Theme: Sovereignty

  • @eyeslasho PLEASE CONSIDER: In the english constitution “the monarchy is above t

    @eyeslasho
    PLEASE CONSIDER:
    In the english constitution “the monarchy is above the law in the restoration of the law”. This is the last necessary function of our monarchies. They overcome the limitations of oligarchical, republican, parliamentary, and democratic governments.

    If the choice is between civil war, insurrection, internecine conflict, decline, conquest or collapse vs a constitutional restoration followed by voluntary abdication, is to do so as the least of all evils. As we have seen repeatedly and successfully especially during the Roman era, then this is the obligation of kings – and lacking one, a president – if, done by restoring the constitution, including natural law, the sovereignty of the people, the sovereignty of the court in their defense from the state, the sovereignty of the states within the federation, the empiricism of the common law, the empiricism of concurrency between classes, regions, and states in voting and in legislation. We have a purely empirical system of federal government – a market between states. And it has been usurped in the war era by ideologists, and in the postwar period by credentialists and their ideology – all of which violate the above listed principles: a science of political decidability.

    Depending upon how you count them, our constitution and bill of rights have between eight and two dozen holes. They were the product of Blackstone, the long development of the natural law of cooperation through enlightenment empiricism – and as stated by the founders, dependent upon a moral population, and the unstated traditions they carried with them. So while their theory of cooperation was in fact scientific, they did not capture its entirety and in doing so left it open to seditions – seditions we have seen manifest and most aggressively since the end of the world wars, reaching their peak in the lawfare of the sixties, and the capture of education, media, and the state since then.

    I have been working for the majority of my adult life, and so has our organization, to prevent the rather deterministic outcome of these many abuses, which we, like others before us, anticipated would culminate in a civil war before the end of the next decade. But as so many august authors have noted, americans can adapt faster than all other nations combined. What began as the Reagan revolution, expanded to the Tea Party, and has become the foundation of the Trump movement, was to historians of civilizational cycles, as predictable as the seasons.

    So, if it has come to pass that the lower courts have been captured as thoroughly as the bureaucracy, the media, the academy, and the international financial sector – then let us have our peaceful revolution by political restoration of the law, rather than the bloodshed that would result otherwise.

    The world has changed more than we had expected as our failure to completely defeat the remaining agrarian empires during the world wars, gave sustenance to their survival, and our long project to end empires in favor of sovereign nation states, federations around a core state, and the transformation of landed conflict to economic competition – a virtuous cycle – has not survived our the dissipation of our population, our culture, our scientific and technological advantage, our institutional advantage, and the economic and military result that made our efforts at domesticating man for the new era possible.

    Do not presume pour choice is between continuing the past and a political reformation, when the past is no longer possible and our choice is between that reformation or civil war, decline, and possible collapse, in a world of empires reemergent – let loose by our folly.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    BURNHAM’S FAILURES OF DEMOCRACIES
    Burnham presents a realist analysis of politics, arguing that democratic governments tend to converge on bad decisions due to the inevitable dominance of elite rule and the structural incentives that undermine genuine representation and accountability. This tendency arises from several interrelated principles:

    1. The Iron Law of Oligarchy (Michels)
    All political organizations, including democracies, inevitably develop an elite ruling class.
    This elite, once in power, acts in its own self-interest rather than in the interest of the public.
    Over time, democratic institutions become facades for oligarchic rule, where elites manipulate democratic processes to maintain their dominance.

    2. Political Myth and Manipulation
    Public opinion is shaped by myths, slogans, and ideology rather than rational decision-making.
    Elites use these myths (e.g., ‘the will of the people’) to justify their rule while making decisions that serve their own interests.

    3. The Circulation of Elites (Pareto)
    Societies experience a continual replacement of elites, but new elites adopt the same self-serving behaviors as their predecessors.
    Elites use both force and persuasion (‘lions and foxes’) to retain power, leading to policies that prioritize elite survival over public welfare.

    4. Democratic Degeneration into Mass Bureaucracy
    As democracies expand and become bureaucratic, decision-making shifts from accountable representatives to unaccountable administrative and technocratic elites.
    Bureaucrats and entrenched interest groups create policies that protect their own power rather than optimize for societal well-being.

    5. Short-Term Incentives and the Decay of Responsibility (Owner vs Renter incentives, political tragedy of the commons)
    Democratic leaders prioritize short-term electoral success over long-term governance.
    Policies that provide immediate political gain (e.g., welfare expansion, deficit spending, demagoguery) tend to be chosen over difficult but necessary decisions.

    6. Majoritarian Pressure and Mediocrity
    Democracy incentivizes appealing to the lowest common denominator rather than promoting excellence.
    Politicians must cater to mass sentiment, which often favors simplistic, emotional, or expedient solutions over sound governance.

