211 Comments

One small suggestion: eliminate sovereign immunity for ALL public serpents, so they can be held personally responsible for the damage they do. That might dampen their zeal to push us around.

Expand full comment

skin

in

the

game

Expand full comment
Jul 16, 2023·edited Jul 16, 2023

I'd like to see them tried under TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242.

Let them face the possibility of ultimate justice.

Expand full comment

.,.;[--=-----Тḣе ǵⅼоḃаⅼіѕtѕ іո tḣе ոеԝ ԝοrⅼḋ οrḋеr аrе рսttіոǵ tḣе ΜŔΝÁ ⅴах іո уоսr fοоḋ уоս ոееḋ tо ḋο tḣіѕ ΑЅΑР

Ꮩіѕіt... https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Frileynews3.blogspot.com%3AHAW6AfCqoi3IVA9_fgrwpTurf5E&cuid=sde3467

Expand full comment

Yes, it may take everyone's fortunes in this fight--as it did many of the founders as well.

Expand full comment

How do we do this when it's the public servants controlling the rules?

Expand full comment

Right. It will be difficult. The only way is piece at a time.

I think the first obvious piece is to remove immunity for those making vaccines. I dont' object to vaccines as a concept, I want them sold in the open market where they won't succeed if they don't work. I hope there is a moment coming with all the SADS deaths where the reality of what happened will be unfolded for most of those who aren't paying attention. When it does we might be able to undo what Reagan did in the 80s.

Eventually

Expand full comment

lots of meds that do not work are in the open market and still people take them. And lots of meds have so many side effects you should run far from them but still people buy them.

Expand full comment

Yes. The problem with meds on the open market is that they have been "approved" by the FDA. The federal government should NOT be in the business of regulating commercial products. The free market isn't free when the Feds have their fingers on the scales. Open it up, and open up the testing data (as Gato has suggested) and you will find that it works a lot better.

Expand full comment

Being stupid is a constitutionally protected right as well.

Expand full comment

Be careful of that open market. It sold us Teflon.

Expand full comment

Caveat Emptor. "Let the buyer beware." PTFE is an amazing industrial substance. It is probably not a suitable cooking surface. But you are free not to purchase it. So am I (and I don't). This is the free market at work. Otherwise, who gets to decide?

Expand full comment

I've been inspired today to answer my own question (how do we fix things) a little more broadly with the links to the articles that inspired me.

1. Become politically active. If not possible, find a candidate who is ethical and 'on our side' and support that person.

2. Get involved in the various businesses that seek to destroy us by getting a job there, i.e., infiltrate the enemy and change the culture and road map from within. Can anyone think of other ways to influence these businesses? Boycotts?

3. Make people aware of what is coming. I think a lot of people don't know.

Here are the links:

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-is-a-real-and-present-danger/

- if you connect the dots from this article and what we know to date, it looks like covid was a dry run of the bigger picture: a way to control us. The WHO health treaty has been in the works for some time and is a bigger, harder and more frequent version of some wanna-be dictators agenda. Covid policies gave us a taste of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHQ4jPNLQkE

- the citizens mentioned and the politicians in the video are fighting back. The video is from this zerohedge article:

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/we-will-bring-you-down-german-mp-vows-dismantle-whos-grip-governments

Expand full comment

The market has the power to sell you something. The government has the power to put you in prison if you do what they force on you.

Expand full comment

With government approval--remember?

Expand full comment

"It will be difficult. The only way is piece at a time."

The problem is that while you were removing one piece they were adding a dozen more.

Expand full comment

But, they will threaten to stop manufacturing all vaccines if they are not protected from lawsuits. Plus, the current drug companies have so much money to bribe politicians with and they are in bed with the communists to produce their products at the lowest overhead costs it will be hard to find any American (or free world) companies to compete unless we are willing to pay far more for their products. That's the bottom line.

Expand full comment

What does it say about any medicine that the company that made it and supposedly tested it is unwilling to produce and sell it unless they are provided immunity? If you won't be responsible for your product you shouldn't be selling it. This is the beauty of open markets. It regulates itself automatically. If they won't sell it without immunity that is a good thing. It says there is somethign wrong with the product. And yes, we should get serious about tort reform, which will also help. Another finger on the scale that needs to be removed.

