The Men Who Just Want to be Left Alone

“The most terrifying force of death comes from the hands of men who wanted to be left alone. They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love. They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it. They know that the moment they fight back their lives as they have lived them are over.

“The moment the men who wanted to be left alone are forced to fight back, it is a form of suicide. They are literally killing off who they used to be. Which is why, when forced to take up violence, these men who wanted to be left alone, fight with unholy vengeance against those who murdered their former lives. They fight with raw hate, and a drive that cannot be fathomed by those who are merely play-acting at politics and terror, true terror will arrive at these people’s door, and they will cry, scream, and beg for mercy… but it will fall upon the deaf ears of the men who just wanted to be left alone.”

– Author Unknown (erroneously attributed to Solzhenitsyn.)

I will start this post by saying I planned on writing this or something like it for a few weeks. Maybe it was something in the weather or just the circumstances of my personal life. I write this today with a heavy heart. I do not want to be in the position I find myself in.

I will say first and foremost that I have two little kids, and only a fool would want war or violent action. I do not want this country to be at the point we find ourselves; we, however, are here.

Those among us who want to be left alone do not seek conflict; we avoid it. Often tolerating things that grate against our conscience. We tolerate the tyrannical moves of our governments while they are tolerable.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Declaration of Independence

Yesterday, Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts against him in New York.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-verdict-jury

When talking with a lawyer friend, they were astonished that the right fails to see that this is not an extraordinary circumstance for Trump but the status quo for our justice system. An example of this is the Jury instructions given by Judge Merchan. They are not abnormal; similar instructions, called pattern jury instructions, are provided in trials every day in this country. That by no means makes them Constitutional! The instructions given are part of the systemic problem with our justice system.

Sadly, it has been a long time since the scales of justice tilted to leniency, as was intended. We as a nation used to uphold the principle of letting one hundred guilty men go free rather than imprison a single innocent man. That has not been the case for a long time. Today’s injustice system works from a place of fear and bullies people to plea bargain, regardless of their guilt. I, myself, have been guilty of letting the system drive me to accept a plea rather than fight for what I believed was right.

Many people on the right have condemned former Trump associates for accepting plea deals. This is not fair. They are facing a trial by a state with unlimited resources and a jury pool of people who are ill-informed, over-socialized, under-educated, and lacking a moral foundation and principled fortitude. We ALL are facing this. Our “justice” system is broken. Virtually no man in this nation will ever see a jury of his peers or can expect those picked to serve on a jury to be concerned with liberty and appropriately distrustful of the government. In fact, most people are not even interested in the job they are chosen to perform. Instead, we face a jury of people who do not want to be there but cannot avoid it. The system is broken.

I have served on juries; in each case, I was the lone voice skeptical of the state. I was the only one who held the state to its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This, while anecdotal, seems to be the norm in our nation. For this and other reasons, I DO NOT TRUST our judicial system.

I DO NOT TRUST the executive branch. It has overstepped and been the vanguard of the tyranny that we have tolerated for my entire life. Every President during my lifetime has enslaved not only my generation but untold generations with debts that can never be repaid. They, with only one exception, have engaged in unconstitutional wars. They have persecuted and killed Americans without even the semblance of due process.

For my entire life, the legislature has been feckless and complicit in the oppressive excesses of the other branches. They have abdicated their constitutional authority. They can be considered nothing less than treacherous collaborators committed to selling this nation down the river.

Our government is, and has been, BROKEN!

If you accept or agree that the system is now hopelessly broken, what is left to us?

It is no longer a question of whether or not our system of government will collapse, only when it will do so. I believe the only peaceful path left is the dissolution of the United States. Texas and other states should go their own way peacefully. Those states who find common ground to form new alliances should do so after reestablishing their rightful places among the world’s nations.

People have asked me what would come after a breakup of the nation. To that, I say: it doesn’t matter. We cannot, and ought not, continue on this path. I will trust God, providence, and the people to make the path forward. It is better to live in anarchy as a freeman than live in peace as a slave!

I understand that most of you are not ready for this. You are scared, as am I, but I implore you to understand you are a slave. You are a slave to a fickle master to whom you are nothing. You are beholden to their will, and WHEN they decide to come for you, you will have no recourse but to submit as so many others have.

A few times in my life, I was forced into a situation where I had no choice but to fight or relent. I will not relent now. This stops here; this stops now. My children will be more free than I am. To this, I pledge my life, fortune, and sacred honor!

