Silencing Reports About Muslim Rapists Is Sweden’s Suicide

(Shutterstock)

I could be writing every week about Sweden. Every day. Every hour. For reasons that will be analyzed by historians for a long, long time – provided the Western world doesn’t become so thoroughly Islamized that the possibility of objective historical scrutiny is utterly obliterated – the Swedes have chosen a path of cultural and societal suicide that puts all other countries in the shade.

For anyone curious about self-destructive psychopathologies, it is a grimly fascinating phenomenon. Why, of all places, Sweden? How can a Swedish woman raped by an illegal Muslim immigrant be so bursting with racial guilt that she hesitates to report the crime to the police for fear that her report might lead to her rapist’s punishment or deportation? Or, more generally, because news of the offense might result in an increase in “Islamophobia?”

This is the kind of madness that’s going on in Sweden now. More than any other country in Europe, it has a government and a media that are in denial about the truth, a legal system that punishes those who dare to tell the truth, and a people who have been brainwashed for decades with the vile lie that they have a moral obligation to hand their country over to hostile, despotic strangers from far away.

No, Sweden isn’t North Korea. The ugly news does get out, one way or another. Some of it, anyway. It’s just that, with extremely rare exceptions, the important facts about the nation’s disastrous Islamization don’t find their way into the country’s own mainstream media. On the contrary, Sweden’s major TV, radio, and print outlets are notorious for the fidelity with which they parrot the government line and omit or whitewash uncomfortable news developments.

No, if you’re looking for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about most of the nasty stuff going on in Sweden these days, you’re better off checking out Swedish websites such as Avpixlat and Fria Tider, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Postenand two Norwegian sites: document.no and rights.no, the latter being the site of the organization Human Rights Service.

I’ve previously quoted a March 11 Jyllands-Posten editorial that spelled out the Swedish situation quite frankly: what should “most worry Sweden’s neighbors,” the Danish editors wrote, is the Swedes’ “unwillingness to openly and honestly discuss the government-approved multicultural idyll. … In the long run, the mendacity that characterizes the Swedish debate cannot be maintained. The discrepancy between the official, idealized version of Sweden, ‘the people’s home,’ and the brutal reality that everyone can see has simply become too great.”

Indeed. This is a country where rapes by Muslim men are systematically ignored by the authorities or responded to with minimal punishment. Routinely, Swedish courts refuse to return these monsters – some of whom have repeatedly subjected small boys and girls to violent sexual abuse – to their home countries for fear that they’ll be put in danger. In other words, Swedish judges care more about the safety of foreign rapists than that of Swedish children.

(No wonder U.S. News and World Report has just named Sweden the best country in the world to be an immigrant. Yet another cockeyed ranking. The proper question isn’t which country is best for immigrants, but which country has the most sensible immigration policy.)

It’s a country where even prominent Swedish feminists – fanatical boosters of multiculturalism – are now moving out of Muslim-heavy neighborhoods not only because of the Muslim rapists but because of the Muslim “morality police,” who are less concerned with monitoring rapists than with controlling women’s conduct. (One such feminist organized “coffee shop meetings” with Muslim male community leaders in an attempt to resolve the situation, but gave up.)

It’s a country where the government rolls out the red carpet for returning ISIS members, giving them special benefits, in hopes that they’ll see the light and put down their weapons.

It’s a country where, while Muslim rapists and terrorists are forgiven, critics of immigrant conduct are punished. In May, a 70-year-old woman in Dalarna, Sweden, was arrested for writing on Facebook in 2015 about immigrants who “set cars on fire and urinate and defecate in the streets.” (She faces up to four years in prison.)

No surprise, then, that on July 7, Jyllands-Posten reported that the Swedish government plans to alter the nation’s Constitution in such a way as to give itself the power to limit online free speech about precisely these ticklish matters. Among other things, wrote Jyllands-Posten, it will become illegal “for certain websites to publicize information about private persons’ ethnicity or conviction of crimes.”

Of course: the best way to address the ever-rising tide of Muslim criminality is to close down every last media outlet that reports honestly about it. The mainstream Swedish media are already playing ball; it’s just a few recalcitrant websites that need to be scrubbed clean. Presumably the next step will be to block access in Sweden to Jyllands-Posten and other foreign news sources that tell Swedes the truth about what’s going on within their own borders.

