a term of disdain and hate that probably fomented after the Civil War and spread with the black people's assertion and struggle towards freedom, as opposed to settling for the watered down civil rights. I am not, however, going to ignore the existence of the word because of some self-imposed over-sensitivity. The word is not ugly, it is not hateful and it is not derogatory. It is a word. It is the intent, emotion, context, and inflection applied when using the word that makes it what it is to some people. If nigger is so terrible, then is not the words murder, rape, and hate equally as abhorrent? If we are to look at what a word means, nigger being an ignorant utterance towards black people, then aforesaid words, meaning much more horrible things than just a slur, should be banned as well.

My black friends, of whom I have many, will understand this diatribe. Opportunistic whites will use this to deflect their shortcomings towards my character in hopes of minimizing their failings. Disingenuous blacks will seize my words to further perpetuate more hate and divisiveness. If you are a hateful, narrow-minded bigot then that is your misery. If you are a sanctimonious opportunist looking for a whine factor then that is your problem. For the rational and reasonable who recognize the world, and people, for what they are and refuse to be identified by the hateful, ignorant words of others, then I say welcome! Remember the word "nigger" for what it is. A symptom, a disease, a defect, and identifier of hate and ignorance. We can't hide from the ugliness in the world, but we can realize it for what it is and choose not to partake in its dehumanizing effects.

The Writing is On the Wall

I just came across this and wanted to post it sans my thoughts.  I believe it speaks for itself witout too much of my commentary. All I can say is arm yourselves. The naysayers will live as wards of the state and ready to turn in any dissenters they  may discover in exchange for benefits until the pen closes on the sheep while they graze unaware and fat.

This type of policical chicanery takes guts in a state with conceal carry.

Apparently, in Texas, it is commonplace for members of the legislature to cast votes on bills for other legislators who happen to be absent for whatever reason. It is against the rules, as promulgated by the legislature, but it is up to themselves to enforce and apply penalties for violations. Can you think of a more rigged game than this?

I'm not sure, but a reasonable person could more accurately than not assume that this practice is not confined to the hallowed halls of the Texas Legislature. How many laws could be considered null and void due to such malfeasing chicanery? How many people are incarcerated for violating laws which owe their origination to the prolific voting fingers of a select few of aspiring targets? This rises to the level of fraud, and a fraud can never be remedied, since it exists from its inception and is forever a nullity.

Seeing as how I live in Illinois, I cannot offer any relief for the Texas Citizenry, but I can extend an admonition to the legislative body of Illinois. I will push for, through a constitutional amendment for Illinois, that any law which has the preponderance of

People intimidated by government must be funny to Stan Schaeffer

It happened at an April 9, 2007 Collinsville, Illinois City Council meeting. Mayor, Stan Schaeffer, was taking input from "residents". This is the part of the meeting where the City entertains comments and concerns from those in the community. I had spoken a number of times in the past, mainly challenging the City's authority to implement a business license ordinance and other things. At this particular meeting I was in possession of a campaign flyer paid for by "The Committee to Elect Stan Schaeffer". This flyer is similar to possibly thousands that were direct-mailed to potential voters.

The purpose of my having this flyer was the conspicuous display of Mr. Schaeffer's City office phone number and his City provided cell phone. These services are paid through tax dollars, which makes them the property of the Citizens. Mr. Schaeffer was advertising tax payer funded resources in his bid for re-election, thereby using the money of those who may have been aggrieved or in opposition to Mr. Schaeffer's bid for re-election. I spoke not only for myself, but for other Citizens who express their displeasure with the City's progress, or lack thereof, but who are afraid of reprisal from the City, Mr. Schaeffer and other assembled councilpersons included.

In my address, I made reference to my speaking in agency for those apprehensive voices. I did not say that these persons are afraid of Mr. Schaeffer directly or personally, but intimidated by the potential abuse of the City's resources, i.e., police, code enforcement,...etc, as can be illustrated historically and anecdotally. People have made it known to me their personal experiences that, taken in the context of a Citizen speaking out about government abuse or waste, there was a corresponding negative consequence timed conspicuously close to the dissent of the Citizen.

