Skip to content

Tag: Supreme Court

Against Judge Amy Coney Barrett

In her testimony to be confirmed the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Judge Amy Coney Barrett said she doesn’t have an “agenda,” and will judge cases based on the “law.”

Well, there are thousands and thousands of “laws” on the books that are unjust or bad laws, and they shouldn’t exist. I want judges who come to the side of the individual, who come to the side of whoever’s life the enforcement of such bad laws is criminally violating.

And of course that applies to unlawful, unconstitutional executive orders such as orders without due process by fascist governors that businesses must shut down, people must stay inside, people may not gather in groups, or that people must wear useless, ineffective masks that cause oxygen deprivation, anxiety and other psychological issues.

So, regarding terrible, unjust “laws” and unconstitutional executive orders issued by fascist governors and mayors, Judge Barrett sided with the other two schnooks in her three-judge panel of the 7th Circus approving Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s unconstitutional lockdown orders and limits on gatherings.

Judge Barrett sides with the government diktats here and opposes liberty, freedom of assembly, and due process. She also seems to go along with the official COVID narrative, a false narrative if there ever was one.

I want Supreme Court “Justices” who side with those who aren’t buying the official COVID narrative that the mainstream media morons have been propagandizing without question, just as we need those who aren’t buying the official 9/11 narrative or any other official narrative. People who understand that government bureaucrats are inherently liars and shouldn’t be believed.

Speaking of useless, ineffective masks, a recent CDC study found that 71% of patients testing positive for COVID-19 had “always” worn the masks, and 14% of the infected wore them “often.” Does Judge Barrett know this? (Probably not. She probably relies on mainstream “news” media for “news” while the real news gets further censored by Fakebook and Twitter. But I digress.

As Chuck Baldwin noted, based on her previous opinions it looks like Judge Barrett will rubber-stamp the COVID police state and forced vaccines, and probably the surveillance state as well, i.e. obediently rubber-stamping the government against our rights and civil liberties. Because gullible Amy is a typical “good citizen” who believes what the government and its bureaucrats tell us, as repeated by the mainstream media morons.

They’re mostly the same, these statists, and their decisions can be predictable. (As I wrote in December of 2018 regarding the swamp creature AG Bill Barr, there will not be any indictments of Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Yates, McCabe, etc., at least I am not holding my breath. And it looks like I was right.)

What we really need is to abolish the “Supreme” Court, i.e. Supreme Bureaucrats, because a society dependent on the word of 9 robed apparatchiks as far as whether people may or may not live their lives freely and unmolested by bureaucrats and their armed goons is a society of “sheeple.”

But, if we must have a U.S. “Supreme” Court, we would be better off if they erred on the side of the individual, and on the side of one’s rights as recognized by the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and on the side of one’s justly owned property.

Instead, we have apparatchiks who err on the side of the State, and who don’t want to “second guess” the wise judgment of the police, as well as the CIA, NSA and all those other agencies that are not authorized by the U.S. Constitution to begin with.

For example, if a case is a lawsuit by an individual against the CIA for violating the rights of the individual, I want the “Supreme” Court Justice to rule that the CIA was not even authorized by the Constitution in the first place, and that it be abolished. Throw the case out! (Of course, the obedient sheeple who are indoctrinated to believe that the “national security” bureaucrats in Washington have the interests of the people at heart would go nuts if their beloved CIA or NSA were let go.)

And also, in many cases it shouldn’t matter what the details of the case are. For instance, if there is a dispute between an individual and the IRS, it doesn’t matter what specific bureaucratic laws have been disobeyed by the individual serf, or the details of the case. The Justice should recognize the criminality of an agency demanding someone’s funds or earnings in the absence of a voluntary contract, or demanding one’s private, personal information such as one’s employment or compensation matters that are none of the government’s business. If the U.S. Constitution needs to be cited, then it doesn’t even matter if the dubious 16th Amendment authorizes an income theft and an IRS. The unconstitutionality of the IRS racket and its bureaucrats can be cited by the “Justice” by bringing up the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and the Ninth Amendment as well.

And the “War on Drugs” needs to be “overturned” as well. The “Supreme” Court upheld the government police breaking into someone’s home, terrorizing the people there and arresting and abducting them, because the police smelled marijuana and/or heard the toilet flushing. An 8-1 decision with the “liberals” (except Ruth Bader Ginsburg) joining the majority of the authoritarian neanderthals. They’re useless.

