Guns Are The New Black!

Guns are all in the news after the recent shootings at an elementary school in Newtown, CT where 20 children and 6 adults were shot to death by a young man with apparent mental issues. I won't mention the man's name because I won't give him the satisfaction of having been remembered for such a heinous act (do you ever wonder why the word 'heinous' and 'heinie' are so similar? What does a bad act have to do with someone's backside? Or have I just answered my own question? I'm digressing...).

The media has jumped on its horse and shouts out in bold headlines that we need to come up with gun controls so that this never happens again. Everyone in political office from the President of the United States and down to the lowliest Mayor of all cities agree that something needs to be done.

My question is: What? What can be done? What laws can you possibly enact that would 100% prevent anything like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School from ever happening again? I think the answer is: Nothing.

I just shook my head when the media started mentioning that the shooter played violent video games in a dark, bunker-like basement, bringing up the ugly specter that video games were the reason he went on a killing spree. I don't know of a basement anywhere that isn't dark and bunker-like! There are many times when I've played "violent" video games in my dark basement and you don't see me checking myself into the nearest sanitarium or going out to kill masses of people (at least not in real life but within the virtual worlds of Dynasty Warriors and the various Medal of Honor games it's a different story! Digressing again...).

I'm sorry but to play a video game, listen to heavy metal music, read a book or comic book, watch a movie or television show and then go out and kill people there has to be something mentally wrong with you to begin with and all of the sanitizing of entertainment will not change that.

What's also missed is that, from what I've read, none of the guns were the shooter's to begin with. They were his mother's, who enjoyed going to the range and shooting. Legally. So now what, if you have a child that's seeing a psychiatrist you are no longer allowed to own guns or, if you do, must hand them over tout de suite?

New York recently passed a gun control bill. The article I read is here. Gov. Cuomo says, "This is a scourge on society...At what point do you say, 'No more innocent loss of life'?" Guns are a scourge on society? Not the criminals who use the guns to do the actual killing? Without guns, the criminals would use a knife or a bomb or a cannon or whatever else they could turn into a weapon to kill people.
We've always abhorred innocent loss of life and have a half million laws already trying to prevent that. It's a good soundbite for the Governor but if you think about it, it really makes no sense.

My favorite, though, is Sen. Jeffrey Klein who said, "This is not about taking anyone's rights away. It's about a safe society..." You'll notice he doesn't say a 'free' society but a 'safe' society. Contrary to popular belief, the two are different. In a 'safe' society, people have fewer rights than in a 'free' society but many people don't understand that. The one drawback to living in a 'free' society is that things like the shootings in Newtown WILL happen. You can certainly do your best to prevent it but the only true way would be to take all guns from every nook and cranny in this country (all 270,000,000+) and destroy them, leaving the police and armed services with guns and no one else.

It's a pipe dream. Never gonna happen.

Another article here has President Obama working hard to come up with proposals that Congress (Lord help us) can craft into some form of gun control law. President Obama is right when he says, "While there is no law, or set of laws, that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try."

By the way, Mr. President, thanks for letting the social security tax to go back up to 6.2% from 4.2% and thanks for giving the middle class people less deductions thereby making our taxes go up, even though you technically stayed true to your word that the tax amount wouldn't go up. Yeah, I'm being sarcastic and I'm digressing again.

At any rate, I have no problem reinstating the assault weapons ban. I have no problem only allowing civilians 7 round clips instead of the 10 round or more. I have no problem that mental health Doctors should report patients who say they are going to kill someone with a gun.
I just don't like it when A) politicians use the Newtown shootings (or any tragedy) to further their own career and/or agenda (which quite a few seem to be doing) and B) when they try to target extraneous stuff (like video games) as the cause when it isn't.

And that's my 2 cents.
By the way, Forbes ranks the best video games of 2012!

Yet More Classic Films!!

Happy New Year!!
Since there was no zombie apocalypse, rapture, civilization-ending meteor strike or take-your-pick of world-ending disasters; I get to continue writing and watch more classic movies!

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance - Wow. That's pretty much all I can say about this western which stars Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, Lee Marvin and Vera Miles. It also features Andy Devine (the voice of Friar Tuck in Disney's Robin Hood), John Carradine, Lee Van Cleef and Strother Martin among others.
Some of Stewart's early lines in the movie seem forced or scripted. He says a few things that, well, people don't talk like that. Even at that time. That aside it is a great movie. I would highly recommend it for anyone who hasn't seen it.
I was wondering if this movie was nominated for an Oscar but that was the year Lawrence of Arabia, The Music Man, Mutiny On The Bounty and To Kill A Mockingbird came out soooo...
It did get nominated for an Oscar for Best Costume Design, though. So there's that.

Metropolis - This German silent movie from 1927 is considered a classic and I can't argue with that. As of this writing I haven't quite finished the movie (watching the restored version on Netflix which is 2 1/2 hours long) but I can already tell you that the special effects are ridiculous good for that era. Some of the acting might be considered over-the-top but I understand that in the silent era actors and actresses needed to move their hands more and show large facial expressions in order to get their point across.
The music, also, is deeper than the solo piano that you constantly hear in any Charlie Chaplin short (been checking those out also and now understand why Chaplin is Universally revered. Good stuff!).
I was most surprised at the complexity of the story. Written for the screen by Thea Von Harbou, from his own novel, you can see the slightest parallel relationship between this story and Orwell's 1984. It more explores the relationship between workers (who build and keep the city humming, live in the dark depths and basically have no future) and the planners (who are the rich, live IN the city and have the easy life). There is no Big Brother but the workers are kept a close eye on and, of course, there's an underground movement for revolt.
I guess the movie was edited for time and, possibly content. The cut scenes were lost for many years and then found in South America. Well, most cut scenes. There are still scenes that are lost forever and the added scenes are beat up so you can tell what's what when watching the movie.
If you don't mind B & W silent movies then check it out.

Well, 2013 is upon us and still no flying cars! What the Hell??!! What's up with that?
Interested in nanotechnology? Go here. Enjoy the year and be excellent to each other!

Some Classic Films Finally Seen

I hope everyone reading this has had a good Christmas and will have a happy and safe New Year! I've had a couple of movies staring me in the face for a little bit now. Finally decided to watch them.

Fahrenheit 451 - Everyone knows Ray Bradbury's classic story. In a society where books are illegal and firemen start fires to burn the books, one fireman, Guy Montag, questions the way the society is run after a couple of incidents. I knew of the story but never actually read it. The movie has some interesting moments and it took me about an hour to realize that Julie Christie plays both Montag's wife, Linda, and the rebel Clarisse. At least now I can say that I've seen it.

1984 - Another dystopian society-type movie where false information and a "big brother" who watches everything reign supreme. I think I enjoyed this movie slightly more than Fahrenheit 451 but, again, having never read the book by George Orwell I had questions aplenty and the ending left me completely flummoxed.

Equilibrium - Influenced heavily by Fahrenheit 451 and 1984, Equilibrium stars Christian Bale as John Preston, policeman supreme in a society where emotions are suppressed by Prozium (the drug of choice for suppressing emotions!). More current and more action scenes make this movie easier to watch, if you can ignore all the illogicalities(?) that are present in trying to make this movie believable. Still, it was entertaining and I enjoyed it.

Reservoir Dogs - Never saw this Tarantino flick until the other night and it's pretty much like every other Quentin Tarantino movie you've ever seen. Interesting conversations then shocking bloody violence. You also have the end scene which reminds me a lot of the bar scene in Tarantino's Inglourious Bastards, with the same results. If you've never seen this movie, then check it out.

Some more classics that I still have to watch include Reefer Madness, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and Metropolis.

Why I voted for Rocky Anderson

In the recent 2012 Presidential election, there are many people who think that it was President Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney. That's it. Two choices. Pick one or the other.

Wrong.

Other people running for President included former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party, Physician Jill Stein of the Green Party and former Mayor of Salt Lake City Rocky Anderson for the Justice Party.

I've voted for third party nominees before. One of the questions I get is "Why would you waste your vote [on a third party candidate who is definitely going to lose]?"
My answer: I'm not "wasting" my vote if I'm voting for who I want to win. It's my choice, not someone else's.

In this past election I've heard a lot of "I don't really like either candidate but I have to vote for one of them."
My answer: Why? Why do you have to vote for a Republican or a Democrat if you don't like either?

Mainly because many people don't even realize that there are other candidates. We are bombarded in all media that it's Democrat or Republican, choose one. Most people, in general, are dependent sheep who are resistant to change, believe the media as if it were gospel, are too lazy to do any research ("Oh, I'm so busy I just don't have time!") or are bound by some unwritten familial rule that they must always vote Republican or Democrat. ("My family has voted Republican/Democrat for generations!") Even if they don't like the candidate!! How ridiculous is that?!
My proof? All we heard about the previous Congress is that they were do-nothing and useless and unable to agree on anything. So what do the people do? Re-elect 98% of that useless body of do-nothings! Why? Because those were the faces that were front and center on every tv channel in their respective states.
I would love to do a poll to find out why people vote the way they vote. The resulting book of stupidity would be amusing, if nothing else. Maybe a little sad, as well.
Now, with that being said, I'm NOT saying that you should never vote Republican or Democrat. What I'm saying is that there are other choices if you don't like either candidate. To me, voting for a candidate you don't like is "wasting" a vote.