Then everything will be just perfect, no? And what are the chances that no matter how much Sweden tightens its already alarming (if currently tacit) limits on freedom of speech, Reporters without Borders will keep Sweden at its ridiculous #2 spot on the World Press Freedom Index?

Source: Silencing Reports About Muslim Rapists Is Sweden’s Suicide

Advertisements
Posted in Islam | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

6.9 million multiple voters in 28 states, report finds – Watchdog.org

6/25/14

By Kenric Ward | Watchdog.org

RICHMOND, Va. — Some 6.9 million Americans are registered to vote in two or more states, according to a report obtained by Watchdog.org.

“Our nation’s voter rolls are a mess,” says Catherine Engelbrecht, president of the election-watch group True The Vote.

“Sensible approaches to roll maintenance are fought tooth and nail by radical special interests who can use the duplicity in the system to their advantage,” she said.

The latest interstate voter cross check tallied 6,951,484 overlapping voter registrations, and they’re just the tip of the iceberg.

The cross-check program involves only 28 states and does not include the three largest: California, Texas and Florida.

“Duplicate registration is an open invitation to voting fraud,” said Clara Belle Wheeler, a member of the Election Board in Albemarle County, Va. “This ability to vote more than once dilutes the legal votes and changes the results of elections.”

The interstate cross-check program matches first and last names and dates of birth to identify multiple registrations.But the data are not routinely used to purge duplicates.

“Increasingly lax standards in our election process produce increasingly unreliable results,” Engelbrecht asserted.

“The few conversations that are had about how to shore up these weaknesses are immediately seized on by certain politicians and special-interest groups as fuel to further divide American voters based on trumped-up race and class-based narratives,” she said.

Engelbrecht said the “vicious cycle” can be fixed “if citizens wake up, stand up and refuse to settle for a broken system.”

Jay DeLancy, executive director of the Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina, says the solution is as simple as one-two-three.

“First, tie registrations more closely to (each state’s) Department of Motor Vehicles. All voter ID cards would originate there,” he explained.

“As is today, when we get an ID card from DMV, we get registered to vote — but turning in your former state’s ID card should revoke your right to vote in the state that issued it.

“Second, make it a felony to possess a voter ID card — or any other DMV-issued ID card — from more than one state.

“Third, we would only be allowed to vote from the address on that ID card. If a voter shows up with the wrong address, the vote is provisional until the card is corrected,” DeLancy concluded.

He added: “We don’t need a federal ID card to do this. In fact, it wouldn’t require any more feds to be hired.”

States, however, will have to tighten up. And that could be a challenge — both politically and fiscally.

In Virginia, Wheeler noted that the State Board of Elections and Department of Elections “have had their funding reduced greatly by the (Terry) McAuliffe administration.” McAuliffe is a Democrat.

“With reduced funding, they have a grossly limited staff and thus, will be greatly limited in the ability to do the cross checks and reduce voter fraud.”

SBE officials, who provided the cross-check data in response to a Freedom of Information Act filing by the Virginia Voters Alliance, did not respond to Wheeler’s assertion.

Watchdog previously reported Virginia and Maryland have 44,000 duplicate voters between them.

Two national voting-rights groups — the League of Women Voters and America Votes — did not respond to Watchdog’s requests for comment.

Kenric Ward is a national correspondent for Watchdog.org and chief of its Virginia Bureau. Contact him at kenric@watchdogvirginia.org or at (571) 319-9824. @Kenricward

Source: 6.9 million multiple voters in 28 states, report finds – Watchdog.org

Posted in Vote Fraud | Tagged | Leave a comment

How to use Article V of our Constitution to move us into the North American Union 

By Publius Huldah

Article V convention supporters seem to think they are oh! so clever when they accuse those of us who oppose an Article V convention of “fear mongering”.

Well, I graduated from “fearfulness” long ago – now I’m in the HORROR stage: Under the North American Union (NAU), Canada, the United States, and Mexico merge and a Parliament is set up over them. This was President George W. Bush’s plan, cooked up during 2005 at his ranch in Texas with the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico.

But in order to set this up, they need a new Constitution which transforms the United States from a sovereign nation to a member state of the NAU.

