By Arthur W. Ritchie





By Arthur W. Ritchie


Shakespir Edition

Copyright 2016 Arthur W. Ritchie


Shakespir Edition, License Notes



This e-book is licensed for your enjoyment and may be shared with others.

Thank you for respecting my work.





The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their leader. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that make him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him heir president.”


Vaclay Klaus,

former Premier of the Czech Republic.











FEAR is the only thing people understand, for without it, who would pay taxes? Obey the speed limit? Not murder insufferable neighbors or bosses? Without fear’s uniting force, societies, accept whatever intellectual sewage floating by that suits their fancy.

Take Global Warming as touted by a politician whose college major was writing fiction. Then Political Correctness came along; more nonsense varying from race to race and day to day; then there’s the ever popular: Save the whatever. It’s a time when we forget that we live in a Darwinian universe; a continuously changing place where strange genetic strains come and go; a place where thwarting nature’s ways of culling the herd of nature’s junk, allows the parasites to multiply until they kill their host. And the death of which I speak, will be that of Western civilization.





Here you’ll find that the average LIBERAL / DEMOCRAT’S I.Q. is a pitiful 88 while the average CONSERVATIVE / REPUBLICAN’S I.Q. is 110. That’s a staggering 22 point spread: The difference between being a lot smarter than average, or being dumb as a rock.



A new study conducted at Harvard University shows that in America, Liberals have a significantly lower IQ than Conservatives. The study was conducted on 100,000 registered voters in 40 states [over the last twelve years, and has concluded its results.
_] [_The first part of the study lists the correlation between political beliefs and intelligence. Subjects of the study were chosen at random and requested to come to an unmarked van to take a test and answer some questions for a reasonable amount of money.
_] _Of the 100,000 people, there were people from many doctrines, from conservative to liberal to Marxist to fascist.

Socialists came out on bottom, with an average IQ of 87. The second worst were Liberals and then Marxists, with 88 and 89 respectively. Conservatives received an average score of 110, which is significantly above average. However, the conservatives did not score the highest. The holder of second place were Communists with an average I.Q. of 115, and the first place was apolitical people who did not follow any specific doctrine, who received a whopping score on average of 135.

[IAHYM News attempted to interview President Barack Obama on the new find, but he refused to speak directly. Instead, while walking down the strange hallway, he told correspondent Joseph Ducreux that the study
_] _was ridiculous and false, but failed to provide any reason as to why or [_
how the science of the study is at fault._]

Hilary Rodham Clinton was also contacted, but she immediately hung up [_
the phone when she figured out that the study was being mentioned at all._]

[_ Other parts of the study included the daily activities of the various people based on their doctrines. Apparently, Liberals are five times more likely to commit a crime, steal or cheat on a test than anybody else except for Socialists, 52% of which have committed a major felony while being watched. Conservatives not only did not commit any crimes, but they actually prevented them, as the few events where a Conservative was threatened by a thief or mugger was hindered by a concealed handgun.  Also, Communists are the most likely to commit rape or sexual assault, second to socialists. _]

[_ The study was conducted in other countries as well, where 81% of Muslim Extremists admitted to following the Liberal doctrine and idolizing President Barack Obama. The study was conducted by a group of roughly 900 different scientists across the country over the past twelve years, each one taking on a little over a hundred people per person. _]

Reporting from New York City, this is John Bowling.
_][_©  IAHYM News Network, 2011


[_ https://iahymnewsnetwork.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/new-study-shows-liberals-have-a-lower-average-iq-than-conservatives/_]



What does the Democratic operative who helped mastermind Bill Clinton’s

presidential campaign think of his party?


The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.

Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have a clue as to political reality.

What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want.

The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic operative instead of a Republican was because there were more Democrats that didn’t have a clue than there were Republicans.

Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth. If you’re smart enough, truth is what you make the voter think it is. That’s why I’m a Democrat. I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to.”