All laws and government bureaucracies intruding into the people’s private decisions regarding what they ingest are unjust laws. Who owns your body? If you own your body then you decide and control what you may or may not, or will or will not, put into your own body. Prohibition laws violate your right of self-ownership. This also applies to forced vaccine mandates as well.

But if the government owns “your” body, then of course the government decides for you and controls what you may or may not put into “your” body as well as the government may inflict whatever “medicines” including vaccines (or whatever poisons it chooses to call “medicine”) into you, involuntarily.

What kind of “Supreme” Court Justice would approve of such a society, such a life of serfdom to live? That’s not the kind of “Justice” I would want on a “Supreme” Court.

Replace Judge Amy Coney Barrett as a nominee, who says she “has no agenda,” with someone who does have an agenda, one that protects the individual from the criminal intrusions of the rulers, bureaucrats and armed police.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has Died

To further complicate the 2020 presidential election campaign, Supreme Bureaucrat Ruth Bader Ginsburg has finally kicked the bucket, after suffering 20 years or more of cancers and other illnesses.

Trump wants to nominate a replacement “justice,” and Democrats want Trump to wait until after the election, “after the people have voted.” But the people have voted, in 2016, and the current presidential term still has 4 months to go. So there.

Now, as far as I’m concerned, Ginsburg should not be replaced, and the remaining “justices” (sic)  should all be dismissed, forthwith. They all suck. They are all rubber-stampers for the State.

Rarely does the High Court rule in favor of the individual and individual rights, private property rights, voluntary association and voluntary contract.

There was one decision that I can think of in which Ginsburg voted the right way, an 8-1 decision and she was the lone dissent. The 8 nazis voted in favor of government police violently breaking into people’s homes, terrorizing them and arresting them because of the State’s “war on drugs,” because the police “smelled marijuana” and heard “evidence being destroyed.”

Evidence of WHAT? Someone smoking marijuana in his own home? There is no crime there. There is no victim there. Sadly, the other “liberals” on the High Court agreed with the drug nazis and disagreed with Ginsburg who cited that dusty old Fourth Amendment.

But her vote in that case certainly was not a vote in favor of private property rights, as she also voted with the majority in the Kelo vs. New London case, in which the High Court allowed for private developers to steal private property, aided and abetted by local government schnooks, on behalf of private interests and not on behalf of the “public” that the Fifth Amendment demands.

So in general, Ginsburg was awful, voting to approve government fascism in other ways, such as ObamaCare’s mandate and other horrible rulings against the rights of the people and their property. In the end, with few exceptions such as the aforementioned police-marauder drug case, Ginsburg was just another pinko commie bureaucrat. Oh, well.

Further Leftist Hysteria and More Reasons to Abolish the Supreme Court

Occasionally the Neocon Review has an informative article. This time the Review writes about a recent New York Times-published accusation about Supreme Bureaucrat Brett Kavanaugh from his much younger years.

The allegation, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly write in a New York Times story adapted from their forthcoming anti-Kavanaugh book, is this: “We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez’s allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.”

It looks like Pogrebin and Kelly’s new book is a reaction to Molly Hemingway and Carrie Severino’s book, Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court. But I could be wrong.

But in the Review article, we learn that

The book isn’t released until Tuesday, but Mollie Hemingway got a copy, and she writes on Twitter: “The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event.” Omitting this fact from the New York Times story is one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent memory.

Hence the “New York Slimes.” Now, frankly I couldn’t care less whether the activists impeach Kavanaugh or smear him or libel or slander him. As a lower court judge, Kavanaugh rubber-stamped many police state abuses, and his reading of the Fourth Amendment shows that he has not read the Fourth Amendment. Kavanaugh has stated that the Fourth Amendment “allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient ‘special need’ – that is, a need beyond the normal need for law enforcement – that outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty…”

So, Kavanaugh sees things in the Fourth Amendment that just aren’t there, in the same way a drunk sees pink elephants. Can you see just how far government judicial bureaucrats will go to excuse and rationalize the government’s criminal violations of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their effects?

Kavanaugh is a judicial rubber-stamper of the surveillance state, Gitmo, the War State, and the CIA, and really a corrupt apparatchik of the bureaucracy and the national security state. Kavanaugh and the other Justices (sic) on the Supreme Parasites wholeheartedly reject the principles of liberty of America’s founders. So why do we need those bureaucrats?