I was surprised to find that Rocky Anderson was not on the ballot in every state so I decided to do some research. How exactly do you get on the Presidential ballot?
According to ask Yahoo.com, third party and independent candidates have to get voter signatures (in some states as many as 750,000!), pay steep filing fees and follow many complicated procedures to get on the ballot. Republicans and Democrats are automatically put on the ballot because they are the recognized "major" parties. You can also read the Wikipedia article regarding ballot access here. It has some interesting stuff.
Then I asked myself why you hardly ever see third party or independent candidates at Presidential debates. So I did more research and according to Wikipedia, the debates used to be sponsored by The League of Women Voters but in 1987 withdrew their sponsorship because the major parties (Republicans and Democrats) wanted to control just about every aspect of how the debates were run. When the LWV withdrew guess who stepped in to run the debates? Yep, the Republican and Democratic Parties assumed control of organizing the debates through the Commission on Presidential Debate (CPD), or , if you prefer, the Commission on Public Deception. You can read an insider account of the debate process by Ralph Nader here.

So, why did I vote for Rocky Anderson? Well, I didn't trust Mitt Romney as far as I could throw him! I figure when a guy is the Governor of a state (like Mitt was in Massachusetts) and doesn't even win that state in the election, you know he can't be any good. Obama won Mass. with 60.8% of the vote to Romney's 37.6%.
Obama, in my mind, didn't really bring the "change" that he ranted about in his first campaign so I didn't want to vote for him again.
I agree with MOST of what Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party say they want to bring to government. Especially ending the incessant bribery, oops, I mean lobbying that has become a way of the political system. Enough to give him a shot.

You want to bring change? Real change? Then stay away from the major parties. They just want to keep the same old wheel turning.

Justice Party
Rocky Anderson on the Issues

Elementary, conclusion

Let's continue with more misinformation from this self-proclaimed Judge, shall we? Again, my comments are in red.


Americans are not unlike all other humans who inhabit the earth. All human beings possess malleable minds, which are minds that can be shaped and controlled; and when government shapes and controls a mind, it’s called “brainwashing.” Brainwashing causes the subject to become ‘functionally illiterate.’ In America, our functional ignorance excels in the areas of history, government and law, which really are one in the same. Ninety-eight percent of the officials in public office are lawyers and these so-called representatives set policy and created the laws that govern this society. Their use of Greek and Latin terms in law and the habit of changing definitions and usage of common words is intentional. The intent is to confound and confuse the general public; and to hide the treason they are implementing; and so that members of the public are forced or decide to hire a lawyer out of frustration, rather than try to represent themselves in our, ‘fictional courts of law.’ As you read on I’ll explain to you why and how, our courts and laws are fictional!

There has never been a law on the books created by the Congress, which made it illegal for a common man to practice law. Every Judge of a District, Circuit or Appeal Court, except Justices and Magistrates, is a lawyer and a member of the Bar. These Judges have the authority to establish local rules of court and those mentioned, have created a local rule that prevents common people from representing any other person in their court or ‘to practice law without a license!’ A license requires that you produce your Bar Association number. For those who don’t know, the Bar Association is simply a ‘Lawyers Union,’ and when lawyers are accepted into the Bar, they are required to swear allegiance to a foreign power! The American Bar Association is a branch of a national organization titled; “The National Lawyers Guild Communist Party” and can be found recorded in the United States Code at: [28 U. S. C. 3002, section 15a]. They have become so big and entrenched that they no longer fear reprisal!

This is wrong. There are actually 2 Bar Associations; the American Bar Association and the National Lawyers Guild. The NLG has always been criticized for being a Communist Front Organization but in 2007 they passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of then-President George Bush and VP Dick Cheney, so they can’t be ALL bad! If you want, you can read up on the NLG here and here and/or go to ABA’s website here.
As I continue through this “document” it becomes more and more apparent that no judge would ever make such elementary mistakes. It again refers to the same U.S. Code that supposedly defined the United States as a Federal Corporation and I’ve already debunked that.

Whenever I tell people that there is no actual law that makes it a crime to represent another person in court, their reaction is, “liar!” I remind them that Abraham Lincoln and Clarence Darrow never went to law school or passed the Bar, but their reaction is understandable because the Bar is a very powerful organization and its members have infiltrated every nitch of American life and business. How many times in your life have you heard, “You can’t practice law without a license?” I’ve heard it said in numerous movies spanning one hundred years; in my mother’s soaps and by comedians in jokes and in theatrical skits. I’ve seen the phrase in print in newspaper articles, magazines and heard it on the radio! Before I learned the truth about this fact, even my personal lawyer made that comment to me! We all have been brainwashed to believe a lie and because we’ve heard it so often from people we trust, and who are supposed to have our best interest at heart; we all just assume it must be true! How many other lies have you assumed, “it must be true?”