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

John Adams

AFT Shooting

Given the news of this shooting is still unfolding I will refrain from commenting too much. Needless to say I am of the opinion that the ATF overstepped and Mr. Malinowski did not need to die. The ATF had no need of a “No Knock raid”. This was a man who clearly was not selling firearms for a living. He could have been approached at work or his home during normal hours and an ATF agent would not have been injured and Mr. Malinowski would not have lost his life.

https://www.kark.com/crime/family-of-bryan-malinowski-releases-statement-after-his-death/?ipid=promo-link-block4

NEWS RELEASE
Contact Information: Bud Cummins
(501) 831-6125
bud@budcumminslaw.com
Release Date: March 21, 2024
STATEMENT OF THE BRYAN MALINOWSKI FAMILY
Attorney Bud Cummins, acting as a spokesperson for the Malinowski family, related
the following statement today on behalf of the family:
Our family has endured an unspeakable tragedy and one that is almost
impossible to understand. We are mourning the loss of Bryan, who passed
away earlier today.
Our thoughts and prayers also go out to the government agent who was injured
yesterday, and to his family.
We do not understand the government’s decisions which led to a dawn raid on
a private home and triggered the use of deadly force.
We are obviously concerned about the allegations in the affidavit released by
the government today. Even if the allegations in the affidavit are true, they
don’t begin to justify what happened.
At worst, Bryan Malinowski, a gun owner and gun enthusiast, stood accused
of making private firearm sales to a person who may not have been legally
entitled to purchase the guns.
For now, we will wait for all the facts to come out. In the meantime, we ask
that the public and the media respect our privacy.

https://www.kark.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/85/2024/03/News-Release-Bryan-Malinowski.pdf

The redacted search warrant is linked below.

https://www.kark.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/85/2024/03/Ex.-1-Search-Warrant-003.pdf

What is The Cloward and Piven Strategy?

I was asked this recently and thought a quick post would be helpful for future conversations.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/civil-unrest/the-cloward-and-piven-strategy/

“Widespread campaigns to register the eligible poor for welfare aid, and to help existing recipients obtain their full benefits, would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments. These disruptions would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor.” … “In order to generate a crisis, the poor must obtain benefits, which they have forfeited. Until now, they have been inhibited from asserting claims by self-protective devices within the welfare system: its capacity to limit information, to intimidate applicants, to demoralize recipients, and arbitrarily to deny lawful claims.”

“The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.”

The “Strategy” outlined By Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven is a road map used to foment a communist revolution. It should be noted that as a precursor to the strategy being effective a society must already be in the socialist stage: IE there must be a social welfare system to overwhelm.

“Securing Operational Technology: A Deep Dive into the Water Sector”

https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/house-event/116802?s=1&r=31

I know some of these witnesses personally. I know the subject matter extensively.

For this post I will assume you have watched the hearing, also please see the recent post about China and U.S. Infrastructure.

Also note this is some what a stream of consciousness as I listened.

The first question sets the tone, Quantum computing and FUD! Mr. Lee is correct that 1) we are not going back to manual systems 2) the current ICS/OT systems are already vulnerable 3) defense is possible.

Safety systems and “managing for the consequence” is a key point! If you want an offline system it should be a safety system!

Government is not the F***ing answer!

It is important to note that of the 16 Critical infrastructure sectors Water is one of the least mature and funded.

Attribution is largely bunk! Attribution is very hard to do especially in light of Wikileaks vault 7.

NERC or NERC lite is not the answer, I will admit that NERC-CIP has moved the industry, but that was from zero and we are not there today.

If you accept the premise that Risk = Likelihood x Impact, and that the impact of loss of life or capacity are unacceptable then almost all OT risk trend to the extreme.

OK, so what is really needed for ICS/OT cybersecurity to solve the issue. A market and risk driven model. Legislation will not help, just enrich the companies who have the best lobbyists. The ugly truth is that most infrastructure is not secured. The basic blocking and tackling steps are not in place. Defense in depth, good architecture, and vigilance are the building blocks to solve this issue (IMO). Most CISOs I know want to spend their budget on tools, and I see this as a mistake. If you do not have the people or program in place to use them effectively tools will not protect you. There is way too much shelf-ware in the industry.

How Bad is Biden’s Memory

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/special-counsel-report-biden-is-inaccurate-gratuitous-white-house-2024-02-09/

Update: 02/12/24

https://reason.com/2024/02/12/joe-bidens-no-good-very-bad-day/

well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

Special Counsel Robert Hur

With the media using the above quote all over the place, when will VP Harris make the obvious move of using Section 4 of the 25th amendment? She will become the first female President of the United States of America, and pave the way for Newsom, or M Obama to run.

The fact is that this is corrupt. Saying we know he did it, but think he is mentally disabled; to the point a jury would not convict, is at best an excuse. Biden is not fit for office and this is damaging to the country.

Section 1

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.


Section 2

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.


Section 3

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.


Section 4

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
     
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxv

Note the I could not upload the PDF due to a file size limitation but it is linked below.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf

Heller VS Hawaii

https://reason.com/2024/02/08/hawaiis-supreme-court-insists-there-is-no-individual-right-to-arms/

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962738

District of Columbia v. Heller held that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. Any reading of the constitution, Federal papers, Anti-Federal papers, Ratification debates, and any historical context this is obvious!

We hold that in Hawaiʻi there is no state constitutional
right to carry a firearm in public.” (see the below PDF for the full text of the decision)

https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/State-v.-Wilson-Hawaii-SC-2-7-24.pdf

This is more reason for a national divorce, if Hawaii wants to disarm it’s citizens then so be it; it should not have any bearing on other states. This is a major problem with the 14TH amendment and the incorporation doctrine. The States were not meant to be subservient to the federal government. Sadly that has changed and the US constitution is seen as the “supreme law of the Land” instead of a limited delegation of power from the States and the people. This Delegation was so important to the founders understanding that the 9th and 10th amendments where ratified to make it abundantly clear.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-9/

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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/

Mask Holes Win

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/wearing-mask-covid-19-health-emergency-isnt-free-106996447

“A question shadowing suits such as these is whether there is a First Amendment right to refuse to wear a protective mask as required by valid health and safety orders put in place during a recognized public health emergency. Like all courts to address this issue, we conclude there is not,”

“Skeptics are free to — and did — voice their opposition through multiple means, but disobeying a masking requirement is not one of them. One could not, for example, refuse to pay taxes to express the belief that ‘taxes are theft.’ Nor could one refuse to wear a motorcycle helmet as a symbolic protest against a state law requiring them.”

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals

First let me say that when the pandemic first started and little was known about the virus. I gave my family N95 masks that I had for other uses. however, it became clear to me early on that the size of the virus meant that even the N95 was not going to be very useful.

We live in a free society or we do not. This ruling and other moves by the government are at their basis tyrannical. I did not wear a mask for COVID and I will not. Not for my job, not because a government tells me to. I will not comply with any mandate, I will do what I believe will protect myself and my family. I take responsibility for my actions and understand the risks I am willing to take.

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs. 

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

This was a bad challenge, that said, the ruling is wrong. It is wrong for one major reason. There is NO evidence that masks (even N95s) are effective against COVID-19. In FACT there is quite a bit of evidence that they do not work, especially when not worn correctly or when reused as almost everyone did, removes any logic from the argument. This ruling suggests that the government can force you to wear a hat or other fashion accessory without evidence of its ability to protect you or others. The fact that the Appeals court used a motorcycle helmet as an example is on its face an absurdity. I have the right to endanger myself, I am free and own my own body! Even if you believe (falsely) that forcing me to wear a mask will some how protect you from me, that does NOT give you a right to force it upon me.

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”

Thomas Jefferson

The Abominable Immigration Bill

https://www.newsweek.com/greg-abbott-texas-governor-border-security-bill-challenge-razor-wire-1866875

This would prevent plaintiffs – like the State of Texas – from filing suit in Texas federal courts. This is corrupt.

Bill Shipley,

Readers of this blog or listeners to the podcast will be familiar with the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. This new immigration bill promises to be just as inflammatory to States like Texas that are seeking to protect their borders. The Tariff of Abominations was a driver to secession in the 1860’s of the Southern states.

“The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have sole and original jurisdiction to hear challenges, whether constitutional or otherwise, to the validity of this section or any written policy directive, written policy guideline, written procedure, or the implementation thereof.”

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3714/text

“I’ve seen enough. This bill is even worse than we expected, and won’t come close to ending the border catastrophe the President has created. As the lead Democrat negotiator proclaimed: Under this legislation, “the border never closes.” If this bill reaches the House, it will be dead on arrival,”

Mike Johnson, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

This is the first time I will have called on you as individuals to call, write, or tweet to your members of congress. Please be vocal about your thoughts on this Bill (full Text below). This is a precarious moment for our nation. We must protect and preserve the peace we currently enjoy.

“Stand your ground, don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

Captain John Parker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Parker_(captain)

If our grievances are not heard and the federal government insists on taking this and other actions, then it is time for Texas to remove her voluntary consent to this government. Time for TEXIT!

Note: if you are on a phone the PDF of the Bill below likely wont show up.

WTF is Wrong With the US!?!?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/us-retaliatory-strikes-start-iraq-syria-first-response-jordan-drone-at-rcna136928

Ok let me understand this, US troops where attacked by Iran in Jordan, so the US bombs Syria and Iraq?

U.S. military forces struck more than 85 targets, hitting facilities such as command and control operations, intelligence centers, rockets and missiles, and drone storage sites, according to the U.S. Central Command.

“Our response began today. It will continue at times and places of our choosing,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “The United States does not seek conflict in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world. But let all those who might seek to do us harm know this: If you harm an American, we will respond.”

Am I the only one who thinks that this is insane? If you “respond” in countries that are NOT involved is this not an escalation and an invitation to a wider conflict?

A Bad Needless Bill

The Right side of the political spectrum is incensed by this on X. The answer is not to deport Criminal Aliens from drunk driving. No the answer is to deport all Criminal Aliens! I am not talking about a legitimate asylum seeker. If someone is legitimately seeking refuge from there country we should help them if it is possible and it is in the interest of the United States. WE have a right to secure our country and remove a foreign national who has come here in violation of our laws. We do not need to wait, nor should we wait, until they have broken more of our laws!

It is actions like this that make me think that it is time for Texit!