As Ryan McMaken of the Mises Institute has referred to them, the Supremes are the “American version of the Soviet politburo.” But liberals and conservatives need them to aid and abet those political activists’ shoving their social agendas down our throats!

And the reason that Dr. Christine Ballsey Ford and the others were attempting to smear Kavanaugh at last year’s confirmation hearings was not because they are concerned about his statist, police-state views. Those people on the left couldn’t care less about civil liberties. Just look at all the intrusions into our civil liberties imposed on innocent people by Obama with ObamaCare, NDAA, the drug war and his being the “deporter in chief.” And look at all the intrusions each and every one of the current Democrat candidates for President wants to impose on us. Forcing all of us into a one-size-fits-all Medicare for All scheme, confiscating firearms from people who have not harmed anyone, and more tax-stealing.

No, what the people on the left are hysterical over is abortion! That’s all they care about, along with their obsessions with race and skin color and their brainwashed sexual-perversions agenda. But no, it’s abortion. They are terrified that the Supreme Soviets in Washington will overturn Roe v. Wade. Which should be overturned because it’s a BAD decision.

The activists on the left are after Kavanaugh or any other possibly anti-abortion judge is because they have been brainwashed to believe that abortion is their “Rite of Passage,” and that all those millions and millions of girls and young women MUST have an abortion i.e. kill their offspring as a Rite of Passage. Generations now of women are brainwashed with this sick anti-human social agenda.

As Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a founding member of “National Abortion Rights Action League,” or NARAL, wrote in his and his group’s psy-opping the Supreme Court in the 1970s to get them to rule favorably in Roe v. Wade,

We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200 – 250 annually. The figure constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization….

I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New York City and had to set up a perinatal research unit, just at the start of a great new technology which we now use every day to study the fetus in the womb. A favorite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Fetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy.

Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of fetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic: at $300.00 a time 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma. But to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic utilitarian answer to social problems.

So, it’s all about abortion. The people on the left are obsessed with abortion and killing their offspring. They will lie and make things up, about medical statistics, about judicial nominees and government judges.

I hope that, if another Justice (sic) retires or dies in the next year or two, Trump will this time nominate Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett. In her own nomination hearings for the lower court, Judge Barrett was the target of an anti-religion grilling by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Shady Pines). Feinstein said that Judge Barrett’s decisions may be too influenced by her religious “dogma.” Barrett is a religious Catholic.

Wikipedia indicates some of Judge Barrett’s decisions have so far been pro-Second Amendment, protecting the Fourth Amendment, not protective of a police officer’s “qualified immunity,” and not favorable to Title IX (involving the  egregious violation of a male student’s right to due process in a sexual assault allegation).

I really hope that a Supreme Bureaucrat leaves the High Court so that we can get an Amy Coney Barret nomination, and watch the fireworks, see the hysterical abortion fanatics make fools of themselves just as they have been doing regarding Brett Kavanaugh. Such a nomination will drag those lefty wackos out of their respective psychiatric hospitals and give us some good entertainment, that’s for sure.

So, we are getting it from all sides of the statist coin here. The leftists with their sick agendas and political correctness fascism, and we are also getting it from the so-called conservatives with their police-state fascism as well.

We really need to completely abolish the Supreme Court and restore the Tenth Amendment. And we need to get some kind of movement going in which if government orders you to do something you don’t voluntarily agree to you just don’t do it, and there are no consequences, because you have not harmed anyone by not following the government’s fascist orders (including participating in “Medicare for All”), and at the same time, if the government prohibits you from doing something or owning or possessing something that is not a harm to others or is not anyone’s else’s business then you just have it anyway and there are no consequences, because your disobeying the government’s prohibition of this or that has not harmed anyone.

Get rid of the Supreme Court. It is truly one of America’s and freedom’s worst enemies.

The Supreme Bureaucrats’ Term Is Finally Over (And Don’t Come Back!)

Five fascists on the U.S. Supreme Court, a.k.a. the Supreme Bureaucrats, have decided that the government police do not need a warrant to draw blood from an unconscious person suspected of drunk driving. The arguments against the policy are based on the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Drawing blood from someone without his consent violates one’s right to be secure in one’s person, houses, papers and effects.

The “High Court” cites the “Exigent Circumstances” doctrine. However, the Fourth Amendment does not refer to any “exigent circumstances.”

