• About
  • Blog (Ext.)
  • Books
  • Contact
  • Education Resources
  • News Links

PERRIN LOVETT

~ Deo Vindice

PERRIN LOVETT

Tag Archives: Courts

ObamaCare Unconstitutional…again

16 Monday May 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on ObamaCare Unconstitutional…again

Tags

America, Congress, Constitution, Courts, criminals, government, insurance, law, ObamaCare, taxes

Well, not so much the law – the Supreme Court said it was a-ok. The problem, the illegality is in the manner in which the administration is making payments to insurance companies under the law.

The Constitution says “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” [Judge] Collyer noted, but the administration has continued to pay billions to insurers for their extra cost of providing health coverage.

“Paying [those] reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution,” she wrote. “Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.”

Federal judge rules Obamacare is being funded unconstitutionally, L.A. Times, May 16, 2016.

The Ruling will probably be overturned on appeal. The Judge is 100% correct about Congressional appropriation. However, the Constitution is as dead as a hammer and the government gets what it wants. In this case it wanted a new tax (even though they didn’t know it was a tax at the time – thank you, John Roberts, for the clarification). The tax is designed to funnel money to insurance companies (“billions to insurers”). Those insurers wrote the law in order to get the free money.

Approximately the same number of Americans are now uninsured as were before the law was enacted. The difference is that many have to pay a sizable tax every year because they are uninsured. Those with insurance pay higher premiums under the law. The net effect is: no new coverage for the uninsured and; massive profit for the insurance industry of America (second only to the banks in political power/thievery).

Mull this over, if you will. Hillary and Bernie will not change this. The Donald and the spineless Paul Ryan will not change this. Those latter con-men only talk about “repealing” Obamacare and “replacing” it with something else written by the insurance lobbyists.

Google.

Hope and change ain’t making America great. It’s all making a certain sect of criminals richer than ever – at our expense as usual. Keep on voting!

Divine Justice?

06 Friday May 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Divine Justice?

Tags

Courts, God, government, Israel, law, Natural Law, statism

A crazy man in Israel tried to get a restraining order against God. I did not make this up.

The unnamed Haifa resident, pro se, “argued that over a three-year period God, had exhibited a seriously negative attitude toward him, although details of just what divine mischief he had borne the brunt of were not mentioned in the report.” Previously the man sought assistance from the local police, who instead chose to conduct welfare checks at the man’s home.

The judge denied the petition and suggested the man needs help from “other resources”. That probably means from a shrink. If psychology isn’t behind the man’s problems then he should consult his Torah and the trials of Job. Sometimes bad things happen to good people but rarely without greater reason.

This story illustrates a growing philosophical trouble in America, in Europe, and it seems in Israel. Modern people are placing inordinate faith in government – replacing the authority of God with that of the state. It is rightly the other way around. Positive law flows from the Natural Law which is a divine construct. God is originally behind all of our attempts to legislate and govern (some attempts truer, sounder than others). This would include courts and restraining orders. Heck, it includes the surrounding greater universe too.

The old maxim is “let justice be done, though the heavens fall” not “let Heaven fall for justice”.

The Keys of Our Prison

04 Wednesday May 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on The Keys of Our Prison

Tags

America, Brady Motion, Constitution, Courts, criminal justice, evil, Fifth Amendment, fraud, freedom, government, law, Sixth Amendment, State, The People, tyranny, voting, Will Grigg

Here follows a brief political discussion I had once with old Jethro.

Jethro: “If you ain’t got nothing to hide, you ain’t got nothing to worry about.”

Me: “So the government is constantly worried?”

Jethro: “Huh?”

Jethro: “We need to get back to tha Constitution.”

Me: “Why?”

Jehtro: “Cause the liberals done got the government out of control.”

Me: “You want to go back to the thing that created the very out of control government you’re complaining about?”

Jethro: “Huh?”

Jethro: “We gotta have a government.”

Me: “No. We don’t. Maybe you gotta have one.”

Jethro: “Huh?”

They never found Jethro’s body…

Jethro was spared further lamentation about the Constitution and the liberals and all. I sometimes miss him. At least he cared in a strange way about the state of things. Most folks don’t have the slightest idea what is going on around them. If, by strange chance, they happen to learn something, they immediately self-lobotomize with dope, booze, or the demon television.

Will Grigg knows what’s happening and he tries to affect changes by chronicling the endless fraud and evil of the state. He’s one of the best bloggers and investigative reporters of the day. His column de jure, Take the Fifth — And Face Life Imprisonment Without a Trial, highlights the death of the Fifth Amendment. He also briefly reviews the death of the Brady Motion. Death of the Sixth Amendment, that is. And the death of the impartial and honest judiciary. And of law enforcement. The law itself. Actually, the story is an expose of the complete loss of everything within and without the Constitution not related to unlimited government power.

Last August 27, after Rawls refused to comply with Rueter’s facially unconstitutional order, the judge found him in civil contempt and ordered him to be taken into custody by federal marshals and imprisoned until he repudiates his right against self-incrimination. A motion filed by his defense attorney received a judicial reply citing a smirking, sucks-to-be-him statement from a 1994 Supreme Court ruling that someone facing the prospect of life imprisonment, without trial, for civil contempt “carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket.”

Rawls, in other words, can unlock his own prison only if he hands over his encryption key to the State – which will inevitably find some reason to send him back to prison.

Those rights, as set forth in the old parchment, are in practice and reality only privileges the government can take away on a whim. The Constitution, the liberals, and all. ISIS. Budweiser. ‘Merica.

This kind of thing happens day in, day out and has happened for years out of mind. It will go on for at least a little while longer. It’s not hidden away. The depredations of the state are always on display at all times for all to see. And still! Still the people support “their” candidates for this and that office with the glee normally associated with a favorite sports team or a rock star.

