What are we free to speak about?

My two favorite writings in the world are the Bible and the United States Constitution. By the way, my third favorite is Goethe's "Faust". The Constitution is an amazing document recognizing the right of the people to decide their future rather than an oligarchy. It was not universal enough, it did not allow slaves or women to vote. Those changes came later; but, they came by vote. These lines are debatable now; but, lets face it, we don't let everyone vote today either. 6 year old's cannot vote and neither can felons. By the way, non-citizens cannot vote either. The Constitution was not and will never be perfect, not the point. The purpose of the Constitution is to make sure that laws are not decided by the wealthy alone.

The founding fathers did not believe they needed to outline rights of people, they thought the framework for democracy would ensure that; but, the passage of time told them differently. They decided to amend the constitution, something it allowed for, and created the "Bill of Rights", the first ten amendments. So, what rights did they consider the most important to protect?

The first amendment states, "The Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press: or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." That was there number one priority. Why was the congress and not states prohibited from making a national religion? Well, the states would not have passed it otherwise. Remember, the Pilgrims came here to set up a required religion for their colony. States had tons of religious laws that lasted into the 1980s. Heck, New England still had "blue laws" in the late 70s listing the things you could not do on Sundays. I remember not be allowed to play music on Sundays until after the afternoon in New Hampshire. LOL. The first part of the amendment was offset by the second part, the freedom of speech. Congress was not allowed to prevent people saying what they wanted in different states. It did not stop states from limiting free speech. You can hate it; but, it is true.

You may wonder why the Constitution did not outlaw slavery. It's pretty simple, the southern states would not have joined the union and there would have been no United States. So, what was the second highest priority, the right of people to join state militia's and be armed. States wanted to know that they could protect themselves from other states and the nation. Remember, the Constitution came after the Articles of Confederation. After we became a nation under the Articles of Confederation, states put tariffs on one another.

The third amendment prevented the federal government from using the military to take over people's houses. The fourth amendment affected all states that people were free from unreasonable searches and seizures. That right applied to all citizens regardless of the state they lived in. The fifth amendment assured due process to all citizens regardless of the state they lived in. The sixth assured some basic rights in being charged with a crime. The seventh assured a basic right the right to a trial. The tenth helps explain the context for the first nine, it says that rights not specifically delegated to the federal government were kept by the states regarding creating legislation.

A quick not of interest. The Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery, the 14th Amendment did. Lincoln had no authority to end slavery, it required a Constitutional Amendment. The same amendment by accident or intent also ensured that the Bill of Rights applied to all citizens which meant states had to respect freedom of religion, speech, assembly and to own a gun if a member of a militia.

Still, the most important right was the right to hold and speak your beliefs. The European Union does not believe in the freedom of speech and has many "hate speech" laws prohibiting speech, including prohibiting condemning religious beliefs. Now the European Union is about to outlaw complaining about their immigration policies. Almost every government allows it's politicians and civil servants the freedom to investigate every issue; but, this same right will not be given to citizens of Europe.

UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly And Regular Migration.

United Nations - Global Compact for Safe, Orderly And Regular Migration.

Basically, this agreement calls for open borders for immigration. The link above is to the actual document to be signed and agreed to. Always use source documents dear readers. Of particular note is that there are 23 objectives listed, Item 17 says it intends to "Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perception of migration". Now, what does that mean you may ask. Well, it means that if you talk bad about your governments having an open border, you can be charged with a hate crime. It also means that if you do not live in one of the countries that accepts this policy that you could be removed from the internet.

The Express - UN migration: Criticizing migration could become criminal offense under new plan.

Fox - Nigel Farage on the free speech fight in Europe.

Remember very few places actually have free speech. Few countries have a first amendment like the United States and almost none act on it.

Another fascinating objective is item 22, which says, "Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits." While not being discussed much, this part is really scary. This little bit is insidious. It basically means that even if you move from a country to another, your country of origin will still be responsible for paying you benefits you earned in it, even if you were never fully vested.

This is not about migration, it is about the end of national sovereignty. I told two people that this was being approved in less than a week. The first person I told was a relative in China, he laughed, he thought I was joking. I second person I told is older than me and lives in the United States, he thought the world had gone mad. Both are right and wrong. This is simply about having an international workforce free to travel where the work is regardless of the effect of the communities that they move to. This is what Hillary Clinton was talking about when she said she wanted open borders. There has been no public vote on this in any country that I know of, nor will there be. In fact, objective 17 makes it clear that the average person will not even be allowed to make a negative comment about it. Welcome to the world of the future where you have no say in what the rules are.

What Next

Well kids, it is time for Pimpernel to make a decision. This blog has been around for about 9 years. Last year I hit 100,000 hits and this year 150,000 hits. As my long term readers know, I have this blog twice and deleted all the previous posts. This blog began as a spiritual and philosophical blog, looking at questions that few ask in their day to day lives. In about 2010 I started discussing tech and the future and politics and the news of the day. I have gone out of my way to provide my readers with source documents to the news of the day.

This blog is very personal to me and I have discussed personal issues over the years. A few years back I almost deleted everything again; but, didn't want to delete the posts regarding Pastor Daniels because I knew her family had read them and others looking into the case had read this blog. I have never and will never monetize this blog, I have never asked for contributions nor do I have a Patreon or PayPal account. I have never received a single penny for this blog and perhaps it is not worth one, that is for the readers to decide. On this and other sites I have accurately predicted where we would be in many areas.

A few months ago I made an investment in a laptop with a microphone and a camera. I have been considering moving to YouTube. I have never posted on Facebook or Twitter. I do not use Instagram either. Over the years I have been saddened by the lack of comments from readers, I had wanted to build something more interactive. Some have suggested I do a podcast, when I retired I considered doing a radio show once a week for truckers. I did not end up moving where I planned which was near the radio station.

My friends we are moving into bleak times and I don't mean economically. Artificial Intelligence will control our decisions, self driving transportation will control our movement and virtual reality will control our reality. As we clamp down on open expression we will find ourselves unable to consider the truth. We live in a world of corporate control over media, the government and our reality. The game is rigged against small businesses bringing true innovation so that only large corporate and increasingly consolidated industries can flourish. We have destroyed half this nation to benefit a few on the coasts.

I guess the question for me is how is my time best spent. How can I reach people, how can I get them to see what is coming when their days are spent barely getting by? I welcome any thoughts.

150,000 Hits

Hi all. Well, it has finally happened, this site has had 150,000 hits since being started. Blogs are dying and YouTube videos are thriving and I have still managed to get 150,000 hits. My single biggest post is still the one I did about Pastor Carol Daniels. In the almost 10 years since her passing, people still come to read about her. As anyone who follows this blog knows, I almost never talk about crimes and usually talk about politics and technology.

So much has changed since I started this blog. Anyways, just wanted to mark this occasion. Be well dear readers.

The Illusion of Democracy in Britain With Update

About 40 years ago I read a book, it was by a man named Thucydides called "History of the Peloponnesian War". It is considered by some to be the first book focused on history. It was written about 2400 years ago. We had just come out of the Vietnam war when I read the book. Funny thing was, the claims made and rhetoric used during the Peloponnesian war were the same as were told to us by out politicians and generals.

I thought of that book today as I watched what happened in England regarding Brexit. Here is how things went down. Britain is part of the European Union (EU). What began as a free trade agreement became something more. The EU is becoming it's own nation eliminating restrictions between countries within it and making all the countries within it have to place EU law above their own. Currently half of the laws in Britain were written by the EU. The only time you see agreements like this is when a country lost a war and another country gets to write their laws. As this became clearer to the British, they decided to leave the EU and voted to do so in what is called Brexit. Lets be clear, unlike in America, in Britain a law can be directly voted on in a referendum. They voted to leave the EU.

For two years Britain and the EU have been working on a "deal" to leave. If no deal is reached, they just go back to being a sovereign nation. The Prime Minister of Britain, Theresa May, has brought back a proposed deal. The problem is that the deal forces Britain to accept all the EU rules, it doesn't change anything other than not allow Britain to vote in the EU. True taxation without representation. It basically puts Britain in the same position with the EU as America had with Britain prior to the American Revolution.

One might ask why any country would accept such a deal, it's not about the deal. It is about getting a second vote on leaving the EU. Parliament will bicker back and forth and be unable to come to a decision and the solution offered will be to put leaving the EU up for another vote. The choice will be between taking the deal or staying in the EU, as an alternative it will be between staying in the EU or leaving with no deal. This deal is not about leaving the EU, it is about whether to leave at all. The vote should be whether to accept the deal or leave the EU with no deal. They have already voted to leave the EU.

This is a show, all politics is theater. Giving up your sovereignty and democracy is easy, capitulate to another. Getting back your democracy and sovereignty is much harder. If the EU had it's proposed EU army, you just might see a civil war between the EU and Britain and the EU would lose because we would support Britain as would Australia and Canada. The EU could not count on help from Russia or China. In Europe Britain and France have nukes. They will not be launched to keep Britain in the EU. Britain will be allowed to leave the EU with no deal and will immediately try to have agreements with Canada, Australian and the United States and they will get them.

Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of  the United Kingdom of Great Britain  and Northern Ireland from the  European Union and the European  Atomic Energy Community. This is the actual document being presented regarding Brexit.

It is pretty simple kids, globalism means the end of democracy.

Hypocricy - Jim Acosta and Alex Jones

So, CNN's Jim Acosta was kicked out of the White House. The reason has to do with his refusal to abide by the rules. The White House press corps is typically given one question per reporter. After asking two questions he refused to hand over the microphone back to the intern who takes it from person to person. In the course of this exchange he brushed the intern's arm. In response CNN is suing Trump for violating Acosta's free speech.

This is amusing on so many levels. Remember back during the 2016 election a female reporter tried to stop Trump as he was exiting an event and she was blocked to the side by some staffer? After that she claimed the person had thrown her to the ground except there was video proving she lied. That story was hot news for a week or so. What a difference a day makes.

As for the free speech argument, it's garbage. Mr. Acosta is still on CNN. In fact, there is no right to be in the White House press briefings. The real irony is that Acosta and others in the mainstream media screamed for Alex Jones to be removed from the internet and prevented from putting his show on YouTube or Facebook or Twitter. Acosta and CNN seem to believe that the establishment reporters have an innate right to attend briefings and that "alternative" media doesn't have a right to exist at all. This case is scheduled to go before a Federal judge and it will not go well for CNN because judges regularly keep the press out of court. In fact, the press is not allowed to film inside the Supreme Court or in closed sessions of congress.

Trump seems to trigger and piss off the media more than anyone in history. If he sneezes it makes the national news. Acosta sees his job as getting ratings and being part of the story more than reporting the news. It should also be remembered that the White House is NOT required to give press briefings at all.

Democrats to Protect the Richest Man in the World

Fox - Dems to probe Trump's treatment of CNN, Amazon, Washington Post in triple-threaded abuse-of-power inquiries.

Adam Schiff the congressman from California and soon to be new chair of the House Intelligence Committee has declared that the Democrats plan on investigating Trump for saying that Amazon is subsidized by the postal service. Well, they are given preferred pricing. It is a valid complaint except for the fact that the post office is self funding and does not rely on any taxes. The second part of the investigation is into the administrations use of anti-trust policies in their review of the AT&T - Time Warner merger and is just to hurt CNN. Six companies own 90% of all the media in the United States whereas there used to be 2000 companies. That my friends is market consolidation and that should be something Democrats should be against.

So one of the first acts of the Democratic house will be to protect Amazon and Time Warner. Great to know they are looking out for the little guy. Nope, the Democratic establishment is protecting the billionaire class. This is exactly why the Democratic party is going to lose the progressives. Once again I did not vote; but, for Democrats that did, was it so your representatives could protect Bezos? Who owns the Democratic party? Big Tech and Finance. The Democrats should be calling for the reinstatement of Glass-Stiegel; but they are not. They should be working on Universal healthcare; but, they wont. They should be looking into anti-trust violations; but, instead they will protect the monopolies. Did a single Democrat income inequality during the election? Shouldn't they all have?