« July 2010 »
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
and now, Benton?
Economy, what's left of
General politics
general rant/rave
Kennewick Illegal
Legal actions
Richland illegal
Seattle illegal
WA Illegal
WA media anti 2A bias
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
Dave's 2A Blog
Monday, 19 July 2010
re illegal 2010 census, letters from OMB and Census
Topic: General politics

Below are links to scans of letters from OMB and Census, carefully EVADING the fact that the 2010 Census is ILLEGAL.


Why? No, Im not asking "why they are evasive?' I'm asking why does an Administration which promised to be soooooo transparent conduct such illegal activities

 Thanks to Doc HAstings Office(s) for getting such prompt repiles (Census has replied, they have not responded to the questions, but evaded them)

Now its time to get the 2010 Census put on OMBs list of collections that are invalid. They have such a thing, you know...

 Letter 1          Letter2               Letter3            Letter 4        Letter 5           Letter   6


Posted by Dave at 8:42 AM PDT
Updated: Monday, 19 July 2010 8:49 AM PDT
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
a treasonous little thing called "private property rights"
Topic: Constitutional

You all know the scam - "Party A cannot posess a firearm because he is on Party B's property and Party B has the right to regulate what goes on on his own property."

 Now, its taken considerable time to wrap my mind around this delectable fraud, because its insidious, tricky and fraudulent at best. It came to me whilst washing the driveway. I wash my vehicle in my own driveway and I DARE the WA State Car Wash Police to come and get me.

What a F-king STUPID LAW. (PS I neutralize the oils and etc that come off the vehicle with Super Clean- what hits the driveway is not oil...its bio-broken down by whatever chemical process...)

 1.) Someone underline what part of the US Constitution AND the WA Constitution grants private property rights.

 THAY AIN'T NONE. (thats pronounced "thay'ntnun") And, PS, the WA Constitution incorporates the US Constitution as LAW OF THE STATE.

2.) Someone underline what part of said Constitutions speaks of the enumerated Right to Bear Arms.


Houston, we have a problem, but the root of the problem is not obvious. It's taken me a few months to really un-veil the SCAM here.

Party B only has the indirect right to posess property (land, for example) through the general provision of "pursuit of happiness."B MUST HAVE PUBLIC PERMISSION TO POSESS LAND. That Deed B is so proud of...


Put THAT in your smoke and pipe it!

There's something wrong when B not only does not want said Right for himself, but wants to bar A from enjoying it. B must be smoking something...


 But B is on a power trip. B feels insecure of himself, so he inevitably petitions Government (which HAS NO RIGHTS, only RESPONSABILITIES) to wage war on A to deprive A of his Rights.

Whose side does a Corrupt Government take? The one that benefits Government, of course, as it is the irresistable nature of Man to be corrupt and favor himself.

The Corrupt Government takes B's side for several corrupt reasons:

a.) Government pretends to have power whether favoring A, B, or none of the above.

b.) Government is comprised of Citizens who too often, knowing it or not, are on a personal power trip,  money, vainglory or both, and what better way to fill that void than judging among the masses and making laws? More fun yet, try to RULE OVER THEM.

c.) a Corrupt and UnConstitutional Government does not like being inhibited by the Constitution(s) so it welcomes the chance to use whatever Straw Man happens along to suit its own power trip purposes.

d.) Government wants MONEY. Which Party, A or B,does Corrupt Government benefit more from- Party A who pays a one time SALES TAX on a firearm, or Party B who pays YEARLY PROPERTY TAXES?

 Now, youre onto the SCAM.

 So, when Party B, with un-civil motives, comes a-petitioning Government to secure his own property (so he says) Government obviously favors whom is FUNDING ITS MEMBERS SALARIES.

Party A has the superior Right to Bear Arms. Party B's assertion that he has the right to prohibit A from his Constitutional Posession of Private Property, SOLELY BECAUSE A IS ON B's PROPERTY, is a LIE and a FRAUD, for A's posession of his own lawful property, whether physically on B's premesis or not, is neither affected by B's rights nor has any effect on B, or B's property, 

The two rights have no relationship.

If A goes marauding and shoots B;s property up, then B has a legitimate right to seek damages from A, but that is an ACTION beyond B's RIGHT to real property. But, that is the other part of the SCAM - that B, in coercion with a Corrupt Government, can pre-empt A from doing some imagined wrong.

THAT IS HOW  COMMUNIST GOVERNMENTS WORK. Thats not Constitutional representation, its totalitarian control.

Party B is LYING when he asserts that infringement on A's Rights somehow secures his property, for what better security than to have a HUNDRED ARMED FRIENDS is there?

When's the last time you heard of a robbing or other ill on a GUN RANGE? I'll dare-say it's never happened.

The idiot that is B does not realize that in the process, hes giving up OWNERSHIP OF HIS OWN PROPERTY TO THE GOVERNMENT. Let Fool B try not paying the PROPERTY TAXES that B pays to have Government hear his treasonous petition.

And theres Greedy Corrupt Government ready to take that money. And as it goes in this State, throw it down a rat hole.

 Compare this to the rotten, money grubbing group called the "NRA" (acronym for "in it for ourselves") playing dog an pony with a photo of NRA folk along with Law Enforcement proudly heralding "shalll issue" with regard to Concealed Carry.

Of course this is an un-Constitutional SCAM on the part of Corrupt Government, corrupt Law Enforcement (the incorporated law of this State is "shall not be infringed") and greedy money grubbers at NRA, because CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS ARE FORBIDDEN BY BOTH CONSTITUTIONS.

Of course, NRA is so proud to have the Police on board and of course the PDs are glad to share in the power grab. A Dog and Pony show cant go on without both Dog and Pony, now can it?

Sure, power hungry PDs might prefer "may issue," but if "shall issue" prevails, there is still the process that leaves them in control, or so they think.

...not failing to forget for a moment that said PD SWORE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, did they not?

 I like Kennesaw GA's position better - "shall posess" which HAS ELIMINATED CRIME IN KENNESAW.

 Now, lets bring it home. I wrote to our So Called Representative Delvin about doing similar to VA in repealing firearms laws. He promised to meet with us over the last break.

Havent heard a peep from him, even though I gave him a copy of the Email in which he promised at the last Constituent meeting.

Dont believe for a minute that EITHER party is anything but a SCAM.

Hell, with broken promises like that, I may as well vote Democrat.

Posted by Dave at 6:03 PM PDT
Updated: Wednesday, 23 June 2010 6:51 PM PDT
Monday, 17 May 2010
WSBA Agrees with Lawbreaking City Attorney - refuses to investigate Grievance
Topic: WA Illegal

Jut in- final response from the WSBA refusing to do anything about the clearly unlawful acts of Lampson and the City of REICHland in re their ILLEGAL, PREEMPTED AND REPEALED City Ordinance banning weapons in Amon Park.

 Not that I expected a CABAL to do anything but cover its own ass.  Theyre all in it together, including the PRO 2A ATTORNEYS in WA State WHO LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH TO ME. The So called NRA Attorneys who refused to take action. The so called "Washington State Gun Lawyer" who lied to me, stating he would take this on, then later refused to when he found out I wanted to take action with TEETH in it.

 The Bar has covered up Lampsons illegal and improper (under the Court Rules) actions in aiding his Client (Richland) in making the ILLEGAL, PREEMPTED and REPEALED Ordinance.

He, as Respondant, did not respond to the (charges, accusation, allegation, use whichever word is appropriate) that I made, rather, employed red herring to evade them, by simple citing the history of the matter and ignoring the pointed, documented allegations I made with clear references to the Courts Rules which hold those actions as improper.

