• About
  • Books
  • Contact
  • Education Resources

PERRIN LOVETT

~ Deo Vindice

PERRIN LOVETT

Tag Archives: rights

We are Ruled Over by Lunatics * (Prawo przez Lunatics)

10 Monday Aug 2020

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

≈ Comments Off on We are Ruled Over by Lunatics * (Prawo przez Lunatics)

Tags

11th Circuit, dead nation, education, Florida, law, LGBTQ+VP&C, lunacy, rights, schools, trans

Amerikan public “schools” do nothing but destroy Western Civilization. Gone are the days of even saying these dead institutions indoctrinate young minds into communism. They’ve succeeded so brilliantly that the children are now immune to programing other than that which leads to riots, chaos, white guilt, and chemical and surgical mutilation of the Image-of-God human body.

Wouldn’t you know it? “Conservatives” failed again. Read THIS OPINION from the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court, located in failed Atlanta, affirmed a Florida District Court ruling. Hooray! Mentally ill children can now use the restroom that fits with the confusion in their damaged heads. The Founding Fathers surely anticipated this trendy trend when they foisted the Constitution on the world. The useless Congress surely anticipated this development when they drafted the unconstitutional law relied upon by the court in justifying what at the time of the law-drafting was classified as a severe disorder. Now it’s a celebrated right.

Don’t, really, read the whole sad opinion. It’s 75 pages of fantasy drivel about a girl who wants to be a boy, the dead privacy of our (sane) children, and a mother who enabled the delusion. Just skip down to Judge William Pryor’s dissent, the only honest part of the paper. He even dared to do the math. What a “racist.”

I looked into the subject Jacksonville-area high school, as I sometimes do, and I was surprised that it is not abjectly failed as most of the schools, upon statistical inspection, are. First, it still bears the demographic appearance of Amerika, circa 1990. Amazing. And, somehow, their test scores are somewhat respectable. Interestingly, the present subject matter proficiencies that are much closer to their stated graduation rate than is ordinarily found. This incident speaks more to mass wickedness than to mass stupidity.

Homeschool your children while that’s still an option.

***

Amerykańskie publiczne „szkoły” nie robią nic poza niszczeniem zachodniej cywilizacji. Dawno minęły czasy, kiedy nawet mówiono, że te martwe instytucje indoktrynują młode umysły w komunizm. Odnieśli tak wspaniały sukces, że dzieci są teraz odporne na programowanie inne niż te, które prowadzą do zamieszek, chaosu, białej winy oraz chemicznego i chirurgicznego okaleczenia ludzkiego ciała obrazu Boga.

Nie wiedziałbyś tego? „Konserwatyści” znowu zawiedli. Przeczytaj TĘ OPINIĘ Sądu Apelacyjnego 11. Okręgowego Sądu Apelacyjnego w USA.

Sąd z siedzibą w nieudanej Atlancie potwierdził orzeczenie Sądu Okręgowego na Florydzie. Brawo! Dzieci chore psychicznie mogą teraz korzystać z toalety, w której panuje zamieszanie w ich uszkodzonych głowach. Ojcowie Założyciele z pewnością przewidzieli ten modny trend, narzucając światu Konstytucję. Bezużyteczny Kongres z pewnością przewidział ten rozwój sytuacji, kiedy tworzył niekonstytucyjne prawo, na którym oparł się sąd, uzasadniając to, co w czasie tworzenia prawa było klasyfikowane jako poważny nieporządek. Teraz jest to celebrowane prawo.

Nie czytaj całej smutnej opinii. To 75 stron bajek fantasy o dziewczynie, która chce być chłopcem, martwej prywatności naszych (zdrowych) dzieci i matce, która umożliwiła złudzenie. Po prostu przejdź do sprzeciwu sędziego Williama Pryora, jedynej uczciwej części artykułu. Odważył się nawet policzyć. Co za „rasista”.