[* 80% of Democrats are politically clueless . . . *] That’s why I’m a Democrat . . . I can make the Democratic voters think

whatever I want them to.[]


[+ http://clashdaily.com/2012/11/james-carville-says-80-of-democrats-are-politically-clueless/+]








Too ignorant to see that Obama is more interested in ruining our country than helping them, liberals miss a key element of his plan: To flood our country with the lowest class of people, such as Mexicans and camel-urine drinking Muslems: Those so stupid they’ll lower our national I.Q. to a point where the White European stock that created this great nation and culture will be swept away at the ballot box as those so stupid, they won’t realize what they’re doing when they vote Democrat. Doubt it? Ask: Why is Obama is deliberately regulating businesses out of existence costing us countless jobs? Why — at the same time — is he deliberately opening our boarder to those with NO education, NO craft, NO jobs available for them, and they don’t even speak our language? Why? So they can be added to our welfare and voters rolls, first to destroy our culture, and then bankrupt us. Read the lying bastard’s books! And the sickest part of this is that, the dummies that vote for him will be the most hurt, for when the money runs out, how will we write welfare checks for all the new garbage without cutting benefits to those that elected him? And there’s no limit to the disasters possible along liberalism’s nightmare highway.

For decades Europeans feared a Soviet invasion. Now, being overrun with Muslims out to kill them, those once fearing a Soviet invasion may have to BEG Russia to rid them of the genetic garbage they welcomed with open arms.


The Roman Empire died on September 4, 476 AD, when their last Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was shoved out the city gate to close the book on one of Europe’s greatest civilizations. A thousand years of glory had rotted out from the inside, and recovery took them a thousand years. Why? Because Rome’s survivors were of the lower class, the dregs of society, those lacking the brains to fend off starvation, or halt the invaders stealing what little they had. They ruled Europe for the time we aptly call, The Dark Ages.

Once the pampered stupid had won, Rome’s population fell from 1,200,000 to 12,000. A great empire had been reduced to a mud hut village in a few generations. The same catastrophe is looming on our horizon begging the question: Why are we letting it run its course? Especially since we’ve known from day one under our Constitution how our nation would end:



Intellectually incapable of grasping the issues of the day, Joe-Six-Pack’s family votes for the best liar on the ballot because, being ignorant of the nation’s problems, they go with the candidate they think will give them the most stuff. How their charlatan will pay for what they’re peddlings never crosses the Six-Pack family’s mind, for just as soldiers will always outnumber officers, and workers outnumber managers, so fools will always outnumber thinkers. And the boob-ocracy’s party — and it doesn’t matter what they call it — Communist, Socialist, Labor, Progressive, Democrat, whatever — has a mantra that’s rung boldly and unchanged through the ages:


PSYCHOPATHS: Incapable of developing a conscience, psychopaths are often pathological liars that abhor work and supervision. Believing themselves superior to us mere mortals, they expect to be handed power over us. And, as between five and eight percent of all of us are born psychopaths, no nation is ever going to run out of criminals, salesman, lawyers, politicians, or cop wannabes.


“… the “psychopath” [who in most ways is indistinguishable from the criminal] … crave[s] power for its own sake, and they will do virtually anything to acquire it. Insatiable in their thirst for power and unprincipled in their exercise of it, they care very little whom they injure or destroy.”

[_ _____ Dr. Stanton E. Samenow _]

Inside the Criminal Mind


Dumb psychopaths seek careers in crime, sales, or law enforcement, such as being a cop or prison guard. The smarter ones go for white-collar crime such as law and politics. And remember, politicians are often just lawyers so incompetent they couldn’t pay their rent practicing law. But, the time they’ve spent as lying-lawyers makes them better then most at bamboozling voters. And once in office, we often find them just as lousy at writing laws as they were at applying them. So what happens to those so inept they can’t get reelected? Sympathetic colleagues frequently appoint them judges. And I’m not taking about any old judgeship either. They’re appointed a Federal District Court Judge, or even to the Supreme Court.

Can you imagine someone as dumb as Congressman Joe Barton or congress’ other example of cerebral decay, Sheila Jackson Lee, becoming a Federal District Judge? Or, worst yet, being appointed to the Supreme Court?

Fascinating isn’t it? While a non-lawyer is — by tradition, not law—barred from a judgeship, any idiot with a law license can fill any judgeship. If they have the right political friends of course.

Congresswoman Lee’s stupidity has reached such heights that entire websites have been created just to keep us appraised of her latest gaffs.






Citizens lined up to greet delegates leaving the Assembly Room of the Pennsylvania State House, [now Independence Hall] on that September day in 1787, for the Convention called to repair our Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union had finished its work, and Philadelphians were curious to learn what had been decided. And as Benjamin Franklin appeared, a woman asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?”

“A Republic Madam,” he replied, “if you can keep it!”