I’m beginning to think that this “document” is a bunch of lies that people are assuming to be true! This rhetoric is attempting to brainwash people into thinking that everything in it is true but isn’t. It’s relying that no one will do the research and just take what it states at face value. Yes, I’m using it’s own words against it.

Our America society has been lied to by their government and lawyers more times than you will sign your name in your lifetime, and we have been indoctrinated “brainwashed” to believe that the Constitution was created for “We the People.” The purpose behind these lies is to make you believe that you are free, safe, protected and secure, and it is all an hallucination! How many of you have studied each line of the Constitution; the Statutes at Large and the Articles of Confederation, armed with a reputable dictionary or a law dictionary from that era?

If you take the time to do this, you will soon discover that the true purpose of the Constitution was to create a business plan and to establish a Military Government, for the protection of the Founding Fathers, the Kings commerce, protection of his Agents and the future control of his subject Slaves! Even the preamble of the U. S. Constitution is a clue to the lie and which states, “…to ourselves and our posterity!” If you never saw the title, “The Constitution,” and you were never told what this document was about; what do you think would be your first impression upon hearing or reading: “…to ourselves and our posterity!” The CONSTITUTION is not for “We the People” and AMERICA is a Matrix of misinformation. In the eyes of those in control; America is nothing more than a large Plantation and “We the People” are the Slaves. In many U. S. and World Treaties, the term “high contracting powers” is used to define your Masters! Everyone else is considered by them to be their Slaves!

All of the Founding Fathers had two things in common. They all shared the gift of a good education or were gifted individuals, and they all came from families of business and or substance. These men all suffered from, “visions of grandeur!” They viewed America as their one opportunity to make them powerful and wealthy “……….to ourselves and our posterity!” Initially, their plan was to steal America away from the King; despite the fact that King George funded the exploration of the New World, which legally gave him first claim to all new continents discovered.

The way the Constitution is written we all assume that “…to ourselves and our posterity!” is referring to “We the people…” Again, there really is no concrete proof that it refers to ONLY the Founding Fathers. Yes, the Founding Fathers all had a good education, for the time, and were all business-wealthy THAT’S why they were the governmental Leaders of the Colonies! How would the U.S. Colonies have unfolded if we had a bunch of uneducated boobs running the show??
We all know that Christopher Columbus, from Italy, discovered the New World for the Spanish Empire. The first settlers in, what would later be Chesapeake Bay and Jamestown, Virginia, were from England. The King of England at the time was James, not George.

The seizure of the Americas by the Kings explorers was not as it has been depicted in our history books, presented to us by our government, in our government controlled public schools. Native Americans (the Indians) were murdered, their villages burned, many were enslaved, infected by diseases brought from England and their lands taken by force and the threat of force, by these early explorers! The Indians were labeled savages by these immigrant explorers from England, but the true savages were our English ancestors!
One thing the Founding Fathers did not know, was that all of the Kings lands and all future acquisitions such as the AMERICAS, had been given and pledged by King John to Pope Innocent III and the Holy Roman Church, by the Treaty of 1213. After that fact was proven to the Founding Fathers; King George and representatives from the Vatican; decided to use the Constitutional draft created by the Founding Fathers, to further their plan to control the Colonists! Control attained by bringing the Colonists to their knees in debt! Any way you read it, the Constitution was never written with the intent of benefitting the American people!

This “Treaty” was more of a reconciliation between King John and Pope Innocent III and it all stemmed over the appointment of an Archbishop. The Church at that time was the real power in Europe because they held a lot of land  and had a lot of money. The Pope influenced Leaders of countries through letters that, essentially, blackmailed the countries (Do this or you will be excommunicated from the Christian Church!). The research I’ve done indicates that John only surrendered England and Ireland to Pope Innocent and agreed to pay restitution for all the money John was pocketing instead of sending to Innocent as a “pledge.”
King John never did repay ALL the debt and received support from Innocent, who staved off an impending French Invasion of England and helped John in a baronial revolt in 1214. Eventually, the Church lost power and countries were able to govern themselves without any “help” from the Church.

I think I’ll end my debunking of this paper here. I’ve already proven that the author is more than likely NOT a Judge, Federal or otherwise. There’s no way to contact this person. There is no “mountain” of research. It’s just misinformation, misinterpretation and flat-out lies designed to get people’s ire up about the government. The paper goes on and on about historical “facts”, that are more opinions with no connecting proof.
I’m not saying the U.S. Government, or any Government, is perfect and great but this pablum does nothing to solve any problems…it only creates more.

On a related note, gotta love Ron Paul and his farewell speech to Congress. I hate to tell you, Mr. Paul, but it is not the Constitution that has failed the people but the people who have failed the Constitution.

"A republic, Madam. If you can keep it." Benjamin Franklin, 1787
"Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees; and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people." Henry Clay, 1857