Our Worthless Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America is only words on paper. Those words cannot make anyone do anything. They don't pack clubs and guns to beat people into submission; forcing them to yield all power. As the Supreme Court continues to debate and decide the constitutionality of law it cooperates and empowers the Legislative and Executive branches of Government to discredit, demean and void that very Constitution. The American people's elected representatives and their appointed cohorts that are sworn and tasked with defending and enforcing Constitutional Law use it to justify their criminal acts repudiating it's very legitimacy - it's right to exist.

So, what value is the U.S. Constitution? What protection does it provide for the people? If the U.S. Constitution amounts to nothing more than an inanimate, but revered document, what obligates anyone to it?

Before the United States could become legally united, the majority of the people had to create and accept a legal document to legitimize their right to exist, first as an independent people and second, as a sovereign nation. Replacing that legal document with the defacto rule by men delegitimizes the American people's legitimate existence. Rule of Men is defined when they justify their deliberate refusal and failure to obey and enforce the Law: "The punishment does not fit the crime, therefore the crime is disallowed." The "ends" now legally, by precedent "justify the means." To prove that, we have to go no further than the current President Barack Obama's conduct. Here's just one example: Collapsing U. S. Credibility. The historical record for the past twenty years in particular since 2000 clearly demonstrates America's slide into the black hole of anarchy and lawlessness - like cancer, evidence of their illegitimacy. Every American that stands outside of law is responsible for this. Every time you choose to run a stop sign you vote for corruption, you vote for lawless anarchy and chaos. You vote for this:

Nothing Justifies This - from Amnesty International. Read the article and view the clip, it needs to be experienced to realize this happens right here on American soil. It's time for you to make a choice.

--Joe

A Wreck is a Wreck, Is a Wreck – Is A Wreck

A week ago, September 7, 2011, the Times-Standard posted this picture captioned: Three-vehicle collision in Eureka. Click on the picture to read what they said happened. The pertinent parts: “According to Eureka Police officers and witnesses on the scene, a blue Honda Accord was headed west on Hodgson Street and did not stop before attempting to cross H Street.” *** “The female driver of the blue Honda was transported to St. Joseph Hospital with minor cuts and chest pains; the occupants of the other two vehicles were uninjured.” [Emphasis added]

My first response was, “Well, at least the one that ran the stop sign on a major thru-street was the only one to get hurt.” My second response was that this seemed like a good opportunity to demonstrate the increasing bad consequences for the whole community of people that deliberately runs stop signs hurting people.

In the meantime, while working on this project, I read in today's Time-Standard, Letters To The Editor: "Accident caption" by Loran Parker of Eureka.

Accident caption

Letter to the Editor

Posted: 09/15/2011 02:00:18 AM PDT

Yes, you printed a photo caption about an accident that happened at the intersections of Hodgeson and H Street in Eureka in last Wednesday's paper. The accident happened the day before. Well, I don't know where you people get your information from but your whole story is wrong.

You see, my wife was driving the blue Honda that got hit. She did stop at the stop sign on Hodgeson. The person that hit her was going way too fast to start with to do the damage that happened to my wife's car. I believe it was posted for 30 mph on that street. The driver who hit her had a clear view of the road ahead of him with plenty of time to at least slow down a little before impact, but with the damage done to our car should be enough to show he was traveling way over the posted speed. Also my wife never hit another vehicle. The third vehicle involved was behind the person that hit my wife. So, let's get the story straight, OK?

Loran Parker

Eureka

It seems, according to Loran Parker, there are some discrepancies regarding the accuracy of this reporting apparently by Josh Jackson of the Times-Standard. Parker says, his wife stopped at that intersection. He says, according to the amount of the damage done to his wife's car by the car that hit his wife, the cause of the "collison" was “speeding” by the other two drivers involved in the “collision.” So, did the Ford Thunderbird "clip" her as stated in the paper? Or did the Ford Thunderbird hit her? Either way, what happen here is NO “collision.” It is a flat out deliberate and intentional WRECK. It's no accident that two people were deliberately speeding or that the other driver ran a stop sign. Hodgson at this point is certainly not a through street and anyone living in Eureka would know that.  

Suppose, however, that the driver of the blue Honda Accord did stop at the stop sign and that the other two northbound cars on H were actually doing the speed limit. We all know that H Street is a through street and that traffic has the right of way. Does that mean that the H Street traffic has the right to slam into someone already in the intersection? Or does the cross-traffic, in this case the blue Honda, could dart out in front of the through traffic, get into the intersection first and expect the through traffic to yield? How does a car stopped at a stop sign on a through street, hit or “clip” another car already in the intersection – even a fast moving car? A real conundrum. I'm sure the police have that puzzle simplified to a basic state – through traffic has the right of way, car on right failed to yield, end of story ( even though car on right was already IN the intersection or exiting the intersection.)

...and then God chimed in: (Times-Standard, Letter to Editor, Friday, September 16, 2011)

No, you guys had it right

Now let's get this straight – Mr. Parker must be telling the truth.

After all – his wife said she stopped. But then again she drove out in front of on coming traffic.

(NOTE: Makes it impossible for her to “clip a Ford Thunderbird.”)

Not good. Especially when speed limit 35 ( and not 30 Mr. P.)

If she can't judge how far away and how fast a car is approaching, especially if it is speeding – then who allowed her to be licensed??

(NOTE: As a Commercial Truck Driver for a portion of my life, it is precisely the “speeder” that is most difficult to gauge their speed.)

You guys got it correct. His letter is a joke.

James Tenney
Eureka

(NOTE: Don't know who these “guys” are he's talking to. The Times-Standard Editor is female.)

Why is it that there are so many wrecks on the through streets in Eureka?

--Joe

Anarchy in Humbug County – WHY?

The reason is, the people have spoken!

This was never more illustrated today than by this latest sick maneuver by some CHP officer and our illustrious District Attorney to legitimize murder. Or is the word a "killing"? It amounts to the same thing. Someone died at the hands of another. But, what else could they do?

We're talking about the latest in the saga of Allen Bear's “accused hitting and killing a cyclist last summer.” His name was Gregory Jennings. Read the article and NOTE: First, it's “Hoopa driver,” then is “Hoopa man,” and next it's “accused,” and “a cyclist.” To continue it is “reporting officer,” and “officer's opinion,” and we finally find out who the “cyclist” is half way through the article. This is the “Thought Police” at their best. Dehumanize, depersonalize and neuter the issue to abstract object entities and worthless opinions that devalues life.

Everyone can blame the California Highway Patrol and Paul Gallegos the District Attorney. God knows, the share responsibility. My question is, will any of them stand accountable? Doesn't seem likely, but the answer is – they and their families are already paying that price right along with everyone else that 'takes their lives in their hands' and ventures out on any city street, county road or state highway. These lawless anarchist assault us all.

The laws governing how we conduct ourselves when driving a motor vehicle are worthless. Not because the police DON'T enforce them. Well, mostly don't enforce them – apparently only when convenient. The laws are worthless because MOST drivers refuse to comply. The DEFACTO reality determines the law. When 90% of drivers treat stop signs as if they are non-existent the majority voter has redefined the law governing stop signs either non-existent or something else. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!

How then does the courts, the District Attorney or any police officer hold anyone accountable for failure to stop, let alone resulting deaths? They can't and they don't.

Allison White reports in the Times-Standard that: “Gross negligence, as defined in California statute, is an act done with such careless disregard for the safety of others' lives that it is likely to cause foreseeable injury.” The problem is with anarchy, when the majority vote, in this instance that stop signs don't mean stop and drive, or vote them as something ornamental, THEY MEET THIS STANDARD. What about the driver that consistently runs the Safety Corridor between Eureka and Arcata at 60 plus MPH? When one or two cars race by at that speed other drivers speedup to follow. By the time you get to the 65 MPH sign approaching Arcata everyone one of them is going 70 plus MPH. Every driver that deliberately and purposely drives this way or drives 35 MPH or better in a 25 MPH speed zone, rolls through a stop sign without even slowing down or only noticeably reduces speed because the turn requires it, is GROSSLY NEGLIGENT!

The sad truth is many of these lawless people I observe, driving without regard for life or property, have vehicles full of young children. What do they think they are teaching their children? To be safe on the streets and watch out for people like themselves? Hardly! And those that don't have children in their cars racing around like lunatics, how many of their children are playing Russian Roulette with people just like them?

Is it because life has no value? These people are more important than everyone else? Laws are only for the old and the stupid? These drivers are basically right-wing bullies? Left-wing socialist, pinko commies? Illegal aliens and foreigners that are ignorant of the law? Or American Indians that are citizens of sovereign nations and are exempt? Regardless! Anarchy or people that drive like Allan Bear are a loaded gun or a bomb, ready to explode.

Every driver that races through a stop sign is a driver trying to hurt or kill some innocent person. It's a no man's land out there and everyone is on his own. When the elected and appointed authorities don't do what decent, law-abiding people that believe in our system justice and civil order put them their to do, people do what people do – they live! That means when they see someone deliberately run a red light or a stop sign or any other gross negligent act and kill an innocent pedestrian, bike rider or mother and small children on their way to school, they take matters into their own hands and make that person accountable – the ultimate expression of ANARCHY.

[Image Source]

--Joe

Psycho Terrorists

(UPDATE BELOW - Update II)

The World and its people are facing an ever expanding and never ending War on Terrorism. That War is fought, according to some, against ideological, religious extremists, sometimes these are governments or regimes, but mostly against people. All it takes to be guilty of being a terrorist is for someone to make the accusation. These people are held in a cage indefinitely, some for nearly a decade, psychologically, emotionally and physically tortured. Even when ordered by the Courts they continue to hold them. Most astounding in all of this is that these lawless criminals do all of this with impunity.

There are many forms of terrorism. To name a few, there are Civil Disorders, Political Terrorism, Non-Political Terrorism, Quasi-Terrorism, Limited Political Terrorism, Official or State Terrorism, and Structural Terrorism. There is Democratic and domestic terrorism, Islamic Terrorism. Add to this: Christian Terrorism, Communist Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, Cyber-terrorism, Domestic terrorist (United States), Eco-terrorism, Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, Islamic Terrorism Jewish Terrorism, Narcoterrorism, the Patriot Act and that's just from Wikipedia.

Add to this list the latest from the Huffington Post: Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism -- Shanny Moore concludes her article by saying:

The "war on terror" needs to include domestic religious, fundamentalist terrorists.

You can add to that list Socio and Psycho Terrorism.

It's time for people to recognized terrorism for what it is in all of its insidious forms. Terrorists, by their very nature, exist in the dark. They hide behind good and decent people and appear normal, average and common. They talk the good talk, they put on a good facade. In truth, however, they are the worst of the worst; they are traitors in the fullest meaning of the word. They are deviant, lying, murderous cowards. They butcher innocent women and children to get at the men. They attack people where they live without remorse or conscience.

A good definition of Social Terrorism by Louis Komzsik in his book of the same name is:

Social terrorism is a subversive activity in which a small segment of the society, in order to gain or retain control, arrogates its philosophy onto the majority of the society, while completely disregarding the good of the society as a whole.

Socio Terrorists are a new breed. They attack society at its most fundamental framework and legitimate reasons for existence. They preach freedom, but practice discrimination, prejudice, bigotry and terrorize by lies, false accusations, slander and all kinds of innuendo. They demand the right to protection of law, but at heart they are lawless anarchists that assault the law in every way possible.

In many ways Socio Terrorism is like Psycho Terrorism and Psycho Terrorism is like Psychological Warfare.

The U.S. Department of Defense defines psychological warfare (PSYWAR) as: "The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives."

During World War II the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff defined psychological warfare more broadly stating "Psychological warfare employs any weapon to influence the mind of the enemy. The weapons are psychological only in the effect they produce and not because of the weapons themselves." (Emphasis added) [Wikipedia]

Frankly, this article on Psycho Terrorists is mandated by what resulted from the Report article titled, “Trolls and the Thought Police” based upon the Time-Standard newspaper article written by Dave Stancliff in his Sunday, May 31, 2009, “As It Stands” column. When he was unsuccessful bullying us into doing what he wanted, he personally attacked and vilified us on his Blog. You can read what he accused us of being and of doing here. It seems there is a certain class of people in this country that have the right to say these kinds of things and worse in public, on the TV, in Internet Blogs, Newspapers and magazines whereas if this was someone from the Ku Klux Klan, some Nazi militia talking about the Jews or one of any other radical extremist Believer they'd be arrested and thrown in jail in a heartbeat for hate crimes under old laws and terrorism under the Patriot Act.

Yet, they are not. The question is, why not?

That very question was asked by Dr. Warren Hern in his Democracy Now interview today. In fact, he makes the very point of our observations discussed in the Report about “Trolls and the Thought Police.” This is just one of his comments:

But I think that it’s—the glee expressed by the anti-abortion fanatics is just grotesque. It’s ghoulish. These people—this is a violent terrorist movement in this country, and the American people need to understand that there’s a great deal more at stake here than the activities of one doctor, of the services of one doctor. Of course, this is a great loss for women, but this means that we have a very highly organized, active, well-armed and well-funded terrorist movement in the country that opposes the basic premises of American society. These people are opposed to constitutional democracy. They’re opposed to the rule of law. They’re opposed to a democratic government, representative government. They’re opposed to basic personal freedom. They’re opposed to thought. And this is a tremendous step backwards. [Emphasis added]

Louis Komzsik says these terrorists, "in order to gain or retain control, arrogates its philosophy onto the majority of the society." Arrogate is an interesting word. It means, "to claim unwarrantably or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself without right" the authority to make one's worthless opinions fact. This is done by repeating the same lies over and over until everyone accepts it as truth. In other words just "BS" propaganda. While Blog articles and commentary are a dime-a-dozen, the problem is when posted, they become or have the potential to become volatile.

Real terrorism is a lot closer to home in America than most of us would want to believe. Our article on the Thought Police touched a real nerve. As, perhaps, it should.

UPDATE: Thursday, June 11, 2009
A good article by Joan Walsh, "Can right-wing hate talk lead to murder?"
Some think it already has.

UPDATE: Monday, June 22, 2009
Racism, Hate Speech, Extremism, bigotry, worthless opinions and lies are self-defining. Whether or not the person or persons making these statements are racist, hate mongers, bigots, or worthless liars is probably a personal judgment. Or is it? When you see a duck do you say, "there goes a turkey"?

Dave Stancliff has posted two "As It Stands" blogs accusing me of "spewing hate" in my May 31, 2009, "Troll's versus Thought Police" article about one of his Time-Standard, "As It Stands" columns. You can read that article and make up your own mind. When you find that "hate" I'd like someone to point it out. Or you can read what he said and tell me if it's a turkey?

Monday, June 15, 2009

Joe Blow (conspiracy) Report staff bawl like babies!

Well readers, this is what I have to contend with sometimes. Extremists tend to attack anything that doesn't fit their world view. There's a group at the Joe Blow Report blog that decided to attack me on May 31st and who posted a hate-filled rant about a column I did on trolls (of all the ironies!) This is a group that has the mind-set of a steel trap.

Now they have their crying towels (it took them two weeks to think of a reply) out and are blubbering to all that will read their raving. I'm not going to be intimidated by a bunch of cowards who are whining about a conspiracy between me and the Times-Standard to attack trolls! Good grief! Get a life you blowhards.

I don't know who you think you are, but I do know that you seek to impose your will upon others by reading your past posts. Now you think you can silence me by making outrageous accusations and trying to get the newspaper to drop my column. Guess again gang. You'll never be able to silence me. You best bet is to change your soiled diapers and to find someone else to pick on

Posted by Dave Stancliff at 3:37 PM

--Joe

California's NEW Stop Law

Does STOP mean s t o p ?

Based upon my observations of an intersection containing two stop signs and one bad blind corner on the right that has no stop sign, in other words through traffic with the right of way, at the most 25% actually stop. All others blow through the intersection as if they had the absolute right of way, most never slow to 15 MPH. Some treat it as an open intersection without any stop signs, but most just keep on rolling.

What's my point? The general scofflaw public has ALREADY VOTED IN CALIFORNIA!

They've made stop signs yield signs and probably for the same reasons as bike riders, save on gas, energy, or no laudable reason for actually stopping. Now is several states their thinking about making rolling stops actually legal for bike riders. Here's good explanation of what their talking about doing, thanks to Green Wheels. Here's another good link and discussion on the bike legislation.

---

So what's next? Build roundabouts where no one (mostly) pays any attention to "Yield" signs and slows to 15 MPH in major intersections? Turn all the traffic lights to flashing amber and call it a free for all? In a society where everyone (mostly everyone) thinks they're above the law it might save a few people from getting hurt or killed, in particular pedestrians, thinking the law will protect them. Considering the present state on our streets and highways where these highbinders rule, I'm not real sure any of these new laws protect bikers, old or young.

Of course, it isn't any wonder why people believe they can act above the law with impunity in this country. At one time not too long ago, this country executed criminals for crimes President George Bush and Barack Obama committed. Aside from that, the criminal bankers get rewarded while while the same bankers foreclose on thousands of families on a trumped up economic disaster they caused. Closer to home we've got classic examples of the "Law" protecting and defending the rights criminal killers. One was the poor fellow crossing the street by the North Coast Eureka Co-op and the other was Roger Rodoni just to name a couple. When was the last time you actually saw a police officer enforce a stop sign?

--Joe