WHY A REPUBLIC? Because our founders knew the masses are, and always will be, far too stupid to run anything as complex as a government. So they built safeguards into our Constitution that could have kept us going forever with only an occasional minor tweak. But after our Civil War, congress began diddling with it and — bit by bit — made changes undermining voter intelligence until today where, stripped of all its safeguards, Franklin’s fears have come true. Our idiots are electing those hell-bent on spending us into bankruptcy.


Believing the states governed by the intelligent, our founders defaulted voter eligibility to their legislatures. And the states, believing only mature, tax paying citizens capable of voting wisely, tended to limit the vote to free, property owning males 21 and older. But even they weren’t trusted with more than the ability to elect members to the House of Representatives. Federal Senators were insulated from the masses by being appointed by state legislatures, and the Presidency was isolated from both the public and state governments by an Electoral College: A group envisioned by the founders as intellectuals chosen by the people to select a president for them. And, quaint though these safeguards might seem today, they gave us such presidential giants as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and the two Adams,’ all of whom would be considered “too brainy” to be electable today.

In the presidential election of 1824, the first where returns are available, a piddling 356,038 votes were cast from a population of 10,924,000. That’s a mere 3.25% of the population. Yet, few though those voters were, they gave us a government that protected citizens, defended property, kept roads in repair and paid off our Revolutionary War debt. It was a time when the lower class — those not owning property and therefore unable to vote — knew they were not up to voting wisely, and they did NOT make a fuss about being denied the vote. But pandering politicians began meddling with the franchise to slowly change us from a plutocracy — a government of the mature and intelligent — to the boob-ocracy of today — a time when even the village idiot is encouraged to vote — Democrat, of course. And by the time our Civil War ended in 1865, congress had been dumbed-down to the point where — believing themselves smarter than our Founding Fathers, they began




1870: The 15^th^ Amendment banned voter discrimination on the basis of race. Less than a century after it had been written, the cornerstone of our Constitution’s success, that the vote be limited to the informed and intelligent — was gone.

Ostensibly written to give the recently freed slaves the vote, the 15th amendment came with a secondary purpose that was a lot less savory: Its writers dreamt that it would get the freed slaves voting Republican forever. Well, it started out that way.

Northern troops occupying the defeated Confederate South made sure Blacks could vote. But, political skullduggery after the presidential election of 1876, removed those troops, [1877] and the Southern States instantly enacted every gimmicky law they could think of to prevent Blacks from voting. Laws staying on the books until 1965 when the Voter Registration Act was passed.

Forgetting that Republicans freed them, or that without the Republican’s unanimous support, the Voter Act would never have been passed as congressional Democrats voted against it en masse, Blacks only remember that President Johnson was a Democrat. They also ignore the fact that ALL THE LAWS OVERTURNED BY THE ACT HAD BEEN WRITTEN BY DEMOCRATS. Reveling in the Blacks’ stupidity, Johnson chortled:

I’ll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”

President Lyndon Johnson


Fascinating isn’t it? That amidst all the political skullduggery surrounding the writing of this amendment, they it still thought it was better for an ignorant illiterate Black male to vote than a collage educated White female.


1912: DIDDLING WITH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: While absolutely necessary, this act prevented most voters’ from knowing their representative.*


* Without this change, today’s House might have thousands of members: a completely unworkable number.


Using the 1790 census as a starting point — there were 3,929,326 of us then — our Constitution started with a House of 64 members which, they apportioned as noted below* while NOT counting Indians and ONLY counting slaves as three fifths of a person.

  • Article 1 Section 2 … The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration such shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.”


But as our population grew, the House’ burgeoning membership became problematic, and after the 1910 census, they statutorily fixed their membership at 435 and reapportioned those seats effective the election of 1912. That shifted us from a nation with a representative for every few tens of thousands of citizens where many knew their representative, to today where the 2010 census population of 309,330,000 means that each congressperson represents roughly 781,500 Americans — a number so huge that few have a clue as to who represents them.


THEN[*:*] Knowing that without a check on taxation congress would eventually bleed us dry, our Founders limited their taxing ability to a per capita tax. That is, so much per person. But, needing a fortune to finance his Civil War, Lincoln simply created an unconstitutional income tax which the Supreme Court later — and “later” because our entire court system works at a snails pace because so few of its members have anything resembling managerial skills — [see chapter to be added below] declared Lincoln’s tax unconstitutional. Congress longed for a way to get around the Constitution’s limitations, and found it when the “Prohibition” movement began thinking of an own Amendment of their own.

