Single Parent

Riased bya single parent. Big Fucking Deal!!! What you are really saying is that you are only half-raised because you missed out on the balance that occurs in a proper family. Single parenthood is not something folks need to celebrate. It's a failure. It's not a great. It's a failure. Some where deep inside your psyche is a screwed up person. All those others out there who celebrate single parenthood are fucked up too.

2nd Doomer

Guess I'm a 2nd doomer because I recognize that all the problems surrounding the 2nd were caused BY the SCOTUS through erroneous decisions and thus have little belief the SCOTUS will properly correct all their errors by finally stating the 2nd says what it means and means what it says, no if, and or buts. The courts ARE the problem.  Logic should prevail. Latter law overrides prior law is a standard legal maxim which properly works when applied always and not haphazardly. The 2nd is latter law and according to the Preamble of the Bill of Rights, the ten passed amendments are 1) articles in addition to AND 2) amendments of the Constitution, which fits exactly with the concept of latter law overriding prior law. In this case, all delegated powers in the original Constitution that conflict with the simple, direct command of the 2nd are negated. No exceptions. No ifs, ands or buts.  Then were have the supremacy clause of Art 6 Sec 2 which places the 2nd over ALL state laws.  Next come fundmental law theory:    Fundamental Law Theory   "With this in mind, let us take a look at this essay with the following in mind: the fundamental law theory is based in part upon the proposition that the agencies it creates are subordinate to it and must operate within its confines. To quote Hamilton again, : 'To deny this proposition would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.'"  In defense of the Constitution, Carey (1989)  FLT stops the courts in their tracks because the courts are subordinate to the Constitution and have not authority to interpret our law for them, the Constitution. The lie that the courts have the final has been inculcated in the people and most folks are incapable of clearing their minds of the brain-washing.  Adding words such as "allowing state permits", "sensitive places", "compelling government interest" violate the principles of the Constitution. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED leaves no room. The judges know this and yet fail to have sufficient cajones to state the facts. So doomer I am. The courts mucked it up and the courts have not yet corrected their screw ups because the courts do not want to give up power.

A More Perfect Union

A More Perfect Union Much has been said and written about those few words in the Preamble of the Constitution for the United States. Generally the courts and others have claimed these words prove that the secession of states in the 1860s violated the ideals of the Constitution and the Union. Those expounding such lies are wrong. What is more perfect than a Union whch leaves its members the authority to join or leave and recognizes thaat the People are superior to all government. A more perfect Union would first and foremost recognize the Rights and powers of those who make up the Union. The Rights of the People as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere are paramount, absolute above violation by any government. The States being next in line from the People and superior to the federal government in all areas not delegated retain all authority not delegated or specifically withheld. In fact a more perfect Union would recognize the authority to a State to join the Union and the authority of a State to leave the Union, unmolested. Those who claim the States cannot secede have no grasp of the true flow of power/authority. In our system, God is supreme and God endows His creation with inalienable Rights, power over themselves. Those individuals then transfer some power to various levels such as family, local society, local government, regional government and lastly, with the LEAST amount of power, the federal government. Just as always occurs, the federal government usurps powers from the States and the People. Today we see some attempting to reign in the usurpation through a convention of states. While removing stolen powers and placing the federal government in its correct, limited place is well meaning, these people ignore the fact that the various parts of the federal government ignore the controls already in place and are highly unlikely to follow any new changes.

Theft of power by the courts

Lord Acton: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. All judges believe they can interpret the Constitution but that violates everything about the Constitution. Who's the boss? The Creator or the created? The servant or the master? Fundamental law theory covers this. We the People are the Creator of the Constitution and are thus superior to the Constitution. The Constitution is the Creator of the government, ALL branches, and is superior to ALL government. The subordinate, i.e. the courts, are NOT empowered to define the superior, the Constitution. The People have been brain-washed to believe that the SC has the final say but that is a lie perpetrated by those IN power to KEEP power. Our law for the government is the Constitution. We the People set it in place. When properly functioning, the government has to ask We the People for permission too add powers, i.e. the amendment process. The courts and the government has figured out that by claiming the authority to "interpret" our law for them, they can by pass amendments by claiming all sorts of non-delegated powers. 99% of what people believe about the current system is wrong. One must return to the original framing and work forward from there. A for instance: The govt believed it needed the 18th amendment to ban booze yet never offered an amendment to ban "drugs" or other things. If an amendment is required to ban one thing, an amendment is required to ban any other thing. Lies, damn lies, judges (all of them).