    These principles explain why democratic governments tend to make systematically poor decisions: they are captured by oligarchic elites, shaped by mass manipulation, driven by short-term incentives, and constrained by bureaucratic inertia.

    Reply addressees: @eyeslasho @realDonaldTrump


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-16 00:20:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1890919175717265408

  • RT @realDonaldTrump: He who saves his Country does not violate any Law

    RT @realDonaldTrump: He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-15 23:48:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1890911050637156698

  • RT @Cernovich: I don’t want to speak carelessly or with bravado. But Im not goin

    RT @Cernovich: I don’t want to speak carelessly or with bravado. But Im not going back. I will not submit, ever or in any way, to what we l…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-13 10:47:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1889989744823804343

  • Q:”If Congress passes legislation … who is to say the legislation is not “appr

    –Q:”If Congress passes legislation … who is to say the legislation is not “appropriate”–

    Good Question.
    Unlike europe where the parliament is sovereign (rules) over the people, in the USA, the people are sovereign, not the government, and the constitution enumerates the terms by which the people grant the government responsibility for administration of the environment in which the people live.
    Consequently, the Constitution limits what is ‘appropriate’ for congress to legislate.
    The limit is the natural law that the founders relied upon as stated in Blackstone. And the natural law is best disambiguated by ‘the natural law of cooperation under universal defense of sovereignty of the individual in his demonstrated interests, and the resulting demand for reciprocity in display word and deed.’
    As such does the legislation passed by congress violate the natural law of cooperation, which in the abstract means ‘does it impose costs upon the demonstrated interests of the population without just compensation for that imposition’?
    And costs here mean the entire spectrum of demonstrated interests whether personal, kin, private, semi-private, common informal, common formal, or common material.
    As such the congress, because of the laxity of the court during the marxist-trotskyist attempt to undermine the constitution, commonality and concurrency, and natural law, sought by lawfare and by positive law, to create sovereignty for the legislature against the people, during the 50s thru 70s.
    This court (thanks largely to the Federalist Society’s work since 1980) seeks to restore the constitution and the sovereignty of the states and the people. And this president seeks to do the same. both of which return the government to the service of the union of states rather than to some desire for world government – a world government we sought to end world wars, but which was captured by the financial, bureaucratic and academic and media sectors to create world government and subvert national sovereignty to some globalist ideology.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @AccurateCaption


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-07 18:39:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1887934293315567618

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1887927683494850920

  • WILL TRUMP’S CLARIFICATION OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PREVAIL IN THE SUPREME COUR

    WILL TRUMP’S CLARIFICATION OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PREVAIL IN THE SUPREME COURT?

    the Supreme Court’s ruling would depend on several legal arguments, interpretations of the 14th Amendment, and the composition of the Court at the time of the ruling.

    Arguments Favoring Trump’s Position

    Originalist Interpretation of the 14th Amendment
    – The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states:
    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
    – The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has historically been interpreted broadly to include nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, except diplomats and invading armies.
    – Trump’s argument hinges on a narrower interpretation—that “subject to the jurisdiction” means full allegiance to the U.S., which could exclude illegal immigrants and non-permanent residents.

    Historical Precedents and Legislative Intent
    – The Framers of the 14th Amendment (1868) debated whether birthright citizenship should extend beyond freed slaves to include Native Americans and foreigners.
    – Some legal scholars argue that the intent was not to automatically grant citizenship to children of non-citizens.
    – The Supreme Court has never ruled explicitly on whether illegal immigrants’ children qualify for birthright citizenship.

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) – Not a Perfect Precedent
    This case ruled that a child born in the U.S. to legal Chinese immigrants was a citizen.
    It did not explicitly address children of illegal immigrants, leaving an open legal question.
    Conservatives could argue that the ruling was based on a different immigration context—before modern border laws and mass migration.

    The Role of Congress in Immigration
    The Plenary Power Doctrine states that Congress has wide latitude over immigration policy.
    Some legal conservatives argue that Congress—not the courts—should decide birthright citizenship laws, meaning an executive order could trigger legislative action.

    Composition of the Supreme Court
    If the Court leans conservative (6-3), they might be open to revisiting Wong Kim Ark or upholding a redefinition of the jurisdiction clause.
    Justices like Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch may be sympathetic to an originalist reading that limits birthright citizenship.

    Arguments Against Trump’s Position

    Wong Kim Ark Precedent & Stare Decisis
    The Court has long recognized birthright citizenship as settled law.
    Overturning it would require a radical reinterpretation of jurisdiction.

    Textual Reading of the 14th Amendment
    The broad language suggests inclusion rather than exclusion.
    The Framers did not explicitly exclude children of foreigners.