Is it not unconscionable for an Attorney to aid his Client in doing something clearly FORBIDDEN by law?

 Apparently in WA it isn't.

  Ive scanned and posted all the WSBA documents on the front page here:


for your response of "did you expect anything else"

To wit I reply as Ecclesiastes wrote:

"Don't be surpised when one is corrupt, and the one above him helps cover it up."

I'm not...

Posted by Dave at 2:50 PM PDT
Friday, 14 May 2010
More ILLEGAL crap from Census
Topic: General politics


"We are watching what's happening in other countries and I think this is going to be a key tool to measure the American public for years on in," (Groves)

What kind of Gibberish is this? What other Countries are doing is irrelavent to the US Census, US LAW IS RELEVANT. Further, the two partsof the sentence do not refer to each other, how is "measuring the American public" predicated on "whats happening in other Countries"? The two have no relationship.

There is no legal basis  in USC for "measuring" anyone. This is the semantic infiltration game, change the meaning of words, or make up new phrases with new meanings. 


So Census thinks were REQUIRED to respond to something called "American Community SURVEY?"

 Required to respond to a population Census EVERY YEAR?


The population census for enumeration is only authorized every 10 years. NOT every year. 


  • is an on-going survey
  • is sent to a sample of the population
  • tells us what the population looks like and how it lives
  • helps communities determine where to locate services and allocate resources"

If its only sent to a sample of the population, then its not a Census of Enumeration and my response is:

 "Get lost" 

i emailed the reporter/story author and posted this in response to the article: 

Census is authorized by Congress under USC TItle 13. Read it: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode13/usc_sup_01_13.html (or search for U.S.C. Title 13) There is NO legal authorization for a "survey." It is a CENSUS. There is NO legal authorization for a population census every YEAR. It is 10 YEARS. There is NO legal requirement for a Citizen to respond to ACS. Read the Title, where is it? Not only is this illegal, but the 2010 Census is illegal, because although Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did issue a Control Number to Census, CENSUS IS NOT USING IT ON THE FORM/house to house survey, therefore the collection is ILLEGAL. Census is spreading false information as to the penalty for not responding, Director Groves, in a letter to Congressman Doc Hastings, stated it was $5000. Law says "not more than $100" This false information also appears on the Census website. Census is asking questions of RACE which are not permitted by Law. It is irrelavent to a Census of Enumeration whether one is Hispanic. Unless one wants to make the Census RACIST. 2 questions: 1.) Why? 2.) Why arent the Media investigating this?


Heres the game. Straw man diversion.

1. Fact: there are problems with collecting the Census. Yep, probably the same problems as in many other past Censii (is that the correct Latin plural?) 

2.) diversion on a false premise (red herring) the Census is flawed so we need to abandon it in favor of the Internet.

the premise is deliberately flawed because all it takes is to put the Census form ON LINE as FILLABLE. Its ALREADY ON LINE AS AN IMAGE.

3. And then the pivot play- proceeding from the false assertion the Census is flawed and must be abandoned, the pivot is to say that since ACS is internet friendly, then will use ACS.


1.) There is no reason to abandon the Census due to collection problems. If so, its ILLEGAL. There is no legal authority for collecting a "survey."

2.) The current Census does not reach every house, it hasnt for years. Rush said he has never received a form. Many households do not have internet.

3.) How to put it on-line securely?

4.) The Census data is only to be transmitted to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Look at ACS on line, does it appear they are transmittng it to the President? 


Posted by Dave at 8:22 AM PDT
Updated: Friday, 14 May 2010 8:54 AM PDT
Thursday, 13 May 2010
Your assignment in Constutional study- read this crap and analyse it
Topic: Constitutional

The Tri Cities herald is foaming at the mouth with its Communist Big Govt  drivel again under the guise of a Public Forum. Of course, people with empty heads full of opinions who want to look relevant will chime in with all sorts of Un Constitutional and illegal, immoral, irrational trash as they always do.

 Read it, if you can keep from puking. Ill post the "low-lights"



Editorial Preview — May 13-19

Our frustrations with the functioning of government at various levels is providing plenty of fodder for editorial topics in the coming week. We’ve also noticed some positive developments worthy of comment. As always, you’re encouraged to jump into the conversation.

Benton County commissioners — We’re writing this one for Thursday. Before deciding major policy issues, why don’t’ the commissioners take a deliberate approach that includes full participation of stakeholders and the public? On both the potential fairgrounds sale and the future of the bi-county health district, they’re failing the engage in the discussions needed to make informed decisions....<snip>

Attorney General mulls Miranda rights revision — The war on terror is different than any other war in our history. We’re not fighting a nation but an ideology, so the old rules don’t apply. How can we rewrite the standards for terrorist suspects to serve both our national security and our democratic ideals?


What a load of goat roping! This crap is known as "straw argument" and isnt asking questions, its deceitful and evasive tactics to plant ideas in peoples minds. It's called DIALOGING TO CONCENSUS. Never mind that: 

a.) most of them dont have minds of their own or they wouldnt fall into traps like this in the first place

b.) the crap theyre spreading is UNCONSTITUTIONAL 

Read the Wiki on "straw argument" then read the editorial. Then read Miranda and the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. Yes, Miranda was a ruling, but its based in the Fifth Amendment. ALL LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT ARE. 


Here are my responses, of course, they'll delete them. I've been kicked off The TCH, WSJ and Reuters websites for my Free Speech.  Yes, the Tricycle Herald retaliates against those who speak out against them like any other good Communist-sympathizing organization does. I posted those details earlier on this Blog.



"The issue of Miranda rights for terrorists is taking an early lead in the polling. We're guessing the interest expressed here is representative of the broader community"

That is a "straw argument" thats borderline treasonous:

In violation of presumption of innocence
Generally contrary to the Fifth Amendment and specifically Miranda.

RIGHTS are not something that Government grants. They are reserved to the People, not Govt, corporations, stakeholders, NGOs or newspapers.

Wiki defines straw argument as based on fallacy based on misrepresentation which, here, is a deliberately false initial premise that ACCUSED terrorists have no/diminished rights based on an ACCUSATION.

They are not terrorists until proven so by a COURT."

There are two "straws" here (false/misleading arguments)

1.) "The war on terror is different than any other war in our history"

Off topic (red herring) . The topic is not "war" it is "arrest" and there is no cause to change it for one individual.

2.) "We’re not fighting a nation but an ideology,"

No, idealogies cant make bombs and shoot guns. People do

3.) "old rules don’t apply"

The agenda of Big Govt Liberals is to destroy Peoples Rights. Since that is not possible within the restraint of Government by the Constitution, faux arguments have to be sold to people. This summary is predicated on two false arguments before and if People arent aware of the Constitutional limits placed on Govt, they may fall for these slick fables.

The root problem from 1.) is the utter incompetence of Govt to "protect us" or prosecute crime. The system fails repeatedly so in a useless attempt to gain some hold on a criminal, we invent more laws and rules to try to hang on them. The Police failed their PAST legal duty (Miranda was in force when they arrested him) and are attempting to blame someone else for their failure. Since they failed their legal duty, HE'LL GET OFF.


"Before deciding major policy issues, why don’t’ the commissioners take a deliberate approach that includes full participation of stakeholders and the public?"

Because they dont want to. Because the People have ignored the process for too many years and paid no heed to Govt working (or not working) and the Corporations, "stakeholders" and others not guaranteed Representation have taken over - theyre called lobbyists and special interest groups.

"Stakeholders" have no say, they are not Citizens.