How do they get the new Constitution? At an Article V convention.

How do they get an Article V convention? Tell the American People that at an Article V convention, they can get Amendments to our existing Constitution which will “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”.

And, as ordinary citizens who support an Article V convention give daily proof, such tactics work. People don’t think – they follow what popular people tell them, and then they repeat it as if they know all about it.  And they insult, revile and marginalize the people who do tell them the Truth (as they have been programmed by their Conditioners to do).

Americans don’t know that delegates to an Article V convention have “PLENIPOTENTIARY POWERS” and thus have the power (recognized in the 2nd paragraph of our Declaration of Independence) to throw off our present Constitution and establish a new one with a new (and easier) mode of ratification.

Americans don’t know that in Federalist Paper No. 40 (15th para), James Madison invoked this clause in the Declaration of Independence as justification for what they did at the federal convention of 1787:   Instead of proposing Amendments to the Articles of Confederation (as they had been instructed to do), they wrote an entirely new Constitution which created a new government.

Americans don’t know that because of these plenipotentiary powers, Delegates to an Article V convention can do whatever they want.  It doesn’t matter whether they were sent to the convention for “the sole and express purpose” of proposing a balanced budget amendment, or a term limits amendment, or a countermand amendment, or some other designated purpose – they are not bound by those spurious limitations.

Americans don’t know that “faithful delegates” laws are a joke: Not only do delegates have plenipotentiary powers and sovereign immunity for whatever they do; it is a simple matter to circumvent “faithful delegate” laws.

So that’s how a Constitutional Republic is destroyed and replaced by a global government.

You can read about the NAU here. Read the Task Force Report. Heidi Cruz was on the Task Force which wrote the report. http://www.cfr.org/…/building-north-american-community/p8102

Questions: Is Senator Ted Cruz in on this plan to move us into the NAU? Is Governor Greg Abbott of Texas in on this plan to move us into the NAU? Is Lt. Gov Dan Patrick of Texas in on this plan?

People! Your guides are leading you astray and are confusing the path you should take. You better start using your own heads – and you better start doing it today. We are close to having Congress call an Article V convention. You better get with your State Legislators and educate them about the dangers and give them the Facts.

If you continue to refuse to hear the Truth; and if you continue to revile those who do tell the Truth, then the blood of a great many people will be on your head.

Hell is just around the corner. Look at Western Europe – how has the EU worked out?  Americans better wise up now. Stop an Article V convention.  Tell your State legislators to rescind the applications for a convention your State has already passed; and tell them not to pass any more applications.  For an unofficial list (by State) of applications to Congress which have already been passed, go HERE. 

Update June23, 2017:  The CFR has since removed the Task Force Report from their website.  Now, one must purchase a copy.  It’s on Amazon.

Source: How to use Article V of our Constitution to move us into the North American Union « Publius-Huldah’s Blog

Posted in Article V Convention, Constitution | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Article V Convention: NC General Assembly Doubling Back in the Wrong Direction | Beaufort County Now

Published: Wednesday, July 5th, 2017 @ 12:51 am
By: Publius Huldah 

On June 29, 2017 the North Carolina House voted against SJR 36, the COS application for an Article V convention. The vote was 59 against; and 53 for.

But a few hours later, COS and the Republican leadership got the members to vote to “reconsider” their vote against SJR 36 (66 to reconsider – 45 opposed). So they brought SJR 36 back to life and sent it to the House Rules Committee. There it will sit until COS and Republican leadership twist enough arms and pressure more House Republicans to vote for it.

[Below I use “Left” to describe those who want big government;

and “Right” to describe those who want small government.]

It has always been the Big Money on the Left which wants an Article V convention so they can get rid of the Constitution we have and impose a new one. Some 50+ years ago, the Left came up with the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America. Under this proposed Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. It sets up a totalitarian dictatorship under which (among other things) we will be disarmed. It is ratified by a national referendum.

It has always been the Right which resisted the periodic pushes for an Article V convention. The Right understands that delegates to an Article V convention have plenipotentiary powers and can exercise [once again] that “self-evident right” recognized in the 2nd para of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off the Constitution we have and set up a new one which creates a new government.