The Right of Self Defense

Reading on Volovk.com over on Reason.com, I saw a discussion of how Colorado grants the right of self-defense. Total unsupportable BULLSHIT. The Right of self defense is central the the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as expressed in the Declaration and is central to the 2nd Amendment. The Right to self Defense is ENDOWED BY THE CREATOR and is inalienable, no government can infringe, reduce, remove or otherwise make anny laws, rules or regulations concerning such a Right. God grants Rights. Gocernment allows privileges and can remove those privileges. RIGHTS cannot be assailed by anyone.

Simple English - Ignorant people

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written by folks with proper knowledge of the use of the English language. Today's readers not so much. IMO judges are some of the worst, either not understanding the written word or simply ignoring what We the People say. First look at the Preamble of the Constitution. The premable does not delegate any power but mererly sets down what the Framers wished to accomplish. One VERY, VERY important word in the premable it "for" at the end of the paragraph. Why? Because pretty much all folks miss read that last line and call the document, the Constitution "OF" the United States, of projecting ownership. THe actual Constitution does not call the document the Constitution "of". The last words of the Constitution are "this Constitution FOR the United States". Why do I bring this up? Because the use of FOR tells the reader/student that We the People OWN the Constitution and that the document is created in order to control or limit the government it creates. A simple "of" versus "for" alters the reason the Constitution exists. If you don't understand, you should go back to school and learn the language properly. Second look at preamble of the Bill of Rights. This preamble contains the following clause: "...Articles in addition to and Amendments OF..." in proposing and identifying the modifications of the Constitution that were proposed. A standard legal maxim is thaat latter law overrides prior law that is in conflict. The statement "amendments of" comes from that maxim and is included in order to ascertain that those trying to understand the amendments know that all of the original Constitution that conflicts with these amendments is moot, no longer part of the delegated powers to the federal government. As an aside, Madison wanted to alter the original Constituution and insert changes in various places within the original but he was repudiated and the changes were all placed at the end. Had Madison succeeded the modifications known as the Bill of Rights would have impacted our system very differently. We must be thankful that those others who were involved recognized that altering the original would betray those who ratified the Constitution and placed the approved amendments at the end of the original. What is the importance? By including the clause "...Articles in addition to and Amendments OF..." in the preamble, those amendments altered ALL conflicting parts of the original Constitution and became applicable against ALL levels of government through the supremacy clause of Article VI Pp 2. The courts in 1833 screwed this up in Barron v Baltimore where the court followed Madison's repudiated "intent" and decided that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States in direct conflict with the supremacy clause. WHat does this all mean? The 1st amendment (originally the 3rd not 1st) is restricted to Congress regardless of the machinations of the judiciary to claim applicability against the states under sosme ruse. Simple straightforward language is in your face. That language stops the federal government from making ANY laws about religious establishments, establishing a religion or restricting the free exercise fo religion. NO LAW. NOTHING. Not positive, not negative, not neutral. NOTHING. Why limit the 1st to Congress only? Take the time to look up and study the laws of the first 13 states. You will find they cover religion, speech and the press. Had the 1st extended to all levels, it would never haave passed. The purpose was separation of the federal government FROM religion NOT a separation of church as state as improperly stated by Jefferson in a letter to a pastor. Back to the Constitution itself. Look at Article V. Folks often are confused about amendments but Article 5 states emphatically that Congress ... SHALL PROPOSE followed by how such proposed are finalized. Congress is to REQUEST PERMISSION from We the People by way of proposed amendments. We the People decide if we want to ALlOW the government to exercise some new requested power. Liars, cheats and evil people have claimed the Constitution is a "living" document in order to bypass the amendment process and all too often the judges have agreed with those lies because supporting those lies has allowed the judiciary to usurp power. A convention of the States can also propose amendments BUT the States cannot simply call a convention, 2/3 of the legislatures of the States may apply to the Congress and the Congress must call a convention. In no case, can any level of government legitimately alter the Constitution without following the process We the People placed in OUR LAW for them, the Constitution. We can go through the entire Constitution, each clause, each word, and elucidate the proper meanings. I say We because We the People because We the People are the Creator of the Constitution, superior to that document. All parts of government are created by the Constitution and are therefore subordinate, under the Constitution. No part of the government is empowered to interpret OUR LAW FOR THEM, not the legislature, not the executive, not the judiciary. Copyright, 2026 NBoC.

AI is full of shite

If you like AI, you are an idiot. AI is nothing but the creature of its creators and never will be more. Their biases, their opinions, their capacities for thought will always limit what they can create. AI will never be sentient in the sense of human sentience because NO ONE can give AI a soul.