Actually not on the verge, it is something that has been going on for quite some time. But as to the shooting version, that is on the horizon and moving forward at an alarming rate.

But on the other hand, what if they gave a war and no one came? Would the world's ruling elite fight it themselves?

Just about nowhere does anyone actually state the real facts but instead want to only address the issue of the deranged, of course starting with Odumbo.

In this nation of approximately 330 million souls, there are approximately 330,000 transgenders according to consensus being bantered around.

Since when does the unwarranted rights of one that has made a conscious choice to deviate from what their creator deemed them to be override the actual rights of all others? Well it doesn't except in a slave nation where some believe themselves to be the masters of all others.

Well from my perspective, if one where to transgress or more properly trespass upon the rights of my daughter, they would die, quickly based upon the common law rights of trespass.

If those choosing not to identify with their birth sex, then they have the right to medically alter it appear as they wish and be accepted as such.

As for Odumbo, does that mean Michelle needs to start using the men's room?

How very true, first the 13th Amendment which established that all the slaves where voluntary except for those that disagree with the state. And then the 14th Amendment that made all the slaves as one and subject to be dictated against.

Not really, it's that which is to be expected in such a progressive city as Chicago, not sad at all when that is what the people have chosen to represent them.

And where's Odumbo wanting stricter gun laws? This is clearly a case where the criminally intended should not have guns.

And what expectation would you have if that where true? Seems they did lose the reigns in 2014 but what has really changed other than Odumbo getting more than he ever got from his compatriots.

Wow, now there is a raging endorsement that standing true to form means if someone gets it by this connotation , it would imply that the theorem presented is based on some preconceived fallacy as in actuality it is.

All governments everywhere depend for their survival on their victim "citizens" failing to see (that is, to understand) what they are doing. In English, to "see" carries both meanings; we can see what they are up to, yet at the same time fail to grasp its significance.

It's an amazing form of blindness, yet it affects nearly everyone! It affected me, for most of my life. Here are some early examples.

I was born in England. My father had started a career with an insurance firm. We didn't have a live-in servant, though in those days it was quite common to do so in the middle class. My parents did, however, hire a nanny to care for my young self, and they did have a cleaning lady keep the house tidy once or twice a week. The family was well set.

Then when I was five, the King sent Dad a letter and he had to leave his career and go to fight for His Majesty; all their plans for a peaceful and prosperous future were put on hold. Why? What the hell had we to do with the King or his ministers? Those key questions we failed completely to ask. We all saw that buff envelope that drafted my father, but none of us saw what was going on – that it outrageously asserted that he had some duty to be enslaved to someone else. Perhaps you'll think that at five I might be excused; but I'm not sure that's correct. Five is a good age to be asking penetrating and uninhibited questions – yet I didn't ask them. And what of my parents, who saw the same as I did; why did they not see, as well as seeing?

I can perceive only one answer, namely that all of their upbringing, and that of their parents and grandparents, had grafted into their worldview the fiction that in some way it was right or noble or patriotic, or at any rate to be performed without complaint, to Obey Authority. This was the warp and woof of the whole culture, and it ran through all classes, and something very similar runs in every country. Laid out plain in black and white, it's ridiculous and obscene, but there it is; that buff envelope was not welcome (8mm home movies prove that) but there was absolutely no question of challenging its validity.

My father did "well," in the sense of pushing to get his particular skills used to His Majesty's best advantage (and his own) and was never shot at – though the whole family was bombed with some fairly close calls, after I became six and we moved with him to London; and there I saw some of the rubble and destruction caused by earlier German raids. (That was the government upon which "ours" had declared war, though everyone said they had "started it.") My friend David and I greatly enjoyed dirt biking up and down the smoothed-over piles of mud and bricks that had once been homes or shops or offices; we were near a critical rail junction and the raiders' aim had been quite good. I saw none of the bodies that had been buried there; they had long since been removed. But I saw the destruction. And yet I did not see it.

I knew it was deliberate, for the raiders came again and I could stand in the back yard and watch the most amazing firework display any kid of that age might enjoy, and exult if "one of theirs" appeared to be brought down. But I did not see what was going on. I did not see that every death, every ruin, was brought about by an act of government and that "ours" was no better or worse than "theirs" and so conclude that the primary activity of governments was to destroy. I've no idea what clearer evidence I could have expected to see, it was right before my eyes and under my bicycle wheels--and yet, I did not see it.

Later I saw photos of the mushroom clouds over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and read of the numbers irradiated and killed, yet did not see the gruesome cruelty of such mass murder. Nor did I flinch at news of equally deadly firestorm raids on Hamburg and Dresden, by heroes of the RAF whom I could see walking the streets every day in their smart blue uniforms. This was "good" because the victims were the "enemy"; they had culpably elected to be born in Germany or Japan. This absurdity too I saw, yet did not see.

Time passed, and despite Churchill's popularity, his rivals of the Labour Party were elected to power and transformed the society in five or six years – by diktat, taking "ownership" of what they called the "commanding heights of the economy." I got interested, and didn't like it. In particular, I noticed that health care was being radically changed, for the worse. I saw these changes, and sensed something was wrong about them, but did not see what. Massive assets were being taken from their owners by government, in one of history's biggest heists, but somehow (at age 11) I failed to connect that with common or garden stealing. I must have blindly supposed that one moral standard applied to plain folk, but a wholly different one to government. I saw, yet did not see.

These were my formative years. Everything was being done in the open, all was visible, yet I did not see until decades later what I needed to see and should have seen.

How much clearer could the evidence before me have been? That governments destroy and kill and steal and disrupt ordinary family life, that such is their everyday business? And since I saw it all yet failed to see it, what had to happen to me – and tens of millions of others – for my vision to be corrected? Can there be the slightest excuse for anyone to take a long hard look at what is actually happening in plain sight all around them and not to become a committed anarchist on the spot?

The choice, surely, is perfectly clear. Either one endorses mayhem and murder and destruction and savagery and supports the institution of government, or else one rejects and repudiates the lot and declares oneself utterly opposed to it, root and branch.

We who now try to introduce friends to the notion that government is a ruinous appendage to society begin by facing wall to wall resistance and ridicule, as if the arguments for such an outlandish idea are feeble. The truth is the direct contrary; the arguments are overwhelming, the evidence is abundant and plainly visible. The problem rather is in their failure to perceive, to see yet not to see it. They are looking at that evidence – as I was, as a young boy and for many decades following – through distorting glasses, which deliberately turn it inside out and upside down. Those glasses have been shaped and polished by centuries of cultural influence, that insist that government is necessary and that the morality of its actions are sprinkled by the holy water of religion. If we are to persuade them, we have to start with those glasses and contrast the image they give with simple fact. That starting point is well expressed in four letters: "A is A." Reality is what we observe; nothing more, nothing less.

Because A is A, when a gang of heavily armed thugs smashes into an apartment and pumps 22 bullets into Jose Guerena before he can release the safety latch on his rifle, and then impedes paramedics trying to save him, that invasion of normal family life and the murder of its head is precisely what took place. The fact that the gang had been sent by an official of government is irrelevant, except to show yet again what government is actually like. A is A. Simply look at it, see it as it is. Remove the specs.

Because A is A, when the US government uses drones to kill 2,292 people in Pakistan and Afghanistan (through August 2011) including 775 "civilians" (what are those, exactly?) and 168 children, so disrupting ordinary family life in the most brutal and total manner, that is precisely what happened; A is A. That government organized its resources by stealing money to pay engineers to design and manufacture weapons, then to pay others to aim them at what its senior commanders say are its "enemies," and reporters report the "collateral damage" of that many bodies, including children. This is what governments do, in plain sight. All anyone has to do it to see it, as well as to see it. To remove the specs.

Because A is A, when a bill arrives demanding money in exchange for services you never ordered and do not want, accompanied by a threat to seize your home and evict you upon failure to pay it, extortion is precisely what is taking place, no matter its disguise as needed "education" for neighbors' children, etc. A is A. Just see it as it is; remove the specs.

Because A is A, when a paycheck arrives with deductions you never authorized, a portion of your labor is being stolen; you are being partially enslaved. That is what is happening; A is A. Recognize reality; remove the specs. See, as well as seeing.

Because A is A, when over a million Americans are caged like animals without having done any proven harm to anyone else, it is crystal clear that a well-organized gang of thugs has subjected them to total enslavement, so as to impose on them its will; that is what is taking place. Remove the specs.

To see as well as to see is the essential prerequisite for action, but is not of course the action itself. Having understood what is going on, reason demands we do something about it. The first action is to resolve to oppose the obvious, manifest evil of government; readers who have not yet taken that vital but inward step are encouraged to take it now.

The other needed action is to figure out how the government era can be ended, and get to work. In my opinion, it's surprisingly easy, and this article outlines how. Possibly, you prefer a different way. So long as it involves no violence, that's fine; go do it, and good luck. But whatever you do, please don't do nothing. See, then see, then take rational action.

Jim Davies, To See, Yet Not to See

Well documented, such as where? And staying in line with the OP, what did Hitlerly have to say about it?

Wow, sounds remarkably like those US code books popularly known as statutes.

Progressing from what decades ago was a classical liberal now rushing toward unabashed Communism. But hey let's be fair and not forget the Neo-Cons like McCain that is rushing toward total fascism.

But that is normal, Hitlerly always lies. But as to the recruiting source for ISIS, what about this?

It Is Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Not Donald Trump, In An ISIS Recruiting Video

So you have no clue nor can defend as to what you speak but you still feel free to ridicule that which you can't comprehend?

It would seem from your statements that you do need to define democracy as what you imply seems to defy any dictionary.



Wrong again, you would be correct in the overall correlation but not in the party you claim to be wrong. For the real party in error, you need but find a mirror.

As to the Senators I would suggest you start with the Federalist Papers, No 62, to wit:

"In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic."

As to the chief magistrate, I would suggest you read the Federalist Papers, No. 68, to wit:

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

It's a very commonly held belief, which is still very influential today, all over the world. Here in the US especially, there are people high up in both of the main parties, who are completely sure that most Americans aren't up to the task of guiding the country, and have to be lied to and bribed in various ways, for their own good.



What democratic government, do you live in Switzerland also?

Judge, what needs judging? It would seem history makes it self evident.

Constitutional Anarchist and anarchistical constitutionalist are both oxymoronic. I would say that you have provided conclusive proof that any seeming judgement on your part about political systems would be the one in question.

Not actually I live upon the land that has always been here, since the big bang, much nicer now than then but still the same.

As to the usurpers, they have authority extending from the barrel of a gun, a gun that is paid for by the victims as are the ones holding the guns.

Nowhere-Land, that fictional space where the slaves live under the impression they are actually free while bowing to their servants calling them masters. Such a confusing place. Sort of like Switzerland and that mythical "Direct Democracy" thing.

They sure are, the Russian bombs seem to be hitting real targets. But the real news are the three largest enemies of the US, North Korea, Iran and Syria and there just happens to be only three countries in the world without a Rothchild central bank, North Korea, Iran and Cuba. In 2000 there were seven but Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and Libya have all been incorporated into the realm.

Three holdouts to a world currency but I hear Castro needs cash so perhaps only two remaining. Question, is Russia and Chine trying to become the arbitrator of that new fiat paper?

Actually there is many statements they have stopped nothing, so massive amount of data they don't know which way to look next. Back to role of the average cop, protection is limited to after the fact, not very effective when extreme violence is involved.

Hey, why do all the liars always have a name tag saying they are "Honorable"? Just whom are they trying to convince, themselves?

Sort of like saying the Nobel Peace Prize means something!!!