So the Left changed clothes and changed tactics. Now, they are pretending to be “Right” and they are marketing the con to Republicans. Many of our State Legislators are jaw-droppingly ignorant of our two Founding Documents. And too many Republican Legislators believe whatever the fake “Right” con-con lobby tells them.

Much confusion has been caused by the false claims that those supporting the con-con are “Libertarian”, “right-wing”, or “conservatives”. We know that the Koch Brothers on the fake “Right”, among others, are spending vast sums of money to buy Republican politicians to get them to support an Article V convention. See, e.g., THIS.

Many Republican Legislators, who don’t understand our Founding Principles and Founding Documents, go by the labels which others assign. And since they are told that an Article V convention is the “conservative” position, they go along with it.

So Republican State Legislators who have been bought and paid for by the fake “Right”, or who go along with their Leadership, are the ones today who are doing the work of the Left by passing applications for an Article V convention. Most of them have no idea of the dangers. In some States (North Carolina), the Republican leadership prohibits their members from hearing voices in opposition at Committee meetings.

SJR 36 passed North Carolina Senate Committees with no public notice given of the Committee meetings. So the voices in opposition were not heard. After SJR 36 passed the Senate committees it was rushed to the Senate floor for a vote.

At the hearing on June 28 before the North Carolina House Judiciary Committee IV, the sponsors of SJR 36 were given all the time they wanted to speak for SJR 36; but our Friend, Wynne Coleman of NoCOS-NC, was only allowed one (1) minute to speak in opposition; and the Chairman of the Committee would not allow her to distribute to the Committee Members the documentation she had prepared for them. One Legislator who opposed was also given only one (1) minute. And that was it for the opposition at this “public” hearing.

I suggest that the reason the bought and paid for State Republican Legislators prohibit voices in opposition from being heard is that they know that when Legislators are given the TRUTH, they generally oppose an Article V convention.

We are in imminent peril of losing our Constitution. It seems that what the Fake “Right” now wants is to move us into the North American Union (NAU). Under the NAU, Canada, the United States, and Mexico basically merge, and a Parliament is set up over them. The borders between the three countries are to be effectively erased. I have read the Task Force Report on the NAU sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. The globalists (fake “conservatives” George W. Bush, the Cruzes, etc.) need a new Constitution for the United States which transforms us from a sovereign nation to a member state of the NAU. How do they get a new Constitution? At an Article V convention. How do they get an Article V convention? By lying to the American People and to State Legislators, and by preventing voices in opposition from being heard.

See THIS short commentary on the NAU.

I suggest we better make defeating an Article V convention a primary focus of our lives.

Please get with your State Legislators and educate them. Warn those in your spheres of influence. We must get States to rescind their existing applications for an Article V convention. This past legislative session, three States (Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada) rescinded their outstanding applications for an Article V convention! That took lots of work by many people.

If you want to know what America will look like once the Parliament for the NAU takes control of immigration, look at Europe. And pray that you aren’t disarmed under the new Constitution.

Fight this evil.

Source: Article V Convention: NC General Assembly Doubling Back in the Wrong Direction | Beaufort County Now

Publius Huldah added in comments:

“…my concern is not with any Amendments which could be proposed at an Article V convention. My concern is that the Delegates will almost certainly invoke that “self-evident right” claimed in the 2nd paragraph of our Declaration of Independence to throw off the Constitution we have and set up a new Constitution (with a new mode of ratification) which creates an entirely new government.

That is what the delegates to the federal convention of 1787 did. Even though their instructions from the Continental Congress and their States were to propose Amendments to the Articles of Confederation (our First Constitution), the Delegates ignored their instructions and drafted a new Constitution which created a new government.

Furthermore, the new Constitution had a new [and easier] mode of ratification: Whereas the Articles of Confederation required that Amendments to the Articles be approved by the Continental Congress and ALL of the then 13 States; the new Constitution provided at Article VII thereof that it would be ratified by only 9 States.

And in Federalist Paper No. 40 (15th para), James Madison, Father of our Constitution) specifically invoked this “self-evident right” to throw off one government and set up a new one – as justification for what they did at the federal “amendments” convention of 1787.

The Left is well aware of this! It’s the Right who stuck their heads in the sand. The Leftists’ proposed Constitution for the NewStates of America is ratified by a National Referendum. All they need to get their Constitution in place is an Article V convention where it can be proposed. And it will be easy to get it ratified: whoever controls the voting machines will determine the outcome.