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don’t see “exigent circumstances” written in there. In the case argued before the court, the flatfeet arrested a guy who wasn’t even driving but had already parked his van and was walking by a lake. So they were then taking him to a hospital to draw his blood there, apparently, but he passed out in the police car. They had already given him a breathalyzer, which is also unconstitutional because of its unreliability, but wasn’t that good enough for them?

Seizing someone’s blood is a much more invasive seizure. This case is just another “camel’s nose in the tent” thing. (There have been a lot of those in recent years.)

And according to James Bovard, the Supreme Bureaucrats also ruled in favor of government secrecy by allowing certain business records that pertain to government handouts to be kept secret.

In other news, the shrieking imbecilic parasites a.k.a. Democrats had their first debate last night, and their second debate is tonight. Were they asked about the Fourth Amendment? It is doubtful that these politicians know anything about or even care about the Fourth Amendment. We know they have contempt for the First Amendment, with all their fellow leftist comrades banning of speech and shouting down those with opposing points of view, their censorship and fake news. And their contempt for the Second Amendment, with their ignorant calls for even more gun control that we know merely disarms law-abiding citizens and doesn’t prevent criminals and psychopaths from getting their guns anyway, because criminals and psychopaths don’t obey the law, duh.

But this particular group is probably the worst group of very loud, screeching demagogues I’ve ever seen. Eventually, I really believe that people can be convinced to support the libertarian way of life that promotes non-aggression, voluntary contracts and decentralization. Especially with this crowd of communists and the moron Trump. People will REJECT government central planning as the way to have a society. Eventually.

Nullification, Decentralization, Separation, Divorce, Dissolve, Dismiss the Regime

Why are many of the people on the left of such an authoritarian mentality? They are so authoritarian in their worship of the federal government and its illicit powers and feared losing the power so much they disrupted the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, and engaged in so much obvious cheating during the recent mid-term elections. (Not that Republicans weren’t engaged in cheating or at least questionable behavior as well, such as in Georgia.)

During the Kavanaugh hearings, Sen. Cruella Harris began interrupting Chairman Grassfed as soon as he began the hearings, and it went downhill from there, especially with “Dr.” Ford who “Must Be Believed At All Times!” and Kavanaugh screaming how much he loves beer and telling us what a moron he is by keeping calendars going back to 1982. (Who does that?)

Meanwhile, informed people with a brain actually objected to Kavanaugh based on his terrible rulings rubber-stamping tyranny, and his being a corrupt bureaucrat. But no, the fanatics on the left are concerned about abortion. That’s what they care about. And “Free Health Care for ALL!”and all that.

The fanatics believe that the Supreme Court is the God of government, that those 9 robed bureaucrats have the absolute final say on our freedom (and our enslavement). So it’s so important that they have to interrupt hearings, harass senators who voted for Kavanaugh, and cheat in elections. What a life.

But, as Tom Woods points out in a recent article, especially in his quoting of James Madison, the federal judicial branch is the final decision-maker on constitutional conflicts only between the branches of the federal government (judicial, legislative and executive), but NOT the final decision-maker on conflicts between the federal government and the states.

As Woods has explained in the past, the states, after all, created the federal government, not the other way around. The people of the states are the “boss” of the feds, and the agents of the federal government are the states’ “employees.” Unfortunately, that has been turned around by authoritarians (especially reinforced by Lincoln) who believe that whatever the federal government says, goes. “You will report to us your earnings, where you work or whom you employ, we will take a portion of your wealth whether you like it or not, we will spy on you and know the personal details of your private life and you will not know what we are up to, we’ll just mark everything ‘classified,’ and so on…”

So that stuff that the bureaucrats in Washington have been doing, that fools like Brett Kavanaugh have been rubber-stamping out of loyalty to the Regime and its racket, is unconstitutional, illicit, and criminal. This is why the writers of the Bill of Rights included the Tenth Amendment, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Which is not very well written, by the way. It should have explicitly stated that the people of the states shall nullify any federal government rule, law or order on them whose enforcement they conclude would be in violation of their liberty, persons or property. Otherwise, the Founders needlessly created a federal government and ratified a questionable Constitution, going against the very principles of their Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Jefferson and others endorsed that idea of nullification which many people on the left now ignorantly perceive as having to do with racism or “slavery,” even though some states engaged in nullification during the Civil War period when they nullified Fugitive Slave Laws (which Lincoln strongly endorsed and enforced, by the way).