    Practical and Political Fallout
    Ending birthright citizenship could disrupt millions of legal cases.
    It might lead to stateless children, violating international norms.

    Possible Supreme Court Ruling Outcomes

    Trump Wins (5-4 or 6-3 Ruling)
    The Court limits birthright citizenship by redefining “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
    Children of illegal immigrants or temporary visitors lose automatic citizenship.
    Wong Kim Ark remains precedent for legal immigrants only.

    Trump Loses (6-3 or 7-2 Ruling)
    The Court reaffirms birthright citizenship under Wong Kim Ark.
    They reject the executive order as an overreach requiring constitutional amendment.

    Partial Victory (Narrow Ruling)
    The Court sidesteps broad rulings and focuses on Congressional authority over the matter.
    They rule that Congress—not an executive order—must clarify the law.

    Prediction: 50/50 Odds

    If the case is heard by this current Court, Trump has a real chance of winning—but it depends on whether conservative justices view Wong Kim Ark as binding precedent.

    A textualist like Barrett might hesitate to overturn settled law.
    If the ruling leans against Trump, expect it to be based on stare decisis (respect for precedent) rather than constitutional clarity.

    If the case were postponed until after a more conservative Court (due to retirements or new appointments), Trump’s odds increase significantly.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-07 17:52:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1887922509808590848

  • And the defense of demonstrated interests is the only means by which to form a p

    And the defense of demonstrated interests is the only means by which to form a polity. The problem with the libertarian definition of intersubjectively verifiable property is that it specifically alienates the commons whereas property rights and the resulting high trust polity,…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-03 17:27:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1886466437189120424

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1886464121773645968

  • “Canada is a lot bigger than Greenland, so do you think that they could just joi

    –“Canada is a lot bigger than Greenland, so do you think that they could just join America overnight? Wouldn’t it need a little bit more planning?”–

    Not really – one year for constitutional revision in Canada’s federal to state constitution to preserve their (left wing) biases, health care and so on, and the revision of the US treaties and laws and procedures to accommodate the addition of yet another large state (NY, CA, FL, TX and then Canada.

    It might not be clear to canadians that because of their population and territory they would have extraordinary influence on the federal government – more so than they have over the canadian government.

    It might not be clear that some of us are more patriotic to our states than we are to the federal government. And that this would likely apply to canadians as well.

    My suspicion is that canada’s integration would lead to imitation of canadian health care by other large states, with the preservation of medicare for all by the smaller states.

    While we would prefer to bring in each province as a state, this would upset the balance of power in the senate precisely because Canada is so left wing (a mommy state – individual irresponsibility) and the USA is center right (a daddy state – individual responsibility).

    The USA could accommodate this difficulty in the senate by re-apportioning the number of senators, but this would delay the transition as it’s a constitutional revision rather than ‘yet another state added’.

    So, instead we would leave open the capacity of canadians to establish provinces as states once fully integrated such that existing canadians adapted to the burden of responsibility americans share for the global order and canadians don’t. This will take around a generation.

    This is quite doable and is absolutely in the interest of canadians and americans.

    Conversely, I’d rather we both unite and re-join england just so we could have the monarchy as a check and balance against our presidencies. 😉

    Affections;
    (As a former resident of Ontario, and child of the NY border with Canada.)
    -CD

    Reply addressees: @partymember55 @JeanMarcNoelB @TrumpDailyPosts


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-02 19:19:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1886132295654154240

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1886128964730601732

  • GULF OF AMERICA? Hmmm…. I thought that was a play – a tactic. Only now that he

    GULF OF AMERICA?
    Hmmm…. I thought that was a play – a tactic. Only now that he’s signed it, do I understand he’s effectively warning china, just as he is with the panama canal.

    I’m kinda slow at these things now and then. Should have seen that instantly. 😉 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1881564865984401793

  • A monument is a claim on territory, on morality, on law, on government. A monume

    A monument is a claim on territory, on morality, on law, on government. A monument, a temple, a church, and certainly a mosque, are not social institutions. They are political institutions that can be put to good or ill, and to ill in achieving by socially seditious means that which can only be prevented by military means.

    Wake up.
    Total Integration.
    Or Forcible Repatriation.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-21 21:43:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881819953755754497

  • Can you try again with a little more precision? the USG is in fact trying to pre

    Can you try again with a little more precision?
    the USG is in fact trying to prevent the CCP in this generation like the Soviets in the past, and Russians today, from biasing the informational environment upon which the suggestable people (useful idiots on both sides and the middle) can be manipulated. We need to add the Israelis but that won’t happen until the iranian problem is solved.

    Reply addressees: @CloudByter


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-20 20:23:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881437453451735040

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881436877649277423