The question itself is improper, it should be:

"Why dont (whatever representative, County, State, Congress...) determine the will of the PEOPLE, then DO IT.?

They only want feedback when it suits their agendas. Any and all of them.


Another problem for those of you who CAN think. "These people" (the outgrouping fallacy at work- us vs them - divisionary tactic) are NOT TERRORISTS.. Terrorists want to make people afraid. A terrorist puts a fake bomb in front of the Post Ofice.

These people are MILITARY OPERATIVES. They dont want people afraid, THEY WANT THEM DEAD. They use REAL BOMBS.

Posted by Dave at 3:47 PM PDT
Updated: Thursday, 13 May 2010 3:57 PM PDT
Friday, 7 May 2010
LOVE THE LIE - the non event in NYC
Topic: General politics

Bleating sheep, willing accompli in covering up Government incompetence are repeating the chant:


"The Police and Govt stopped a bombing in NYC"

 They did not, for two reasons:

1.) No one "stopped" anything, no one knew there was anything in the SUV until IT WAS TOO LATE. It was only detected AFTER smoke came from the vehicle.

2.) THERE WAS NO BOMB. Propane tanks, especially grill tanks, are DESIGNED NOT TO EXPLODE. They are transported in vehicles. Vehicles have accidents and catch fire. Propane tanks are designed to VENT propane (vapor in the case of grill tanks) and thus prevent explosion. There is no way firecrackers and gasoline will cause a tank to explode. 

Watch it happen: 


Beginning about 1:00 the tank vents and flame shoots out. Eventually after being ENGULFED in flame the tank apparently explodes, although no pieces are visible being blown out. The tank more likely ruptured or the valve came off. The difference is that THIS TANK HAS PLENTY OF AIR AVAILABLE TO BURN. The tank enclosed in an SUV DOES NOT. Propane (any fuel) requires AIR to burn, where does it get it from INSIDE a vehicle? 

See a 250 gallon tank vent (and see the water vapor HELP the combustion...):


Then watch this tank deliberately set with fuel underneath. Watch the water ACCELERATE the fire (the flame intensity increases and shuts the camera iris down, the scene goes dark)


watch the tank vent at 2:00. It cannot explode unless the heat is so great that the propane pressure radically increases beyond the burst strength of the tank, or the escaping vapors contribute to the fire (self heating).  Notice the water doesnt put the fire out in any case. This tank is engulfed in flame, the water spray is accelerating the flame, and it still doesnt explode because ITS DESIGNED NOT TO.


The word "bomb" indicates two things  1.) explosion 2.) detonation

The combustion that is the explosion must travel at some minimum wave front speed which, if memory serves, is about 8000 meters/second to qualify as a detonation. Its been some time since I read about this, that figure might be incorrect, but you get the idea.

 This was not a bomb. If the entire vehicle was doused in gasoline and set alight, the tank might explode. Maybe. Worst case, a big fire.

 But, the Wiling Accomplii in the Media have to make the non-incident sound grand and dangerous to support the Govt position that they are in control and protecting us, when they are NOT.

 People in Govt in the "protect us from terrorism" business arent RELEVANT if nothing is happening, and short of deliberately CAUSING a disaster (Waco, for example) by creating a crisis then filling a need, they must blow a non-event like this out of proportion.

Of course, they ALLOWED him on a plane where he could have blown IT up.

Thanks, Jack Booted Janet, I REALLY FEEL SAFE NOW. 

Posted by Dave at 8:44 AM PDT
Monday, 5 April 2010
What the WA Bar is up to- and its no good
Topic: Legal actions

 The front page here has the documents I filed with the WA Bar against Lampson for his hand in making an ILLEGAL and PRE-EMPTED Ordinance. The process is - I file a Grievance with the bar, then the Attorney (Respondant) reponds.

 Lampson didnt respond, he REPLIED with an OFF TOPIC tirade including LIBEL against me- he attempted to paint me (to the Bar, which is IRRELAVENT, Im not responsible to the Bar Assn) as dangerous in that I was at the Council meeting "in a shooting stance wearing shooting glasses"

A shooting stance means firearm in hand ready to shoot. I was not, the witnesses and video tapes will prove hes LYING AGAIN. Since when does Lampson object to INDUSTRIAL SAFETY GLASSES LIKE EVERY HANFORD CONTRACTOR WEARS?

 Lampson, do you also have a personal grudge against people who wear safety devices? Maybe you should make a ridiculous law against SAFETY GLASSES.

  The Bar Rules require the Respondant to respond, he did not, he REPLIED off topic. The Lead Counsel at the WSBA of course followed him off-topic and tried to dump the Grievance, stating that i could request a reconsideration (exact term escapes me at the instant).

 It will go the same, because the ass covering is universal.

T he Grievance I filed contained a precise, itemized statement of actions that were taken, the points of the Courts Rules of Professional Conduct that were violated. All that was IGNORED. There was no reply or response that addressed the itemized complaint.

Of course, we know that when 'they' have nothing to go on, ad-hominem and red-herring are ALWAYS the last resort. 

Posted by Dave at 10:47 AM PDT
Monday, 29 March 2010
Waco II- Storm Troopers arrest militia members in Michigan
Topic: General politics

  Theres been a post on the back burner a-waiting for a current relevant story as an illustration, and thats the one about Jack Booted Janet. Todays media Circus about the  oh so dangerous Militia in Michigan is just the story ive been waiting for. Or not waiting for, or waiting for and hoping to not happen...you get the drift.

 First some inside info on Waco you didn't know, but need to.  Notice the common element in Waco and this incident, the RELIGION link. Thats meaningful.

Michigan story in Detroit paper

Now, bear with me as we go back Memory Lane to BEFORE Waco, to the SETUP.  Its all about an internal battle in the Seventh Day Adventist Church you didnt hear about.

Years ago, there was a massive, more or less anti Roman Catholic religious movement in the early 1800s (see, I told you we were going way back) called the Advent Movement. It resurrected and attempted to expound on (with marginal success) the Protestant Reformers of the Dark Ages and their doctrine that the Church of Rome was the harlot of Revelation. Thats a whole 'nother story we cant get into here because of lack of bandwidth.

  Several religions denominations such as SDA, LDS, Jehovahs Witnesses sprang out of the prophecy movement that attended. The movement fizzled out by roughly 1900 and about the only remainder was theology in the SDA Church, and history books.

   Somewhere after the 1960s, the SDA church began to seriously crumble from within from doctrinal watering-down. The church left its "pillars" as they are called, which refers to fundamental beliefs.

 There was some generalized resistance against this breakdown until it became a movement around 1990 (I don't recall exactly when it happened, and there may not have been an "exactly when" date) known as the "Independent SDA" movement. The Independents returned to the founding beliefs and practices of the Church which were so reformist that they were becoming Judaistic.

 About the same time as the Roman Catholic Church started hemmoraging members from internal struggles, they also started to infiltrate the SDA Church which was more or less the only group still exposing the prophetic identity of the RC as the undesirable entity in Revelations (the book of the Bible. The claim of "infiltrate" is not mine, it was witnessed by Samuele Bacchiocchi, the esteemed SDA Theologian from Andrews University. Sam had pulled a 'fast one' on the RC Church by becoming the only outsider to ever get through their high powered University, and Sam wrote a Thesis on the Sabbath and it was approved by the Church, which they later regretted because it was a modern expose on the fact the Church has invented Sunday worship in place of the ancient (Judaistic) Sabbath. But thats another story.

Sam testified in person in Nevada, Iowa around 2000 that he had caught one of his instructors receiving mailed marching orders on how to teach from Georgetown U. Another story yet. This is just what happened, I'm not preaching here, its just history.