As Woods wrote in an essay in his Liberty Classroom, “nullification was used against slavery, as when northern states did everything in their power to obstruct the enforcement of the fugitive-slave laws, with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin going so far as to declare the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional and void.  In Ableman v. Booth (1859), the U.S. Supreme Court scolded it for doing so.  In other words, modern anti-nullification jurisprudence has its roots in the Supreme Court’s declarations in support of the Fugitive Slave Act.  Who’s defending slavery here?”

But as I wrote in this article, we are now slaves of the federal government.

Incidentally, for those who are interested, Tom Woods wrote a terrific book on the history of nullification in America and how it should be used currently:  Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.

Concocting a centralized, ruling federal government was a mistake made by the Revolutionaries. Besides the social fascists and authoritarians on the left, now we have a Donald Trump who claims that his job is “running the country,” which, as Richard Ebeling pointed out in this very informative new article, is a “claim to abrogate the liberty of each and every member of that society to have the freedom to run their own life as they peacefully and honestly see fit in voluntary and mutually agreed-upon association with their fellow human beings for their respective betterment as they define it.”

One of the latest examples of the absurdity of this centralized power apparatus in Washington is that the bureaucrats are going to bring criminal charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, because he provided the means for whistleblowers to expose the criminality of the federal bureaucrats and their goons. Whistleblowers such as Bradley Manning with the Iraq War Logs, the Afghanistan War Logs, the diplomatic cables leaks, the “Collateral Murder” video, and all the rest.

As I wrote above, the criminals of the regime classify whatever they can to avoid embarrassing disclosures, evade transparency, get away with murder, and punish whistleblowers. Bradley Manning, by the way, was viciously persecuted by Obama’s regime, not Bush, with 3 years of solitary confinement pre-trial and a kangaroo trial and sentencing. (Although I think the main reason the SJW-in-Chief Barack Obama then commuted Manning’s 35-year sentence was because Manning is a “transgender.” Those are the things Obama et al. really care about.)

You see, as many people have noted now in the Obama DOJ and FBI’s surveillance abuses and how the Obama administration was so bad with civil liberties and freedom of speech and his war on the Press, we now have Cruella Harris and Pocahontas and all their moonbat followers drooling to take the apparatus of power back so THEY can once again use the spying powers against enemies and enforce their beloved police state on the people.

So, as I had written several times now, including this article from 8 years ago, the Amerikan sheeple need to let go of their dependence on the regime in Washington and we must go our separate ways.

More on the New Authoritarian “Justice,” and Sexual Assault, Civil Unrest

Donald Trump continues to make campaign appearances on behalf of Republican candidates. In a recent appearance he was declaring how great his new Supreme Bureaucrat Brett Kavanaugh is, with his supporters cheering enthusiastically. Now, those cheering supporters are either ignorant of Brett Kavanaugh’s decisions, or they agree with them, which is probably the case.

And no, Kavanaugh is not “brilliant,” he is himself ignorant (or really dumb). As I have written several times now, Kavanaugh imagines that the Fourth Amendment has things in it that just aren’t there. He wrote, “The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient ‘special need’…” such as involving drugs or border checkpoints. Okay, Justice (sic), where does it say those things in the Fourth Amendment?

That Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I don’t see …”unless the government demonstrates a sufficient ‘special need'” or any listing of exceptions, such as “drugs.” So, like most authoritarians who just want to empower the government police to raid the homes and businesses of innocent people for specious reasons, Kavanaugh is just making things up in his rubber-stamping of the police state to satisfy his own ideological leanings. An authoritarian is someone who believes that specific rules that are set for those in power may be broken based on the whim of the enforcers.

And it’s amazing the talk radio ditto-heads who have been complaining about the Obama FBI and DOJ abusing their FISA spying authority to go after political opponents, and repeatedly citing the “Fourth Amendment,” yet having wet dreams over their newest police-statist Kavanaugh that they love so much. So please Sean Hannity (and Rand Paul, too!) shut up about the “Fourth Amendment.” These “conservatives” generally support police “stop-and-frisk” policies without suspicion of an individual, policies that Trump was recently extolling to the cheers of rabid government police chiefs from across the country.

Now, given that Kavanaugh supports such an authoritarian police state and rubber-stamps the unconstitutional Guantanamo prison that exists so the feds can sidestep the Constitution they swore an oath to support and defend, it would not surprise me if he really was the one who Christine Ford Blasey was victimized by of sexual assault. Of course, I’m not accusing him, just saying it wouldn’t surprise me, given his supporting brute force by government against innocent people, by police against presumably innocent people without suspicion, and so on.

And that’s another thing. All this about sexual assault and the idea that one teenage boy might do that to a teenage girl. If that ever does happen, I think that parents need to raise their girls to bravely go and report such violence against them to the police, at that time. And not wait years later. I know that they were drunk and the victim might not remember, and repressed memories until years later and all that. But if the victim is aware at that time, she needs to report the assailant.

Another thing parents need to do is raise their girls with knowledge of self-defense. Whether learning karate or judo, or having mace or a gun, or even poking an assailant in the eyes. Am I all wrong on this? I might be.

And speaking of self-defense, in the alternative news (that the fake news mainstream media sweeps under the rug), we are hearing about antifa thugs going into streets and harassing motorists and pedestrians, and maybe even worse than just harassing. If someone is the victim of an assault the victim needs to know how to fight back. I am very distressed hearing about these antifa thugs targeting innocent people, and hope to hear about someone fighting back, or even shooting back to protect themselves. Glenn Beck this morning played some audio of those things, and he’s saying it might be the beginning of a “civil war.” I hope not. Because if so, those people who are fighting back (against the ones who are initiating the aggression) will be the government’s victims in its arms confiscations, its police breaking into and entering private homes and stealing weapons to make innocent people defenseless. And Brett Kavanaugh will rubber-stamp all that, given his record of neanderthal authoritarianism.

Amerikan Loony-Tunes

Well, we now have another authoritarian neanderthal on the U.S. Supreme Parasites, Brett Kavanaugh, who loves the Patriot Act, Gitmo, NSA spying on innocent people, TSA groping and molesting, warrantless and thus illegal police searches, and who is a drug warrior and militarist who will do what he can to help to strengthen the police state and the criminal national security state.

The people who hate Kavanaugh actually don’t care about the police state, illegal searches and seizures, and about the use of surveillance against political opponents. Many of them are aware that their fellow travelers from the Obama administration abused such powers and they actually endorse that. Left-wing activists are NOT a friend of civil liberties.

No, what the anti-Kavanaugh screechers care most about is abortion, gender and race, and the LGBT agenda. They want the federal government to have a lot of power including rubber-stampers on the Supreme Court to impose the social activists’ ways of life onto the rest of us or impose an acceptance of their deviancy and indecency. Imposing onto others is the activists’ main agenda. By the force of law.

So the leftists are going to try to impeach Kavanaugh, based on perjury or whatever they can do, just as they will try to impeach Donald Trump if the Democrats take control of Congress. They will continue following their opponents in elevators, restaurants, malls and offices and harassing them.

Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee is seriously looking at possible perjury charges against Kavanaugh’s high school-years accuser Christine Blasey Ford.

Now, there are those who don’t believe the “conspiracy theories” about Blasey Ford’s possible involvement with the CIA. But given her years and years of extensive psychological research into mind control and hypnosis, as well as her allegedly helping people to beat a polygraph test based on such research and experience, I don’t doubt it. Or she could be a useful idiot for the CIA as well as a useful idiot for the “MeToo” movement.

The skeptical Jacob Hornberger asks, “Why in the world would the CIA want to block the appointment of someone who, based on his conservative background and ideology, could reasonably be relied upon to rubber-stamp anything and everything the CIA and the rest of the national-security establishment do?

Well, we know that the CIA in general is not rational. They have been fixated Cold Warriors who can’t let go of the “Soviet threat,” who have been involved in Gitmo torture to get false confessions from innocent and uninvolved detainees even though the outcome is that such tortured detainees then join the militant forces against the U.S. for the first time. And we know that many apparatchiks in CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. didn’t like Donald Trump’s criticizing them and their wars abroad during the campaign and they have been trying feverishly to get him out of the White House. They are very irrational parasites who will do anything to keep their grasp on government powers and the public trough. So, they would try to prevent Trump from getting more Justices (sic) on the “High” Court, just in the name of being obsessively anti-Trump, even if it goes against their agenda.

I hope the activists do impeach Brett Kavanaugh, and then they can get Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg, John “Comrade” Roberts, and all the rest of them.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford: CIA Flunky and Possible Perjurer

Besides Brett Kavanaugh being an entrenched government apparatchik bureaucrat and rubber-stamper of the national security state, the police state, and the surveillance state, it appears that his accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is also an apparatchik, of the CIA and its shenanigans, as well as having close ties to the FBI.

This article from principia-scientific.org, that was linked by the Lew Rockwell “Political Theatre,” tells us that the Republican-linked prosecutor at the Dr. Christine Blasey Senate hearings may have intentionally led Blasey Ford into a perjury trap. Good! Among other alleged lies that Dr. Blasey Ford told under oath, she stated that she never gave anyone tips on how to take a polygraph, even though her former boyfriend stated in a sworn statement that she did do that.

And it’s even more involved than that. From the Principia Scientific article:

In our previous article we revealed that Professor Blasey-Ford’s scientific research at Stanford University includes running a “CIA undergraduate internship program” which is described in full at this Stanford.edu recruitment page. 

Also, it is alleged other Ford family members have ties with the CIA. President Donald Trump has accused the CIA of long being part of the ‘Deep State.’

We also were able to confirm that Christine Blasey Ford was a co-author of the 2008 mind control study in the Journal of Clinical Psychology…

This study openly discusses altering behavior and beliefs through the application of neurotechnology  “inference-control loops” that “hijack” human anatomy to control minds.  The technique is eerily similar to the notorious CIA MKUltra project.

It is also alleged Blasey-Ford has affiliation with one of the developers of the MKUltra program at Stanford, Dr Frederick Melges, along with her being a student recruiter for CIA programs at the University.

And according to Zero Hedge, Blasey Ford’s family is closely a part of the CIA.

But, because there is a two-tier system of justice in Amerika, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh will not be charged with perjury for lying under oath at their Senate hearings. Because they are both apparatchiks of the “deep state,” or the permanent national security state, they will get away with whatever they want.

More Articles

John Solomon at the Hill has this collusion bombshell about DNC lawyers who met with FBI on Russia allegations before their surveillance warrant.

Jacob Hornberger has these comments on Brett Kavanaugh and the looming degradation of the Supreme Court. (Looming? I thought it was already here.)

And Zuri Davis at Reason on new Texas schools requirement that all schools teach kids how to interact with cops during traffic stops and survive. (This is necessary in a police state, in which hysterical loony-tunes mistake reaching for your license as reaching for a gun. Remember, always comply, never argue. You vill follow orders!)

Brett Kavanaugh: Corrupt Bureaucrat

There is a new article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the U.K. Telegraph, reposted on Yahoo, that shows just what an apparatchik of the bureaucracy and the national security state Brett Kavanaugh is. As I have written many times now, Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court or any court, and for these reasons, not because he engaged in drunken shenanigans when he was in high school or college. (Most bureaucrats and judges did those things in high school or college, and many of them are still drunks or drug abusers today, believe it or not. No wonder most of them are such statists, and clueless about liberty and what America was supposed to be all about.)

Will Kavanaugh Become a Supreme Sheeple?

Since their testimony on Thursday at the Senate Judiciary Committee, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and some others will undergo an FBI investigation. I’m sure that’s going to answer some very many unanswered questions, in the same way that the smirking Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and their cohorts were very helpful in investigating Hillary Clinton and the 2016 election.

Dr. Blasey aside, I think that given his testimony last week Brett Kavanaugh has shown that he really doesn’t have the temperament to be a “Supreme” justice. And we’re hearing more about his drinking days during high school and college. Either Kavanaugh will withdraw his name from nomination or Trump will do it, in my view. I still think that Judge Amy Coney Barrett would make a better SCOTUS Justice, and isn’t it time that we have someone quite a bit more attractive on the High Court?

Or better yet, let’s NOT replace Anthony Kennedy, who was one of the worst Justices on the Court. There’s nothing wrong with 4-4 decisions and sending cases back to the states or lower courts. And there would always be those 5-3 decisions. As I remarked before, when one of the current Justices retires or dies, then don’t replace him or her either. We would be much better off.

This whole thing with such a sheeple dependence on these powerful bureaucrats to decide what we may or may not do with our lives, what a sham, really. Just like those hearings with Dr. Blasey and Kavanaugh.

However, the whole thing is entertaining. Isn’t it? It’s like a TV soap opera.