When I addressed the Council I made it clear that this faction of the population was also being represented in my address. Mr. Schaeffer is seen to clearly snicker and cover his mouth upon my mention of those who fear retribution for their dissent. I became very angry upon seeing this disrespectful act by Mr. Schaeffer, but managed to maintain my composure and complete my address. Mr. Schaeffer also attempted to limit my address to the arbitrary limit of 4 minutes, as set by ordinance, and I refused to relinquish the floor until after I had finished my thought. A minor display of professional petulance ensued and the matter defused after a short while.

In my address I used the word "cabal" in referencing the Mayor and his campaign-supporting constituency. He makes a point to define the word for the assemblage and the future viewing public, I presume because having possibly been educated in a Collinsville Public School they may not possess the lexical aptitude to understand a polysyllabic word like "cabal". I chose that word very carefully because I believe that Mr. Schaeffer's bid for re-election is just that, a cabal. The people are the authority, and government is the reaction to our action of forming a government for the security of our rights and property. Mr. Schaeffer and his cabal of special interests, developers, and privileged status are, through attempting to keep Mr. Schaeffer in office, conspiring to subvert the People's will and reduce them to peonage by having their property taxed, confiscated, or developed against their will. Yes, Mr. Schaeffer...it is a cabal.

I may update this later, but I wanted to get the video out for those who wish to witness a callous display for the justified, albeit unnecessary, apprehension of other Citizens to publicly confront what they believe to be oppressive, unresponsive government. More to come.....

The Driver's License was just the beginning. The Real ID Act is Fascism realized. No Thanks.

P.L. 109-13 - includes the Real ID Act of 2005
Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568, 576-77 (1926)
Allen v. Graham, 446 P.2d 240, 243(1968)
Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)
United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 331 (1919)- These general rules are well settled: (1) That the United States, when it creates rights in individuals against itself, is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts.

42 U.S.C. §§§ 1981, 1982, 1988 - fictional "citizen of the United States" who would like to have the rights of a "white citizen."

1878 Title XXIV of the Revised Statutes of greatly revered "Civil Rights" - Hoo -haa in 42 USC § 1988. Remembering that Title 13 is Judiciary and Title 70 is crimes and it is all for the greater good of "Vindication" - to remove from being suspect.

Welcome to the fascist, communist and totalitarian American Empire endorsed and supported by Millions of people in America.

Overview statement - Congress must always declare the fictitious status of whom they are enacting ACTS OF CONGRESS (laws of Congress are where Congress has plenary power in which Congress acts as both a national government and a state government - i.e. territories, District of Columbia, possessions, etc.), not Laws of the United States (Congress acts only as a "federal government" within the several States and the several States enact their own laws).

In the REAL ID Act of 2005, it is only for a "citizen of the United States" or national of the United States. Remembering that only a "citizen of the United States" can vote, sit on a jury, and only this status is required to pay the IRS for this fictitious status, required to obtain a Driver License, etc.

There are many aspects of this particular "Act of Congress" ("laws of Congress") as it is not a Law of the United States. This will be covered later in my post on the "citizen of the United States."

When Congress usurped and reconstructed the constitutional Republic there were several essential elements that are involved that must be eliminated. To create a fictitious government outside of the Constitution of the United States and the several States wherein the people of these United States did grant a limited delegation of government only. (Two governments - one under the Constitution and one outside of the Constitution - see Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 264(1901))
1. As the sovereign Power, our inalienable rights, is posited only in the people of these United States and it is not a grant from Congress, any legislature or anyone else to US, THEN, the solution is to create a fiction in law and grant it benefits and rights (not inalienable rights) that are totally under the control of the granter, i.e. Congress, i.e. 42 U.S.C. §§§ 1981, 1982, 1988, being the right to own property, sue, etc. This is no different from a parent granting to his children an allowance of money or privileges contingent upon your CONDUCT subject to change at the will of the parent at any time for no reason.