Zajrzałem do przedmiotu liceum w Jacksonville, jak to czasami robię, i byłem zaskoczony, że nie jest to rażąco oblały, jak większość szkół, po analizie statystycznej. Po pierwsze, nadal ma wygląd demograficzny Ameryki z około 1990 roku. Niesamowite. W jakiś sposób ich wyniki testów są dość przyzwoite. Co ciekawe, obecne biegłości przedmiotowe są znacznie bliższe deklarowanemu wskaźnikowi ukończenia studiów niż zwykle. Ten incydent bardziej mówi o masowej niegodziwości niż o masowej głupocie.

Wychowuj swoje dzieci w domu, póki jest to nadal możliwe.

Polsko, stawiaj opór albo to ci się przydarzy.

Only an Idiot is “Shocked” that the FedGov Violates Civil Rights

11 Thursday Jul 2019

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Only an Idiot is “Shocked” that the FedGov Violates Civil Rights

Tags

Fourth Amendment, government, idiots, rights, travel

Of course, we have a multitude of idiots in Amerika. I’m sure most see no problem at all with tossing the Bill of Rights.

If you’re traveling outside the United States this summer you might want to rethink taking your electronics along. Government agents have been detaining American citizens without arrest, searching, and in some cases downloading the entire contents of phones, tablets, laptops, and other devices. And this all happens without a warrant or access to an attorney.

“The border has become a rights-free zone for Americans who have to travel,” Senator Ron Wyden said in a statement to TAC. “The founders never could have imagined that the government would be able to sift through your entire digital life, from pictures to emails and even where you’ve been, just because you decide to take a vacation or travel for work.”

Border searches of electronic devices have exploded at an exponential rate in recent years: in 2018, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) searched over 33,295 smartphones, laptops, and other electronic devices; up nine percent from fiscal year 2017 and over six times the number searched in 2012. And that’s just the statistics from CBP; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not maintain records of the number of electronic device searches it conducts.

“The government is accessing all your private data,” Sophia Cope, senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), told TAC. These “deeply intrusive” searches of electronic devices “reveal a lot about you: your emails, contacts, bank history, internet searches, medical history, social media usage, and political beliefs.”

A clear and clean strategy suggests itself. While citizens are locked in cages and searched and threatened, foreign invaders freely cross into the country, without hindrance and even with the assistance of the feds.

Illegal Invaders Have More Legal Rights Than You Do

06 Thursday Jun 2019

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Illegal Invaders Have More Legal Rights Than You Do

Tags

America, invasion, law, rights, TSA

Literally. This is what happens when the rule of law leaves a failed nation. As your rights are trampled, as you are filmed, poked, prodded, x-rayed, and interrogated, invaders from afar breeze through in admitted (further) violation of the law.

The federal agency tasked with overseeing security at transportation hubs has been violating its own policy by allowing migrants who have been released from federal custody onto flights despite not having required documents, according to several Department of Homeland Security officials.

For the past six months, the Transportation Security Administration has allowed migrants released from the custody of other Homeland Security agencies to board flights to other parts of the country despite the passengers lacking any of the 15 documents it states are the only acceptable forms of identification.

Since early December, the agency has avoided temporarily changing federal policy and also not introduced a permanent solution to address this new phenomenon, despite no indication border apprehensions and mass releases are slowing down any time soon.

This is the permanent solution. The new normal in an abnormal age. Y’all need to vote harder or something.

Disturbing News from the British Isles

26 Saturday May 2018

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

abortion, children, dark age, decline, England, freedom, immigration, invasion, Ireland, rights

Free Tommy Robinson! Free England!

Stefan Molyneux on the arrest and detention of the truth:

The arrest for “breach of peace:”

BACKGROUND STORY

With the Orwellian gag order by the Dishonorable, Un-English Judge Marson:

nimbus-image-1527355792731

And, that 2017 Twitter quote by Naz Shah, “Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity.” That was real, not rhetoric nor a joke. She was serious. She’s a Member of Parliament. She still has the job, walks the streets, and is allowed to remain in GB. But Robinson is in a cage.