So George Soros and the Marxists have the progressive Constitution they want in place by the year 2020; and the globalist Bush/Cruz/Council on Foreign Relations/Koch Brothers?/ conspirators need a new Constitution to move us into the North American Union.

Everyone on the Left and the phony “Right” is well aware of this!

But they don’t want Republican Legislators to know it. That’s why they push for hearings on applications for an Article V convention with no public notice – or limit opposition speakers to 1 or 2 minutes. That’s why they smear and revile the honest Patriots who tell the truth and prove it.”

Posted in Article V Convention, Constitution | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Repeal Unconstitutional Federal Gun Laws – Don’t Add to Them! ⋆ The Constitution

By Publius Huldah  July 3, 2017

“If the central government has the authority to tell a state it must accept permits from all the other states, then it also has the authority to tell a state it may not accept a concealed permit from any other states. If the central government can do these things it can set up a national concealed carry permit scheme and in essence bring into existence a national arms registry. That is exactly where this is headed.” Attorney Richard D. Fry 1

Some are touting the federal Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (HR 38) as a bill which would expand our right to carry. But if you will walk with me for a few minutes, I’ll show you a better path to take.

Let us look at the applicable First Principles, to which I propose we return.

1. Gun control is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government

Our federal Constitution doesn’t delegate to the federal government any power over the Country at Large 2 to restrict our arms. Accordingly, all pretended federal laws, regulations, orders, opinions, or treaties which purport to do so are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. They are also unconstitutional as in violation of the Second Amendment.

The only power the federal government has over the Country at Large respecting arms is set forth at Article I, §8, clause 16 with respect to providing for the “organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”. Pursuant to this clause, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792which required every able-bodied male citizen (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and 45 to acquire a rifle, bayonet, ammo, ammo pouch, and report to his local Militia Unit for training. 3

2. What does your State Constitution say about the right to keep and bear arms?

Each State has its own Constitution which addresses its State Militia and the right to be armed.

Now listen: No State may lawfully make any law which contradicts its State Constitution orwhich interferes with Congress’ power to “organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia”.

Accordingly, any State Statute which purports to require a permit before one may carry a gun is probably unconstitutional under that State’s Constitution; and is certainly unconstitutional under the federal Constitution because Congress may lawfully require able-bodied male Citizens to acquire firearms and ammo and report to their local Militia Unit for training!

Do you see?

Now let’s look at Title 18, US Code, Part I, Chapter 44, which HR 38 proposes to amend.

3. Title 18, US Code, Part I, Chapter 44 is unconstitutional

It sets up a complex federal regulatory scheme over firearms, every word of which is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated, and as in violation of the Second Amendment.

HERE it is, look through it (§§ 921-931).

4. What HR 38 actually does

HR 38 proposes to amend this existing federal regulatory scheme to insert a new provision [to be § 926 D] to require States which have a statute which permits residents of their State to apply for a permit [!] to carry a concealed firearm

to allow persons from other States:

· who aren’t prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms [!]; and

· who are carrying a photographic ID issued by a government body [!]; and

· who are carrying a concealed carry license or permit from the other State [!],

to possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or “destructive device”) which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

So! Even though a State Constitution, such as that for Connecticut, 4 prohibits the State Legislature from making ANY laws restricting firearms (such as imposing requirements for registration, a permit, government issued photo ID), a Citizen of Connecticut who exercises his constitutionally recognized right to carry without registration or a permit or a government issued photo ID, wouldn’t qualify under HR 38 for concealed carry in another State.

To qualify for concealed carry in other States, the Citizen of Connecticut would need his State Legislature to pass a law [which is unconstitutional under the Connecticut and federal Constitutions], so that he could comply with an unconstitutional federal statute [HR 38], so that he could carry in other States which also would have to pass unconstitutional laws imposing permit requirements on those who carry concealed.

Do you see how a God-given right [self-defense] is thus converted into a privilege which is regulated, granted, or denied, by civil government?

HR 38 also provides that any person carrying a concealed handgun in a State under the reciprocity provisions may also carry concealed in the public parts of National Parks and certain other lands under federal control. Lest you think this a gain, consider that: (1) The Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to operate national parks and such like, and (2) the federal government has no lawful authority to impose registration requirements for carrying arms anywhere!