Expand full comment

IMO any public servant who is genuinely intending to be a SERVANT of the public would be in support of this. (Within reason. Obviously if they got thrown in jail the moment anybody complained baselessly, that would be over the top, but being liable after due process of law for illegal government actions you authorised, just as if you had done them personally, is entirely appropriate.)

Of course that's probably a very small minority, but if you could somehow arrange to fire all the rest and keep just those ones, things might actually run smoothly. (For a while. Constant vigilance, and all that.)

Expand full comment

And yet they have shown that rules can be ignored. How many follow the speed limit? How many loiter out in front of convenience stores?

Expand full comment

Another would be to make all law schools illegal for a period of 25 years. Maybe 50.

Expand full comment

That's a wonderful idea since all they study is case law not the constitution it would deny then any new cases for a term and perhaps force them to return to teaching the actual law of the land. BUT, as a constitutionalist I would never support outlawing any business or school unless they were overtly aiding and abetting our enemies--which the law schools are doing along with all of our universities and schools at this time. So would need to sue them in open court for the damages they've done and get a ruling that they were seditious first.

Expand full comment

It will probably take longer than that to fix the system that is of, by and for LAWYERS.

Expand full comment

One addendum: If any lawmaker intentionally passes a law which violates The People's constitutional rights, the penalty for such an act should be equal to the crime of depravation of civil rights under color of law. See: TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Real skin in the game.

Expand full comment

Just like manufacturers who produce a product and are apparently endlessly and arbitrarily held responsible for consequences for which they are not reasonably responsible (think gun manufacturers), why not hold politicians endlessly accountable for all their actions (or inactions) while employed by the public? Maybe 'sunset' their responsibility after ~20 years or so.

Expand full comment

And put their work 'score' on their 'permanent record'. After a few strikes, make them unemployable in the public sector at any level. Keep them that way for, say, a minimum of 10 years.

For egregious actions, make it illegal to work in the private sector in that area or any related field in the same way we don't allow pedophiles and sexual predators to work with children (apparently unless they are union members or elected politicians. *sighs*).

Expand full comment

This suggestion should have gotten more likes. Seriously, any law which is found to willfully subvert constitutional or natural rights, the sponsors and co-sponsors should get a fine. And it should be significant. It should be large enough to crawl back all the money we gave them that year.

One might contend, well, that punishment doesn’t fit the crime! The punishment has to be personal, we can’t afford our representatives neither following the rules nor safeguarding our liberty. Willfully going against our rights is an abuse of power and should either warn that politician to be way more cautious in the future. Every one of the people in government need more caution.

Expand full comment

Let's add that to the bill we can present to whatever trust worthy lawmakers we can muster to help restore our liberty.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

They weren’t merely tyrannical, ours in Georgia I think spoke out of both sides of his mouth to get as many votes as possible. I would imagine he has disappointed most of us on either side of the mask issue rather than appeased anyone.

Expand full comment

This judicial-timing concept reminds me of Ted Cruz's summary of the court challenges to the 2020 election results: before the election, they said you didn't have standing because nothing had happened yet, and then after the election, they said it was moot because it already took place.

Expand full comment

“imagine a world in which i could come to your house, take your car and refuse to give it back.”

No imagination necessary. That is what the War on Drugs + DEA were invented to enable.

P.S. Still swooning over the books and cats masterpieces. They are the silver lining of the AI mushroom cloud.

Expand full comment

It's called "civil forfeiture".

Expand full comment

"The principal function of free speech under the United States’ system of government is to invite dispute; it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."

Judge Terry A. Doughty MEMORANDUM RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

bravo, sir. bravo.

_______________________________

In spades.

Maybe there is hope for the world that such judges still live in it.

Where did he go to law school? Maybe that place deserves some hearty donor affection. They did themselves proud with that guy.

Expand full comment

PS: I first began to appreciate Shakespeare because of this:

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

And here was the response:

JACK CADE. Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment, that parchment, being scribbl'd o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings; but I say 'tis the bee's wax, for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.

___________________________________________

Damn but that man was good.

Expand full comment

I like this, but, please re-phrase it for me. I have read it a couples of times but still am wondering....

Expand full comment

Roughly in modern parlance.