Far worse news:

The Irish Vote to Murder Babies

The people of Ireland are set to liberalize some of the world’s most restrictive abortion laws by a landslide, two exit polls from a referendum showed on Friday, as voters demanded change in what two decades ago was one of Europe’s most socially conservative countries.

They actually voted to amend their constitution to refute the right to life for unborn children. This is progress for women and children. “Making history,” growled the Prime Minister. The “Justice” Minister called it “another big step out of our dark past.” The Minister for Children was an advocate of the vote – to take away rights and life from children.

Those Irish stereotypes come to mind for some reason.

The Queen has the power to stop this. Her failure to do so will completely justify the delegitimization of the Crown.

Nisi Populus Dei Nostri!

Eric Peters on How We Got Here

23 Monday Jan 2017

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Eric Peters on How We Got Here

Tags

America, Eric Peters, Fifth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, rights

This weekend the moms got mad and marched on Washington. Well, probably not so many moms – they have families to manage. Mad women. Womyn. Unhinged, incoherent, blue-haired womyn. Demanding something. Razors or bombing the White House or something. Demonstrating their collective right to litter freely.

Peters launched his own protest against actual lost rights, specifically the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as applied to motoring.

America is in trouble because Americans got lazy. Not so much physically but morally. They began to care more about some passing thing than about the things that truly matter; the things that made America unlike other places.

Better than other places.

Things like principles; the plain meaning of words. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments, especially. Which were (past tense deliberate) laws written to articulate and protect principles that matter.

…

72632be698a91a8c78d700d48df0958f.jpeg

No clovers. EPAutos.

Worth a read. And we’re only some 30 or so years into this madness. There is still time to reverse it. That is, if we care to. This will require getting off the mental couch. Ours, not the blue-hairs’ “mental” couch.

This Will Not End Well

12 Thursday Jan 2017

Posted by perrinlovett in News and Notes

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

ethics, rights, robots, technology

Either for us or for them.

A European Parliament committee has voted in favor of a draft report that proposes granting legal status to robots, categorizing them as “electronic persons”.

The draft report, approved by 17 votes to two and two abstentions by the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs, proposes that “The most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations, including that of making good any damage they may cause.”

…

The report also calls for robot definitions and subcategories to be proposed based on the device’s autonomy, making certain categories with higher autonomy more responsible for their actions.

“Whereas in the scenario where a robot can take autonomous decisions, the traditional rules will not suffice to activate a robot’s liability, since they would not make it possible to identify the party responsible for providing compensation and to require this party to make good the damage it has caused,” the report reads.

58777560c3618889098b45d2

RT.

Humans don’t get along with each all that well. Imagine competing with something smarter, faster, stronger, and not bound by foolishness or other emotion. Or don’t imagine it. You’ll be living it in a matter of a few short years.

And, that this comes from the idiotic EU is disturbing but almost makes sense. No doubt, they will welcome their new robot masters. I will too – with a shotgun.

Time will tell. Developing … rapidly.

Firearms Ownership: A Universal Right

18 Monday Jul 2016

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

America, Constitution, Dred Scott v. Sandford, firearms, freedom, government, gun control, guns, law, Miller, rights, Second Amendment, The People

The elites and the gun grabbers are desperately counting on racial and other divides in order to exact more gun control, more people control, on the population. The problem, for them, is that we are not so divided as they would like.

Gavin Long, the racist who killed three police officers in Louisiana this weekend had a history of hating “crackers”. However, that did not seem to stop him from shooting and killing black and white officers alike. Even he wasn’t divided; he just saw blue targets. Some would surely love to pounce on these murders to further freedom controls. Hussein Obama wants the police to admit they have a problem. Gersh Kuntzman blames the “gun nuts”. Many will suggest, other issues aside, that blacks (and whites) simply are not safe in our culture of firearms. Facts failing them, they will resort to emotional appeals related to the spate of statistically insignificant but culturally damning shootings of late.