5. What’s the solution?

Read our Declaration of Independence and federal Constitution. Then you won’t fall for unconstitutional gimmicks like HR 38.

The gun rights organizations could perform valuable services to our Country by working for:

· the repeal of the entire unconstitutional federal regulatory scheme respecting arms;

· the repeal of all unconstitutional State regulatory schemes;

· the revitalization of the State Militia to replace the federally controlled National Guard; 5 and

· by providing more classes for Citizens in arms training.

And please stop lobbying for unconstitutional federal legislation!


Endnotes:

1 From the late Attorney Richard D. Fry’s email of Dec. 10, 2015 to US Senator Moran, a co-sponsor of SB 498, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015. Richard, who was my Friend, sent me a copy of his letter.

Pursuant to Article I, § 8, next to last clause, Congress has general legislative powers over the District of Columbia, military bases, dock yards, mints, federal courthouses and post offices, and such other places needed for Congress to exercise its enumerated powers. The exercise of such powers by Congress over these small federal enclaves is restricted by the Bill of Rights – including the 2nd Amendment. So Congress is prohibited from making, for these federal enclaves, any laws which infringe the Right of The People to keep and bear Arms. Congress may properly require individuals visiting federal prisons, the psych ward of military hospitals, the mint, federal courthouses, and such like, to leave their arms in their vehicles. But Congress may not require Citizens to obtain and carry a permit or photo ID as a condition precedent to carrying a firearm.

3 The “Militia of the several States” were creatures of State Statutes – not of the federal government. Dr. Edwin Vieira’s short video shows how the State Militia were replaced by the federally controlled National Guard.

4 The Constitution of the State of Connecticut says at Article I: “SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

5 See A SERIOUS QUESTION FOR THE NRA, by Dr. Edwin Vieira, re revitalization of the Militia of the several States.

Source: Repeal Unconstitutional Federal Gun Laws – Don’t Add to Them! ⋆ The Constitution

Posted in Constitution, gun control | Tagged | Leave a comment

Feminism, Children and the Future

There is a fanatical element to leftist ideologues. As illustrated in the article, they display an almost suicidal devotion to their dogma. The leftist cultural current infecting the Western world promotes anger, outrage, and confrontation and rejects rational discussion. Leftists don’t have workable or rational solutions to the issues they see as problematic; they don’t build, they tear down. God help us all if they should ever really gain power; demolition is their only skill.

Aussie Conservative Blog

fem.jpgSydney Traditionalist Society, August 20, 2016:

During World War I, Serbia had the most casualties of any country as a percentage of the population; between 16.67% to 27.78%.1 This meant that subsequently there was a very real man shortage in Serbia. In the movie Tears for Sale by Uroš Stojanović,2 a group of women from a Serbian village leave in order to find husbands. After viewing the movie, a female professor with whom I am acquainted said that she found the topic abhorrent. Men are just not that important and penises are nothing to be obsessed about. When it was pointed out to her that what the women were doing was necessary for the survival of the village, the professor said that this was irrelevant and unimportant.

This seems to be an instance of ideology overriding the question of basic survival. The implication is that the death of…

View original post 1,942 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

News With Views | Legal Audacity Is The Answer To Political Aggression

Since his inauguration, President Trump has assumed an all-too-reactive and -defensive posture vis-à-vis his political enemies. He seems quite unable to foresee, let alone to forestall, forfend, or even fashion an adequate response to his opponents’ next moves, no matter how pellucidly predictable they may be. Rather, he suffers his antagonists to strike at will, whenever and wherever an opportunity to make mischief presents itself. For example—