 Anyhoo,  theres a giant split in the SDA Church over/during this time/events and the split is BANKRUPTING the financially incompetent/increasingly insolvent SDA Church who was, at the time, bankrupting its Health System. The Catholics bought much of it and rescued it. Apparently good hospitals both before and after.

  The organized Conference Church HATED the Independent movement which had absolutely no hesitation in calling a spade a spade and tried to shut the Independent movement down. It didn't work.

  Now, the Waco tie in. Contrary to (or maybe in addition to) what the Media told you about Waco, David Koresh and the Branch Davidians WERE NOT KOOKS. I know EXACTLY what they believed, taught and lived, because I saw it in the Independent Movement- they were part of it that wanted to be left alone. I saw some of Koreshs videos, they were lock, stock and barrell Independent SDA. Nothing whacko, just the teachings of the early SDA Church. To the best of my knowledge, they did not participate in the broader movement to expose the Conference Church corruption (I have more than enough religion/SDA knowledge to use the term
"corruption" as an expert) and theres the problem, the CHURCH COULD NOT USE ANYTHING AGAINST THEM- they werent in the fray.

  I got information, from where I don't recall, and I wish I'd chased it further down) that the "info" that led to the assault on Waco came from SDA sources in Australia (theres an unhappy past with SDAs in Australia, another story yet). Shortly after that, one John (lfrom Florida, his ast name escapes me at the moment) warned his employees to keep the TV production vans locked to prevent weapons from being planted in them while they were out videoing Church services.

  There was eventually enough attack against much of the Independent movement that it somewhat fell apart. But not Koresh. Apparently they had their own little thing in TX and weren't bothering anyone. Or the Church had no leverage to attack them with.

   Realize the SDA Conference Church is HEMORRAGING MONEY at this point. Members are walking out and/or not paying Tithes. Were talking millions/billions, not chump change. I saw the Tithe income at an Ohio church TURN OFF LIKE A SPIGOT when they started introducing some nonsense or another for religious teachings.

  Then out of the blue, David Koresh is dangerous and attacked by the Feds with a flame throwing tank. You didnt see that on the TV reports, but I was fortunate to see the raw video feed that the Constitutional Lawyer Linda Thompson (or was it Tomlinson) from Indy, Indy was distributing. It showed the Jack Booted Thugs (the term borrowed from Nazi Germany and applied to the black clad Police SWAT teams members- there was a German imported sort of boot being sold then that was being worn) attacking the compound- with NO ATTACK IN RETURN. There was NO fire from insde the house, in fact, the Davidians had locked themselves in a cellar and burned to death when the Storm Troopers lit the place on fire. It showed a Thug shooting hmself in the right leg with his own gun while ascending a ladder. It showed five (best I recall the number) of JBTs on a roof top, 2 or 3 entered thru a window and the outsiders remaining IMMEDIATELY opened fire thru the wall, obviously killing or injuring those who just entered. It showed the ammo dump on fire/smoldering with JBTS walking near it. (ammo in a fire is not particularly dangerous, I've tried it, an unchambered round has no force) and showed a military tank punching through a wall in the building and when retreating, a flame thrower igniting and setting the building on fire.

Thats what the Media hid from you.

I'd talked with Linda shortly after that and she told me about the black helicopter (in Indy, I assume) that "bombed the wrong house"(attacking her house, so they thought). Thats not Internet lore, she told me that.

  The M.O. is the same here, organized RELIGIOUS group under attack from OVERWHELMING MILITARY FORCE. Does it take such force to apprehend a few gun toting religious folk? Of course, they trot out the MI leaders Ex wife who has an axe to grind against him. WHy didnt they infiltrate the group and take it down from the inside? Why dont they similarly take action agsint ILLEGAL ALIEN FELONS and DRUG DEALERS?

F ollow the money, honey. Theres the history, now watch the show. And watch the "evidence" gleaned from the Internet where any Chinese hacker can plant it. Theyre hacking the Pentagon...Thats what I call a reliable chain of evidence!

 Also watch to see any effect of publicity because the internet is so prolific whereas it was not in the Waco days.

And just take a wild guess as to how many more of these groups are in the Midwest. And notice the only valid complaint besides a possibly made up internet threat is that they were engaging in military style training. 

Posted by Dave at 12:32 PM PDT
Updated: Monday, 29 March 2010 12:36 PM PDT
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Topic: Constitutional

Dingell admits that Obama Care (insurance reform is NOT health care reform. thats red-herring) is about "controlling the People"


  And (part of) my letter to Doc Hastings predicting this:



1.) While searching for a valid OMB Control Number for the 2010 Census, which I cannot find, I noticed a troubling thing in several Executive Orders (EO’s).

Previous EOs repealed by Klinton contain limitations on Agency authority, with language such as:

Section 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Order:

(a) "Regulation" or "rule" means an agency statement of general applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the procedure or practice requirements of an agency,...”


Sec. 9. Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal government, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers or any person. The determinations made by agencies under Section 4 of this Order, and any Regulatory Impact Analyses for any rule, shall be made part of the whole record of agency action in connection with the rule.”

Direct quotations from EO 12291

Notice a problem, the Executive is attempting to, or in fact, making and interpreting LAW, which are functions reserved to the Legislative and Judicial under the U.S. Constitution.

Klintons EO 12866 changes things- it starts off with a bunch of Un Constitutional philosophy:

The American people deserve a regulatory system that works for them, not against them: a regulatory system that protects and improves their health, safety, environment, and well-being and improves the performance of the economy without imposing unacceptable or unreasonable costs on society; regulatory policies that recognize that the private sector and private markets are the best engine for economic growth; regulatory approaches that respect

the role of State, local, and tribal governments; and regulations that are effective, consistent, sensible, and understandable. We do not have such a regulatory system today.”

We don’t have such a system because we should not have one. The President does not grant well being and performance of the economy...

Section 1. Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles.

(a) The Regulatory Philosophy. Federal agencies should promulgate only such regulations as are required by law, are necessary to interpret the law, or are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material failures

of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the American people.”


Sec. 10. Judicial Review. Nothing in this Executive order shall affect any otherwise available judicial review of agency action. This Executive order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal Government and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.“

See how the language has been modified from previous similar EO’s from limits on what regulations may be made, to a ‘suggestion.’ In Sec. 10 of EO 12866, the requirement for Agency documentation requirement has been removed.

There are SERIOUS problems here, it concerns me that OMB is no longer under DoC but directly under the President. Why? Why is the Agency responsible for issuing Control Numbers itself not under the same requirement? Why is the Executive attempting to circumvent the Separation of Powers?

Theres a simple answer - A EXECUTIVE/MILITARY COUP. The Executive is also CIC of the Military. All it takes now is an EO or two to seize Legislative and Judicial authority in Agency rules binding as law, and when we attempt to ignore them, use military force to impose them.



Administrative rules apply to some Agency, as stated in the EO. NOT TO THE PEOPLE. Only laws that the People authorize via their CONGRESS are valid.


The Lead Hour is fast approaching. 


Posted by Dave at 10:06 AM PDT
Monday, 15 March 2010
Topic: General politics

I just received the 2010 Census form and as suspected, its illegal. Its in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act, USC 44:


 The Census are playing games with words, they have attempted to invent some "authorization number" which is an expired 2006 Census OMB Control number with a "-C" added to the end.

 There is no such thing as an OMB Authorization Number. "Authorization" is a process, a "Control Number" is a result.

 The 2010 form has no OMB CONTROL NUMBER.