Their problem here, and it is a wonderful problem, with blacks and guns is that blacks have adopted the gun culture. Once upon a time firearms may have been the province of white males in the rural parts. Now, it’s everyone. Men, women, all races – everyone is carrying.

Many blacks astutely recognized the importance of gun ownership years and years ago. In 1867 Frederick Douglass hailed firearms ownership as one of the three hallmarks of a free man and his rights (“the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box”).

From local and state regulations in early America through the Gun Control Act of 1968, many control and prohibition laws were aimed at disarming blacks. One racist strategy was to limit the availability of cheaper guns, “Saturday night specials”, as these were frequently the only arms economically obtainable by blacks (and other groups of lower socio-economic status).

Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court went so far as to list the carrying of arms as a right blacks were not entitled to (as they were not considered citizens). In relegating blacks to either second-class or chattel status, Roger Taney reasoned:

More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 416-417 (1857)(emphasis added).

The grabbers and the intellectually lazy of the legal education profession for decades overlooked this enumerated right in Scott and as set forth similarly in other cases in favor of a simplistic reading of Miller (1939). I recall reading once in a Constitutional Law book a footnote – the only mention given the Second Amendment – that stated Miller was the only Second Amendment case in history. As the Court did not expressly affirm absolute firearms rights therein, the 2A didn’t confer an individual right and was barely a part of the Constitution.

My reading of Miller, as poor an opinion as Scott, always led me to believe the Court had affirmed an individual right to keep and bear military-grade weaponry. The gun Miller possessed, a saw-off shotgun, was determined to be of no military value despite the use of such guns, martially, for centuries. The short-barreled shotgun has continued to see combat since – most notably perhaps in the tunnels of Vietnam.

It also struck me as interesting that people could lawfully possess weapons of war but might be precluded from possessing “ordinary” arms. If one has a right to a battlefield rifle or a machine gun, what was the harm in owning a bird gun or a .22 plinker?

shotgun-3-1245333-639x360

George Gardner.

Subsequent rulings, this Century, have definitively settled the matter though in a shaded fashion which leaves open the possibility of state meddling.

They want to meddle and they want it badly. Evidence and sound logic ever eluding them, they continue to exploit instances of misfortune and fickle public sentiments. It is a joy and a wonder that their efforts are failing as more and more people wake up. Black, white, yellow, red – all are universally entitled to universal rights, which the left hates and opposes with universal fury.

An armed society is a polite society – for everyone.

What is Gun Control?

27 Monday Jun 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on What is Gun Control?

Tags

America, bigots, Christians, CIA, concealed carry, crime, firearms, freedom, government, gun control, law, liberals, North Carolina, racists, rights, Second Amendment, Syria, terrorism, Texas, The People, The West, War, white people

Gun control…

For some it’s about taking advantage of tragedy and belittling those they hate. I almost didn’t include this first story due to the inherently bigotry and low-brow “journalism” behind it. Still, here it is. A woman in Texas, a self-described Second Amendment proponent and gun owner, committed an atrocious crime (the facts of which I don’t have and don’t want) – she apparently murdered her own daughters after an argument. The woman was also shot and killed by the police. Three women dead for no good reason – terrible.

Enter Helen Thompson writing on American News X. Thompson offered up an assessment of the crime in terms both racist and anti-Christian.

Too bad for Christian Christy Byrd Sheats two daughter’s, 17 and 22, Sheats had a gun with which to “protect her family.” That gun was used to gun down both girls in the street after a family argument.

Sheats was then killed by police after refusing to drop her weapon, literally bringing home the insanity of the famed phrase “from my cold, dead, hands.”

Note the immediate description of the shooter as a Christian. Would Thompson dare describe a Muslim terrorist as a Muslim terrorist? I think not. I did a quick Googling of “Helen Thompson” and “Muslim” and the first thing I saw was Thompson berating Donald Trump for trying to “initiate a Muslim witch hunt”. I guess witch hunts aren’t even for witches anymore – just Christians.

Thompson continues:

This woman appears to be the poster child of white, GOP America. She praised her religion, loved veterans and country music, praised Ronnie Reagan and George W., and loved her guns. She was a Texas resident, originally from Alabama. This woman literally reeked of right wing Americana — of normal, gun-loving life. She loved her grandmother, had been bitten by a black widow, and basically, seemed to love life and her children.

The white America. Would Thompson ever write about one of the thousands of murders committed by blacks each year (47% of total murders vs. 10% of the population)? No. It’s just a white, Christian, all-American kind of thing. Y’all wouldn’t understand.

Thompson didn’t even call for more gun control beyond her ridicule. “No good guy with a gun stopped this senseless murder by a ‘good guy’ with a gun,” she ranted – what a tired, worn, anecdotal, and worthless “argument”. If not even true in this case – the police officer “good guy” used a gun to stop the white, Christian bad gal.

Maybe some of the problems the left has with guns in America comes more from a hatred of America and its people than from a hatred of guns. These cretins, seething in their hatred, want the government to disarm all the white Christians – and everyone else of decent persuasion.

I have no use for the government at all. Some people on “my side” do. Droves of my friends boast about obtaining their concealed carry permits. Actress Kelly McGillis just joined the ranks of the permitted carriers following an attack at her North Carolina home.

I like that they have armed themselves in a world seemingly gone mad but I do not like the way they have done it. Why a permit from the state? I know it’s the law in most places. I understand that. Most people who get the permits are law-abiding. It’s a law that shouldn’t be abided by – or exist. Why should there be permits for the exercise of the right to carry anyway? Rights do not require permission slips.

I sympathize with and applaud Mrs. McGillis’s decision to arm and defend herself. I found it odd though that she took the measure following a home invasion. North Carolina does not require a permit of any kind to defend oneself at one’s home. I realize she obviously wants protection outside her house too. Thus the permit. And, thus, my problem.

Running to the government for permission to protect one’s life is little different in my mind to running to the government to prohibit others from protecting themselves. Either way, the government is not the answer. Usually, it’s the problem.

In a sense everyone wants reasonable “gun control”. Some, like Thompson, would have the state “control” guns by banning them from white, Christian hands at least. Gun owners generally favor the responsible, personal “control” of the individual firearm. If, to them, that means acquiescing to a state law, then they do it. Either way it’s the state, the state, the state. How about some gun control for the state itself?

In addition to regulating firearms, the government has a long history of widely distributing them, usually with terrible consequences. Most of government works like that – they find a small problem and come up with a solution that creates a bigger problem. I suppose it justifies their existence. I don’t see the need.

A few years ago the ATF was caught red-handed selling and then giving guns to Mexican drug cartels and to criminals. Some of those guns came back, fast and furious, and were used to kill Americans. The ATF isn’t alone. They are novices compared to the CIA. The “intelligence” agency has taken to giving arms to Syrian “rebels”. Many of those weapons were stolen and ended up on the black market – gun show of choice for terrorists. And, you guessed it, some of those arms have killed Americans. By arming one side (maybe more) of this conflict which does not concern the U.S. the government helps generate more angry “refugees” who then migrate to the West for various purposes – some for aid and reflief, others for revenge and crime. Little problem, “solution”, bigger problems.

Government agent Joe Biden oversees “gun control” while exploiting “loopholes” at a Jordanian gun show. NYT.

The left tries to scare people with stories of white, Christian Americans wielding automatic assault rifles and rocket launchers. They want the government to do something about it despite the fact it isn’t a problem. The government does do something! It supplies “Kalashnikov assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades” to rebels and then to the black market and to terrorists. Nice, huh?

Another of the left’s arguments for more government control is that the firearms available when the Second Amendment was ratified were flintlocks and thus those are the only ones the people are entitled to keep and bear. By that logic, shouldn’t the CIA be running muskets and not rocket launchers? Maybe people like Thompson should limit their writing to quill pens. All beside the point.

How about less government for a change? How about limiting or banning the state’s use of firearms (and rockets and grenades)? Might that make for a safer society? As is, they give us freedom control, crime, war, mindless intervention, black markets, and terrorism; all that in addition to rules, regulations, taxes, inflation, oppression, etc. More government, more crime. Why have it or its controls?

After the Lord Mayor’s Show

07 Saturday May 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on After the Lord Mayor’s Show

Tags

America, banksters, Europe, government, Great Britain, human rights, law, London, rights, Sidiq Khan, The People, The West, UKIP, voting

The voters of London have elected a new mayor. Sadiq Khan is the first Muslim mayor of the Imperial Capital City, indeed the first elected mayor of any major Western Capital. The Drudge Report is aghast as is some of the right-ish media. I am not.

nimbus-image-1462625071308.png

Drudge. May 7, 2016.

I have been a harsh critic of the mass migration/invasion of Europe and the West by incompatible third-worlders, particularly by radical Islamists. I am not as pessimistic (realistic, maybe) as Taki; I think the problems are far-gone but not gone too far just yet. It was with this perspective that I analyzed the London election. Things are not always what they seem on the surface. As far as it goes, I rather like Mr. Khan.

First, consider the demographics behind the election. London is a massive city with nearly 10 million residents centered in a metropolitan region of nearly 15 million. Status-wise it is a combination of New York City and Washington, D.C. Until the rise of those cities in the previous century London was the financial and political center of the world (it still vies heavily for the title). London, unlike its American relatives, is an ancient city; Londinium was settled by the Romans in 43 AD. It was fully resettled by Island natives two centuries before William swept across the Channel (with a certain Lovett in train, by the way).

London was the capital of an Empire which controlled vast swaths of the Americas, Africa, and the East, near and far. Over the past five decades from its former colonies have come a multitude of non-Westerners. The City is now about half non-white, non-native British; more than 40% of the population is foreign born. This recent sea-change explains, partially, how a Muslim named Kahn could get elected.

Now, let us look at the man who was elected. Khan’s parents are Indian, by way of Pakistan (both former British colonies). The family arrived in London in the late 1960s. Sadiq was born in 1970, the fifth of eight children.

Khan, like many immigrants prior to the welfare/terrorism/”refugee” hoards, was a hard worker from an early age. He ran a paper route and worked construction before going to law school. After school he worked as a solicitor (trial attorney). His specialty was human rights.

Some of his cases handled as a solicitor have an American-sounding slant. In Bubbins vs. The United Kingdom, [2005] All ER (D) 290, European Court of Human Rights, (Mar., 2005), Khan successfully represented the family of an unarmed Britain gunned down by police snipers (sound familiar, America?).

Sadiq Khan.jpg

Khan, not particularly dangerous looking. Wiki.

Politically, Khan has held various elected and appointed positions including powerful shadow offices. Under the British model, the out-of-power party always maintains a shadow government, inactive but ready to assume operation unless or until called in via a political change, which can occur rapidly under the parliamentary system.

Khan is a British Liberal’s liberal but not necessarily a Muslim’s Muslim. His stance in favor of gay “marriage” earned him a death sentence and led an Imam to declare him no Muslim at all. It appears his politics will suit the current flavor of London well. If he maintains his defense of human rights, he may be a breath of fresh air.

Now for a brief glimpse at the competition. In Britain, as in America and other places, many cheer on “their” party and candidates with psychotic fervor. Labor and Tory are nearly synonymous with Democrat and Republican. The “conservatives” usually demonstrate one can’t spell “conservative” without “con”.

Against Khan the Tories ran one Zacharias Goldsmith (nee Goldschmidt). Like many Tories, Goldschmidt says the right things for the wrong reasons. London is a major finance center. Zac opposes tax increases, not because they amount to theft, but because he desperately wants to protect banksters. He has good reason as his extraordinarily wealthy family is in league with the Rothschilds. The Gold-Ss (whatever money-changing term in whatever language) also immigrated to Britain – having  crept in during the mid Seventeenth Century.