Over 70% of the federal government’s taxes, at that time, came from the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages. So before any Prohibition Amendment could get off the ground, they had to find a way to replace the loot that would be lost were that amendment passed: Enter in


1913: The 16^th^ Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”


1913: The 17^th^ Amendment required the direct election of Federal Senators by the people thus adding another layer of our government that would be chosen by our ignorant public.


1919: The 18^th^ Amendment: Passed on January 16, 1919, and went into effect one year later to ban the manufacture, transport or sale of alcoholic beverages. But it did not ban the possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages. Result: When President Wilson vacated the White House in 1921, he needed a congressional waiver to legally move his personal hoard of “spirits” to his new home. I include this only to show the level of stupidity that had entered our thinking. We can’t drink, but the President can. Wilson was followed by President Harding whose personal bootlegger kept his liquor cabinet topped off. And at a time when gambling was illegal, President Harding bet and lost the White House’s President Hayes china in a poker game.


1920: The 19^th^ Amendment banned voter discrimination based on sex. Before this, states, starting with Wyoming in 1869, had given females the vote, and Montana was the first to elect a female to congress: Janette Rankin, in 1914. See Appendix xxx


1933: The 21st Amendment: , repealed the 18th Prohibition Amendment of 1919.


1964: The 24^th^ Amendment banned the poll tax and other gimmicks the southern states had used to keep Blacks from voting. This opened the floodgates of Black voter registration that lowered the nation’s average voter’s I.Q. by enough points* to inspire LBJ’s comment:



I’ll have them niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”


[As you see, Africa is not noted for producing geniuses.*]

1971: The 25^th^ Amendment. And by far the stupidest of all, lowered the voting age to 18 thus stripping any last remaining shreds of maturity from the voter pool.


During this time, the “Electoral Collage,” which, in the beginning, had insulated the presidency from the masses, had died the death-of a-thousand-cuts. Today, it’s just a bunch of political hacks so inconsequential their names don’t even appear on the ballot. Now, even the president is chosen by, “the people.”


But thank God we still have the Electoral Collage! Without it we’d still be recounting the votes to figure out who won the elections of 1876, 1960, 2000 . . .

27 million Americans are functionally illiterate … Forty-seven million more … read on only the most minimal level. Together, that’s almost 75 million Americans.

[_ _____ Coalition for Literacy _]


• [_ 14% of adult Americans cannot find the ] _United States on a world map.


• [_ 56% have no idea what the population of this country is. _]

[_ _____ National Geographic Society _]


Just how stupid are voters? In 1962, Edward Moore Kennedy, ran in the Massachusetts Democratic senate primary being held to fill the seat vacated when his brother became president. Kennedy’s opponent, Edward McCormack, son of the speaker of the House, challenged him with the line: “If your name were Edward Moore instead of Edward Moore Kennedy, your candidacy would be a joke.” True. Edward Kennedy was just your typical womanizing drunk without a single redeeming feature — save his name. The very year before — 1961 — while on a trip to South America, Teddy had rented an entire Chilean brothel for an evening’s entertainment?


[+ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/28/ted-kennedy-arranged-rent-brothel-latin-america-61-memo-says/+]


His name alone constantly relected “Teddy” to reign in our Senate as one of our Capitol’s more formidable drunks for 46 years.

More recently, such pitiful voting practices have given us the pathological liar, Barack Obama — an ass whose eight years in office will add as much to our national debt as all of his predecessors combined — and to no purpose whatsoever.







The ever present fools that have sunk every civilization before ours are sinking us. And repairing the tattered remains of our Constitution isn’t going to be easy. Anyway, let me say right up front that I have no expectation that any of these ideas will be taken seriously. I toss them out only as talking points for those younger and wiser than myself to ponder.



Putting an I.Q. test in voting machine which must be passed if the voter’s vote is to counted. It would wipe out Democrat votes wholesale and would never be allowed so forget it.


Requiring voters to know who they’re voting for by placing names on the ballot in alphabetical order without a party label. Same as above.




These will only work if we agree right up front that every congressional incumbent at the time of the amendment’s passage must be exempted. That is, any amendment passed would take effect on a seat by seat basis when and only when that seat became vacant.





THERE ARE TWO WAYS OF DOING THIS: Amend the Constitution to say that no one may serve in congress more than X number of terms: perhaps two senate terms or six house terms or set a limit on a combination of offices.


OR: A MANDATORY RETIREMENT AFTER SO MANY YEARS OF SERVICE: For instance, anyone serving 24 years — or whatever period you choose — cumulatively in congress is automatically and irrevocably retired PERIOD.




Going back to our Articles of Confederation days, amend our constitution to limit anyone’s holding any office for more than two consecutive terms out of three. This allows members to return after a hiatus. And while many will argue that this won’t work because members will simply have their husband or wife replace themselves for a term, if it’s the best we can get, we should take it.




This works by making one body of our government idiot proof.


Term: Change a Senator’s term of office from 6 years to 20 with self succession prohibited.


By election only: In the event of a senate vacancy, for whatever reason, that seat would remain vacant until the next Senate Election Day in that state where those who choose to run would do so for a full term. Thus, there will no appointments to the Senate as there will be no unexpired terms. And as the Senate represents the nation as a whole, an argument that one or even both Senators from one state may be missing simultaneously for a short time holds no water. It means that the Senate is being thought of as it is today: a factional political body whose seats are filled by those who would loot the treasury for their personal or constituents benefit. The new Senate should spend their time working on the problems of the day, not worrying about their next election will be funded.


Election Day: Consistent with the minimizing of politics for the office, four separate days shall be set aside by each state for senatorial elections, and these days shall be three months apart and none shall coincide with any other election day in that state for any other office or offices. And should a seat become vacant before the incumbent has finished their term, that seat would be filled on the next Senate Election Day in that state after at least 90 days have passed; time for prospective candidates to prepare and their campaigns. Should a majority of the candidates running for a seat request more time, the state legislature may defer the election one Senate Election Date at a time as they see fit.

BUT: Anyone so much as allowing their name to be placed on the ballot for that office is thereby barred from any other federal office or appointment for 10 years with these exceptions: Should that same senate seat become vacant during that time, they may run for it; they may also run for the office of President or Vice President, and they may accept cabinet appointments. Why such severe restrictions? Because it would severely limit the “professional politician” from running for the senate.

A Senator serving out their full term shall receive their full salary for life with cost of living adjustments solving the return to prior occupation problem.

Candidates’ names shall be placed on voting machines or ballots in alphabetical order without a party label.

Senators must forswear all other government pensions for life. [There shall be no double dipping for previously dumped House members, etc. but private pensions shall be exempted from the rule.]

Other requirements such as the number of Senators per state, age requirements etc., remain unchanged.

Rare indeed is the psychopath that would risk their future on a race that might cost them 10 years of political inactivity. And, by placing the election on a non-election day for any other office, few voters will take the trouble to vote unless they have a vote worth casting. Perfect? No. An improvement? Hopefully. Barring the unexpected, most Americans would vote for two senators per generation. Then perhaps, without the folderol of party politics and nominating committee machinations, we will actually think about the choices and select the best among us: hopefully men and woman famous for doing something more meaningful than talking. This is not a new idea. Several of our founders including Alexander Hamilton and John Adams thought the Senate would eventually become a lifetime job with some even speculating that — perhaps — it might even become hereditary.






As governments represent people, not interests or things:


LET ANY REGISTERED VOTER be permitted to give any amount of their own money to any candidate that will appear ON THEIR BALLOT.


They may barrow money at the prevailing rate to do this, but they may NOT accept monies from any other source to donate.


BUT: Let no amount of money or service of any kind or type whatsoever be contributed directly or indirectly to any candidate or party by anyone or anything that is not a living breathing registered American voter meeting the above requirement.

This absolute prohibition includes, but is not limited to, corporations, lobbies, PACs, trusts, foreign powers, unions, non-registered voters, money both directly and indirectly from out of state, and all the other special interest groups now buying congress. Our current funding laws are based on the assumption that elections are corrupt when not watched, yet allow corruption by slight of hand.


During the Dukakis / Bush presidential campaign of 1988, millions of dollars were spent by the Bush camp on television commercials blasting the Democrats on issues. But because Bush’s name or image were never used, these commercials were ‘off the books’ and not charged to his campaign. But when a campaign’s cornerstone adds avoid being charged to the candidate they benefit, how realistic is the law dealing with contributions?







CREATED BY LINCOLN who — finding congress out of session when he took office and started our Civil War — began issuing the UNconstitutional pronunciamentos we today call: “Executive Orders.”

Before Lincoln, there only trivial notices of such things as the days of national mourning on the death of some notable etc. called Presidential Proclamations

Lincoln used his self-minted power to unconstitutionally nationalized our railroads and telegraph companies before going on a binge of ruling by fiat all over the place. And, as the returning congress maintained a cowardly silence, their tacit approval gave precedence for the theft of their power; and it is that precedent set by Lincoln’s gutless congress that’s being used by Obama today — something a constitutional scholar like Obama should know — were he one that is.


See Appendix: “Chicago Law Prof on Obama: The Professors Hated Him because he was Lazy, Unqualified & . . . ”


WHEREAS: Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of our Constitution orders that the President shall, “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”


OBAMA has NO POWER from any source whatsoever allowing him to determine which laws he will enforced, and which he will ignore. Neither does he have the power to write laws on his own, for that amounts to a veto power over congressional acts not granted in either our constitution or laws. And to counter such tyrannical illegalities, might I suggest that our new congress avoid that time wasting Crap-Game-on-the-Potomac — our Supreme Court — and consider passing the following:




Congress shall have the power to alter or abolish in whole or in part any presidential order, edict, or pronunciamento by either a majority in both houses, or a two thirds vote of EITHER body.

This shall in no way affect cases coming before the Supreme Court with regard to the Executive Order’s constitutionality.





“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For those arguing that the inclusion of the word “Militia” allows them to interpret the amendment in any way they wish by redefining that word, FORGET IT! The Supreme Court has defined it for us once and for all:


So by what authority have gun restrictions been passed? And what advantage have all these regulations given us? The most onerous gun laws have been written by Black dominated cities with the nation’s highest murder rates: Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, and our capitol, Washington, D.C. etc. As these cities are predominantly Black, and Blacks’ have the highest crime and murder rate among the races, what do these laws do but turn Whites into victims to be preyed upon by Blacks.




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.”


Suppose you open your door and a cop with a few buddies brush past you and, once inside, one of them says: “I declaring this a crime scene! Do we have your permission to inspect the premises? Or will you stand there being watched by this police officer while I go for a warrant?” Is this what our founding fathers thought would start happening to us? Write something nasty about our president and see for your self. It happened to me.


Amendment 5


No person shall be held to answer for a . . . crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . 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.”


Simple isn’t it? Yet, our justices have undermined every word it, for if you’ve learned nothing else from my previous writings, you should know by now that prosecutorial lying has become so common as to make most grand juries little more than *a joke._ Why? A [[*prosecutor’s purpose]_] before a grand jury is to convince them that a law has been broken, and that a specific person or group should be charged with coming that crime. But banishing any defense from a grand jury’s proceedings removes any reason for a prosecutor — whose job it is to get indictments — to tell the truth. Thus, if someone is being charged for political reasons, the prosecutor might hide incriminating facts, while if someone truly guilty is being charged, that same prosecutor might hide exculpatory evidence. Add to that the fact that grand jury proceedings are usually sealed — and that prosecutor’s are almost never charged with lying and …


Let’s go on: “No person shall be tried for the same crime twice.” Really? How many laws have been written allowing the government to do exactly that? Suppose you’re found NOT guilty of murder. What would you then call being hit with a federal charge of violating that same victim’s civil rights? For if that isn’t double jeopardy, what is? What was O.J. Simpson’s “civil rights” violation trial but a rehash of his murder trial?

Then there’s: *nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation*. Another “protection” shot to hell by “Civil Forfeiture” laws.

Civil Forfeiture Laws are nothing more than licenses for “our protectors” to rob us blind by merely saying that something they covet MIGHT have been involved in a crime.

The disgusting part of this is that — not only do these lying bastards benefit from their own theft — THE STOLEN PROPERTY IS USUALLY DISPOSED OF BEFORE THE CASE IS RESOLVED, HENCE IT CAN RARELY BE RETURNED EVEN WHEN NO CHARGES ARE FILED AGAINST ITS OWNER! AND IF THIS ISN’T THE LEGAL THEFT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHAT IS? Yet, doesn’t the amendment go on, “without due process of law”? Let me define that for you, for IT, is law’s perverted way of creating the problem:


DUE PROCESS: Our founders never saw a time when we’d become so stupid as to elect those who would write laws allowing law enforcement to steal our property. But when fools DO write such laws, those laws become the DUE PROCESS overriding our Constitution’s protections!

While obviously against the spirit of our constitution, as “the state” usually does the stealing from those too poor to pay for an extended legal fight — that would have to go all the way to the Supreme Court — something costing “justice” millions of dollars — these grossly immoral and unconstitutional laws remain on the books in many places.


As for pleading the 5th“nor shall any person … be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” forget it. While obviously written to prevent our being forced to harm our own reputations, our genius’ of law have gotten around it by arguing that — if given immunity from prosecution — you los the protection! This is the sort of illegality that occurs when those enforcing the law also get to interpret it.

Getting that immunity did wonders for gangster Sam Giancana. He was murdered the night before he was to be forced to testify before congress. Think about it. The feds got nothing for screwing our constitution — and the screwee’s reward was to be murdered. Do you think those writing this amendment ever saw a time when bureaucrats could force you to spill your guts of your darkest secrets or spend time in jail? But this is just a typical case of legal reasoning:



The Hague Gas Declaration of 1899 outlawing the use of poison gas in warfare and was signed by nearly every civilized nation on earth.*


* : Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Projectiles with the Sole Object to Spread Asphyxiating Poisonous Gases …


Simple isn’t it? It says that the signatories agree to refrain from using projectiles containing poison gas if hey went to war. So why, just a few years later, did almost every one of those civilized nations use poison gas in WWI? Because a different set of legal morons interpreted those simple English words thusly: As the Hague agreement only banned poison gas in projectiles — something they defined as meaning *artillery shells,_ they argued that: [[*As the agreement only mentions artillery shells —]_] opening a valve to release a deadly gas down wind to murder the enemy in their trenches, or dropping poison gas bombs from airplanes — something that hadn’t even been invented at the time of the Hague Convention — were NOT mentioned in the declaration, their use was just fine.

Then, using this horses’ ass logic in reverse, they concluded that: If it’s okay to kill people by dropping gas bombs or opening gas valves, then the signers of the Hague agreement obviously didn’t mean what they said about artillery shells so …

An ad nauseam, rendering of this perverse logic gives us their readings of the 5th amendment.


And the poor 9^th^ and 10^th^ Amendments? They never had a chance!

The amendments’ writers forgot that they would limit the power of the very branches of government interpreting them — and no government has ever limited its power for long.


Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

THINK: Where in our Constitution is there anything anything at all — hinting that the Founding Fathers thought their new government would involve itself in our private lives? Not a word? So by what authority has the Supreme Court micro-managed our behavior in areas such as: Marriage; Abortion; Voting requirements; Marijuana use, the death penalty etc.? WHY! Because in an almost endless list of issues they’ve undermined our constitution without challenge. Isn’t the document clear enough? If a specific power or subject has not been given to the Feds, that issues’ determination belongs to the states, or the people: PERIOD. So why allow them to dominate our lives when their authority for doing so comes from nothing more then their looking at our Constitution through the tinted glasses of their predecessors decisions — the cesspool lawyers worship called, precedents.

The problem with precedents is simple: Judges intellectually range between smart, and really really stupid; and when citing a precedent, no one asks: Was this a ruling of Justice Einstein? Or Judge Jackass? You see, to overturn a precedent — no matter how smart or dumb the judge setting it was — requires a similar case involving people rich enough to spend the fortune in legal fees and time to fight for the justice only appealing and overturning the original ruling gives. Thus a really stupid ruling may remain on the books as “the law” for decades — or sometimes, forever.

Like religions where the myriad sects all result from preachers avoiding the obvious reading of the original texts to present a faulty interpretation of the original, so it is only by going back to the Constitution that leads to truth, and avoiding that leads to the follies we observe today.




As no organization can honestly police itself, least of all a court composed of lawyers who frequently think of themselves minor deities. As they can’t be trusted to determine what is or is not encompassed by the 9th and 10th amendments, let us take the matter out of their hands and give it to the states where it belongs. And to do this, I propose this





WHY SUCH A DRASTIC STEP? Because our Supreme Court is sometimes too stupid to even do simple things well.






This is a treatise on how we created and destroyed our country. Suggestions are included on how we might fix the mess we're in by amending our constitution.

  • Author: Arthur W. Ritchie
  • Published: 2016-01-31 18:40:20
  • Words: 7085