Monday, May 17, 2021

Vilified Victim and the Putrid Pogrom

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

Foreword

As discussed in Frederick R. Smith Speaks, Mother Gaia Gone Wild (April 5, 2021), we have lost the ability to remember and learn from our history. Scientists have discovered the A1 Mutation, a defect affecting people’s ability to learn from the past. [1] An incident from 1999 that occurred in the United Kingdom is a forgotten but ideal learning experience to illustrate where we are today. Stay tuned and enjoy an analysis following Tony Martin’s story. This analysis barely scratches the surface about the cabal located behind the worldwide stage curtain.

The Terrifying Case of Tony Martin

Tony Martin (born December 16, 1944) is an unmarried person [2] who lived on a 350-acre farm in Norfolk, England and he was critical of police inaction following the series of burglaries he had experienced. He was close to a nervous breakdown and once again experienced burglars in his house on August 22, 1999. The notable difference on that fateful August day was the fact that Mr. Martin used a shotgun to defend his property and himself. There were two hoodlums. Authorities found one teenager dead in Mr. Martin’s garden and they arrested the other young man on suspicion of burglary. This stellar citizen sustained shotgun wounds to his legs and received medical treatment. Sad to say, authorities held Mr. Martin for suspicion of murder and attempted murder.

Mr. Martin’s mother said that her son was “haunted with fear” due to dozens of burglaries at his farmhouse for 15 years preceding the deadly incident. She saw her son the day before and Mr. Martin was frightened to return home due to the high probability that burglars would be present. Mr. Martin’s aunt provided the same story — “He was very frightened of going back to his home because there were people who were always breaking in.  He was very worried and getting very depressed about these break-ins.  I would say he was on the brink of a nervous breakdown.” She also said that the burglars who had plagued her nephew had been vicious and on one occasion, they had tried to run over his dogs.

Just before the August 22, 1999 burglary, many people in the community were on the verge of starting a campaign to help Mr. Martin. He was particularly upset in June 1999 because he was subject to a burglary where the thugs stole an antique bureau and a family heirloom. The creeps scattered Mr. Martin’s photographs in ditches. As such, Mr. Martin was cynical about the lack of help he was getting from the police. According to people in the community, virtually every house along the road to Martin’s house has had something stolen.

The hoodlums that burglarized Mr. Martin’s residence were no strangers to crime. The dead criminal had convictions for 29 crimes. The other accomplice, 37 crimes. Nevertheless, Mr. Martin, who was a victim of 30 burglaries, faced charges as a criminal. The perpetrators were called the victims. Sad to say, Mr. Martin faced murder charges and a sentence to life in prison. The authorities begrudgingly reduced his sentence, and he was released after three years. The real criminal served only 18 months. Now for the most outrageous part of the sordid affair — authorities allowed the burglar to place conditions on Mr. Martin’s parole. Furthermore, they granted the career criminal 5,000 pounds in legal aid to help file a lawsuit to go after Mr. Martin for emotional stress! The ultimate insult.

Here in the USSA, we brand people with such pity for the criminal a “bleeding heart” liberal. Well, here is what the Brits got for their liberal worldview; their poster child who was released after only 18 months, got in trouble once again. This time, the creep supplied heroin to a prisoner. All the while, authorities repeatedly denied Mr. Martin’s parole by branding him as a man that is “a danger to criminals.” To add insult to injury, the authorities released the real criminal just two days before Mr. Martin’s parole.  

The sad story about Mr. Martin is not an isolated case where British authorities have overt compassion for criminals while vilifying the victim. For example, Mr. Burt Barber of Northampton placed razor wire on top of his 93-year-old mother’s garden fence. The wire was in reaction to four burglaries at the elderly woman’s home, but authorities went ballistic. They demanded the removal of the wire because it was a “danger to the public.”  Never mind that the British government has razor wire on top of walls and fences at many of their facilities!

These two examples show that the concept of victim and perpetrator is turned inside out in the British Isles. Citizens now are subject to conviction if they take any defense action that is not “reasonably necessary.” This applies to any criminal regardless of the nature of the act. So, if somebody rapes or tries to kill an innocent homeowner, that perpetrator may face branding as the victim if the resident replies with force to save their life. This is insane but true. One would think that this information is a script from an episode of the Twilight Zone. Depending on the state where an incident occurs, it’s not much better here in the USSA.