As held in Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568, 576-77 (1926), to wit:

If the proceeding were not a case or controversy within the meaning of article 3, s 2, this delegation of power upon the courts would have been invalid. Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409, 1 L. Ed. 436; United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40, 14 L. Ed. 42; Muskrat v. United States, 31 S. Ct. 250, 219 U. S. 346, 55 L. Ed. 246. Whether a proceeding which results in a grant is a judicial one does not depend upon the nature of the thing granted, but upon the nature of the proceeding which Congress has provided for securing the grant. The United States may create rights in individuals against itself and provide only an administrative remedy. United States v. Babcock, 39 S. Ct. 464, 250 U. S. 328, 331, 63 L. Ed. 1011. It may provide a legal remedy, but make resort to the courts available *577 only after all administrative remedies have been exhausted. Compare New Orleans v. Paine, 13 S. Ct. 303, 147 U. S. 261, 37 L. Ed. 162; United States v. Sing Tuck, 24 S. Ct. 621, 194 U. S. 161, 48 L. Ed. 917; American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 43 S. Ct. 541, 262 U. S. 209, 67 L. Ed. 953. It may give to the individual the option of either an administrative or a legal remedy. Compare Clyde v. United States, 13 Wall. 38, 20 L. Ed. 479; **427Chorpenning v. United States, 94 U. S. 397, 399, 24 L. Ed. 126. Or it may provide only a remedy. Compare Turner v. United States, 39 S. Ct. 109, 248 U. S. 354, 63 L. Ed. 291. Whenever the law provides a remedy enforceable in the courts according to the regular course of legal procedure, and that remedy is pursued, there arises a case within the meaning of the Constitution, whether the subject of the litigation be property or status. A petition for naturalization is clearly a proceeding of that character.

The petitioner's claim is one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The claim is presented to the court in such a form that the judicial power is capable of acting upon it. The proceeding is instituted and is conducted throughout according to the regular course of judicial procedure. The United States is always a possible adverse party.

What this case articulates is that if there is any grant from Congress, Congress controls the remedy to obtain the grant, i.e. benefit, to wit:
1. Legal remedy in the courts of the United States only after administrative remedies have been exhausted; or,
2. An administrative remedy denying your access to the courts of the United States; or,
3. An legal remedy in the courts of the United States; or,
4. Or only a remedy whatever degree that may be - complete or not; or,
5. No remedy however mistaken its exercise thereof, which is is another case held in Allen v. Graham, 446 P.2d 240, 243(1968) citing Babcock.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 era and other in in Title XXIV is the source of the problem.
You can easily check on the Internet for other Laws of the United States and what you will find is there no requirement to be just a "citizen of the United States" in the laws of the United States prior to the Civil War. There are some acts that use these words, but back then in time, by reading cases you will quickly come to the understanding that is was used in lieu of citizens of the several States.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsl.html

And excellent case explaining that in reality there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States (Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)) [read this case very, very carefully as there is great knowledge imparted therein] and there are no privileges granted to a citizen of the United States, but only to citizens of the several States. See Article IV section 2.

REAL ID Act of 2005
Starting on page 75 is tyranny in action.

Note the words "trier of fact" in section 8 USC §§ 1158, 1231 - this is a flunky employee making this determination concerning aliens. Wow!

8 USC ¶ 1252 - No court shall reverse a determination made by a trier of fact with respect to the availability of corroborating evidence ....

8 USC 1103- "(1) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section. Any such decision by the Secretary shall be effective upon being published in the Federal Register.
[This purportedly is only for the borders and roads]

Also under 8 USC § 1103 - an interlocutory or final judgment or order of the district court may be reviewed only upon petition for a writ of certiorari. Another ruse as there is no remedy via the statutory "Writ of Certiorari" as jurisdiction is not an issue for the Supreme Court nor is the merits.

Effect of denial of certiorari

A denial of certiorari normally carries no implication or inference. U.S. v. Kras, U.S.N.Y.1973, 93 S.Ct. 631, 409 U.S. 434, 34 L.Ed.2d 626.