Yep. Notbeinggoverned.com.

News flash! The Donald will not fix these problems. Hillary will not fix them. Crazy Uncle Bernie won’t do it either. Support the system if you want to. Just remember that doing so means you use your key to lock yourself in their prison.

Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis! Or television … your choice.

Exile of Justice: Snowden Offers to Return for Fair Trial

21 Sunday Feb 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

America, Constitution, corruption, Courts, crime, DOJ, due process, Edward Snowden, Fifth Amendment, freedom, government, jury, justice, law, NSA, Sixth Amendment, The People

Three years ago Edward Snowden worked as a contractor for the National Security Agency. Alarmed by the NSA’s massive invasion of privacy and violation of civil liberties he leaked thousands of pages of classified information about the program to the public. His revelations were really nothing new; anyone with both eyes open could have learned the truth about the spy agency’s sinister agenda nearly twenty years earlier. They watch and listen to everything and everyone constantly. It’s conceivable that even as I type this article an NSA computer is dissecting it. Certainly within minutes of my official posting the electronic analysis will be completed. The whole thing will be archived. If the computer senses a threat, I will be passed on to human analysts.

Most of these people spend their days on Facebook or playing video games. Usually they miss alerts. That’s good when it comes to dissenting bloggers, bad when it’s ISIS. However, if a human verfies a possible threat, an investigation may ensue.

Again, if the danger is real and the investigative methods legal, it is a good system. There are plenty of real bad guys out there. As for the method, most electronic gathering is accomplished via open air interception. Anyone with a good enough scanner can capture a host of free floating transmissions. If you want your communication secure, either encrypt it, mask it, or don’t transmit it.

Snowden discovered that when open intercepts aren’t enough the government will illegally wiretap and spy as necessary. The illegality comes from a lack of warrant, lack of probable cause, and a total absence of oversight.

Acting as a whistleblower he disclosed this scheme to the public. As thanks the American redneckery and law and order, evangelical types branded him a traitor; the government declared him a fugitive. He now lives somewhere in Russia.

His choice of refuge turns geo-politics on its head. Thirty years ago Russia was a communist dictatorship that kept the people in line through spying and intimidation. Back then America was a freer country, a proud defender of the rights of the citizenry. Things change.

Snowden faces prosecution and assured imprisonment for decades should he return home. Yesterday, via video, he told a group of New Hampshire based libertarians he is willing to come back and face the music – conditionally. “I’ve told the government I would return if they would guarantee a fair trial where I can make a public interest defense of why this was done and allow a jury to decide,” he said.

lady-justice1

Google.

The whole affair is pointless to begin with. Three years later nothing has changed. No tangible evidence of damage to national security has manifested due to the leaks. Another holder of classified information, who leaked the same, is a leading contender for President. The people, most of them, never heard Snowdon’s warning in the first place. Those that heard forgot having more important things to attend – television, tattoos, football, etc. The NH libertarians are part of the .003% that get it. They represent a statistical outlier, an anomaly not worthy of official consideration. The NSA spies on, unhindered.

If Snowden ever returns and is prosecuted, he WILL NOT receive a fair trial. Such things simply do not happen in 21st century America. In fact, the American courtroom is the last place one should expect to find justice. No one gets a fair trial. Most don’t get a trial period. Snowden knows this. Thus, he lives abroad.

He and his attorneys have explored a plea deal with the feds. Most criminal cases end in pleas rather than trials. This is because people understand the system is so corrupt, it is usually better to accept a shorter jail term by coping to lesser charges. There have been exceptions. I recall a woman in Alabama who, faced with criminal tax charges, took the IRS to court and won. James Trafficant did the same thing in the 1980s. Both were plain lucky.

Snowden is looking for something different. He asks that his trial be conducted according to the Constitution. The Sixth Amendment requires: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury … to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” It mandates due process of law. That will not happen.

The particular charges are tantamount to Treason, one of the three specifically enumerated crimes in Article One of the Constitution. I’ll give the government that solid ground.

An indictment against Snowden has already been issued by a federal grand jury. Such juries used to be an independent check on prosecutorial misconduct. Today they merely indict as ordered by the U.S. Attorney, being no more than a tool of the DOJ. Defendants do not have a say in the process and the government can present any information, true or false (frequently lies) anyway it wants. Thus, fairness has already been compromised.

The Fifth Amendment mandates Due Process and prohibits double jeopardy. Rest assured that if, by odd chance, Snowden beat the charges, the government could then charge him with something else. Or, they could declare him a material witness, enemy combatant, material witness enemy, leprechaun or any other term(S) they make up and just imprison him. Just because they can. They could also just kill him without pretense or explanation. Just because.

In between the grand jury’s lapdogging and the double jeopardy potentially lies the trial. At trial the government controls everything. They get to present any type of evidence they like, often as a surprise to the defense. The defense is discouraged from attacking said evidence even when it is demonstrably false. The judge will move heaven and earth to keep defense friendly information out of the show. Occasionally defendants try to put the government on trial too. Judges, being government agents themselves, try to stop this. Remember, Snowden could bring in thousands of pages of documents damaging to the state. His ultimate argument could be that even if he technically broke the law, he only did so to expose worse behavior by the feds, thus he is really innocent and should be acquitted.

Such argument leads to potential jury nullification of the specific law as applied to a specific defendant. This is not a theory but an ancient design, a final check against corruption where the entirety of the legal and factual circumstances are left to the enlightened determination of the jury. Judges will defy the laws of physics to try to stop this from happening.

Then there’s the jury itself. Ages ago juries were a collection of intelligent men who were peers of, actual friends of the defendant. Being his friends and knowing his character they could weigh the presented evidence against their knowledge, thereby forming a reasonable judgement.

Today elaborate safeguards are in place to ensure jurors have never heard of the defendant let alone be his friends. The government wants dumb submissive jurors who will easily go along with what they’re told. Modern society makes this a given. A jury is usually nothing more than twelve stupid, poorly dressed, uninterested saps who may just as well be assembled of random midnight Wal-Mart shoppers.

This is the program to which Snowden would return. Sad, yes. Comical, perhaps. Fair? Anything but. Luckily, modern Russia is a pretty nice place.

 

 

 

Somebody Went to a Convention and All I Got Was This Lousy Constitution

09 Saturday Jan 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Somebody Went to a Convention and All I Got Was This Lousy Constitution

Tags

10th Amendment, 16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, America, Cicero, Congress, Constitution, Constitutional Convention, Courts, evil, freedom, government, Greg Abbott, Jonathan the Tortiose, law, States, The People, Washington

About twenty years ago Newt Gingrich and the Republican party foisted upon the people something called “the contact with America.” It was a typical hollow pledge to do great things – cut the budget, reduce debt, make life freer and happier, etc. It was a gimmick and for that purpose only it was a success. I think every single provision failed. In fact, we got the exact opposite – less freedom but more of everything else government.

The masses love a good gimmick. They also have short memories. This makes for good political sport. As carnival goers flock to one rigged, losing game after another so do the people cheerfully fall for a never-ending assortment of grandiose election schemes.

All this leads me to Jonathan the Tortoise. At age 183 this remarkable reptile is the world’s oldest living animal. Over the long-span of his blissful, apple eating life Jonathan has outlasted dozens or scores of Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congresses, Kings, Queens and various other con artists and criminals. Maybe by the time the spry, jolly turtle turns 283 the world will have outgrown the foolishness of the state.

All this leads me, back around from Jonathan, to the current governor of Texas, Greg Abbott. Greg has proposed the nuclear option of the political gimmick world – a Constitutional Convention.

Actually he has called for a convention of the states which is really the same thing but substitutes idiots in Congress with idiots in state capitals. It’s in Article Five of the old parchment.

“If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America,” Greg said to a gathering of policy hacks in the Lone Star State. He proposed to restore that rule of law by adding yet more laws. (What’s a little more sand on the beach?)

His proposal itself ran on for 70 pages and outlined a host of new Constitutional Amendments (more laws). Tully once reminded us that more laws mean less justice. Truly, it only ever results in more government. Fuel on the fire and such.

I would happily support, even participate in, a convention if its sole purpose was to abolish the United States. Of course, even that would only buy a few generations of liberty. People like government and heaps of it. Anyway, here’s a look at Greg’s potential amendments and what they would and wouldn’t do. (All following proposals taken from Dallasnews.com; my remarks italicized).

Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state. We already have this protection; it just doesn’t work. Congress can only regulate activities affecting interstate commerce which, over the past century, has been defined as anything. Stating something twice does not deter tyranny.

Require Congress to balance its budget. I almost like this one but I imagine there would be no controls on the amount of the budget nor on how the balancing might be achieved. The thieves could always print money or pile on more taxes as necessary and without end. If the current state system must be maintained, then a better limit would be to ban debt, establish a private gold currency, and abolish taxation completely. In other words, and as it once was, Washington would be left to beg the states or the people for funding without guaranteed results.

Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.
Prohibit administrative agencies from preempting state law. These agencies are not allowed under the Constitution in the first place. Better to put an end to them and their Byzantine rules altogether.

Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Congress has the power to override the Court or even preempt it as is. It just doesn’t use the power. The States gave up their claim on Congress via the 17th Amendment. States would be free to ignore Court decisions but that might endanger their federal funding. They gave up their money with the 16th Amendment. Almost like a plan or something.

Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law. See my answer immediately above. Also, every once in a while the Supreme Court needs to rule on important Constitutional issues, democratic or not. Democracy, mob-rule with a fancy name, should be shunned in civilized places.

Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution. This might mean repealing 16 and 17 Amendments. It might also mean the exact same as the 10th. The Empire is already so limited on paper, by law. Again, there is no magic in redundancy.

Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds. Proper redress under the existing law is carried out in Congress. On paper, that is. In reality, there is no redress. Given the self-imposed legal interference I noted previously, I do not see the value in shifting venue between the branches. Also, as Greg seems to have an aversion to federal courts, this one seems self-defeating.

Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation. I think I’ve covered this already. Those states have essentially given up their authority for cheap federal fiat money. It’s called getting what you pay for. Any state is free to override or ignore any act of Congress it finds offensive. However, the cost is generally prohibitive, monetarily speaking. A really offended state is free to leave the union. But, then, there was the long, painful lesson of 1861-1865.

Another thing to consider is the woeful quality of the people who might attend and vote in the convention. The men who debated the Constitution of old may just as well done so eons ago on a planet long destroyed in some celestial cataclysm. People today obtain their worldview from babbling, paid for nitwits on television. Their “representatives” are the most loathsome, self-absorbed, and corrupt rodents to emerge from the political sewer since Roman times. Knowing who these people are there is no knowing what evil they might do given the chance.

As I have repeated here, repeatedly, repeating laws and policies does not make them stick. It just gives the vampire class more to feed on. One hundred years hence some other governor would likely call, again, for the same failed limitations already set forth in the failed Constitution. Einstein and insanity or something similar.

It would be refreshing if this turned out to be an honest effort, misguided as it seems.  I judge this a gimmick and unlikely to survive November’s slave suggestion box election. But for my reminder who would remember the GOP’s Contract? At any rate, these conventions move at a snail’s pace. It’s more likely than not the next big change in American law will be the implementation of Sharia.

Long live Jonathan!

2FDFF70300000578-3388423-It_was_feared_Jonathan_the_giant_tortoise_was_on_his_last_legs_w-m-51_1452165903037

Jonathan and friend. Dailymail. I would trust this dinosaur with my government more than any current politician.