This is all about the danger that UK citizens now must face — criminals and the (reverse) justice system. All because of the virtual elimination of guns from law-abiding citizens. By February 27, 1998, all handguns (including handguns in the home) were to be turned into the authorities. Other guns may only be in a home if registered with the government. Such weapons must be in a locked safe (and unloaded). Handgun possession results in an automatic ten-year sentence. As a result, criminals have little to fear from the victims and the authorities. As another example of the bleeding heart sentiment, the Chief Justice of the time in Wales reportedly said that “Burglars facing a sentence of 18 months should not go to prison.”

Now back to Mr. Martin. In 2014, the media reported that Mr. Martin’s house was boarded up and he lived in his auto. A cousin of the dead burglar has made death threats against his life. Another cousin told reporters that there is a bounty on Martin’s head. In 2015, Mr. Martin faced arrest on suspicion of possession, but he was not charged.

Mr. Martin is as fearful for his homeland as he is for his life. It is so irritating that the media here in the States and the UK ignored this situation. Are they ashamed of the results of the bleeding heart attitude, or are they ignorant? Without a doubt it is neither and indeed actually something worse so stay tuned.

For balanced reporting, on May 10, 2021, your author reached out to a counterparty in the United Kingdom to inquire about the status of Mr. Martin. During a real-time “network radio” conversation, the chap from across the pond said that Mr. Martin is a “right wing fascist Nazi.” He also said that Mr. Martin shot the fellow (note the lack of using a derogative to describe the hoodlum) in the back, belongs to right wing organizations, is anti-Europe, and has been brought up on weapons charges. More importantly, using multiple instances of the “F” word, this jolly good fellow indicated that Mr. Martin is a member of the National Front. [3] [4]

The above rightwingphobia is in sync with the USSA whereby “White supremacists are the top domestic violent extremist threat facing the US, says Biden official.” Or, how about the Space Force commander fired after [Marxist] comments made on conservative podcast. Yep, right up there with the overarching threat of climate change.

Analysis and the Pogrom

With the above story as a background, it is highly suggested that readers stream the movie “A Clockwork Orange.” Coincidently filmed in Mr. Martin’s homeland (England), A Clockwork Orange is a stunning portrait of the ultimate nihilistic society. It shows what happens with unfettered sexual liberties along with increasing government controls to hold the populace at bay. However, for a 1971 flick, it has some shocking violence and sex, and as such, it is for a mature audience. It is tame by today’s immoral and amoral societal standards. This film shows the filth and vileness of total socialism such as crummy government housing. With total socialism, everybody is certainly “equal” (but the evil debased woke elitists will have their wealth). Rest assured everybody (read the common person) will get the same (lousy) heath care.

So, what does the flick A Clockwork Orange have to do with gun control and Mr. Martin? Well, my dear friends, it is as clear as a crystal ball to this author after several years of self-study. You may find this shocking (or silly depending on one’s worldview) — the moral problems we are experiencing are welcome by certain immensely powerful woke people in the world. And shame on the woke puppets controlled by the luminaries who push this stuff. This is the program that has been around since the fall of man. The Italian communist Antonio Gramsci refined this playbook while he was in jail during the reign of Mussolini. Simply speaking, the Gramscian plan is to bring down the morals of society. Thus, more control and henceforth more power for the evil elitists controlling the world behind the scenes.

Based on the nonsense in the world today, it is easy to see that the woke overlords think an amoral and/or immoral society “does not deserve” to defend itself. It is like being in a grade school classroom at a time when children were disciplined (when I was a child). Specifically, if several of the darlings were bad with no one fessing up, the entire classroom faced discipline, and the good ones suffered. The elitists have this attitude concerning the entire population — everybody suffers (except the woke overlords as we see with the 1984 Covid Doom Pogrom). At least my teachers had in mind the good of the children, but in the case of the debased elitists, their classroom is the entire world. It is not about working to make society better. It is all about the evil elitists power and control over the population. Be careful, there are many good sounding things that the elitists use to enable their evil overarching program such as but not limited to “environmentalism,” “reproductive rights,” “social justice,” “interdependence,” “sustainable development,” and “free education for all.” For example, Black Lives (do) Matter and that is a cover illusion for the Marxist ideals pushed by the visible and hidden woke leaders of this pogrom.

Always remember that evil shows an external packaging that looks nice but the prince of the world, the ultimate evil one (Satan), is working behind the scenes pulling the strings. The nice-looking and sounding programs are nothing more than phony gift-wrapping surrounding a vile thing.

What is sad is the fact that some people will read this and scoff at it and say it is nothing more than a “childish right-wing conspiracy theory.” For the debased woke folk thinking this, your author humbly suggests that they please give some serious thought to the facts presented. Consider reading the books listed below. It takes many years of reading, study, and critical thinking to realize we are living under a mind-control mechanism. Chuck the woke feelings. You might have unwittingly fallen into the evil elitist mental trap. Ignorance may be bliss but mental freedom from vile immorality is the Rosetta Stone. This real freedom is exactly what the Evil One fears the most and he works extra hard against anybody who sees the true light.

Do not believe the mantra that “communism fell with the Berlin Wall.” Quite the contrary. The tenets of New Communism (neo-Marxism) practiced by certain woke big business leaders (cough, cough) is alive and well throughout the world — the ultimate rejection of God. Despite the canard that there is a “separation of church and state in America” (no such term appears in our Constitution), there is indeed an established religion. It is postmodern secular humanism. This is the basic tenant of Communism (secular religion), which has its special sacraments. These seven sacraments include abortion, illicit sex, contraception, moral relativism, unfettered liberty (for select things like tearing down statues), self-worship, and evolution. Sacramentals include never-ending unemployment benefits, “fee” healthcare, welfare, environmentalism, social justice, and the right to engage in burn/loot/mayhem parties (a.k.a. fiery but mostly peaceful protests).

Afterword

It is all about morals, values, and principles. The quintessential example of how degenerate we have “evolved” as a society is how many people openly talked and wrote about adulterous things performed in the Oval Office by a certain past president of the USA. It is critical to realize that society has sexual license provided by the evil spirit and corporal cabal to do anything to prevent the masses from revolting over the reduction and ultimate elimination of all other freedoms and rights. This is Bread and Circuses for the modern human. Take away items such as the right of self-defense and give them goodies such as “free” money and sexual extremism so there is no revolt. Your author predicts pedophilia and bestiality will be the next “civil rights” shoved right down our throats. Like a frog in a pot with the temperature slowly increasing. 

During the Christmas holy day (holiday) season we hear many news stories about people offended by the mere mention of Jesus. Of course, a “gay” or “Social Justice” Jesus is just dandy with the debased woke commie luminaries. However, the sexual license thrust upon us by the evil one and his debased woke “intellectual” minions is the offensive issue. This author finds offense by total humanism (people worship) foisted upon society every day by the mainstream media and secular academia. Good is now bad and bad is now good.

Indeed, the Church of Woke-Covid (CWC). Yuri Bezemov described the type: “You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black you still cannot change the basic perception and illogical behavior.”

Your author rests his case - for now.

Notes

  1. Operation Dragon: Inside the Kremlin’s Secret War on America (Encounter Books New York – London 2021) p. 175. “Soon after the Soviet bloc collapsed, researchers at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in the now liberated Leipzig discovered a genetic factor, the A1 mutation, which affects the ability to learn from past mistakes. On April 12, 2003, thousands of Americans, presumably infected by the A1 mutation, began sermonizing that capitalism was America’s real enemy and that it should be replaced with socialism by redistributing the country’s wealth. Quite a few young Americans cheered. They were, of course, galvanized by the prospect that a Democratic administration would force rich Americans to pay for young people’s own health care, mortgages, loans, and school tuition.”
  2. Crummy MS Word program does not like the word Bachelor and it wants a more inclusive term like “unmarried person.” Go pound sand Microsoft.
  3. According to Historica Fandom, “The National Front (NF) is a neo-fascist political party in the United Kingdom that was founded on 7 February 1967 by A.K. Chesterton (not to be confused with G. K Chesterton). The party reached its heyday during the 1970s, during which concerns about Asian immigration led to rapid increases in the party’s membership and vote share in East London and northern England. The party’s strongest support bases were working-class neighborhoods in which traditional Labour Party voters, upset with the Labour governments, joined the National Front due to its racial appeal. The NF won a few local council seats during the 1970s and organized street marches and rallies, often resulting in clashes with anti-fascist protesters.” Historica goes on about how “NF had various factions such as neo-Nazis, Strasserists, and populists, and it was positioned at the extreme right of British politics. It called for an end to non-white immigration to the UK, the stripping of citizenship from non-white Britons, supported racial separatism, endorsed Holocaust denial, claimed that Jews sought to take over the world with communism and capitalism, promoted economic protectionism and Euroscepticism, supported an end to the UK’s liberal democracy, and opposed feminism, gay rights, and societal permissiveness. In 1982, John Tyndall left the party to form the British National Party, and many NF members defected to the BNP, which became a more successful party.” 
  4. For the record, your author denounces violence from any “wing.” Meanwhile, in the USSA, the debased commie folk pull guns on motorists they trap on roadways as part of fiery but mostly peaceful protests. Even the few of these leftists who might face arrest obtain a get out-of-jail card courtesy of the district attorney. Even for the liberal terrorist that confesses. Conservatives, however, are the ones tarred and feathered by the Cauldon (media, government, schools, etc.). They are called a mob at best or terrorist at worst for peaceful assembly in the thousands, without incident. Of course the January 6, 2021, incident shall be magnified, over reported, and embellished to condition the masses.  

Primary sources: The Terrifying Case of Tony Martin

Tony Martin: Crime and controversy  
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/3009769.stm

Tony Martin free in a year 

The killer who won a nation’s sympathy

Bleak world of the loner who killed

Timeline: The Tony Martin case

Burglars were experienced criminals

Burglar’s family set to sue Martin

A victim, not a hero

Farmer guilty of murdering burglar

Martin’s parole bid fails

Martin loses parole appeal

Payment to Tony Martin was justified, says PCC

Martin urges ‘decency’ in politics

Tony Martin ‘held over gun possession’

Norfolk farmer Tony Martin faces no charges over firearms arrest

Tony Martin says he has no regrets about shooting burglar dead

Primary Sources: Analysis and the Pogrom

 ###

Cogent Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith
Cogent Editor, Sean Tinney

Fred Smith’s clipped news items

Recommended Websites (bold is top shelf)

Recommended Videos (all top shelf)
at No comments:

Sunday, May 2, 2021

Festering Federal Courts

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

Checks and balances, or the separation of powers, is the foundation of our Representative Constitutional Republic. Your author respectfully repeats — Representative Constitutional Republic (not a democracy). Unfortunately, not one of the three branches of the government (Executive, Judicial, nor Legislative) is working under the Constitutional framework. It is sad and irritating that most of our leaders do not seem to understand these important precepts.

Under the Constitution, only the legislative branch (Congress) can write laws. The Federal Court’s job is to simply hear cases that fall under the purview of the Federal Constitution. Congress has some control over the lower federal courts by deciding the boundaries between the “circuits” while the Supreme Court is the highest or final arbitrator. The federal courts are a constitutional interpretative body and should be consistent, particularly the Supreme Court. [1] For example, if a court hears a case and decides an outcome, any future case of the same nature should be thrown out based on an earlier decision. Unfortunately, the debased elite have decided that the federal courts must be pro-active for they believe that the Constitution is a “living breathing” document. A clay-like instrument to knead and conform to their worldview.

Can the federal courts make a bad decision? Certainly, and it's the job of the legislature to counteract the federal courts by a variety of means such as:

  • Approving the appointment of judges that uphold the Constitution,
  • Exercising power to impeach and remove judges,
  • Controlling appropriations to federal courts,
  • Curbing judicial power by adding new judges and creating new court systems,
  • Writing rules that may limit powers of judicial review in certain legislation, or
  • Making pending bills that exclude funding to enforce a decision of the Court

Throughout the history of our Nation, the Supreme Court has made some questionable decisions with the Dread Scott case being an early example. [2] However, as time marches on, bad decisions outside the solid precepts of the Constitution are increasingly common. A more egregious example is the Roe vs. Wade decision, which is a state’s issue — nothing in the constitution remotely covers this topic. In this 1971 case, two of the Supreme Court Justices voted in favor of abortion, Potter Stewart and Harry Blackmun. Both had spouses that worked at Planned Parenthood but refused to recuse themselves from the case. 

As much as this author detests abortion, it should not be federalized. Why? Because federalized issues nourish the leviathan. As this largess gets bigger it becomes less and less manageable at best, more prone for corruption at worst. Despite these truths, Congress will rarely exercise its prerogatives to counter the courts.  

In recent years, the federal courts have ruled on many issues such as “gay rights” and the Ten Commandments. These decisions are not only outside the plain language of the Constitution but at odds with the sentiments of most of the people in the Nation. This is legislating from the bench (judicial activism) and many federal judges see nothing wrong with performing their duties in this manner.

The main culprits are those judges who are social activists, as they “honestly” believe that their notion of justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to protect. As true as this may be, these usurpers will never admit to being outside the framework of the Constitution. Therefore, we find ourselves governed by unelected people – the federal judges. Unlike elected officials that we can vote out of office, federal judges get an appointment for life. It is only through impeachment that they can face removal.

One of the more repugnant “fiat laws” emanating from the Supreme Court was the 2003 decision that decreed the Texas law prohibiting sodomy to be “unconstitutional.” This decision was based on the 14th Amendment that somehow makes privacy a right.  Nowhere in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, does it mention privacy as a right. However, the 4th and 5th amendments were crafted to ensure security. [3] [4] Further, the Constitution does indeed codify the fact that any issue outside the Federal purview shall be a state prerogative.  

While one can argue if state laws about sexual matters are necessary, there is an overlooked element of this ruling. By simply declaring that Texas cannot declare sodomy to be unconstitutional, this Supreme Court ruling has the effect of making every deviant sexual behavior a “right.” While making sodomy a perceived right is bad enough, this decision is extremely dangerous, as we no longer have the checks and balances between the states. Under the Constitution, the State of Texas and all other states have (had?) the right to decide how to regulate social matters like sex, based on local standards.

June 26, 2015, was the clarion call for sexual rights in the United States. On this date, the Supreme Court decided the Obergefell v. Hodges case. By one vote, the court ruled that same-sex marriage is a right.

Another irritating case back in 2003 was the federal court judge in San Diego who ordered the city to evict the Boy Scouts from a camp. The Scouts have used and run the city park since the 1950s and a gay “couple,” with help from the crummy American Civil Liberties Union, sued the city claiming the Scouts’ presence was a violation of the “separation of church and state.” The judge who heard the case ruled that the Scouts are a religious organization because they mention God in their recited oath. This is ridiculous because the land in question was at one time privately owned and donated to the city for the express purpose of setting up a Scout camp.

Your author has harped on this subject repeatedly but despite what a wall of separation worshiper believes and says, the Founders did not intend that there be a “separation of church and state.” No such words are remotely mentioned in the Constitution. [5] Never in their wildest dreams did they believe that a secular public life was necessary for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from setting up a state religion such as in England.  

It is unbelievable to even conceive of the notion that the Founding Fathers would even consider the Boy Scouts to be a religious body simply because they believe in God. The intellectual elite wall worshipers who can indeed talk the blood out of a rock. They will not succeed with this author.

The debased political leftists have their hook.  In place of what they cannot do at the ballot box or in the legislature, they advance their putrid social agenda by fiat laws emanating from the federal judiciary. This ideology has even burrowed itself into the Senate, which is in tune with this agenda. It is here that senators will not even allow the appointment of judges who believe in the true Constitution.

In the new Covid-1984 “work new normal” of today, it is time for the commie debased elite to ramp up the march to one-party rule. In April 2021, House and Senate Democrats drafted legislation to pack the Supreme Court, currently with nine, with four new justices. This move would radically change the balance of power on the nation’s highest court. The proposed bill is led by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, Subcommittee chair Hank Johnson, and first-year Rep. Mondaire Jones. In the Senate, Ed Markey of Massachusetts championed this bill.

Based on the above packing play, there is one concern your author has concerning the Constitution. It is the process of seating Supreme Court judges. Also of concern is the power vested in the President that allows him (or her, or other) to recommend judges. A constitutional scholar (cough, cough) like Bill Clinton (wink, wink) will claim the “balance” occurs in the confirmation process in the Senate. We know how that goes these days. While it may be entertaining to think about the possibility of electing federal judges, we know this is non-sequitur given the “wonderful” state of our election system.

Notes:

  1. The courts have two main systems: the federal courts, referred to as United States courts, and the state courts. The Constitution sets up federal judicial power not entrusted to the states (many were jealous of the powers needed for a strong national government). Following these provisions, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, organizing the Supreme Court of the United States and setting up a system of federal courts of inferior authority. The states are free to set up their own judicial systems subject to the exclusive authority of the federal courts and to Article VI of the Constitution (judges of state courts to be bound by the Constitution). The courts set up under the powers granted by the U.S. Constitution are known as constitutional courts. They are the district courts, the courts of appeals (before 1948, circuit courts of appeals), and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the highest appellate tribunal in the country and is a court of original authority in some cases. By its power of review, the Supreme Court is also the final judicial arbiter of federal constitutional questions. Members of the federal judiciary—which includes the Supreme Court, 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals, and 94 federal judicial district courts—are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Federal judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from office through impeachment by Congress. Other federal courts are the legislative courts. These are the Claims Court, the Court of International Trade, the Tax Court, and the territorial courts set up in the federally administered territories of the United States.
  2. American slave who sued for his liberty after spending four years with his master in a territory where slavery had been banned by the Missouri Compromise. The resulting decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (1857) declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional because a slave could not be taken from a master without due process of law.
  3. Fourth Amendment — “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”  
  4. Fifth Amendment — “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” 
  5. In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, then-president Thomas Jefferson highlighted the “wall of separation” metaphor previously utilized by Roger Williams, who had referred to the “wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world.”

###

Cogent Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith
Cogent Editor, Sean Tinney

Fred Smith’s clipped news items

Recommended Websites (bold is top shelf)

Recommended Videos (all top shelf)
    at No comments: