Liberal Democrats and the Bill of Rights

Anyone who paid attention during the Covid lockdowns, testing and mask regimes saw what I saw: A very high correlation between liberal Democrat governors and highly repressive rules. My former home state of Montana was among the worst. Governor Bullock mandated that anyone entering the State be quarantined for two weeks, with or without (worthless) PCR testing. New York and California were equally and unjustifiably harsh. These liberal cats bared their claws and stopped pretending to be supporters of our Constitution.

MM recently wrote the following:

As you may know, the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade as unconstitutional, and Congresslady Maxine Waters immediately puckered up and gave a press conference and said “to hell with the Supreme Court, we will defy them”. In any rational universe, that would be cause for her immediate arrest and permanent ejection from Congress, since that is treason.

Indeed, a group of office holders who cared so little about due process and free assembly during the lockdowns are not going to honor the law of the land, a Supreme Court decision.

MM urged that Waters be jailed, and I second that notion.

We’ve written plenty about the Covid regime. This post, however, is about another court ruling.

In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, a few weeks back, the Court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment means what it says, that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, including publicly. It gets a bit technical, as 43 states have rules that are referred to as “shall issue” which allows them to set guidelines for carrying a weapon, while not outlawing it. The Court did not rule on those states, instead focusing on New York, which had enacted harsh laws, rule and regulations that effectively overruled the Second Amendment.

The New York legislature quickly passed a law that flies in the face of Bruen, doing a Maxine Waters on that ruling. They now require 16 hours of curriculum training and two hours of live fire-range training. That, to me, sounds reasonable.

But in addition, the state wants applicants to turn over their social media accounts so that the state can determine if they are of sound moral character. That sounds subjective. Here is the actual wording of the statute so hurriedly passed. It wants to ascertain that applicants for carry permits are people …

“having the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.”

Now we are talking privacy. That will surely have to be litigated. Looks like the State Attorney General is headed for another trip to the Supreme Court Building.

The State Legislature also made a list of places where, no matter any ruling, people are not allowed to carry weapons. They are …

Government buildings, clinics, churches, libraries, parks, playgrounds, child and family service offices, nurseries, preschools, summer camps, addiction treatment centers, mental health facilities, homeless, youth and family shelters, schools,public transportation,bars, performing art centers, sports stadiums, polling places, public gatherings covered under the First Amendment, and Times Square.

That is not an exhaustive list. I left several other venues out just because they were too wordy. I am trying to think of a place it does not cover. All I can think of is our houses, maybe our bathrooms. It appears every public venue is off limits.

I would call this list of places where the Second Amendment is outlawed “Maxine Waters zones,” in honor of her words of defiance over Dobbs.

Obviously, New York wants to defy Bruen. That is just how liberals rule. Part of their problem is their lack of humility, and the certainty that they are right and morally superior to the rest of us. They are not only wrong about that, but downright annoying. As Mark Twain said, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” People so certain of their own righteousness are, in my view, dangerous.

Here is an article describing how New York has effectively nullified Bruen. It also contains a full list of Maxine Waters Zones, including the ones I left out.

20 thoughts on “Liberal Democrats and the Bill of Rights

  1. As if the Constitution (or any of the “Founding Documents”, for that matter) ever meant anything, to begin with. Even the “Founding Fathers” themselves broke the law several times, so they knew it was “just a goddamned piece of paper”, as George W. Bush is reported to have once said.

    The Sedition Act of 1798 comes to mind, which violated the 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights. That law was so unpopular it had to be repealed a few years later to save face, but that didn’t stop them from censoring/controlling information through private channels (periodicals, newspapers, books, etc.), as they do now.

    Not to mention that those men sold America out to Britain after faking the “War of Independence” (e.g., the treaties of 1783 & ’94, which gave generous concessions to the British crown at the expense of the newly-formed, fledgling American Republic.)

    So by Miles’ standards, even the “Founders” themselves were guilty of treason and should’ve been tried and executed for it. And from the British point-of-view, their decision to declare independence from the “Mother Country” – allegedly over issues relating to taxation and infringement of civil liberties – was an act of treason in itself.

    And while they complained about taxation (which also ties into the recent Coronascam and the incredible looting of the U.S. Treasury that followed), one of their fellows – George Washington – was attempting to levy a tax on whiskey/alcohol, also hugely unpopular among the populace back then, so he could steal more revenue from the sheeple and give the proceeds to himself and his buddies in business & government, which I’m sure included the First U.S. Bank (with interest attached), a precursor to the two central banking systems that followed – the Second U.S. Bank and the Federal Reserve. It’s been said that two-thirds of that central bank’s shareholders were British, so even that was another con-job.

    Except that in Washington’s case (unlike John Adams with his Sedition Act), he didn’t back off: he pushed forward by calling in federal troops to quench opposition to his edict, so the law could be enforced. Or so the story goes. (He also established military districts within the then-thirteen states during that time, which might explain the army bases involved in these psyops. This was all preplanned, don’t you agree?)

    So much for “taxation without representation”, eh?

    It’s been a scam from the very beginning, as I’ve said before.


    1. What’s even more ironic was the fact that Washington himself was a raging alcoholic who owned and ran distilleries that produced and sold ‘spirits’ like whiskey. I suppose he wanted extra funding to pay for his profitable alcoholic business, so he levied the federal whiskey tax to provide more monies from the Treasury he could steal, even though it’s claimed below that it was supposed to provide funding for infrastructure (sound familiar to “Build Back Better”? We all know how that panned out.)

      You can read more about that here:

      I especially love this part from the above article, which says that:

      “In addition to attending his first theatrical performance and watching his first fireworks display within the biggest city he’d ever visited, Washington also discovered his first love for rum.”

      So not only he was fond of alcohol, but he was also an actor, or at least of acting. Lovely, eh?

      Fun fact: it’s said that the tax collector at the time was General John Neville, which, of course, ties us to the Families and the British peerage. I’m sure Neville was related to George Washington. You can learn more about him here:

      I wouldn’t be surprised if the Whiskey Rebellion was faked/manufactured, possibly for the same reason they faked the Manson affair: to blackwash the opposition (in this case tax protestors), as well as to send a message that civil disobedience is a bad thing (ironic, considering that the American Revolution was allegedly about civil disobedience against “tyrants”, but I digress.)

      Apparently, we’re told that Neville and his slaves were not harmed by the angry mob during the rebellion despite the fact that they were the target of the mob’s fury, which makes no sense to me, although his Bower Hill residence was destroyed in the process (insurance fraud, perhaps? I’m sure he billed the Treasury for that, too.) Only one person died in the chaos, although they don’t disclose who was that victim. Make sense of that, if you can.

      He then moved away from his career as a federal tax collector and went into the privatization business, in which he auctioned or sold public lands to dealers for profit, so he was earning “dirty money” in that way. He also entertained French emigres such as Louise Philippe d’Orleans, whose family played a key role in manufacturing the French Revolution (which also had to do with taxation. Funny how all that works.)

      Neville reportedly died in 1803, a year after the federal whiskey tax was repealed by Congress. Convenient. Did he have a life insurance policy, by any chance? Let me know if you have any pertinent information to dispel here.

      To be continued…


      1. Thing is, HPM, even if you’re right, you’re never going to rally the public around a philosopher’s vision of tearing down all illusions. As a practical matter, the Constitution is a better mythology than any of the other major contenders. And I’m not convinced it was entirely part of the program – it may have been from a genuine philosophical schism among TPTB of the day. Whether they were all saints or not, that’s obviously an unrealistic standard.


        1. I’m under no illusions about public opinion regarding the CONstitution (the capitalized “CON” is intentional, in case you’re curious), so, of course, there’s no chance one can rally the masses to make them see the truth behind such myths. They’re so brainwashed that there’s no hope of even remotely opening any reasonable, open discussion with them, much less awakening them. They’re docile sheep in human form.

          As for whether or not the document was part of a “genuine philosophical schism” amongst the power elite of that period, I believe it was yet another project designed to give people the illusion of rights guaranteed by the rule of law, meanwhile maintaining the hegemony of America’s ruling class (and their foreign counterparts in the “Old World”), rather than a product of some faction amongst the criminal rulership that was more benevolent, for it set the groundwork of centralized power in this country, which is what the Families prefer. Not to mention the fact that the plebians played no role in its creation and it was crafted in secret. You can learn more about that here:

          In fact, I would argue that the Articles of Confederation was moreso a part of a “genuine philosophical schism” than the U.S. Constitution was, as it provided a more democratic template of governance (under the compact, much of the power was held by the states, thereby control was decentralized), something the Families did not like, hence why they scrapped it a decade after the Articles came into being. There were also plans to establish a central banking system (Alexander Hamilton and others advocated it), something that goes well with a centralized power structure, which may partly explain why they replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.

          Nobody is a saint, of course, but I believe I made my case clear when it comes to the true intentions of the people who created this country and their notable flaws. The reality clearly shows through when one looks at it in the same manner we do for other psyops.


          1. Be that as it may, I still say that not all cons are created equal. The founding tenets of the US were empowering to average citizens, even if there was some cynical design behind it all. Just look at what a pushover Canada has been through all this (excepting their trucker protest.) We’re pretty far gone, but they have to work 24/7 running psyops and propaganda to do it.

            As a thought experiment, what if the majority of the public were diehard Constitutionalists. Who studied it and took every word as gospel. TPTB would be completely stymied, no? In fact many in the red states are true believers, and they do act as a check on much of the insanity.


            1. Yes, they did provide some false sense of empowerment for the average field slave (American), although it ultimately benefitted the aristocracy running the country.

              As for the masses being “diehard Constitutionalists”, I beg to differ. Many of them actually opposed the Constitution, seeing it as an attempt to centralize power & resources into the hands of a privileged few to the detriment of the many (and they were right).

              This is one of the reasons why the “Founders” drafted the Constitution in secret – because they knew that putting it up for popular scrutiny and approval won’t work. That’s also why non-rich people couldn’t vote in federal elections until that privilege was expanded to them in the mid-19th century.


              1. Wild lands need taming so look to the colonnai who expanded Rome’s influence as a template. Once tamed, the edicts of Constantine shackled the colonialists to the productive land they no longer owned. For US, think Wild West and the Homestead Act. The CONstitution, as you say, gave these settlers a lot of wiggle room. Some of those Wild West personalities, like Wild Bill, we’re government agents keeping tabs on any organizing groups that might not feed the agenda once the restrictions were imposed. The Jayhawkers, ie. We’re not there yet with any CONstantinian edicts, but travel restrictions will only increase as incomes plummet and the mounting hassles of travel breaks the spirit. In theory we can have free range movement but in practice it will be impossible for most. Fear from manufactured tragedies will help, ‘natch.


                1. Excellent food for thought, MT, HPM, SK and TIMR. The idea that the constitution ostensibly provided rights to encourage development, which was then “captured” is intriguing, and logical. Certainly the laws applied only to the unconnected, as today, viz this Neville dude.

                  As for the founders, I have read their wealth would put all of them in millionaire and multi-millionaire classes today. Not a group known for loving the great unwashed and their opinions now, but maybe things were different then?

                  Washington and vexxes…so that was all after the Cherry Tree Incident? Wonder if cherry trees carry smallpox that can lay dormant until sparked by Caribbean tradewinds? Maybe I could apply for a grant to study the possibility.


              2. HPM – I’m not a great scholar of the US Constitution, but as I understand it at least on paper it advances more rights to the people than the equivalents in many European countries, or former British colonies. They are actively working in current propaganda to dismantle it. This suggests to me that it’s somewhat of an impediment to their future agendas. At least the Bill of Rights – maybe the leaser known sections are full of oligarchical entitlement, as you say.

                You misunderstand me when you talk about the original “masses” opposing the Constitution. I’m just talking about current red staters who hold a romanticized view of it. I see them as a bulwark against some of the nutjob agendas being pushed, and if they’re not perfect philosophers about US history, so be it.


                1. Edward J.Snowden (no relation that I know of) wrote a small but remarkable book in 2013 called Everything You Know About The Constitution is Wrong in which he argues that our nation has lived under two Constitutions, that which preceded and that which succeeded the 14th Amendment. The first section of that amendment nobly says that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law*, but it opens by saying that all persons born here are US citizens. What that effectively ended was called States’ Rights. Thereafter, all state laws were suborned to the federal government, which eventually became the encroaching monster we live with today.

                  Thus are the 50 States mere altar boys before the big guy, unable to pass any law that the US Supreme Court, not our master prior to the 14th, does not approve of. Thus after passage, the Bill of Rights had to be reborn. The right to bear arms only came about in 2010, freedom of speech in 1925, freedom of worship in 1940. The idea that SCOTUS could overturn a state law was unheard of in the early days of the republic, and the reach of Congress and the Court was severely impaired by the existence of the Constitution. It was a different world.

                  Most of the original colonies were already free and independent republics prior to the Articles of Confederation in 1781, and remained so until 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified. It took the trauma of a civil war to undo the republic.

                  *Why does it say this? Is this not well understood?


      2. Even Wikipedia has the forthright to admit Neville’s elitist background, stating that “As a result of his family connections over the course of his life, Neville was “as close to being an aristocrat as republican America west of the Alleghenies would allow.”[5]” The “family connections” part, as well as him “being an aristocrat”, suggests that he obviously was peerage.

        On his paternal side, it ends with John Neville (b. 1612 – d. 1664), who immigrated from England. He married a Bridget Thorsley and a Johanna Hussey (nee Porter). It also includes Collmores/Cullmores, as well as a Dudley. On both sides of his family tree, he’s a Bohannon. His maternal side includes a Faulkner, an O’Canny, and a May. All or mostly peerage names, I believe.

        Here’s a good example, starting with Bohannon. It’s also a variant of Buchanan, so he maybe related to POTUS James Buchanan, who preceded Abe Lincoln, if my memory serves me right. They’re very prestigious as far as nobility goes.

        They also have their ties in France, where they managed the finances of French royalty as their treasurers (doesn’t it remind you of Neville’s close ties to French aristocracy? And that also explains his affinity for finance, seeing that his ancestors were money-managers.) Reminds me of Mary Stuart, who spent much of her life in France and Scotland before her alleged incarceration and execution in England. Bet they’re related to her, too.

        His wife, Winifred Anne Neville, was an Oldham, an Aughney, a Mosley/Moseley (her husband also was from that line, making them cousins. Moseley too appears in Kary Mullis’s bloodline, so she’s probably his cousin), and a Conway (Kellyanne Conway’s blood kin?), so she too appears to be of the Families. Here’s her Geni if you want to do further digging:


  2. In the Corona show the highest courts in Germany made it clear that they don’t work for citizens but for the firm. Reasonable and well biased claims, based on science and facts and supported by known experts has been rejected without any explanation. Everybody works for the firm. The courts as the Parlaments. It is an illusion to think that the member of a political state a.k.a. citizen has any rights he can claim. Once you realize that you can’t think in terms of constitution or bill of rights or some once decided rules anymore. They are the law and they make the law as it pleases them.
    Australia has just taken back the restrictions, China changes theirs every now and then. There is no certainty for anything anymore. Anything goes. There is no law for the common subject. The firm follows a plan we’re not allowed to see. Everything we learn in schools is propaganda. All history is just Prosa, written by Jesuits for the firm.
    I’ve seen old pictures of many bridges in Germany which supposedly has been build in the 19-th century. There are people on that pictures too and there is no way this people had any idea how to build this bridges. And the bridges stand to this day unchanged, maybe except for the the railings. New bridges build after the war are in ruinous conditions now. We build skyscrapers what for? To impress the old creators maybe? There are this channels on youtube and facebook which spreads the “old world” showing lots of old pictures from the 19-th century on. Many of them not genuine IMO. It started some 3 years ago. The controllers want us to become aware of what a great reset really means. It won’t be the first time that people will lost all knowledge of their past and restart again with tabula rasa. As Klaus Schwab said: you will own nothing and you will be happy.


    1. “In the Corona show the highest courts in Germany made it clear that they don’t work for citizens but for the firm.”

      As has always been the case. Essentially, “government” operates as little more than a middle management & wealth creation/extortion racket for the ruling class, and the courts are no exception.

      This is especially true in countries like America where they have a two-tiered “justice” system: one that favors the well-connected rich, the other that punishes the poor and the disadvantaged. So much for “equality under/before the law.”

      The masses are there to simply be good little tax slaves to the Families and their minions running the state enterprise so as to be ripe for incredible fleecing at every opportunity. State-sponsored education essentially exists to reinforce that upon present and future worker tax slaves, as well as to teach propaganda favorable to the system, as you pointed out.

      The rest is faked to make people think they are actually doing something that merits squandering time and money on (fake science being one example, along with (mis)education and military), meanwhile actually doing nothing at all for what they steal (tax) from others.

      Instead of calling countries like America and Germany “representative democracies”, one should call them “representative oligarchies”, for their politicians practically represent the interests of the few over that of the many in almost every case. Hence why you see trillions in tax breaks & funding allotted to the rich while the lower classes suffer higher tax rates and cuts in traditional social services. Hence why you have regulation that exists to destroy competition in favor of commercial ventures owned by the wealthy.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s