 There is no vaild OMB Control Number listed as issued by DoC ESA listed on the GSA website:


[correction, there is a vaild number, it does not appear on the form, there was an expired 2006 number on the DoC ESA website, I cant find the .pdf at this moment] 

(select Department of Commerce" from the "Select Agency" dropdown box)

The required statement under the PRA that 'no one is required to respond...if no vaild OMB COntrol Number appears' is not  on the form.

Obama has apparently taken control of Census from DoC (it appears under the White House website) but the form claims that Census is under DoC. Which one is it? 

There are multiple addresses to send the form back to, the pre-printed form sends it to Arizona, while the forms instructions say to send forms without a pre-printed envelope to Indiana. Why not AZ for both? 

Notice two other interesting things:

1.) The Decennial census is a Census of ENUMERATION, to count people for apportionment of Representation, NOT TO COUNT WHAT ETHENIC ORIGIN THEY ARE. There is no legal basis for asking about race, religion, age, income... ITS A HEAD COUNT.

Notice the BOX around question # 1 which asks for head count, it sets that question apart from all the others. Its the only one legal

2.) The back of the form states:

"You may E-mail comments to <Paperwork@census.gov>; use "Paperwork Project 0607-0919-C" as the subject."

Thats the number that appears on the front of the form. There is no such thing, who is inventing it and WHY?

Simple. Considering the form is asking info as to how many Hispanics are in the Nation, and the fraud by ACORN in voting, its an attempt to get Hispanic voters to vote DEMOCRAT.

Give me another valid reason?

More false statements:

"The Census must count every person living in the United States on April 1, 2010"

NO, the law does not say "must count by April 1," it says "as of April 1" which means there is 9 months on and after April 1 to count all who WERE population as of April 1. Forms completed and counted BEFORE APRIL 1 ARE ILLEGAL. 

It's simple, find where the Hispanics live, target them with more political advertising.

It's called HOAX AND CHAINS.


Next question, if this form is a "-C" revision, then where and what are the zeroth through "-B" revisions and who is getting which one? 





 =============== what I just posted to a newsgroup =======


 I just received a 2010 Census form. I suspected it would be illegal since Obama took Census over from Dept of Commerce (DoC). Search for the Census Bureau and itll appear under the White House.

The form, and letter that preceeded it, appear to be from Census under DoC. There appear to be TWO Census - question divisions.

Heres a link to the form:


USC 44 contains the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) which is Federal Law that requires that any collection of information be cleared thru the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and issued a "valid OMB Control Number" (direct quote) else no one is required to respond to it:

The PRA requires two things:

1.) A valid OMB Control Number
2.) A disclosure to the recipient of the collection (you and me) that we are not required to respond... read the title and notice the EXACT wording.

  Under USC 13, Census law, the 10-year Census is a Census of ENUMERATION, to count Citizens (****not illegal aliens****) for apportionment of Representation (in CONgress):


There has been false information floated as to what information is required to be given, and penalties for not giving it:

3.)The only info REQUIRED in a Census of Enumeration is HOW MANY at each address, NOT RACE, OR ETHNICITY

4.) The penalty for refusing to answer is a max of $100.00.

Think anyone gonna haul you into Federal Court for $100?

Just the opposite, read on...

The 2010 Census form is divided into two parts: (critical to notice)

5.) Question # 1 in a BOX BY ITSELF

6.) The rest of the questions about race, ethnicity, 'are you Hispanic'

Q #1 is the ONLY one thats required to be answered in a Census of Enumeration.

  At the bottom - left of the form, there is a PHONY statement that PRETENDS to be an OMB Control Number. It is an expired 2006 Census OMB Control Number with a "-C" suffix. It is referred to as an "approval number."


"Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), OMB assigns an eight-digit OMB Control Number to each the agency information collection."


There is no such thing under Title 44 as an "approval number." "Approval" is a process to ultimately issue a "Control Number." Approval is a process, the Control Number is the result.

Id found, but cant find now, a list of expired OMB Control Numbers on the DoC ESA Website, maybe one of you can stumble across it.

 Notice the phony number appears in the part of the form that asks irrelavent questions, it is separated from the required question about number.

There is a false statement on the form that pretends that the Census must be taken BY APRIL 1st. This is contrary to Census Law which states the Census is taken only between April 1 (of every 10th year) and only for nine - months duration.

I received the form BEFORE it is valid. IT is NOT legal to collect Census information in MARCH. [The Control number is only valid between April 1 and December]

An allegedly valid OMB Control Number appears to have been issued to Census as appears on this web site:


(select Dept of Commerce from the first drop-down list)


  IF there is a "-C" suffix, then this implies that there are at least, possibly more than, FOUR DIFFERENT CENSUS FORMS, such as "Rev 0" (the original with a valid OMB COntrol number) and THREE PHONY VERSIONS or more. If so, those in excess of Rev 0 are illegal.

(Im borrowing "Rev 0" from engineering documentation as an illustration, there is no Rev number on the form)

 One of the questions after Q # 1 asks if the respondant is HISPANIC.

I have contacted our Congressional Rep. twice on this, no response yet. I have contacted a half dozen media outlets, no response. There wont be any.

There is no such thing as a Control Number with an ALPHA SUFFIX.

Look at this site, who are PARTNERS? ACORN. Groups out to count HISPANICS to load the apportionment to the Democrat/Leftist side with Hispanic voters. Especially if they VOTE TWICE:


"Partners" are ACTIVISTS out to increase the count of Hispanics, Indians ("other than white") for the OBVIOUS reasons, to get more Democrat votes.

Critical question: If they are legal residents, why bother? Wont they respond and be counted?

It may not be about that, its about, IMO, targeting the AREAS in which they live with political advertising. Illegal, maybe not, deceptive and divisive, underhanded? Absolutely

Do you think theyll prosecute you, an objecting Conservative White (or any other conservative race)? NO. They want to UN COUNT you.

Posted by Dave at 2:15 PM PDT
Updated: Wednesday, 6 October 2010 11:23 AM PDT
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Funny- Katie Couric didnt tell us about this....
Topic: Economy, what's left of

"The Federal Reserve is purchasing $1,250bn in MBS through March. Mr Hoenig said that it must shrink its balance sheet as quickly as possible while being careful and systematic."


Neither did KEPR-TV, whose lead story last nite was BEDBUGS. Guess why I don't watch KEPR? With no national/world content, and nothing happening locally, theres nothing to report?

Is it coincidence that the same Fed is "draining $1T from the money market? Doesnt "drain" sound innocent? I think "steal" is more accurate.

 Fun with math:

$1,250 B is $1.25T. At $ 250K per house with an underwater mortage, that's five-million houses. At 2.5 persons per house, that's 12.5 MILLION people. Where are they living? Do they have money in money market funds that Timmy G is going to steal? Obamas dog has a nice warm house to live in, what about the dogs of these people? (pandering to the dogs who read this Blog)

Reuters reported on 5 Feb 2010 that 38.2 million people are on food stamps. That guarantees they can't pay a mortgage, above or below water.

So if theres any correlation among the figures, the number of underwater mortgages might DOUBLE. 

Hope? Change?  I hope I dont get any change.

I'm no world renown economist, I just read and tell about what I see. I keep looking at Obamanomics, trying to add 2 + 2 and keep getting 3.6.

It's sad that I have to read the papers in EUROPE to get the news about HERE. 

Posted by Dave at 8:39 AM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 17 February 2010 8:43 AM PST
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Im not the only one finding sadistic humor in the Economic crash...
Topic: Economy, what's left of

 Heck, I must be a professional investor - Im OUT. This article is too important to excerpt, so for EDUCATIONAL uses, Ill repost the entire thing, with the irresistable comments in [[brackets]].


Dead Cat

by Robert Kiyosaki riday, February 12, 2010

Dow 5,000 in 2010? [[Im holding my breath for it!]]

In my last column I predicted a “dead cat bounce” in the stock market and a possible Dow plunge to 5,000 this year. Obviously, many readers mocked my prediction.

But understanding the dead cat bounce is vital, especially in today's market.

Simply put, a dead cat bounce looks like Diagram 1 below:


The market crashes, rebounds, and runs out of steam, then crashes again…unfortunately, and possibly, to a lower low.

[[NOT a higher low. Through countless hours and days of watching stock charts, I've learned one thing, the "big investors" show their hands in profit taking, they tip their hands and show the highs and lows they are willing to get in and out at. No reason to get back in above the recent low, why not drive it down to lower-than-low? A friend recently got a memorable a** kicking after making 20K on a certain stock, then putting it all back in before the insiders had ridden it back down. He got back in high, they deflated it right back down to where they had taken it last time, and he lost big time.]]

When professional investors observe a dead cat forming, many will begin to sell. If their selling leads to a panic, the stock market goes even lower.

[[I did. I sold already except for a modest amount in share certs that Im holding for true long term on LVLT. They and ATT are Internet II. Im gonna be there when it happens, especially since I got the shares for FREE...]] 

Putting today’s numbers to the dead cat diagram gives this topic more meaning.

In 2002, the Dow hit a low of 7,286.

In 2007, the Dow hit a high of 14,164 


In 2009 the Dow fell and stopped at 6,547. 

Dow 6,547 is where the market stopped falling and the dead cat bounce began.  At 6,547 the market was oversold and buyers came rushing back in, looking for bargains. The Dow headed back up, and a bear market rally began.

[[But only a SMALL NUMBER of buyers. It is a HOLLOW recovery. Modulate the charts with the number of shares traded and youll get a surprise. There is no recovery, because while the numbers are up (the Dow is at 10,000) that only tells part of the story, how many SHARES are bought up to 10,000? Darn few. So, while the price level is up, the amount of money put back in is small, and itll not take a large withdrawal to crash it.]] 

On February 5, 2010 the Dow closed at 10,012.

On February 12, 2010 the Dow closed at 10,099.

What Does This Mean?

So the question is, “What do these numbers mean to me?” The answer to that question depends upon you. If you are a bullish person, you will be optimistic, reassured by these numbers, and looking forward to the Dow breaking 14,000 soon.
If you are bearish, you will be waiting for the dead cat to finally die and for a double dip recession to begin.

One of the theorists (and writers) I follow is Richard Russell, a wise sage who is in tune with markets and the madness of crowds. He has been in the business for about 50 years, so he has the wisdom and perspective of time. Lately, he has been writing about the ‘50% Rule’ of Dow Theory. I thought I would pass it on to you because it may assist you in seeing the future of the economy, even if --like me -- you do not trade in stocks.

The following is my interpretation of the ‘50% Rule’ using real numbers.

In 2002 the low of the Dow was 7,286.

In 2007 the Dow hit a high of 14,164.

The ‘50% Rule ‘number is 10,725…the halfway point between 7,286 and 14,164.

In 2007, when the market headed down and broke 10,725, professional traders who follow the Dow Theory ‘50% Rule’ knew what was going to happen next. On March 9, 2009, the crash stopped at Dow 6,547.

[[Hold a million shares of XYZ in 2002, it DOUBLES in price in '07. Doubles in 5 years. Per- annum return is? Wouldn't you sell compared to the pitiful "10% per year in the stock market" that most individual investors are advised to be satisfied with? All it takes is enough suckers to put their shillings in for the taking.]] 

On that day, what I believe is a ‘dead cat bounce’ began as the market moved up.

On January 19, 2010, the Dow stalled at 10,725 and headed down again. This is spooky. The 50% rule came true.

The next interesting point is 7,286, the low of 2002, when the rally began.  According to Russell, if the Dow holds at 7,286 and begins a rally, this might be a good time to buy. But if it fails to hold at 7,286 and slides past 6,547, then look out for dead cats dropping from the sky. Russell predicts that Dow 1,000, the number at which the Dow began its rally in the 1970s, may not be out of the question. If that happens, there will be millions of baby boomers joining the dead cats falling from the sky as their 401(k)s and IRAs implode.

[[People, if this doesnt bring you next to tears, I fear for you. I've predicted Dow 800. It's not worth arguing the extra 200 points. What people don't stop and think about re. gold (for example) in citing that "its gone up from $750 to 1100 and may go to 2500" is that it can just as easily go to its historical low, which is....  do you know? I do, which is why I LAUGHED (laughtd out loud at them on the phone) at Monex the last time they called - "you think Im stupid enough to fall for 30 % on the upside, when the down-side is $300 w-a-a-a-a-y back in 2001. Wait a minute, that's not "way back" - that's YESTERDAY" They took me seriously when I called the recent low in silver - to the week and nickel then didn't understand why I wouldn't buy.


Lest you be fooled by Monex' 10-year chart, go where I do for historical commodities data - USGS - they have no axe to grind:



There's much more to it than just price per ounce.]] 

Other Markets

This ‘50% Rule’ may apply to other markets such as gold, the hot commodity of this era. 

In 1971 gold was $35 an ounce. I began buying gold in 1972 when I was a pilot in Vietnam, watching the Vietnamese panic when they knew the U.S. was not going to win the war.

Gold hit a peak of $850 an ounce in January of 1980.

Gold dropped to a low of $252 in July of 1999. Obviously, I bought a lot of gold in 1999.  Gold was at an all-time low because Central Banks, such as the Fed and the Bank of England, were dumping gold in an attempt to protect the value of their counterfeit currencies.

[[Notice he waited till the "all time low" instead of following the herd mentality and buying on the uptick out of fear we'll be left behind. "Left behind" is just as fictional here as it is in religion. And dont fall for the "inflation adjusted price" - the price can fall to ZERO, and zero is zero.

And IMO, we are back at the "protect their counterfeit currencies." If so, welcome to the coming gold crash.]] 

According to the ‘50% Rule’ of Dow Theory, when the price of gold was passing $600 an ounce(halfway between $850 and $252), a rally in gold was on. When gold passed $600, mainstream financial experts began warning of a crash in the price of gold… stating that gold was in a bubble.

Today gold fluctuates between $1,000 and $1,200 an ounce.

[[I played a version of this in 2007 with LVLT and DOUBLED my money in 3 MONTHS by following someone (an insider, I assume) who was playing 5M shares regularly, up and down. I'd stay in for about 50% up, then 50% of that 50, then bail out, ride it down to before where "they" got in at, and I got back in. I was not placed well enough to know when "they" are going to buy and sell so I had to get in/out a bit before top/bottom. It worked. It DOES NOT work now because there is no rationale in stock trading. Stocks are wandering around like little lost sheep.]] 

Is Gold in a Bubble? 

When you factor in inflation and devaluation of the U.S. dollar, $850 gold in 1980 is $2,500 an ounce in today’s dollars. In other words, gold might be at 50% at $1,200, which is the highest of highs. Could there be a run to $2,500?

Your personal answer to that question will depend upon how confident you are in Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, President Obama, and Wall Street. If you have faith in our leaders of commerce, don’t buy gold. If you do not have faith in them, maybe you should buy gold or silver.

If the dead cat bounce dies and the Dow drops to 5,000 in 2010, as I predict, then the price of gold and silver may die with the dead cat of the Dow, as investors cling to cash. The next question you need to answer is, “If the Dow dies and the price of gold and silver drop, what should you invest in at the bottom…stocks, gold and silver, or cash?”

[[the answer in 1929 was cash, and Im there now, just waiting for hyper inflation....]] 

I know what I will do. I will buy more gold and silver. Why? The answer is because I trust gold and silver more than Central bankers, the Oval Office, and Wall Street. Gold and silver have been real money for thousands of years.

 [[Flawed logic many fall for, yes, gold and silver were money for thousands of years, but they aren't now - if but for their industrial uses, what are they good for? Ill keep as much as FDIC allows in cash, some in the platinum group metals, maybe some in silver but forget about gold, its not practical for trade.]]

The Lost Decade

The people I am most concerned about are the average investors who have bought their financial planner’s advice of “Invest for the long term in a well-diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds, and mutual funds.”

[[Long term is good for the planner, NOT FOR YOU. They advise what makes money for them. Yes, "long term" as long as prices are rising.]] 

Many investors are calling the past 10 years The Lost Decade. That means those who invested for the long term in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and cash are long-term losers. Japan has been in a Lost Two Decades.

A ‘lost decade’ means:

1.  Zero job creation.
2.  Zero economic gains for the typical family. Home values are down and   many families owe more on their home than the home is worth.
3.  Zero gains in the stock market.

Over the next few months, it is important to watch both the Dow and gold. As I write, the Dow is around 10,000 and gold is at $1,000. If the Dow breaks 7,286, the 2002 low, and continues down below 6,547, the 2009 low, watch out below. If 6,547 is broken and gold passes $2,500 an ounce, you'll have even more to worry about.

[[Problem - stock prices now have NOTHING to do with company fundamentals, just as gold has no real tie to the dollar. Gold isn't worth 'diddley squat' if industry is flat-lined, at least with stocks, the paper certificate is directly related to a corporation with tangible assets, which, I believe, is related to the dislike for bonds the Chinese have right now, US bonds are based on what besides a smoking hole full of debt?


And another thing to watch, the 10 A.M. EST price rises have ceased. Go pick a dozen stocks at random and look at their trends at 10 AM, then look at them a few months ago.]] 



Posted by Dave at 6:06 PM PST
Updated: Tuesday, 16 February 2010 6:18 PM PST
The Liquidity Trap -Trap
Now Playing: around with a theory
Topic: Economy, what's left of

 A thought has occurred to me, related to this mornings reading at Forex:


 " Reserves are generally defined to include total governmental holdings of gold, convertible foreign currencies, Special Drawing Rights, and net reserve positions in the International Monetary Fund. "

The "liquidity trap" is the concept, and now FACT, that liquidity is missing and the conditions for it's generation (escape from the trap) are missing and both are from the same cause, thus, an inescapable trap. Catch -22

And now -problem-squared:

Not only is there a liquidity trap (U.S. economy) and not only is it inescapable as Hamou teaches (not examining whether his positions are correct or not, its a theory) but SOBamas Simulus (sarcastic rendition of "stimulus") truly just that - simulated. He/they have produced no 'working capital.'

  What were looking at in SOBamas Simulated financial rescue is far worse than infinitely illogical (it didn't work the last time, proving insanity to try again) its infinitely FRAUDULENT.

Follow the Yellow Brick Road:

1.) the economy crashes, more exactly, banks lost huge sums of money on various risky investments such as betting on horses that werent in the race. This leaves a large hole in their reserves. Take something out, there's a hole left, simple logic. They want the hole filled with OPM.

2.) They made bets on something non-existant and must pay it off in something tangible. Money? Seashells? They sure CANNOT fill it with credit because credit does not exist. All credit is is the negative transfer of wealth.

3.)  Along comes SOBama and Timmy G. and "create a couple trillion dollars in liquidity" to throw into the bankers gaping maws (or pick another orifice). It does the predicted NO GOOD. Nothing happens. Is this because of the liquidity trap? Maybe not, since if you give me $1T, Im NO LONGER INSOLVENT. If Im insolvent and you give me credit, where am I?

To take no action is an action, but the result is also nothing. If Im broke, giving me credit does nothing but make me BROKER, because I now owe INTEREST.

Did anyone see SOBama and the Federal Reserve PRINTING $1T in PAPER MONEY? There wouldn't be any trees left if they printed that much paper. The largest US currency denomination is the $100 bill. How many trainloads of them are in $1T? Answer - ALL of them. How much LABOR would be required to distribute (loan) it?

  Just for fun, find out the capacity of the F.R. to print money and calculate how long it would take to print a "T."

No one printed anything- it was all a smoke and mirrors based ledger entry.

  But in an odd way, an intelligent risk, loan nothing towards an infinitely large risk, a guaranteed loss. The result is "no loss". But also, no positive effect, which is precisely what we've seen.

 And now, for something completely different- the largest financial scam in history- SOBama and Timmy are running their own Ponzi scheme. They are making Madoff look like a rookie.

SOB/Timmy G. loan nothing but a ledger entry(ies) to banks (oh, wait- a ledger requires paper, silly me), who do nothing with it- heck, they can't afford to put Management time towards it at a ROI of almost zero, the PAYROLL will eat them up. The first is evidenced by the second. They all claim that the money (which never existed, there was no paper, gold etc.) was somehow 'absorbed by the system' and now they have to "drain it from money market funds."

Ah-ha! The worlds largest fraud ever with the Donation of Pepin in second place. Now, they steal something tangible from the markets to, in pretense, fill an imaginary hole with non-existing funds and the net is theft of, oh, say $1T from some nebulous entity known as "money market fund" to replenish the loss, which was not a loss in the first place as it was never tangible to lose.

  But wait - who or what is "money market fund" to be raided for some non-threatening, P.C. - sounding action like 'drain?' If something is 'drained,' then there must BE something there TO DRAIN. Something tangible or, in financial terms, some real liquidity.

  Problem is that if the "drainers" don't own the tangibles and are not also the "drain-ees", SOMEONES GETTING SCREWED OVER BIG TIME, and worse if those someones are none of the parties above.

 Thats probably YOU. I got out of any money market linked account.

Create a crisis. Cause a debt, loan out something non-existent, wait a short time till the media cycle and Public forget what happened then call in an imaginary debt paid back in real funds.

Thats how I see an entry in the economic play-book, let's see if they run with it. 

Apologies ahead of time, just found this little jewel and its irresistable as it is absolutely correct: 

Posted by Dave at 9:21 AM PST
Updated: Tuesday, 16 February 2010 11:02 AM PST
Sunday, 14 February 2010
WARNING-WARNING- DANGER-DANGER Initiatives I-1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065
Topic: Constitutional

GREAT ideas behind them, but these Initiatives are so POORLY WRITTEN as to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL themselves, or void, or subject to attack in the Courts.

 READ THEM CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING THEM. Read them on the front page here:


 Yes, there is ample word-smithing and joking around on this Blog, but that is all set aside now for the following statement:

"There is a SERIOUS lack of English literacy, communications and critical thinking skills in the State of WA and that is evident in these Initiatives."

Recall in grade school when wed turn a paper in and the Teacher would say:

"I know what you mean, but youre not writing it clearly..." 

Thats the problem with these Initiatives, they are copy-cats of other proposals (Intra-State firearms in Montana) but are so loaded up with useless verbage and un-Constitutional provisions to render them, in my opinion, MORE DANGEROUS than the mess we have now.

Example from I-1065, Greenhouse gas Initiative

 "(5) "Toxic greenhouse gas" means any greenhouse gas that multiple
confirmatory scientific studies have proven beyond a reasonable doubt
is directly toxic to life under normal circumstances."

Whats wrong:

a.) There is no such thing as "greenhouse gasses" because that presumes the greenhouse effect is correct, thus the term. Vague, contradictory, void

b.) CO sub-2 IS TOXIC, try BREATHING IT for a few minutes. A "few minutes" is all you can breathe it, then ye shall be DEAD, because CO-2 is DEADLY TOXIC to humans:


Main Entry: 1tox·ic Pronunciation: \ˈtäk-sik\Function: adjective

1 : containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation <toxic waste> <a toxic radioactive gas> <an insecticide highly toxic to birds>

HUMANS CANNOT LIVE WHEN BREATHING CO-s therefore it is TOXIC. Since CO-2 is TOXIC, the language of this Initiative is null and void.

Example from I- 1059:

"(1) Any law-abiding citizen of Washington state has the right
under the United States and Washington state Constitutions to protect

 NO, THEY DO NOT, because NEITHER CONSTITUTION grants Rights to Citizens. HAVE YOU READ THEM? If Rights are granted by the Constitutions, then the C.s can be AMENDED to remove those rights. EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. BOTH Constitutions FORBID Government from INFRINGING, they DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS.


another dangerous provision:

"(2) Any law-abiding citizen of Washington state has the right to
defend himself or herself, unless he or she is in the act of
committing a crime, without interference from federal or state

Dangerous because:

a.) law is now presuming to grant rights, which it has no power to do

b.) all it takes to circumvent this is to declare possession of Arms a Crime and the Cities in WA are already attempting to do that - this is what Pre-Emption is about.


 "(3) Law-abiding citizens of Washington state shall not have their
firearms, ammunition, or other means of ensuring their constitutional
rights of self-defense waived,"

Poorly written, the subject is incorrect. The premise is limiting the Fed from action in the State, but the subject is the WA Citizen. Again, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, it is simply referenced in the Constitutions as something that Government SHALL NOT INFRINGE UPON.

The "law abiding" phrase is also dangerous, all thats needed to circumvent that is to declare all Citizens who own/possess firearms as criminals and this is voided. And again, the CITIES in WA State are trying to do that RIGHT NOW.

This one is particularly poorly written (I-1062)

"(1) The tenth amendment to the United States Constitution
guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to
the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to
the state and people of Washington certain powers as they were
understood at the time that Washington was admitted to statehood in
1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract"

W-R-O-N-G. Have we ever READ the Tenth Amendment?

a.) It is not "tenth amendment" it is Tenth Amendment. We CAPITALIZE the Proper names of persons, places and things. We have people ILLITERATE of the rules of English crafting legislation! It is "States", not "states."


c.) powers are NOT granted to the "federal government"  - GO TRY TO FIND A "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" in the Constution! IT IS NOT THERE. It is "not delegated to the United States." To cite "federal government" defeats the Constitutions and this Initiative because it re-defines the Constitution into something the Framers did not intend. The Constitution forbids certain actions on the United States, whether it is expressed in a federal government or not.

d.) why re-write the Tenth Amendment? Why not just CITE IT DIRECTLY.

"(2) The ninth amendment to the United States Constitution
guarantees to the people rights not granted in the Constitution"

IT DOES NOT. HAVE YOU EVER READ IT?   IM reading it right now, and the ORIGINAL, NOT A MADE UP VERSION. Here it is, QUOTED, not my opinion:

"The ENUMERATION in the Constitution of certain rights..."

IS NOT a creation of a right, it ENUMERATES  RIGHTS that exist elsewhere.

Heres another danger:

" (4) The second amendment to the United States Constitution
reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right
was understood at the time that Washington was admitted to statehood
in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract
between the state and people of Washington and the United States..."

Since when do the Constitutions hinge on UCC? Contract? I dont think so!

A contract is a legal construction. Our Constitutions are NOT bound by LAW.

"(5) Article I, section 24 of the Washington state Constitution
clearly secures to Washington citizens, and prohibits government
interference with, the right of individual Washington citizens to
keep and bear arms."

 NO, the Constitutions prohibit Government from INFRINGING, not "interfering." All it takes to circumvent this game is to define "interfering" in a way that is pleasing to the gun grabbers and  this is void.

"NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. (1) A personal firearm, a firearm accessory,
or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in
Washington and that remains within the borders of Washington is not
subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration,
under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce."

 Yeah, tell us something we dont know already. That protection ALREADY EXISTS, therefore there is NO PLACE for law to stick its nose in the matter.

"The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms,"

Since WHEn does the WA Legislature have the authority to circumvent the US Constitution and tell Congress, elected of, by and for the People, what its authority is? That topic is already defined in the US Constitution. Why state the obvious?

This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in iteself:

" (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
(a) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(b) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than one and one-
half inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a
(c) Ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion
of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(d) A firearm, other than a shotgun, that discharges two or more
projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing

This prohibits frangible ammunition, which is currently not regulated.


They dont exist, and this is PROOF that these Initiatives are created by Subversives, for they act to SUBVERT BOTH CONSTITUTIONS:

Main Entry: sub·vert Pronunciation: \səb-ˈvərt\ Function: transitive verb

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French subvertir, from Latin subvertere, literally, to turn from beneath, from sub- + vertere to turn — more at worth

Date: 14th century

1 : to overturn or overthrow from the foundation : ruin
2 : to pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith

The FOUNDATION of our Nation is /are the Constitutions, and these initiatives attack BOTH CONSTITUTIONS and attempt to subvert their limitations on government by placing the C.s within control of Law, where the GUN GRABBERS IN OLYMPIA can tear it down.


 Its not good enough to say that a Toyota accelerated and caused an accident, we have to say "why" and fix the problem. Here, the fixes are simple:

1.) Eliminate the attempts by whomever wrote these Initiatives to re-write History and sound intelligent, and just limit the wording to the matters at hand

2.) REPEALING ALL FIREARMS laws in required, because they ALL INFRINGE.

3.) Without flowerly language, dont play games with Sherriff First, just set it out straight:

'No Feds in our Sherriffs jurisdiction" without his permission. PERIOD.

4.) These Initiatives are as USELESS as existing Laws which dont work, because they carry no penalties for Govt violating them. Place specific, substantial CRIMINAL PENALTIES in them for anyone trampling on Citizens Rights.

You can tell these are bad Initiatives by two methods:

1.) the anti freedom gun grabbers in the Legislature will not object to them


Posted by Dave at 10:55 AM PST
Updated: Sunday, 14 February 2010 11:52 AM PST
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Pay attention to this one
Topic: general rant/rave



Alleged missiles spotted over Newfoundland

Residents of N.L. report seeing flaming “bullets” in the sky

Thursday, January 28, 2010 6:05pm - 36 Comments

Three long, thin glimmering “bullet-like” objects with tails of fire and smoke were sighted in the sky off the southern coast of Newfoundland on Monday. Resident Darlene Stewart of Harbour Mille, N.L. was snapping photos of the sunset when she saw the first mysterious object; her neighbour Emily Purdy, who viewed it through binoculars, said it looked like “a humungous bullet, silver-grey in colour and it had flames coming out of the bottom and a trail of smoke.” The witnesses say the alleged missiles were visible in the air for roughly 15 minutes. Gerry Byrne, the MP for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, said Thursday, “It’s not making any sense and nobody’s providing any real answers, so questions are mounting.” Neither government officials nor the RCMP have confirmed the sightings."


... and see how fast it disappears. 


Posted by Dave at 4:56 PM PST

Newer | Latest | Older