Whatever his conservative positions are, behind them one will expect to find that Zac holds them out of expedience and only to promote his family’s interests. He is of a class Cato once equated with murderers. He, unlike Khan, has never done manual labor and likely doesn’t give a damn about human rights. I may be wrong but I doubt it.

I have not in too deeply investigated the election beyond the news stories. If I lived in London and if I bothered to vote, I would have likely supported Peter Whittle or some other UKIP candidate – I relish throwing away a good vote. Between the two major parties the people seem to have picked the better man, certainly the lesser of two evils.

Now for the clean up if you happen to know what my title means.

Fake Sex, Lies, and Red Tape

13 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Fake Sex, Lies, and Red Tape

Tags

14th Amendment, America, Constitution, due process, Fifth Circuit, Fourth Amendment, freedom, God, government, insanity, law, Ninth Circuit, police, rights, Ted Cruz, Texas, The People, War

Perrin’s definition of government: (Noun) (originating around 10,000 B.C. in Hell) A collection of psychopathic control freaks hell-bent on minding everyone else’s business at gun point. This lowly institution is good for killing people, enriching bankers, and not much else.

Show me a government, any government, and I’ll show you a murder of monstrous, freedom-crushing maniacs. Meddlesome at best, Satanic at worst, an unfit concept long passed over by civilization.

Texas once had a law banning the sale of dildos – not making that up. One woman was actually prosecuted after holding a sales party at her home. Several adult entertainment businesses sued the State claiming a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process violation. See: Reliable Consultants, Inc., et al. v. Earle and The State of Texas, 517 F.3d 738, Slip Op. 06-51067 (5th Cir., 2008). The Fifth Circuit struck down the law and struck a blow for individual freedom (as corny a freedom as may be…).

The Texas Solicitor who argued (in vain) against the sale of rubber weapons of mass destruction was none other than Presidential candidate Ted “Glen Beck’s Man Crush” Cruz  – he the victor of the recent Colorado GOP non primary. I’m not sure how much tax money he wasted on the case (Federal Court ain’t cheap rent). He did obviously waste the time of the Judges, earning himself a 2-1 overthrow. Teddy declined to take the case higher. Lonely housewives breathed easier. Or, rapidly. Something.

The Fifth Circuit took down Texas’s law in as much because of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. at 578 (2003) (a la Bowers v. Hardwick) as because the government presented no evidence of any legitimate state interest necessitating such an idiotic, overbearing, busybody ban in the first place. More on legitimacy in a moment. The Court held: “The State’s primary justifications for the statute are “morality based.” The asserted interests include “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation and prohibiting the commercial sale of sex.” Reliable, Id. at Slip 10.

Perhaps recognizing that public morality is an insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence, the State asserts that an interest the statute serves is the “protection of minors and unwilling adults from exposure to sexual devices and their advertisement.” It is undeniable that the government has a compelling interest in protecting children from improper sexual expression. However, the State’s generalized concern for children does not justify such a heavy-handed restriction on the exercise of a constitutionally protected individual right. Ultimately, because we can divine no rational connection between the statute and the protection of children, and because the State offers none, we cannot sustain the law under this justification.

Id, at 11 (double emphasis added).

The State and Teddy came to battle with no factual evidence and a shaky “moral” legal argument. Morals are good. Their best in their place. Many are upset by the notion that one cannot legislate morality. A ruling like this is salt in their wounds. Their reaction is evidence of their own lack of morality, of a substitution of the Divine with the positive. God will handle matters related to morality. He does not need help from Texas or any other band of liars and thieves. Speaking of morality and Ted Cruz, Ted now advocates carpet bombing. Incinerating civilians is much more moral than selling a vibrator; God will surely agree.

The moment has come! Let’s look at the Texan idea that the state as an interest in banning sex toys in order to protect children and promote procreation (making up our evidence, if needed, as the State provided none). Law professors and black-robed priests prattle on about various standards of state interests – to be weighed against human freedoms or rights. Compelling, rationally related, important, legitimate – all artful when written out in a brief but still bullshit. I care, here, about the factor of legitimacy, real legitimacy. When talking about people (women one would hope) who use these…devices it becomes obvious they are the sorts who are not interested, at the time, in procreation. They’re looking for a little fun. They’re minding their own business behind closed doors.