Denial of writ of certiorari by Federal Supreme Court imports no expression of opinion upon merits of case but means only that there were not four members of the Court who thought the case should be heard. Brown v. Allen, U.S.N.C.1953, 73 S.Ct. 397, 344 U.S. 443, 97 L.Ed. 469, dissenting opinion 73 S.Ct. 437, 344 U.S. 443, 97 L.Ed. 469, rehearing denied 73 S.Ct. 827, 345 U.S. 946, 97 L.Ed. 1370.

The United States Supreme Court's refusal of certiorari, though essential to exhaustion of state remedies as a prerequisite to applying to federal courts for habeas corpus, is without substantive significance in habeas corpus case. U.S. ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, U.S.Pa.1953, 73 S.Ct. 391, 344 U.S. 561, 97 L.Ed. 549.

Denial of a petition for writ of certiorari to review decision of Court of Appeals of Maryland reversing conviction of radio stations for contempt meant only that fewer than four members of Supreme Court thought that certiorari should be granted, and such denial carried with it no implication whatever regarding views of Supreme Court on merits of the case. State of Md. v. Baltimore Radio Show, U.S.Md.1950, 70 S.Ct. 252, 338 U.S. 912, 94 L.Ed. 562.

Denial of certiorari imports nothing as to merits of case; all it means is that, for whatever reason, there were not four members of Supreme Court who wished to consider issues presented for review. Howell v. Jones, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1975, 516 F.2d 53, rehearing denied 521 F.2d 815, certiorari denied 96 S.Ct. 1116, 424 U.S. 916, 47 L.Ed.2d 321, rehearing denied 96 S.Ct. 1687, 425 U.S. 945, 48 L.Ed.2d 189.

Denial of writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion on merits of the case. Laborers' Intern. Union of North America, Local No. 107 v. Kunco, Inc., C.A.8 (Ark.) 1973, 472 F.2d 456.

Denial of petition for writ of certiorari by United States Supreme Court carries no precedential weight whatever. Ahern v. Murphy, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1972, 457 F.2d 363.

United States Supreme Court's denial of certiorari did not make decision of Tennessee Supreme Court the law of the United States Supreme Court with respect to value of the case as a precedent, but the denial of certiorari signified that appellate review had been exhausted, that the parties had had their day in court, and that the case could be res judicata in a subsequent action. Deane Hill Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1967, 379 F.2d 321, certiorari denied 88 S.Ct. 476, 389 U.S. 975, 19 L.Ed.2d 467.

Denial of certiorari by United States Supreme Court is not to be given effect of judgment on merits. Newsom v. Peyton, C.A.4 (Va.) 1965, 341 F.2d 904.

Denial of certiorari by Supreme Court of United States from judgment of state supreme court, did not establish correctness of judgment but served only to establish finality of judgment as between litigants. Dairy Distributors, Inc. v. Western Conference of Teamsters, C.A.10 (Utah) 1961, 294 F.2d 348, certiorari denied 82 S.Ct. 604, 368 U.S. 988, 7 L.Ed.2d 525.

Denial by United States Supreme Court of petition for writ of certiorari cannot be interpreted as an expression of the Supreme Court's opinion on the merits. McLaurin v. Burnley, N.D.Miss.1967, 279 F.Supp. 220, affirmed 401 F.2d 773, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 2228, 399 U.S. 928, 26 L.Ed.2d 795.

Denial to state convict of certiorari by Supreme Court of the United States is not an adjudication as such but is a refusal of a rehearing and is indication that issues were twice considered. Williams v. State of S.C., D.C.S.C.1965, 237 F.Supp. 360, vacated 356 F.2d 432.

Denial of certiorari by United States Supreme Court after conviction by state court and affirmance by state Supreme Court is not an affirmance. State of Tenn. ex rel. Ford v. Morris, W.D.Tenn.1965, 236 F.Supp. 780.