JACK: "Man, this sucks. It sucks that a beautiful tree gets cut down and made into paper just so some dude can run it through a printer with a bunch of legal gobbledygook. And the worst bit? I put my JH on that same paper in order to have a place to live, and I'm trapped. It would have saved time to just chain me to the tree instead of cutting it down because I am no longer my own man. "

Expand full comment

A brilliant translation….and very nearly as wonderful as the bard’s ! 😘

Expand full comment

Shakespeare really understood how the law, purportedly designed to govern society well and fairly, can be used to destroy any hope of justice.

Expand full comment

The first amendment wasn't written to protect popular approved speech.

Expand full comment

Is this your entry for Non Sequitur of the Day?

Expand full comment

Perspicuous statement of the day.

Expand full comment

Now that's a good thought.

Expand full comment

Probably went to school 100 years ago when they still taught constitutional law,

Expand full comment

They used the same tactics in Canada whereby the government was free to violate the rights of citizens to get on a plane or train thereby banning them from travel inside the country for over two years. When the lawsuit came to court, the government temporarily suspended the travel restrictions so that the courts could then call the case moot. This suspension can be lifted at any time and the travel restrictions put back into place, as long as they are temporarily suspended again for any subsequent court challenge. The damages caused to those banned from travelling inside the country for over two years, have no recourse or avenue for redress, as long as the ban is temporarily suspended in time for the court case. This is not a justice system.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I’ve been paying attention ,but thank you for helping others to understand …….

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

No apologies necessary, I was just happy that you laid out a bit of background for anyone who wasn’t familiar with everything going on! Many thanks again

Expand full comment

Yes, it is highly relevant those background details. Raises the question; What is the point of Canada's constitution if it counts for nothing at all at the judicial level?

Expand full comment

We so need a second American Revolution. This government is not worth saving. It should be utterly dissolved. Every single agency shut down. Let the states take over whatever roles they deem essential.

Expand full comment

As Glenn Beck said last night-

We need an on/off button. The actual great reset!

I concur.

Expand full comment

I had a chuckle when I read your health insurance remark. When obamacare came around I could not afford it. I had to pay 500 bucks because I did not take an insurance I could not afford. Then 2 years into trump, I qualified for free govt care. Then came biden and I lost my govt care and had to not be sick for 2 years before medicare kicked in. Now I am on it and get constant calls (and before I blocked them, Emails) to go to the doc more. The more pressure they put on this kettle, the less I will go LOL. I have barely been in these last 40 years because I don't need them. And now I lost all confidence in docs.

Expand full comment

Better late than never. (Losing confidence in doctors).

Expand full comment

“I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell. Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.

If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty. There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British government.”

-Ron Paul, M.D.

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronpaulfarewelltocongress.htm

Expand full comment

Only 1/3 of the people supported the war for independence then as now.

Expand full comment

(Apparently it was sufficient…..wink-wink)

Expand full comment

Gato, we are "in the soup!" Caught, Cooked, and being Dished Up.

It will take a major Revolution in Consciousness to shift this catastrophe back towards Liberty and a Government that serves, not devours, it's citizens.

But there are stirrings of realization of the horrible place we are in, and good Americans are rising to the challenge; my prayer and my hope is for ever growing numbers to JOIN US!!

MEP Christine Andersen announced the charge forward against the Globalist Misanthropaths in Europe, recently.

Here the House is picking up the baton a bit, ditto the courts. But they are craven, in most cases. The People must respond, en masse, to Turn our Ship of State around.

Everyone aware but not active is part of the issue; I pray your brilliance and charm helps get them into the lines!!!

🙏🙏🙏

Expand full comment

But free stuff, Katherine, but forgiven loans, but safety, but, the right to choose( an abortion not a vaccine), but affirmative action, but my transgender nephew, but Ukraine, but Putin , and especially but Trump. Those jabs were FREE. Ooh, I love my doctor.

I so hope your perception is correct, Katherine but I don’t see much around here in the burbs. Imagine judges thinking that they should curtail freedoms while they decide if such freedoms are okay to give to the little people.

Expand full comment

Everyone I know is more than willing for us to give our all for the cause of liberty--but, refuses to deliver the funds with which this fight must be fought and won. Like Lazarus in the bible who believed in Christ but, couldn't wouldn't give up his property and wealth to join him. We have become a cowardly people jealously guarding whatever we have and will sink this and our own ships if we don't get real about the real costs of doing nothing but, well wishing those who are sacrificing everything.

Expand full comment

Will any of the cases against the Biden vaccine mandates be decided? There were injunctions, non-enforcement, and then the policies were canceled. But will there ever be a ruling as to their constitutionality?

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

At least one of the cases reached the Supreme Court, so too late for another appeal. But no final decision has been made. Any news articles or court documents with information on recent developments on the lawsuits against the Biden administration imposing vaccination requirements on employees (federal, contractor, OSHA, CMS) would be appreciated.

Expand full comment

Need to hold OSHA responsible for forcing companies to threaten to fire employees who refused to comply also.

Expand full comment

Justice Jackson’s beautiful dissent in Korematsu comes to mind.

“Much is said of the danger to liberty from the Army program for deporting and detaining these citizens of Japanese extraction. But a judicial construction of the due process clause that will sustain this order is a far more subtle blow to liberty than the promulgation of the order itself. A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency. Even during that period a succeeding commander may revoke it all. But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.”

Expand full comment

Another “thank you” !! Wise words that we should be more familiar with….

Expand full comment

Thanks!

Expand full comment

I have an additional suggestion: let’s put some goddamn teeth in the Constitution. If government is found to have violated our rights, fines or prison for the violater(s).

Expand full comment

Tarring and feathering, or more appropriately the Coucesceau treatment seem like a good start.

Expand full comment

Now there's a plan!!

Hanging Traitors might need to be the newest meme and t-shirt and billboard campaign; perhaps they may get the message before we need to manifest the concept into reality! ; ))

Expand full comment

It would only take a few.

Expand full comment

Examples are always best

Expand full comment

Thing is, will government convict and punish itself? Is government above the law? What happens when the very agencies meant to protect our rights undermine them?

Expand full comment

I keep reading your articles, nodding in agreement through the first several paragraphs, and by about a third of the way in, my head starts to explode and I have to put it away to calm down. I suppose it's a testament to your general insight on the problems we face but man, it hurts.

Expand full comment

Yes! But how do we restore the mangled mess of a technobureaucratic state that we live in? Our country is so illiterate when it comes to our actual rights that it seems an impossible task.

Expand full comment

Most people understand 2A. Sadly, most don’t know who they should use it against.

Expand full comment
Jul 15, 2023·edited Jul 15, 2023

I'm going to be debbie downer:

This is a great essay and the judge is one heck of a man but it's all moot, to use the pun. Over the last 3 years I've seen the number of people who can be bought, brainwashed or scared into compliance and it's an astronomical number. As long as that's the case, there'll aways be someone to do the masters bidding.

We have the same issues in Canada. I know of 2 legal challenges to covid mandates that were stopped on the grounds that the emergency was over and mandates were lifted. That means that the money that the people spent to mount the legal challenges was completely wasted. Next time around, start from scratch.

Eugyppius just penned a post describing how people who have suffered severe vaccine injury where the injury has been proven to have been caused by the shots lost their cases because the shots were deemed a 'net benefit' according to the 'data'. And as long as someone is willing to pay a price to have any kind of data fabricated, these stupid shots will always be a 'net benefit' and 'safe and effective'.

I just see a world where the level of lies and corruption is completely off the charts.

My only answer is pray and repent and pray for the repentance of our enemies.

Expand full comment

Four words: Bleak House Charles Dickens

Not counting words: if you haven't read it, please give it a try. It's a good read. Made it part of 'curriculum' when home-schooling daughter 8th grade (the only year I ever was able to do this).

Expand full comment

I loved that book. Brilliant work.

Expand full comment

Salve, Aria! Glad you are part of that group. Vanity Fair Thackeray, various Sinclair Lewis as well.

Expand full comment

Ciao Bella! Vanity Fair I picked up out of my parents library one innocent afternoon. Wow, what an education on not just everything that went on in the book, those times and the superb consciousness of Thackeray, but of my ever so slightly devious-minded mother who bought it in the first place. Who knew...

Expand full comment

And I think I see Thackeray's 'we MUST have this whatevertheheckitbe to maintain our social status' all around me in my suburban 'development' ( I live, and have for last 36 years, in the early 19th C farmhouse which made possible the habitations for the socially-conscious house-buyers. I (we) come from Old New England Stock--neighbors' shallow concerns are immaterial to us (largely).

Expand full comment