« November 2011 »
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
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics
and now, Benton?
Constitutional  «
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
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
How the 19th Amendment has destroyed America
Topic: Constitutional

 A total stranger, a patriot, laid this on me last week. Its not often Im caught intellectually totally blindsided, but this did. He said that whats wrong with America is the 19th Amendment, and if it were eliminated, it would remove the radical political influence of the "Oprah crowd" (paraphrased)


Theres a much bigger danger that has caused FAR more damage than that.


The US Constitution was drawn up to do TWO and ONLY TWO things:


1.) Establish Government


2.) LIMIT government


Ex. :The Constitution says CONgress (and only CONgress, emphasis on "CON") can make war. Thus, CONgress is established, given authority and the President has no authority to declare war. POTUS is not granted that ability.


The deadly disease that the 19th Amendment unleashed was to change the scope of the Constitution from SOLELY determining what Government is, to establishing-effecting and affecting CITIZENS rights.


Once that floodgate was opened, it was right downhill. Stupidity has appeared like "the Second-Amendment grants the Right to Bear Arms. NOTHING is further from the truth, if one can simply read English and diagram sentences and understand dependent and independent clauses, one sees that is utterly false. 


Posted by Dave at 7:12 AM PST
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Traitors at MAIG
Topic: Constitutional

 ITs called TREASON. Subverion at best.



Posted by Dave at 9:57 PM PDT
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Showdown at the OK Corral
Topic: Constitutional

Since when does a military commander decide he wants to ignore chain of command and do what he pleases?


Read my March 24 blog entry about the Executive Coup underway in the White house:


Then read this:


Two problems:

1.) The may as well be traitors in CONgress who have let the Traitor in Chief go this far, only to object when their own careers are on the line, are not the answer, they are the PROBLEM

2.) This may result in SHTF since it may/will hurt or stop the Coup attempt. A dictator (Oscammer) needs a dedicated military to take a country over, and right now, hes practicing in Libya to get familiar with it. I think the term is "bananna republic?"

Its time for the Marines to take over in DC, we have nothing but a back stabbing cabal of traitors there. Take over, dismiss the Administrative Agencies in total (they are NOT government, so no Constitutional objection to doing so) and remove Obama, place him on trial for treason (illegal and un Constitutional use of military in Libya is sufficient, and proven), then "suggest" Congress get its head out of its ass and get back to the PEOPLES business, not Obamas and not the corporatist State.

And SURE not Obamas using the military to keep both them and the corporate military contractors in business. Its bankrupt the Nation.

Bring them home. Fuck Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, Iraq- let them have a big war, pick a winner, THEN go kick the winners ass if necessary.. Only an IDIOT gets in the middle of a fight... 


Posted by Dave at 12:24 PM PDT
Friday, 10 June 2011
imaging expert says Oscammers b.c. is a scam- FBI complaint
Topic: Constitutional


 A 12 year old can both see this supposed c.l.b. is a fraud, and create it themselves, all is needed to do is copy/paste a block of image on a different colored background (in this case, black text/white background upon light green)

 It does take an expert to press the issue.

Posted by Dave at 6:23 PM PDT
Updated: Friday, 10 June 2011 6:24 PM PDT
Thursday, 26 May 2011
If THIS isnt full blown TREASON in the White House, WHAT IS??
Topic: Constitutional



And my comments:============ 

Several problems here:

"Congress should “exercise” its power to cut off funds for the U.S. military operation in Libya"

 That wont work, theres a cocoon of existing financing and contractors to work from, that wont stop it. Black budgets. Military contractors that are armed and trained just like the real military (except without the ultra expensive hardware like stealth bombers)

Here is what WILL stop it:

"Obama initiated without seeking congressional authorization."

ARREST HIM ON TREASON CHARGES. He deliberately and willfully violated his Oath of Office. He is DELIBERATELY undermining the authority of the Legislative, law (why did he revoke his law license before becoming Pres?) and the Constitution.

He is DELIBERATELY ignoring Congress, Constitution and LAW in WAGING PERSONAL WARS:

"Gerry told the Constitutional Convention--which approved his and Madison's language--that he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.""