Denial of certiorari by federal Supreme Court imported no expression of
opinion on merits of state supreme court decision. De La Salle Institute v. U.S., N.D.Cal.1961, 195 F.Supp. 891.

What a ruse as this is not even a true Writ of Certiorari. This is from the 1856 Bouviers Law Dictionary. Does this match the current Writ of Certiorari of today high jacked by Congress for the fictional government, remembering for those that have never filed into the Supreme Court of the United States - NONE of the RECORD is brought up, but you must regenerate all of any record that you choose to use and put it on special paper of a size of approximately 6 by 9 inches?

CERTIORARI, practice. To be certified of; to be informed of. This is the name of a writ issued from a superior court directed to one of inferior jurisdiction, commanding the latter to certify and return to the former, the record in the particular case. Bac. Ab. h. t.; 4 Vin. Ab. 330; Nels. Ab. h. t.; Dane's Ab. Index, h. t.; 3 Penna. R. 24. A certiorari differs from a writ of error. There is a distinction also between a hab. corp. and a certiorari. The certiorari removes the cause; the hab. corp. only supersedes the proceedings in below. 2 Lord Ray. 1102.

2. By the common law, a supreme court has power to review the proceedings of all inferior tribunals, and to pass upon their jurisdiction and decisions on questions of law. But in general, the determination of such inferior courts on questions of fact are conclusive, and cannot be reversed on certiorari, unless some statute confers the power on such supreme court. 6 Wend. 564; 10 Pick. 358; 4 Halst. 209. When any error has occurred in the proceedings of the court below, different from the course of the common law, in any stage of the cause, either civil or criminal cases, the writ of certiorari is the only remedy to correct such error, unless some other statutory remedy has been given. 5 Binn. 27; 1 Gill & John. 196; 2 Mass. R. 245; 11 Mass. R. 466; 2 Virg. Cas. 270; 3 Halst. 123; 3 Pick. 194 4 Hayw. 100; 2 Greenl. 165; 8 Greenl. 293. A certiorari, for example, is the correct process to remove the proceedings of a court of sessions, or of county commissioners in laying out highways. 2 Binn. 250 2 Mass. 249; 7 Mass. 158; 8 Pick. 440 13 Pick. 195; 1 Overt. 131; 2 Overt. 109; 2 Pen. 1038; 8 Verm. 271 3 Ham. 383; 2 Caines, 179.

3. Sometimes the writ of certiorari is used as auxiliary process, in order to obtain a full return to some other process. When, for example, the record of an inferior court is brought before a superior court by appeal, writ of error, or other lawful mode, and there is a manifest defect, or a suggestion of diminution, a certiorari is awarded requiring a perfect transcript and all papers. 3 Dall. R. 413; 3 John. R. 23; 7 Cranch, R. 288; 2 South. R. 270, 551; 1 Blackf. R. 32; 9 Wheat. R. 526; 7 Halst. R. 85; 3 Dev. R. 117; 1 Dev. & Bat. 382; 11 Mass. 414; 2 Munf. R. 229; 2 Cowen, R. 38. Vide Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

So we proceed forward to the this section:

8 USC § 1182 - note that "individual capacity" is included, i.e. if your do something that the Fascist government does not like including weapons, etc (same section - read carefully of all items included - anyone can be included here) - your are under their statutory scheme for prosecution -page 81. Also included in terrorism is any two "individuals" organized or not.

Also important if the Secretary's (includes homeland security Secretary) sole unreviewable discretion for certain parts - complicated here.

8 USC § 1252 - denial of Habeas Corpus (must be at War - eh?) - Note use of "statutory or non-statutory - hmmmm - two Habeas Corpus' out there is seems - unbelievable. Of course you can file into the Court of Appeals (equity and admiralty) since 1911 in the Fascist fictional world (real Circuit Court of the United States still exists even after the 1911 Judicial Code)

49 USC 30301 - "State" is defined as "a State of the United States." Congress did NOT establish a Law of the United States (under Article VI is the authority for only laws of the United States) for within any of the several States, so the simple solution which is always the case, Congress must supply the definition(s) of whom they are legislating for - THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ESSENTIAL ELEMENT to prove that Congress is outside of their Constitutional Power. The Constitution of the United States ONLY has provision for the "several States" of the Union and none other - hence we define the fictional "State of the United States."

49 USC 30301 - "a Federal agency" which has no executive, legislative or judicial Power arising under the Constitution is forcing upon an Individual to comply. It also mandates that you have accepted the benefit of the SSN, conclusively proving that you are not a citizen of one of the several States, but are a "citizen of the United States", i.e. a fictional status in Law.

But the REAL CONCLUSIVE part of this "law of Congress" for the Fascist is that CONGRESS MUST IDENTIFY WHAT ENTITY THEY ARE LEGISLATING FOR. Hooo - haaa.

This is what I discovered by looking prior to the Civil War and after the Civil War on Laws of the United States and laws of Congress.

Congress must identity that it is strictly ONLY for a "citizen of the United States" or "national of the United States." Either isn't a citizen of the several States. I will be posting on this soon - just a lot to understand in this area for those starting a ground zero with the deer in the headlight stare.

This should be enough initially to scare the dolts of our Republic into action are to at least question the Fascist Empire - but who knows.

As for those that are seeking knowledge, there is hope.

What is the one sentence that could expose this complete treasonous act

This Act has no application to any of the citizens of the several States who are not "citizens of the United States." This is as short as it can be.
Questions to the Congress.
1. Does this Act have application to "citizens of the several States" domiciled in the several States?
2. Please define what is a "citizen of the United States."
3. Is it not true that a "citizen of the United States" is a grant under 42 USC §§§ 1981, 1982 and 1988?
4. Is it not true that Congress is mandating that I be a racist, i.e. to have rights like a "white citizen?"
5. Who or what is this "white citizen" in Title 42?

This is just for starters.

Later.

Ralph

--
The information provided in the lists of Winterrowd is the work product of Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd with all rights reserved.
I am not an Attorney or Counsellor-at-law. The fundamental rights to distribute research material is claimed by Winterrowd as an American citizen, citizen of the United States of America, a citizen of one of the several States and "white citizen" due to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1988 Administrative State of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq under the "laws of Congress" which are not "Laws of the United States."
There are three lists that may be joined by the home page of www.jusbelli.com. There is a special e-mail list for $120 per year donation that includes attachments - contact me via e-mail to join. Requires a minimum of 5 meg. of e-mail storage by your server.
I have a talk show on Republic Broadcasting accessible by going to
http://republicbroadcasting.org/ Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 7-8 PM Central Time.
Ralph

Shimkus teaching the Constitution....sagacious sanctimony.

Elizabeth A. Lehnerer photo U.S. Rep. John Shimkus (R-Collinsville) discussed the Constitution and his job in Congress with students at Holy Cross Lutheran School in Collinsville on Monday.

Well, so much for an ignorance defense. If only the kiddies who were subjected to his contrived expertise in the Constitution knew the apparent contempt he held for that parchment profundity of political power.
I was fortunate enough to attend a Collinsville Economic Development breakfast a year or so ago where Mr. Shimkus was the guest speaker. At the time, Illinois was embroiled in debate over the bestowment of being a "judicial hellhole" and profusely hemorrhaging physicians due to skyrocketing malpractice premiums to cover outrageous jury awards.

So, Mr. Shimkus felt it his apparent duty to work with Mr. Bush and the other tort-chasing-lawyer-hating Republicans in pushing tort reform in order to usurp the power of juries to award damages to plaintiffs. Now granted, not all jury awards carry the presumption of being well-reasoned and fair, but the state legislature bears the primary responsibility for effecting change in civil law, not the federal government.

I had the opportunity to ask Mr. Shimkus a question at the breakfast and I pulled no punches and did my best to leave no out for an evasive answer or political platitude. I was partially successful. My question was this, where in the Constitution does the federal government find the power to intervene in a state issue, involving the power of juries to award damages, and arbitrarily set caps on compensation for damages? Because, if it acts on such power, the power must be plenary if not defined or limited in the Constitution, and if plenary, what is to stop them from later stepping to save the automotive insurance industry by limiting the amount of damages when manufacturers sell knowingly defective vehicles that result in death or injury?

Mr. Shimkus thought for a few seconds before proffering his answer and stated in eloquent political fashion that the power did not exist in the Constitution but doggone it, Illinois needs doctors so he was going to do what was necessary in order to achieve that end and if the voters find his actions distasteful then they would speak through the polls. Of course, I am paraphrasing, but doing so very accurately. Basically, the Constitution be damned, I'm going to do it anyway because the court of public opinion will carry more weight than the Supreme Court.

Now, I'm certain Mr. Shimkus knew that he had no authority to involve himself in tort reform, as well as the federal government having no authority as well. To me, he looked visibly uncomfortable with the question, knowing full well how he had to dissemble in his answer to save face. He relied upon the ignorance of the small crowd and their kowtowing adulation. Way to go Mr. Shimkus.

So now, Mr. Shimkus is gallivanting around the elementary schools educating children about the Constitution. In the story, he tells the children to look to the Constitution for answers about government. Allow me to correct that statement. Children, do not look to the Constitution. The government has all but forgotten it. Do not claim Constitutional rights. Do not claim civil rights. Do not claim to have civil liberties. Do not petition the corrupt and co-opted courts for redress. Instead, look to the Declaration of Independence. Your rights are antecedent to the formation of any government. Your rights do not derive from any earthly source. Government is a tool designed to securing our freedom and guarding your liberty. It has failed. The Constitution defined that tool. The tool no longer works. It is a rusty, worn, ineffective relic designed for a job that has been neglected; and now our republic lies in a sad state of disrepair. There is a saying, "chose the right tool for the right job". The job is reclaiming our freedoms and reducing government to that limited and specific trustee of our power in securing liberty. The proper tool now is revolution through evolution of thought. Exercise first the mind. If the foe proves too resistant, exercise the trigger finger.

Mr. Shimkus, you may fool some of the kiddies some of the time, but God help you should they wake from their slumber. I hope to be one to shake their eyes wide open.

I am not just being mean.

I am not being mean to Stan Schaeffer. I fashioned a parody on the Collinsville mayoral election wherein Mr. Schaeffer has spent more money on campaigning than what the position pays. Now, I have it on good authority that this is more true than not. I have purchased campaign signs in the past and for what I received and the cost involved I can say with relative accuracy that Stan has spent well over $3000. Couple that amount with direct mailings and newspaper ads and word on the street is that so-far the bill exceeds $21,000. I took license in moving that amount up to $25,000 because I will bet that is what the final fill may be. If I'm wrong then sue me. It is a parody.

People may ask why I am picking on Stan when Joy Springer has spent money on this campaign too? Heck, she may have spent more than $3000 on signs, I don't know. I have seen her signs and I've seen Stan's and I'll say that I know Stan's exceeded that amount easily. Is that the issue here? No. The issue is what Mr. Schaeffer has done during his tenure and what he will do if re-elected. I have spoken with both he and Ms. Springer and have not received, in my opinion, honesty and fairness from Mr. Schaeffer. When I met with him in private regarding the business license ordinance and its inapplicability in general, he agreed with my findings. He was willing to let me proceed with no fear of the City assailing me for not procuring a business license. When I pressed as to why he would not inform the rest of the Citizens thay they too were probably not obligated to procure a license he said he couldn't do that. It was up to them to do the research as I had done and determine the laws applicability to themselves. How is that for dissembling?

In othe words, Mr. Schaeffer was on notice that this law had no teeth and it was a paper tiger, yet, since I realized it was a farce and refused to comply he would graciously not pursue action against me, but was still willing to allow the rest of the Citizens to act under the false perception that the law applied to them. That is fraud.

It is because of this fact, although not the only issue, as to why I am speaking out against Mr. Schaeffer being re-elected. I feel that he cannot be trusted. This is not malevolence or spite on my part. It is being honest enough to confront something that will, in an opportunistic fashion, work in a way that is not in the People's best interest. It is a manner of acting that exploits ignorance and is deceitful. In good conscience, I cannot allow that to happen through my silence.

Now, I don't know what kind of Mayor Joy Springer will be. She seems more genuine and does not have the dulling tarnish of political tenure about her. I defer to the benefit of doubt in supporting her for mayor. I will hold her to the same standard of fairness and accountability as I would anyone. That being said, I believe that the People have an opportunity to forestall possibly looming tax increases and abuse of eminent domain by Mr. Schaeffer. Even if he is not successful in implementing such an agenda, why would we want a public servant who harbors such notions? I am not saying that these are absolutely his ideas. I can only infer and assume given the information publicly available on Mr. Schaeffer and his past actions. However, I can say that these are more likeley than not in the offing.

Is honesty meanness? Is having a concern for the rights and property of other Citizens malicious? Is it wrong to illustrate ideas through the use of parody or other medium of communicating a point? If so, you know where to find me. If not, take it for what it's worth. Educate yourselves as voters and as Citizens and take the appropriate action based on your understanding, knowledge and sense of justice.

Friendly advice regarding my challenging the "system"

I had an opportunity to review my performance in the mayoral primary with a friend of mine who gave me some valuable insight regarding the reality of Madison County politics. I think most of us will acknowledge that politics in general is a loathsome endeavor. The people involved in the process also carry with them the presumption of being less than upstanding and righteous. Most of us will agree that it is not about the salary, it is about the power. There are huge machines of special interests, groups and associations who have a major investment in "their guy" making it into office. These entities do not relinquish their cash capriciously.

Now, I spent absolutely $0 on my campaign, aside from my time on my own website, and I received 111 votes. I understand that Stan Schaeffer has spent over $21,000 on signs, mailings, and other assorted voter outreach communiques'. Did I force Stan to spend money to overcome my persuasive, cogent, honest and articulate statements on my website? I doubt it. The issue is why would someone spend so much money on an office that pays less than what I make in a month? POWER. Don't delude yourselves. This is all about POWER.

My friend says that I, as an individual, have in all probability agitated the political machine that feeds their lackeys at the local levels and I should expect some sort of retaliation. This may come from Stan, if he makes it into office, or it may come out of the blue; directed and orchestrated by the shadow government that sits in manipulatory control over those who aver to its power. I'm sorry. I am not one of those persons.

So, in anticipation of possible police harassment, trumped-up charges of some sort, smear campaigns, or other assorted nuisances designed to send a shot across my bow to not mess with the powers-that-be, I want to extend an "I see you" to those in power who want to make an example out of the little guy. I have prepared for such an onslaught by any number of government agencies for some time. I've pissed off bigger bullies than Madison County politicos, but that is not to say that they don't have the intent, wherewithal and opportunity to pester me nevertheless.

I am not backed by money. I am not backed by powerful organizations. I am backed by the knowledge of knowing my enemy. I am backed by the knowledge of knowing the fraud and deceit they perpetuate ad nauseum. I am also backed by resolve and will to confront whatever and whomever at any cost. I refuse to back down. I prepare for my personal defense accordingly. There may be a confrontation some day, but if it turns out for the worst let it be known that I will not be the antagonist, but the individual standing his ground in defense of his rights. Read into that what you will.

If I've poked the wrong tiger this time and retaliation is in the offing, then bring it on. I just hope that the couriers of such ill-will are prepared to pay a price for their involvement as well. Maybe, when the dust settles, enough people will see the game for what it is and come to understand that they too are powerless and enslaved unless they congeal as a people to bring the machine and it's minions down. Then again, I may be met with the rustling of leaves and the whispering brush of the wind against my face as the tyrants bide their time and survey less resolved objects of their ire. Time will tell.