Government is not content to leave anyone alone, that much is clear. What, really, honestly, is a state’s interest in procreation, children and humans in general. There is no guaranteed supply of people; no state is just entitled to subjects. In their absence the state would have no one to govern, to boss around. Therein lies the interest. Children are future taxpayers to the state. They are future speed trap victims. They are future cannon-fodder to march off to war. It’s immoral from the state’s perspective to withhold future victims, victims who might be needed to carry out such morality as a carpet bombing run.

The other week another opinion came out a different Court of Appeals on a different topic. Whereas the Fifth Circuit got Reliable right, the Ninth missed the Constitution on searches and seizures in United States v. Magallon-Lopez, ___F.3d___, Slip Op. 14-30249 (9th Cir., March 31, 2016). Different results for freedom but both cases highlight the hateful, demented existence of government.

In Magallon-Lopez the famously liberal Ninth Circuit sided with the police state. “The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that police officers can lie to suspects in regards to a traffic stop — even when no violation has occurred. The ruling essentially gives police officers carte blanche to stop anyone they want for absolutely no reason — merely acting on a hunch.” Matt Agorist, Court Rules Police Can Legally Make Up Lies to Pull People Over to Fish for Criminal Behavior, The Free Thought Project, April 11, 2016.

The criminal subject matter of Magallon is as unpopular as that of Reliable was silly. Defendant Magallon was a meth peddler, unwelcome in most communities. Still, we play the cases we are dealt. Both actions revolve around universal rights and are only brought to light by their subject participants. Both demonstrate government will do anything to abrogate liberty.

The defendant, who did not and could not seriously contest the existence of reasonable suspicion for stopping the car, contended that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer who pulled him over deliberately lied when stating the reason for the stop, and the reason the officer gave was not itself supported by reasonable suspicion. Rejecting this contention, the panel wrote that so long as the facts known to the officer establish reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop, the stop is lawful even if the officer falsely cites as the basis for the stop a ground that is not supported by reasonable suspicion. The panel concluded that in light of the information obtained during the stop, the officers had probable cause to seize the car.

Magallon-Lopez, Id. at Slip 2 (Summary)(emphasis added).

Magallon and a friend were suspected by the DEA of running drugs. This was known to local Montana police who initiated a traffic stop. The asserted reason for the stop was an improper lane change – a flat lie. The vehicle was seized and searched, meth was found, and the occupants arrested. Again, the police only knew that other police suspected the defendant of carrying drugs (these are illegal for the same specious reasons sex toys were in Texas). The arresting officers had no actual knowledge of real criminal activity. Therefore they lied. And, lying is okay as long as it is done by the government. Given this new standard I may have to refresh How to Interact with the Police – best to just live your life completely in a basement somewhere.

So much for the Fourth Amendment. The Court withheld a ruling on Due Process grounds (really, they did enough). No dissent in this case, just a concurrence which noted that Montana officers are statutorily bound to disclose their (real) reasons for arresting someone. Lying and breaking the law are okay so long as committed by servants of the state.

A “God-fearing” conservative desiring war over privacy. Former “liberals” selling out liberty for lies and lawlessness. No, one doesn’t need a government for this – an insane asylum would be enough.

Intimitated.org.

By the way: this is post number 450. Rolling!

← Older posts

Perrin Lovett

THE SUBSTITUTE

From Green Altar Books, an imprint of Shotwell Publishing

From Green Altar Books, an imprint of Shotwell Publishing

FREE Ebook!

The Happy Little Cigar Book

Buy From Amazon! The perfect coffee table book!

Perrin On Politics

FREE E-book! Download now~

Ritin’ @ Reckonin’

Archives

  • 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!)

Have a Cup!

Perrin’s Articles and Videos at FREEDOM PREPPER (*2016-2022)

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Join 39 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • 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.