ONLY Congress has the power to make war. Arrest Obama on INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMES.

Congress needs to bring the US Military in to seize the Executive (no, this isnt just about Obama, its the Administration thats the problem), it is out of control, it is in violation of its Oath and acting without regard to Separation of Powers.

This, now, is not about Obamas hypocritcal stance on war,it is deliberate, premeditated usurpation of Congresses role and deliberate disobedience to the People and their Constitutional limitations placed on the Executive.

There IS an Executive military coup underway. Its being stealthily introduced through an attempt to chamelion the Executive Order language and process to slowly attempt to make EOs appicable as Public Law, instead of simply binding on Agencies and contractors:

(24 March entry)

People, there is a full blown  South-America style EXECUTIVE MILITARY COUP UNDERWAY IN AMERICA. Notice the EOs are going away from 'only binding on Administrative agencies' (more or less employees of the Executive)
and 'judicial review'

This is about the stealth funding and manpower appropriated by the Executive (not Obama, it was built before he came along) to build a dedicated militant force under control of the Executive. This along with political alliances, are the ingredients for all dictatorial takeovers, political allies, especially in the military, then using the military to take over the country.

The game here is to either opportunistically use, or invent, a radical Islamist threat (it at least has a real element) , create and exercise this personal military force overseas (condition the Public to its existance) then use it HERE under the guise of some grave domestic threat.

Id recommend you bend your Congressmans ear NOW before its too late...

PS this isnt about Obama, hes just an uninitiated Rookie in a line of a cabal thats been orchastrating this for years. This is about Constitutional Separation of Powers and preserving the Constitution.

Posted by Dave at 8:34 AM PDT
Monday, 2 May 2011
Traitor Obama- subversion of the US Constitution
Topic: Constitutional

"Obama's "under the radar" assault on the Second Amendment is underway. One seemingly minor change in enforcement lays the groundwork for bans not just on importation, but also eventually on sale and possession, of several popular shotgun styles. And it is all taking place virtually undetected and unopposed because, as Obama himself has stated, it is "under the radar." The compliant media and even major gun-rights groups apparently have their radar turned off."


Posted by Dave at 10:08 AM PDT
Friday, 29 April 2011
WND on Obamas forged birth certificate
Topic: Constitutional


 Look at the blown up image (fourth image from top) look at the check mark closely.

unlike the signatures, which appear to be liquid ink on paper, THE CHECK MARK IS DIGITIZED. Its made of SQUARE PIXELS.


they didnt have ink pens that could make lines out of little square blocks in the 1960s.

Also, the check mark lines are perfectly straight. 


Posted by Dave at 10:53 AM PDT
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
The fundamental problem with the Police State- "odor of marijuana not probable cause"
Topic: Constitutional
Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Massachusetts’ highest court is siding with pot-smokers against the police.

From The Boston Globe
:  The state’s highest court ruled Tuesday that the odor of marijuana smoke is not enough for officers to order a person out of a parked car, now that possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is no longer a crime in Massachusetts.

Without at least some other additional fact to bolster a reasonable suspicion of actual criminal activity, the odor of burnt marijuana alone cannot reasonably provide suspicion of criminal activity to justify an exit order,” the court ruled in a 5-to-1 decision."


And, of course, I cant resist an opportunity to educate: 


The real issue here is the imposition of government on the realm of the Private Citizen. Our legal system where the Legislative (law making), Executive (enforcement) and Judicial (deciding, balancing) was intended, is intended, for the PEOPLE TO EXERCISE, NOT GOVERMENT.

Has Party A wronged Party B? Then A can Petition Government for redress against B but should not do so unless and until B refuses to make good.

But here comes Totalitarian Govt usurping the place of the People by sticking its nose in where no substantial harm is being done. Some kid has a bag of pot in his car? WHO THE F IS HE HURTING?

NO ONE. no one to bring a complaint. But theres the scam, the Police State fabricates a "need" based on Public Security (its not their job to make public security) to step in.

Has anyone brought a complaint about the kid with pot? NO. So, leave him alone and go chase REAL CRIMINALS, there are probably a few in City Govt.

A parallel to consider is the notion of "standing" in court, does the one coming to the Court have "standing" or a first hand reason to be involved (a bystander just watching an accident not injured has no part in a suit for injury or property damage). Do the Cops have any reason to get involved? Yes, when the motive is "tickets for PROFIT"

Is drinking and driving dangerous? Yes and No. Yes to the drinker, maybe to someone else. So what if A is D/D, has it HURT ANYONE ELSE?
If not, then there is no complaint, for which is inherently harmful:

a.) driving
b.) drinking
c.) D/D
d.) D/D , causing an accident and injuring someone else

D is inherently harmful and actionable, but the Jack Booted Police state doesnt get its jollies by only concentrating on D.

Like Chuck Norris character Mc Quade said

"Kid, if I locked up everyone who took a swing at me, half of Texas would be behind bars"


Instead of whining that this one prosecution (which will waste a lot of money and not go very far) was to no avail, realize its an opportunity to devote Govt/Police resources to REAL CRIME.

 But the blind in one eye and deaf in the other can see thats not the M.O of Government, its more like "allow the Mexicans to traffic tons of drugs across the border, distribute them across the nice new NAFTA highway we built, allow the high and mid level dealers to thrive on the guise of "we need to monitor them for years to have enough evidence to prosecute" and instantly harass the Ordinary Citizen in the street for having some g.d pot smoke in his car.

 This proves beyond a doubt that their goal is harassment of Citizens and total police state takeover.

Wanna stop the problem? Two simple steps:


2.) tell the dealers "were watching and know youre doing it" That will put and END to the problem. But the State doesnt WANT THE PROBLEM TO END BECAUSE ITS PROFITABLE.

Posted by Dave at 9:25 AM PDT
Thursday, 14 April 2011
the "term limits" scam exposed
Topic: Constitutional

Sometimes ol dave might look slow, but tis only an illusion. Im off thinking about the next topic to write about.

 Far from the reactionary Liberal, I look at a current issue then spend weeks/months thinking it over.

Something was bothering me about this "term limits" scam Email floating around, especially since the people who refuse to think (especially troubling when its in the Tea Party) simply jump on this subversive bandwagon without noticing where its going.

Right to hell is where its going, and Ive finally figgered out the scam behind it. Its extremely slick!

There are already "term limits" in the US Constitution, and Ive written about that here, and written to the TP also.

The critical question is "what does term mean?" "Term" means "how long" and thats established in the C.

What this scam email is proposing is not term limits, but re-election limits based on the idea, passed off easily on people who are not paying attention, of "eliminating the bad apples."

The more obvious problem is that it also eliminates "good apples." 

Thats not what its about. It finally hit me what it was about, oddly enough, watching re-runs of "24" (since there isnt crap else on TV fit to watch)

In this particular day, President Palmer has been removed from Orifice by the Cabinet over the nuclear bomb detonated over NV. One of his advisors is credited for 'having been around a long time and being in tune with whats going on' (paraphrased)

then it hit me - term limits are about keeping CONgress full of the uninitiated who DONT KNOW WHATS GOING ON and are easy to bullshit.

If so called "term limits" are imposed, it keeps CONgress full of people who dont know what the shadow Government known as the Administration are up to, and its an ongoing game.

 When CONgress and pRESIDENCY are inhabited by the uninitiated, they are easy (easier) to lead around by the nose by the Administration (Exec. departments such as FBI CIA NSA IRS DHHS DoAg DoE where agendas are kept alive for years, outside of teh reach of the term limits imposed by the Constitution.

Sorry it took me so long to figger it out... 


Posted by Dave at 12:26 PM PDT
Friday, 8 April 2011
NICS numbers- you extrapolate from here
Topic: Constitutional

From - I dont know where, received from a reliable source.

" The Beat Goes On: The March 2011 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 990,840 is an increase of 15 percent over the NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 861,408 in March 2010. For comparison, the unadjusted March 2011 NICS figure of 1,437,709 is an increase of 11.3 percent over the unadjusted NICS figure of 1,291,618 in March 2010. The adjusted NICS data was derived by NSSF by subtracting out all NICS purpose-code permit checks used by several states such as Kentucky, Iowa and Utah for CCW permit application checks as well as checks on active CCW permit databases. While not a direct correlation to firearms sales, the NSSF-adjusted NICS data provide a more accurate picture of current market conditions…

--NB "
"While not a direct correlation to firearms sales,"
It IS a direct co-relation, it just may not directly indicate the actual number.  It is, because NICS checks (unConstitutional as they are) are required for new firearm transfers, so the figures at least represent new guns into the system. They dont reflect individual (used) sales, but im not interested in those numbers.
My estimate is North of 110 MILLION  firearm owners at maybe 3 each and 10 BILLION rounds.
Makes the Son of  Bitch in Chiefs Federal police force of 400,000 look kinda paltry, eh? 
 I just got an ad from NatchezSS on tac back packs, limit of one/cust due to demand.
While the Communist Media are carefully keeping it quiet, firearm and related sales are OFF THE CHARTS. 

Posted by Dave at 10:20 AM PDT
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Comments to the herald and US Reps in re S. 32
Topic: Constitutional

LTE to the Herald:


Comments to our US Representatives in re. S 32 (high capacity firearms magazine legislation)

"In re S.32.

Here is the US Constitution, 2nd Amendment- its PERFECTLY clear:

"...the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

How did S./R. _________ vote on S 32?

Any part of SHALL NOT that is unclear? I dont see, in the US Constitution either:

1.) exception to that limitation that allow servants of the People to usurp the limitations we place on them

2.) limiting terms that define "arms"

3.) limiting terms that define the age of "people"

I trust S ________ has not violated her/his OATH to SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

Remember, the Constitution DOES NOT grant rights, it FORBIDS Senators and Reps from infringing on those rights."

Regardless of the fiction that the Legal system has created that makes the Constitution subservient to law, it is not. In fact, the WA State Constitution incorporates the US Constitution as "law of the State."

It is unforgiveable to:

1.) violate the Oath of Office in making unconstitutional laws that infringe on the Peoples rights
2.) use tragedy (Giffords, Arizona) to push a political agenda.

Posted by Dave at 10:01 AM PDT
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
TREASON AFOOT (S 32) high capacity magazine ban
Topic: Constitutional
The following info is from the US Senate website:


References to Federal Code is from Cornell LII:


  S 32 is titled

S.32 -- Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (Introduced in Senate - IS)"

or, as I rephrase it "the Treason Afoot Act of 2011" but thats just me (and millions others)

and makes it illegal for MINORS to posess high capacity firearm magazines, defined as those with capacity, or easily modifiable to hold, more than ten (10) rounds.

The sentence from S. 32:

"To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes."


S32 modifies USC TITLE 18  PART I  CHAPTER 44 § 922 to include a sub-section

(v)(1)(A)(i) appending sub section (v) which reads:


"[(v) , (w) Repealed. Pub. L. 103–322, title XI, § 110105(2), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2000.]  (x)  (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile

  (A) a handgun; or

  (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun."

S32 apparently applies to MINORS along with restrictions on MINORS posessing handguns and handgun-only ammo.

1.) THAT IT APPLIES TO MINORS FAILS TO NEGATE THE TREASON AFOOT. There is no definition of "We the People" or "Citizen" that imposes age limits.

2.) Note that IMO, the new handgun ammo converter devices essentially negate the restriction on handgun only ammo as it can be fired in a RIFLE.

Isn't THIS strange, as I write this, Im listening to Roxettes "Fireworks" song which is repeating:

"Theyre coming to get you now" - "watch the fireworks, fireworks in the sky")


 Since WHEN does Government Of, By and FOR the PEOPLE have authority to declare Minors to not be CITIZENS and deprive them of their rights? WE THE PEOPLE NEVER AUTHORIZED IT.

I MIGHT agree with this legislation if it specified "connected with the comission of a CRIME" so as to have some more teeth with which to deal with crime and criminals, but such wholesale assault on Citizens Rights is TRAITOROUS.

Do We the People need to do as in Egypt and direct the US Military to take posession of Washington DC and remove the TRAITORS THEREIN who constitute "domestic" enemies of this Nation, ?

The above paragraph is a posit and is not intended to advocate or effect takeover of the cabal in DC, not known as "the US Government" because it ISNT....

Posted by Dave at 10:46 AM PDT
Updated: Wednesday, 23 March 2011 10:53 AM PDT
in re the local papers Mexican bias
Topic: Constitutional

The local RAG ran a story making wholesale attacks on voters for making the area a worser place for not voting Hispanics into office.

THATS a great way to expand readership!


 in re voting for Hispanics in government.

I vote for only Americans.

"Hispanic" is not a qualification to hold Office.

When "hispanics":

a.) become Americans legally and become one of us instead of thriving on division,
b.) adhere to our Constitutional system of Government

then I'll vote for whomever is the best candidate.

If "they" (Heralds divisive term, not mine) are Citizens qualified to hold office,
then they can run for election. This is not the issue.

The "issue" is straw arguments and ad hominem attacks on Voters for somehow making the world a lesser place for not voting Hispanics into office. Slandering Readers is not the way to sell papers.

  It's contradictory to claim hispanics are a majority of the population thus should be in office, and in the same breath, claim they are minorities. "Majority" and "minority" are not a qualifications for office.

  Subversion of the Constitutionally and legally established qualifications for Election
are not within the scope of the Heralds incorporation.

  The Herald is manufacturing a crisis, pro-hispanic agenda fully unfurled, engaging
in division and national-origin/race/gender bating. I thought we were over that in America?

"Hispanics" - aren't you tired of being manipulated?


Tired of being SLAVES in orchards too?

Posted by Dave at 9:52 AM PDT
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Go Jesse! Lawsuit against T&A - INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS RANT
Topic: Constitutional

"Ventura filed his lawsuit Monday, January 24, 2011 in Minnesota and news reports have named David Olsen as his lawyer. The former governor has indicated that his suit will include violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 4th Amendment, arguing that he and others with disabilities have been discriminated against and unduly singled out by TSA despite presenting no threat and warranting no reason for lawful search. Further, Ventura has argued that his ability to travel freely has been infringed, hampering his ability to work."



 Individual rights, Right to freedom from unreasonable search, in this instance. Some VAGUE, INVENTED THREAT is NOT grounds for search of an individual unless cause can be shown that THAT PARTICULAR PERSON is a threat.

Random searches are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 Same with the 2A, the Right to Bear Arms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, thus, not subject to the restriction of 'only within the scope of an organized Militia'


Posted by Dave at 7:40 AM PST
Monday, 24 January 2011
Straw argument- criminals dont have 2A Rights
Topic: Constitutional


"Criminals have no right to posess firearms" 

 Sounds reasonable, doesnt it? It sounded reasonable to join the JONESTOWN CULT. They all died for their trouble.

I heard Jim Jones on shortwave years ago, it was CLEAR he didnt have A screw loose, they ALL were loose...

Whats wrong with this notion? Whats mainly wrong with it is that its fronted by so called "gun advocates" who didnt learn anything from recent history.

Cases in point:

1.) there was a report on the Polk Co, Florida S.D. website  of an ex con (or current con, dont recall exactly) whose house was broken in by another criminal. Apparently he (the first con) had no way to defend himself. Shouldnt he be exercising HIS UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS? The words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED HAVE NO QUALIFIERS.

Who needs to protect themselves MORE than ex criminals? Or current criminals? AGAINST OTHER CRIMINALS.

2.) You think its OK to deprive people called "criminals" of their Right to Bear Arms?


thats what happened in Castros Cuba, and EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN NEW ORLEANS during KATRINA.

Declare Martial Law, declare ANYONE bearing arms as Criminals.

And thats EXACTLY what many States Laws hold.

 This is the problem with the twin ailments of the Stockholm Syndrome and ingrouping/outgrouping. Look those terms up. 

Posted by Dave at 10:13 AM PST
Updated: Monday, 24 January 2011 10:28 AM PST

Newer | Latest | Older