Cry Me To The Moon: Obama’s Weak, Insidious Gun Grab

06 Wednesday Jan 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

abortion, Amercia, communism, Congress, Constitution, Courts, crime, due process, executive order, firearms, freedom, government, gun control, guns, idiocy, John Boehner, law, Obama, politicians, Putin, Second Amendment, terrorism, The People, tyranny, Washington, weak

As predicted here President Obama yesterday rolled out his “common sense” gun control edict. Edict it was, without any representative pretense. I saw a teary-eyed man surrounded by myrmidons issue a royal proclamation. Since the earliest days of the Old Republic chief executives have crafted executive orders needed to carry out the laws enacted by Congress. But, then, there was a distinction. Laws were debated and passed by the legislature nominally accountable to the people. Presidents issued orders concerning either compliance with those laws or with the very few duties existing in Article Two of the Constitution.

Today Congress rams through secret spending boondoggles that no one has read and no one outside of Washington and New York needs or wants. Members of the House and Senate live in their own little world far removed from reality. The current crop of pitiful presidents, of whom Barry is merely the latest, fill in the governing gaps with a series of orders which are in effect law. As with the actual legislation from Congress the executive orders are occasionally reviewed by the corrupt, incompetent courts. More often than not the black-robed sorcerers give deference to the political branches by allowing these fascist decrees to stand.

The Constitution slowly rots under glass. The people slowly rot amid their televisions, sports, fast food, and disability applications. Nothing remains of the old America except for old John Wayne movies and the proliferation of private firearms. At any other time in history this latter relic would be of utmost concern to the hellish legions of political scum.

The Second Amendment has been firmly if inexplicably cemented into the legal and political fabric of the nation. And everyone is armed – heavily. Not that it really matters. The most heavily armed people in the world have proven themselves unwilling or incapable of using their vast potential to fight tyranny. Disarmament is the final plank of the Communist manifesto needed to complete the conquest of the United States. However, by dumbing themselves down and by being fervently preoccupied with perpetual nonsense the people have rendered obsolete this otherwise crucial step. It’s as bizarre as any plot from The Twilight Zone.

Bizarre too was Hussein Obama’s Tuesday performance. I’m confident Barry and his clan of leeches and roaches would love to confiscate all private arms. But, again, he doesn’t have to. The people obviously are madly in love with the government and are willing, nay demanding, of any manner of deprivation.

So it was that the Whitehouse debuted some of the weakest gun control every seen. It was introduced in as weak a fashion possible too.

160105122318-obama-crying-gun-executive-action-sot-00004809-large-169

Obama channeled his inner John Boo-Hoo Boenher while a host of unemployable sycophants looked on in vacuous approval. CNN.

All of this was scripted and predictable. A corrupt politician seizes on a non-issue (gun violence). Grown men and women who should otherwise be at work gather in solemn support. The political rodent cries about the deaths of a few children (tragic, yes) but his tears are hypocritical. The same man uses his military to murder other children while signing legislation funding an industry that murders a million more babies each year. The loyal opposition is neither. The comatose people remain unconcerned and uneducated.

And he cried. Tears. A man cried on television while breaking the law. Cried. George Washington never cried that we know of. Putin does not resort to tears. ISIS must have laughed at this pathetic spectacle. The delivery is one reason I say this program is weak. Another is the minimalist, chipping-away nature of the plan.

Some of Obama’s garbage may be dismissed by the courts or over-ridden by Congress. It all should be. It’s all unconstitutional and illegal. However, I imagine some will remain intact and what survives will serve as precedent and a building block for further incremental infringement. This is the insidious side of the fiat decree. What the rats cannot accomplish by a serious ban of guns they will attempt through a series of small reforms.

The Whitehouse claims: “President Obama has a responsibility to do everything in his power to reduce gun violence.” The Constitution gives the President no such power. No mind. This claim is a lie; none of Obama’s proposals will hinder violence – only freedom.

As part of the lie the President uses some numerical smoke and mirrors:

Gun Violence in America: By the Numbers

MORE THAN 4 MILLION
Number of American victims of assaults, robberies, and other crimes involving a gun in the last decade

MORE THAN 30,000
Number of gun deaths in America each year

MORE THAN 20,000
Number of children under 18 killed by firearms over the last decade

MORE THAN 20,000
Number of Americans who commit suicide with a firearm each year

466
Number of law enforcement officers shot and killed by felons over the last decade

3
Number of days after which a gun dealer can sell a gun to an individual if a background check is not yet complete

         Whitehouse lies.

So, based on these one-sided figures, Emperor Obama is taking action! Notice the use of numbers over a decade rather than by the year? Notice the lack of data on lives saved by guns? It’s over a million a year or 10 million each decade. These numbers are equivalent to the number of children killed in abortion clinics or the number of violent jihadis Obama would like to import. Of course presenting all sides of the equation wouldn’t help the agenda. All lies, remember, in order to curtail freedom. Gun control does nothing to stop gun crimes. The government wants more crime so as to justify its continued existence.

If they wanted less crime and less violence they would concentrate on enforcing laws against real crimes (murder, rape, etc.) and not on plants, tax form irregularities and speed limits. They would stop stirring up terrorists only to ship as many as possible to America. They would stop murdering babies. That’s not the plan. The plan is to further burden innocent people.

Here’s how it may work out for us. Currently all gun sales by federally licensed dealers are subject to regulation and background checks. All of this violates the Second Amendment but more on that another day. Private gun sales are subject to nothing. That’s about to change. Obama is intent on unilaterally redefining what or who constitutes a dealer requiring a license and copious red tape. Want to sell or give a gun to your son, friend, or the dude on Craigslist? Just one gun? Congratulations! You are now a gun dealer! Ready your checkbook. The licensing process ain’t cheap.

Obama will also dramatically expand the ranks of those prohibited from owning guns via two steps. First, Obama and his cronies will order doctors to violate federal law (HIPPA) by reporting “mentally ill” patients to the FBI. The definition of mental illness will be left to unelected and unaccountable beaurocrats. Abuse will be rank. The FBI and the ATF will swoop in to seize weapons from those deemed mentally defective.

Certain Social Security recipients will also be stripped of their rights and their guns. The theory is that those deemed incapable of making certain financial decisions should also be deemed too dangerous to own guns. Who does the deeming and under what circumstances remains to be seen. This will address the epidemic of nursing home shootings you’ve heard nothing about.

Current illegal law restricts those convicted of felonies or adjudicated by a court to be psychotic. These restrictions are based on laws passed by the legislature not by one sick, crying man’s order. I say they are illegal because they are. They came about in the 20th Century in violation of the Second Amendment. If someone is so dangerous due to illness, defect, or criminal predilection, then they should be locked away somewhere. If released into free society, they should be free.

As problematic as the current law is at least it was passed through the legal process. It also requires Due Process. A felon must be convicted. The deranged must be legally declared so. It requires a trial or a hearing. It depends on legal representation, confrontation of witnesses, evidence, and an appeals process. Law and order stuff. The coming program will be based on whim.

Some pencil pusher will decide who is unfit to bear arms based on whatever factors the pusher sees as appropriate. Stormtroopers will be dispatched to forcibly disarm the victims or kill them if they “resist.” Should a victim survive it will be incumbent upon him to appeal the beaurocrat’s decision. He will bear all the costs and burdens of proof in this uphill battle. He, presumed innocent until proven guilty, will have to prove his innocence to a degenerate system.

This will all start small and slow. Tyranny usually does so begin. Some provisions may fall in court. However, if these reforms are tolerated, more and more will follow. Beaurocratic expansion is a constant.

Will this be tolerated? The NRA and the State of Texas have already murmured against the plan. Yet, I suspect the majority of our citizens will do nothing because they know nothing. Legal reality interferes with the fun of reality television and other trappings of modern stupidity.

The government and political establishment are counting on you to be complacent. The control freaks on the left will expect your appreciation for being shielded from nothing. The charlatans on the right will expect your votes so they can “fix” things. If placated, both will get what they want and collectively do nothing except more of the same.

A brave few will resist. A few more will cheer what they wrongly perceive as protection from the violent. Most will remain blissfully ignorant. Where do you fall?

New Year, Same Government

01 Friday Jan 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

budget, Courts, D.C., freedom, government, guns, jobs, Obama, Republicans, Second Amendment, standing army, terrorism, The People, trade, tyranny

Alabama and Clemson are on a collision course for the College Football Championship. That’s good. The administration is on a collision course with the Second Amendment. That’s bad. Sorry, no Archie Campbell funnies to follow.

Hussein Obama has a list of new years resolutions at the top of which is banning guns. He can’t do it outright: the law and 100 million armed Americans are against him. But he will try to sneak in a few executive orders in an attempt to abridge your rights.

His efforts, coming next week, are aimed at closing loopholes (aka the law) by placing more innocent people under the government’s microscope. The government is nothing more than a giant series of lies.

Hussein Obama claims he wants to combat gun violence, that he will preserve the right to bear arms while keeping arms out of the hands of an “irresponsible, dangerous few.” Lies. Smoke and mirrors. He wants more state control over guns, your life and everything else.

If he wanted to stop the irresponsible and dangerous he would disband the standing army and disarm federal agents. Better yet he would start to dismantle the government entirely. It serves no honest, legitimate purpose. If he wanted to combat gun violence he would try to get more people to carry guns in more places. An armed society is more polite and far safer than the alternative.

The people are justifiably concerned about terrorists. If Obama cared he would round up and deport, imprison or execute the terrorists. He dies not care. At all. He wants more jihadi savages in America so he will import more, many more.

He wants more foreigners period. He wants more visas for them and less jobs for you – no jobs, really.

If the foreigners can’t come here, then he will ship the jobs and money to them, i.e. ObamaTrade.

And, what will the beloved Republicans do about all this? Not nothing. No. They will go right along with the plan. Paul “Blackbeard” Ryan and company have consistently supported Obama’s health care tax, his budgets, his wars, his spying, his job-destroying trade programs, his immigrant, terrorism invasion, and anything else he wants. It is what they want. More power, less freedom.

The gun rules and the visa swarm may end up in court. The black-robed Sayers will be thrilled to have something to do. The problem is that, as with any bi-polar person or group, there’s just no telling what they will do once the mess hits the bench.

No money, no jobs, no guns, no liberty: Happy new year from your psychotic friends in D.C.

200xNxguncontrol.jpg.pagespeed.ic.XNtXdANPK7

Yep.

Powers Vs. Rights

16 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Powers Vs. Rights

Tags

America, anarchy, Articles of Confederation, Bill of Rights, Congress, Constitution, Courts, fantasy, freedom, God, government, law, law school, Liberty, Lysander Spooner, monarchy, Natural Law, politics, republic, rights, States, The People

This post concerns the force and effect of the United States Constitution and similar documents. I’ll stick with the U.S. version for simplicity and because most state and many foreign constitutions are based on the federal version.

The old parchment is divided into several articles and subsequent amendments. Each of these deals with different legal concepts. Article One grants certain powers to Congress. Article Two does the same for the executive. Amendment Three prohibits the government from sheltering soldiers in your house during peacetime. There are seven primary articles and twenty-seven amendments.

Aside from formal division the Constitution may be properly divided into two parts. Good Constitutional Law professors cover this in first year law school. The notice is generally lost amid a mad scramble to interpret Byzantine case-law and make a living as an attorney. The lesson is almost completely unknown outside of law and political theory education.

The first effective feature of the Constitution is that is allows powers for the government. In fact the Constitution created the federal government. In 1789 those seeking strong central political control replaced the Articles of Confederation which had loosely united the several (and wholly independent) states for a very few mutually beneficial purposes. The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, came along two years later as almost an afterthought.

The anti-federalists were concerned that certain fundamental rights needed official recognition and legal protection. Their theory was that a strong government, even of republican nature, could run roughshod over the freedoms of the people – like a dictatorial monarch. The amendments were added without much fuss as it was then concerned the new government, its keepers, and their successors would never seek to abridge such rights as freedom of speech, bearing arms, or freedom from illegal arrest and punishment. No one saw any harm in the additions.

The inclusion of those additional protections proved both prophetic and pointless. Those ten amendments and a few others comprise the other practical function of the Constitution – protection of individual rights.

In an ideal world government would only exist to protect people from those things they would be otherwise vulnerable to. The proper function of law and politics would be a careful balancing of the power of the government and the rights of the people. Powers versus rights. Some legal scholars still wax elegantly about the concept. Their conceptualization is largely just conceptual.

The new federal government lost little time in enacting various laws which curtailed individual liberty. The trend continues to this day in addition to the habit of constantly expanding the realm of federal authority light years beyond what the Constitution allows. The courts, allegedly the arbiters of the balancing test, have largely consented to this gross shift. They too wasted no time in inventing new authority for themselves – “judicial review” for example.

Any review usually ends up empowering the state. They are on the same team after all. The people, now bereft of representation and appellate avenues, are on the outside looking in. Lawyers gleefully await court decisions to tell them what laws really mean. The public, largely fat and ignorant, continues to support this corrupt system with astounding zealous patriotism.

As a result of all this what we are left with is a central government of unlimited power ruling over a nation of peasants who are happy to receive whatever liberty the rulers confer upon them. Every once in a while one or another branch kindly reaffirms some right. These are usually in trivial matters. However, the march to greater control never ceases. It works well as most do not favor freedom. Under the faux two-party system, most go along so long as their side wins on a somewhat regular basis.

In truth, they lose. We all lose. All except for the corrupt politicians and beaurocrats and their corporate crony enablers. The system is wrecked and bears nearly resemblance to even that central authoritarian regimes of the late seventeen Century let along an ideal state.

In modern reality ignorance abounds. Some speak of the right of the government to do some thing or the other. Governments have no rights as they are artificial constructs. Only human individuals have rights. These rights are natural, God-given. Governments can only protect or (more often) abridge those freedoms.

Others decry freedom outright. They declare the people have too many rights. For them, in their simple lives, they may be right. Argument for order and justice is lost on them and a waste of time.

There are those who indulge in the fantasy that a return to the original text and intent of the Constitution would usher in utopia. If this myth was anything but, I could agree with them. The federal government of 1791 would be infinitely better than what we suffer today. That of the Articles would be better yet.

The myth lovers assert the Constitution established a national government of limited scope. Maybe they are correct in theory. In real life no government worth its salt stays limited for long. Geometric growth of government is an iron law of political science.

bbnhyu66667

So it is with freedom and central authority. Mencken.

Lysander Spooner said it best of the lost war of Rights versus Powers: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” He elaborated: “A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government.”

I find my view of anarchy criticized at times as belief in fantasy. It is said that men, by their very nature, cannot be trusted for long to maintain free, peaceful association and mutual respect. This, sadly, may be true. It, then, is also true that an honest man, desiring to remain free, cannot trust a government, any government. Belief in central authority is thus misguided. Tell you what, you have your fantasy and I’ll have mine. The rest of you have a choice to make: support powers or support rights.

Piracy, Counterfeiting, and Treason

23 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Amercia, anarchy, banksters, Barack Obama, Congress, Constitution, counterfeiting, Courts, crimes, Federal Reserve, fiat money, freedom, G. Edward Griffen, government, green space chickens, history, inflation, law, Lysander Spooner, money, piracy, President, regulation, Ted Cruz, terrorism, The People, treason, War

This article was featured on The Perrin Lovett Show (with usual amateur production, etc.).

The United States Constitution sets forth a very few enumerated powers for the federal government – 18 to 30 or so, depending on how one reads the text.Several others could be imagined given a certain degree of lucidity. The modern law and political crowd obviously has a very vivid imaginations.

“Our” government now involves itself in literally everything. The pretense of following the Constitution was long ago dropped in favor of a do-all, end-all, all things for all people nanny state. This proves, as Lysander Spooner noted toward the end of the 19th Century, the abject failure of the Constitution. Either it enabled the growth and development of the current system or it was powerless to prevent it. Either way a lost cause for the liberty-minded.

Amongst those few, ancient powers were the prohibition and prosecution of but three specific crimes. Others, a few, could, again, be imagined based on the surrounding text.

Insanity, rather than imagination, best describes the current vast expanse of federal criminal “justice.” Today there are something like 10,000 crimes in the federal code – not all of them are even contained in Title 18, criminal laws. If you have a system where laws escape their designated place, you then have a problem. Worse, the various federal administrative agencies – none of which are found in the Constitution – write a bazillion regulations every year. Many of these carry quasi-criminal penalties.

One gets the idea that any and everything is illegal in America. It is. Possessing a “short” lobster is illegal. Owning a flower banned by a foreign government is illegal. Installing a toilet with a decent sized water tank is illegal.

Few of these laws were enacted to preserve order or to protect the public. Rather, they are intended to promote the government’s over the populace. The people seem to approve. That is, until they find themselves on the wrong side of a federal courtroom.

The average American commits three felonies a day – usually with no intent. Most of these go unprosecuted. Most are never known. Even if a violation is disclosed it is rarely acted upon. It would be impossible to persecute 300 million citizens on a regular basis. Unnecessary too. Prosecution is selective at best. It’s designed to make examples to keep the people in line.

Again, it started out with but three crimes. All the rest were left to the states for enforcement by statute or under our English heritage of common law. While a few cases of the three original varieties occasionally come up, these crimes are almost completely committed, these days by the government itself.

Counterfeiting

“The Congress shall have the power …To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, Section 8.

You, dear reader, must be familiar with the concept of the counterfeiter. It’s some dude in a basement with a press and green ink or a high-end color copier, who manufactures fake twenties for use at the supermarket. This does happen. However, it is dwarfed by the scheme enacted by the government in 1913 through the Federal Reserve Act.

That Act created the modern central banking system. One of those thirty or so enumerated powers in the old parchment authorized only Congress to create currency. Said currency was to be based only upon the determined value of gold or silver. It was thus real money, linked to something of intrinsic value.

Via the Act Congress abdicated its authority to a private banking cabal. They were literally given a monopoly to print money. A tenuous link was, then, in place which, on the surface, to the Constitution and the gold standard. The Act’s original language stated the new federal reserve notes could be redeemed at any time for either “lawful currency” or precious metals. It was a sly admission the new notes were something other than lawful. Funny almost but deadly.

This cozy arrangement allows the government an endless supply of debt by which to prop up its income tax scheme and bottomless spending. The tax also, conveniently, came along in 1913. Like a plan or something.

The cabal benefits by being able to loan themselves and their friends an infinite amount of money. You may read all about this process, dubbed the “Mandrake Mechanism” in G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island.

The downsides for you are several. First, you endure the loss of Constitutional government – lost to a despicable gang of criminals. Second, you loss buying power to inflation. The more of something there is, the less each individual unit is worth. The more money the Fed prints, the less the money you have buys. Prices rise accordingly. Incomes are always the last to increase; they are perpetually behind the curve.

The Treasury still has the ability to print real money in addition to the Fed’s funny notes. The last time it did so was in the 1960s in a bid to boost currency circulation. The gold link was weakened during the great depression (by a Democrat administration) and severed entirely in the early 70s by Richard Nixon (a Republican) (2 parties, remember…).

Piracy

“The Congress shall have the power … To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations…” U.S. Const., Art.I, Section 8.

This was a serious issue for the young Republic, being tied to European trade. It’s still an important issue. Ask Captain Phillips about piracy in the 21st Century. Again, however, the actions of the central government eclipse anything done by the hook and parrot set.

The government does not roam the seas looking for vessels to raid. Well, actually, they do. Most of their pillaging and plundering is conducted on land though. Piracy is synonymous with stealing. What doesn’t the government steal?

They get your money through taxes, fees, and insidious inflation. They get your flowers, short lobsters, milk, and produce. They get your arms, legs an lives through their endless wars. They get your children with their mandatory non-education system. They get it all. Pipe up too loudly about this theft and they bring out the guns – piracy. Everything, everywhere, everyday.

Treason

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason…” U.S. Const., Art. III, Section 3.

With the exception of the “Civil” war the government does not conduct military operations against itself. Sometimes one wishes the opposite. They do occasionally make war on us: whiskey tax protesters, poor coal miners, displaced veterans, Indians, those of Japanese ancestry, churches, etc.

The real crime they commit – constantly – is giving aid to our enemies. Any enemy they can find so long as the free people suffer. Piracy and counterfeiting (see above) are two good examples. Another example is the absolute infidelity to the limits of the Constitution. Yet again, the majority of the people seem okay with the ridiculous overextension of state authority – so long as they get (or are at least promised) some goodies.

A great example from the news of late is the American warfare/welfare policy concerning Islamic terrorism. The military trots around the globe in search of crazed radicals. Rather than defeating them, they stir the boiling pot. This allows for wholesale spending of the fiat money. It also gives them graft to loot. It also angers the hell out of already dangerous peoples.

As if that isn’t bad enough Washington then imports as many “refugees” to the States as it can locate. Screening be damned, they have a Civilization to wreck.

If any outsider attempted such unimaginable terror, it would be considered an act of war. As is, I view it as an act of Treason. The people may not go along with this one much longer. Not when Paris-style theater and sporting outings become the norm. Not when Sharia law emerges from the 7th century into places like Dearborn and Omaha.

What if anything can be done? I think reform is not an option. Many of my conservative friends want a “return to the Constitution.” That means going back to a document that was roundly ignored the first time. At best, it would reset the clock. This time around there’s no assurance the demise (eternal) would take so long to happen. They could just use history as a blueprint.

Congress, the President (any President), and their friends in beaurocracy and banking are non to eager to give up all that power and fun. The Courts have long since rubber stamped the insanity. It’s all okay because of the Necessary and Proper Clause, or the Welfare Clause, or the Santa Clause, or … Just because it just is.

Years ago, during a federal firearms case, I asserted the government’s lack of authority over firearms law as a defense for my client. I moved the court to dismiss the charges for lack of standing. I reminded the judge about Article One enumeration. I waived a copy of the parchment around like a fan. As I spoke there was a stunned silence. Attorneys are not supposed to uphold the law as I did literally.

My motion was denied instantly. My client took a plea deal and voided any chance of an appeal. Any appeal would have failed anyway. Law and order minus the law part.

These are not only my experience. Ted Cruz, whom I’m told is running for President, accessed the White House of ‘Counterfeiting Immigration Documents’

Given what we know about government, they probably did. They’re obviously getting away with it. This was a story about immigration too. Perhaps the merging of Treason and counterfeiting.

Speaking to Fox News following a federal judge’s decision to temporarily halt President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration, the potential Republican presidential contender said the commander in chief is ignoring federal law.

“One of the things it points out is the president has claimed, rather absurdly, that the basis of his authority is ‘prosecutorial discretion.’ That he’s simply choosing not to prosecute 4.5 million people here illegally,” Cruz told Fox News. “But what the district court concluded, quite rightly, is they’re doing far more than that. The administration is printing work authorizations. It is affirmatively acting in contravention of federal law. Basically, what its doing is counterfeiting immigration documents, because the work authorizations its printing are directly contrary to the text of federal law. It is dangerous when the president ignores federal law.

…

“We’re not going to disregard this federal court ruling,” Obama said, but he added that administration officials would continue to prepare to roll out the program.

We’re not going to ignore the law, we’ll just not abide by it. To hell with it… That, in a nutshell, is the government. What can be done? Not much right now. For starters though we could all cease to hold the state up on a pedestal of honor. The gallows would be more appropriate. Stop legitimizing the monsters. Shun the long enough and maybe they will go away.

Peterpan2-disneyscreencaps_com-1915

Arrrrrrr. Ye taxes and short lobsters I shall have! Disney.

Freedom: Waiving or Waving?

01 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Freedom: Waiving or Waving?

Tags

America, Constitution, Courts, crime, due process, DUI, freedom, Georgia, government, intelligence, law, Natural Law, police, reason, rights, The People, tyranny

Living in Georgia and having practiced law here a while I know something more about the legal and political environment of the State. In general, it is a broken mess. Yet, every once in a while, something good emerges from the murk of Peach State mediocrity. Recently, a federal judge held Georgia’s unconstitutional garnishment statute a violation of due process. Now, the State Supreme Court has aimed the same barrels at Georgia’s DUI law.

DUI laws, like drug laws (and most laws), are a failure. They do not deter dangerous driving. The continually high numbers of DUI arrests attest to this fact. The true intent should be to punish or prevent harm to the innocent. Other, ancient laws, grounded in Natural Law, can already do that.

The real purposes of modern DUI laws are three-fold:

One, they generate revenue for the useless government.

Two, they allow that government a degree of control over the people. In a free society it should be the other way around.

Third, these laws placate the ignorant, the state-worshipping, and those aggrieved few desperate for corrective action.

Failure aside, some hold dear to DUI enforcement (and not just the MADD moms).  Part of this is reasonable.  Most people drive and are potentially at risk of encountering an intoxicated motorist. Drunk drivers can afflict harm or death on others which is a bad thing. Other crimes are far worse but are much harder to understand or relate to – treason, currency debasement, suicidal immigration, toxic foreign policy, etc. Those evils are not quite so “in your face.” Still, if any crime is to be prosecuted, the enforcement must be carried out with respect for natural rights. The balancing is precarious but necessary if arbitrary tyranny is not a thing desired.

Georgia law states that by possessing a driver’s license and operating an automobile one automatically and impliedly consents to roadside sobriety and other tests in the case of a suspected DUI. An officer will read a driver an implied consent warning (they all carry little script cards) which, ultimately, gives the driver two choices. One, consent and forgo the rights against unwarranted searches and against self-incrimination. Two, refuse and suffer a suspension of the driver’s license – to the detriment of the right to freely travel.

The right to travel being universal, no state should issue permits for the same. States should also never place a person in a position of choosing which of his freedoms to sacrifice for the expediency of the government. There are proper investigative methods to solve crimes but usually the lazy state is dependent on the suspect’s cooperation or acquiescence. A man from a large metro-Atlanta county put an unusual spin on these concepts as part of his DUI defense.

John Williams was stopped in Gwinnett County for suspicion of driving under the influence. The officer read Williams his consent warning. Williams allegedly consented to a blood test which showed he was, in fact, legally intoxicated. The test would be the State’s primary evidence. Accordingly, Williams filed a motion to suppress the test results. He argued he was too intoxicated at the time, as demonstrated by the test results, to give his consent knowingly. “The defendant wasn’t actually capable of an informed waiver of his constitutional rights,” William’s attorney argued.

The trial court denied the motion but the Supreme Court held such argument must be considered given the importance of a suspect’s intelligent interaction with the legal system.

Catch twenty-two! Prosecutors are now in the position of arguing a DUI defendant was sober – sober enough to waive his critical Constitutional rights in a situation with serious (jail) consequences. If a man is so sober concerning important legal decisions why would he not also be sober enough to operate an automobile?

Caution Sign Isolated On White - Political Corruption Ahead

Thinkstock, Getty Images.

As a freedom advocate I do not hold much hope this ruling will have any lasting effects.  Trial judges and prosecutors could question the State’s witness as to whether he was satisfied, at the time, the defendant truly understood what he was doing. The General Assembly, ever eager to maintain control over its minions while providing them with the appearance of safety, could similarly change the wording of the implied consent warning.

I’ve seen such catches fall out in the government’s favor before.  I’ve heard a state psychologist testify a defendant was utterly insane.  So crazed he was a threat to society and himself and, thus, should be held without bond. So psychotic he lives in his own world, detached from ours. But, just for a brief second, while allegedly committing a crime, he knew and understood what he was doing. This happens all the time in America, a place from which honest reasoning has departed.

If the government maintains its war on intoxicated drivers (and it will), then it should rely on independently gathered evidence – evidence which does not involve the suspect’s compromised cooperation. Even better the state could concern itself with real crimes and the victims thereof.  If a drunk driver causes property damage or physical harm to another, there are many ways to address the malfeasance. Best of all, government being as failed as any of its laws, it could merely go away.

The best scenario will not happen anytime soon. Government’s hate to admit their failure just as much as they hate you and your rights.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Perrin Lovett

From Green Altar Books, an imprint of Shotwell Publishing

From Green Altar Books, an imprint of Shotwell Publishing

Perrin Lovett at:

Perrin on Geopolitical Affairs:

Archives

  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • June 2012

Prepper Post News Podcast by Freedom Prepper (sadly concluded, but still archived!)

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Join 41 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.