  • They float knowingly false “leaks”, defamatory stories, and innuendoes in the big “mainstream media”, not simply to ridicule and embarrass him personally (along with members of his Administration and even his immediate family), but also (and of greater consequence) to undermine his prestige and standing as President amongst the American people.
  • They file frivolous lawsuits aimed at providing rogue judges with legalistic rationalizations to deny, defeat, frustrate, and impede the exercise of his undoubted statutory (and as the agent of Congress, constitutional) Presidential powers, while he meekly acquiesces in the courts’ assertion of “judicial supremacy”.
  • They impugn both him and his Administration with spurious scandals, tying up the Office of President in interminable “investigations”, in comparison with which the Salem witch-trials appear as models of rational deportment and due process.
  • They charge him personally, as well as leading members of his Administration, with specious violations of plainly inapplicable criminal laws.
  • They agitate for his removal from the Office of President through “Impeachment for, and Conviction of, * * * high Crimes and Misdemeanors”under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, or on the grounds that he is otherwise “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” under Section 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment.
  • In various public fora they openly threaten him with assassination, and contend that his homicidal elimination—and that of other officeholders who take his part—would be justified. And
  • They unleash fanatical “anti-fascists” and other maniacal thugs from the neo-Bolshevist Rotenfrontkämpferbund verbally to harass and even physically to assault his supporters in the streets and on college campuses.

All of this is obviously intended to instill in Mr. Trump confusion, uncertainty, indecision, self-doubt, and pessimism sufficient to dissuade and disable him from effectively exercising the authority of the Office of President with which the Constitution and other laws of the United States invest him.

These goings-on have been so concatenated, coördinated, and concerted in character as to indicate the operation of a common plan. And this plan is plain enough. Mr. Trump’s enemies are not engaged simply in an extreme version of “monkey business as usual” in the District of Columbia’s political zoo. Neither are they primarily concerned with figuratively handing Mr. Trump his Presidential head on a platter, as a warning to other potential interlopers who might presume to trespass on the territory the “good old boy” hierarchs of the Democratic and Republican parties have long reserved unto themselves. Nor is their chief purpose to destroy Mr. Trump as an individual (although they apparently do detest him). Rather, their target is the Office of President itself insofar as anyone elected to that position might dare to exercise its powers in the interest of the Deplorables and other patriotic Americans. By intimidating Mr. Trump into reneging upon the plans for reform which he has promised Americans, and into becoming its compliant puppet or political eunuch (if he cannot be eliminated in some other way), the Deep State is perfecting “the small solution” for serial “régime change” in this country—the specific operation of “Presidential emasculation”, as opposed to a seditious overthrow of the General Government as a whole—which can be applied to each and every future President who sides with the Deplorables against the Deep State. The point is to demonstrate to the Deplorables that, even if somehow against all odds they can succeed in putting their own man into the Office of President, they still cannot prevail. Ever.

In response to this political aggression, to date Mr. Trump seems strangely satisfied with publishing “tweets”, as if he were merely the victim of some college fraternity’s juvenile hazing, to which he imagined that what he considered to be snappy verbal comebacks in the most juvenile of the Internet’s juvenile fora could provide sufficient answers. Although this may be a method for him to “go over the head” of “the mainstream media” by addressing the American people directly, it will hardly prove to be effective, even if Mr. Trump pillories the Deep State in no uncertain terms, because mere harsh phrases bounce off the Deep State’s case-hardened carapace as readily as cold water flows off a duck’s oily back. No, indeed—if he intends to break the Deep State’s bones before it breaks his own neck, Mr. Trump must employ sticks and stones, not just words. So, as always, the question becomes, “Now what?”

A set of acts so concatenated, coördinated, and concerted in character as to indicate the operation of a common plan aimed at an illegal goal through the use of illegal (and, in some cases, even legal) means is properly termed a conspiracy, and the perpetrators are properly denoted conspirators. This is not “conspiracy theory”, but conspiracy law (or the law of conspiracy). The political aggression against President Trump has been so notorious that the various “law-enforcement” and “intelligence” agencies of the General Government—with their vaunted methods of surveillance, infiltration, computerized analysis of data, and so on—should be able to identify not only the illegal means being employed but also the primary malefactors employing them, including both the miscreants brazenly operating in the open and (of far greater consequence) the instigators, financiers, and other string-pullers manipulating events from behind the scenes. (If not, Mr. Trump can invoke for that purpose the sweeping powers statutorily delegated to him under 10 U.S.C. §§ 252 and 253.) Moreover, one need not hire a $1,000-an-hour big-city attorney to find at least one statute which applies in this situation.

Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 241 provides in pertinent part that

[i]f two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * *

[t]hey shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section * * * , they shall be fined * * * or imprisoned * * * for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Observe that this statute protects “any person * * * in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States” in any respect. Moreover, for it to come into play, no actual deprivation of “any [such] right or privilege secured” need have occurred. A conspiracy aimed at any such deprivation, together with the commission of some overt act in furtherance thereof, suffices. As well it should: “For two or more to confederate and combine together to commit or cause to be committed a breach of the criminal laws, is an offense of the gravest character, sometimes quite outweighing, in injury to the public, the mere commission of the contemplated crime. It involves deliberate plotting to subvert the laws, educating and preparing the conspirators for further and habitual criminal practices. And it is characterized by secrecy, rendering it difficult of detection, requiring more time for its discovery, and adding to the importance of punishing it when discovered.” United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78, 88 (1915).

As to deprivations of certain rights or privileges, private parties can be charged even without the involvement of rogue public officials in their wrongdoing, See United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757-760 (opinion of the Court), 775-784 (opinion of Brennan, J.) (1966). But private individuals are certainly liable as to deprivations of any and all such rights or privileges when they collude with such officials. United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 794, 795, 798 (1966). And in this case rightly so: For various puppet masters and their mouthpieces in private station are doubtlessly as much instigators, initiators, promoters, and planners of, and otherwise accessories to, the attacks against President Trump as are their co-conspirators among rogue officials and employees in the Deep State’s governmental apparatus. So, inasmuch as rogue public officials “participate[ ] in every phase of the * * * venture”, and “[i]t [i]s a joint activity, from start to finish”, “[t]hose [private parties] who t[ake] advantage of the foul purpose must suffer the consequences of that participation”, even to the extent of being punished as principals. Compare id. at 795 with 18 U.S.C. § 2.

Now apply 18 U.S.C. § 241 specifically to the President:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate [Mr. Trump] in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States [specifically in his capacity as the President of the United States] * * *

[t]hey shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section * * * , they shall be fined * * * or imprisoned * * * for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

(Inclusion of the part of this statute referring to the death penalty is not an exercise in hyperbole, either. For example, was Mr. Seth Rich’s murder one of the “results from the acts committed in violation of this section”? Only a thoroughgoing and uncompromising criminal investigation—not a Vince Fosteresque whitewashing of the case—can determine what the facts, and who the culprits, really are.)

As President, Mr. Trump is entitled to numerous “right[s] or privilege[s] secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States” in relation to that office. And “two or more persons” are now engaged in a complex of acts incontestably intended “to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate [him] in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in [his] free exercise or enjoyment of [those very] right[s] or privilege[s]”. Indeed, those “persons” are bending their every evil effort in every “State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District”, not only to nullify or frustrate Mr. Trump’s exercise of “the executive Power” vested in him by the Constitution, but even to deprive him altogether of the right to “hold his Office during the Term of four Years” to which he has been elected pursuant to the Constitution. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 1. Therefore, Mr. Trump could enforce 18 U.S.C. § 241 against those individuals right now—and, besides having a personal interest in the matter, is bound in legal duty to do so. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 3 and, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 3 and 4.

One must wonder, then, why Mr. Trump has refrained from invoking that statute. If the present author—a simple resident of “the Canoe Capital of Virginia”—can figure it out, why have Mr. Trump’s high-profile lawyers not so advised him? Or, if they have, for what is he waiting? Why does he foolishly persist in fighting this battle on his enemies’ terms, on the ground they have chosen, with the worst of them sheltered from legal retaliation in some sort of political sanctuary, when the indictment of a few—or, better yet, a few dozen—of the conspirators would transform the situation radically in his, and the Deplorables’, favor?

The answer is not to be found in some quirk of legal procedure. No “independent counsel” need be installed to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 241. The Department of Justice already employs numerous ordinary prosecutors presumably fit for that purpose. And if none can be found there after all, Mr. Trump can invoke 10 U.S.C. §§ 252 and 253 in order to enlist the experienced and reliable people he needs.

So what is wanting? Apparently, only l’audace, encore l’audace, toujours l’audace.

© 2017 Edwin Vieira – All Rights Reserved

Source: News With Views | Legal Audacity Is The Answer To Political Aggression

Posted in Donald Trump, leftist bullying, liberal intolerance/persecution, Politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment