Monday, March 31, 2014
In a departure from preceding essays, this particular installment will be written in a more traditional fashion, sans expletives. I recently received a missive on my public email address where the correspondent stated that what I was relating is, in his opinion, too important to lace with foul language, ribald remarks and racial epithets. Having considered the message over several days, I found that I agree with his observation.
Therefore, for the remainder of these polemics I shall refrain from using "colorful" language; exceptions being future essays or rants unrelated to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. However, I will continue to refer to politicians and their police enforcers by employing somewhat "uncomplimentary" descriptions, as follows: aloof, elitist scoundrels, jackbooted thugs, amoral meretricians, badged privateers, soft palmed, mendacious gangsters, hypocrites, duly-sworn pirates, megalomaniacs, trigger-happy sadists, and so forth. In addition, earlier articles related to the Bill of Rights will be edited for "offensive" content, revised and presented separately on another blog, as an "updated, sanitized version" of the original essays. The original articles, as written, will be preserved here for reference and continuity.
Over the past four installments, the reader has learned via historical example that they do not have freedom of belief, speech or association; they do not have the right to keep and bear arms, nor do they have the right to prevent troops from being quartered in their homes, neither do they have the right to be secure in their homes, properties and papers. The reader has also learned that for most of the history of this nation, the Bill of Rights did not even apply to the States, and now only certain rights do apply to the States, in limited circumstances. Further, even when they do apply, cunning rhetorical machinations are employed by the State's well-paid shysters to thwart the citizen/victim from exercising their "rights" in the pursuit of justice. In other words, if they want you, they will get you, in any way and every way they can, your "god given rights" notwithstanding.
Again, it is asserted that James Madison, author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was either a very naive, well intentioned, intelligent man, or a very shrewd, capable, intelligent man; that determination will be left for the reader to decide.
I now present the text of the Fifth Amendment for the reader, verbatim:
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
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.
On the surface, the above Amendment seems to be a cogent statement, though the text is a blatant example of a run-on sentence with too many semicolons. A caveat is very apparent as well, which will be elaborated on shortly. The text of the Fifth Amendment will now be dissected and analyzed for the reader. After presentation, each section will be refuted, using historical judicial precedent, and proven for the lies that they are.
Beginning the analysis, the first two sections of the Fifth Amendment will be contrasted against each other: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,".
The above statement seems quite reasonable, though when contrasted with the next section, "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;" one can see how ridiculously easy it is to completely negate the first section by using the second section, by employing "interpretive" legerdemain, dependent on the given situation.
Focusing on the text of the second section, when contrasted against the first section, it all depends on whether one is a member of the "land or naval forces" (armed forces) or the "Militia" (state armed forces, like the present day National Guard), "when in actual service in time of War or public danger". In such situations, the first section obviously does not apply at all, and is rendered meaningless, as in examples of "summary judgement", via Military Law, which always applies to those individuals serving in the armed forces, even in times of peace.
That noted, historical precedent also shows that it is simple to arbitrarily classify a civilian citizen as a "sympathizer", an "armed combatant" or a "spy" in a "time of War" or "public danger", and to summarily judge and sentence the civilian accused via military law. So much for civilian citizens having the right not to be "held to answer for a capital, or otherwise "infamous crime", e.g., murder, rape, kidnapping, robbery, brigandage, pillaging, or plundering, as a "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury" no longer applies in such situations; you can be held, summarily convicted, shot, and interred within minutes, all without the benefit of a "Grand Jury".
Further, what exactly constitutes a "war"? An invasion? Armed insurrection? A foreign war on the other side of the planet? A riot? A street corner fistfight? What exactly constitutes "public danger"? An earthquake? A hurricane? A tornado? A bonfire? A drunken party of noisy revelers on New Year's Eve? It all depends on how those in authority arbitrarily define a given situation, and in such cases, the first section of the Fifth Amendment becomes even more worthless than the moldy parchment it was written on. Further, all of it goes out the window if "martial law" is declared, which authorities can and will resort to implementing if their agenda is even remotely threatened.
One would suppose if no wars are going on, or no public danger is evident, that the first section may in fact apply in some cases, provided that the Fifth Amendment is recognized by authorities as "incorporated" against the States and the Federal Government. History has shown that those in power are out to jealously protect and further their own interests, period. Conversely, they couldn't care less about the interests of accused citizens, guilty or not; they have unlimited resources as well, and the overwhelming majority of citizens do not.
Moving on to the third section: "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;" On the surface, this statement seems to be ironclad - if the authorities were honest men and not the cunning, amoral rhetoricians of today. Employing historical precedent, the above statement can be easily demolished by using contemporary judicial edicts over the past two decades, for example, Alex Blueford of Arkansas, cited in a link below. Presented further down in the list of links is the case of Terry Lynn Nichols, of Oklahoma City bombing infamy; this man tried twice for "capital or otherwise other infamous crimes" by cunning prosecutors legally splitting hairs with regard to the plainly contrived concept of "separate sovereignties" regarding the United States Federal and State governments. Other notable cases proving the above section from the Fifth Amendment is a lie are members of various police forces having been tried by the Federal Government for the same offenses, albeit cunningly disguised as "civil rights violations", e.g., BART policeman Johannes Mehserle, who killed Oscar Grant for no discernible reason, and the four murderous, NOLA jackbooted thugs of the Danziger Bridge debacle.
Immediately below are links to earlier articles I wrote and posted with regard to police brutality. They are provided for reference, with the titles sanitized in accordance with my pledge to not employ "offensive" language in this piece. Warning - the articles themselves are NOT sanitized:
BART policeman Johannes Mehserle kills Oscar Grant
NOPD policemen kill unarmed, innocent people on Danziger Bridge
Here are several links, proving the above highlighted statement in the preceding paragraph as a lie, the Double Jeopardy Wikipedia link is given for reference:
The below links illustrate and explain contemporary legalistic legerdemain with regard to "Independent or Separate Sovereigns" and "Double Jeopardy".
The fourth section will be noted next: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," There are several examples of this statement being violated by both the State and Federal Governments, but opposers of such a stance will attempt to split hairs as well, stating that some examples are "civil" cases, e.g., the IRS, as as such the above statement does not apply. In a sense they are correct - none of it truly applies at all, as the Fifth Amendment is nothing but contrived mendaciousness for credulous, easily duped ignoramuses anyway.
Here is an article which easily explains the utterly absurd SCOTUS decision in the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S.Ct. 2250 (2010), regarding "self incrimination" presented above:
This article gives the background of the above fatuous SCOTUS decision in the case of Salinas v. Texas, 133 S.Ct. 2174 (2013), also regarding "self incrimination:
Evidence from historical precedent plainly proves that the Fifth Amendment means very little in reality, if anything at all. This is especially apparent when nine arrogant, soft-palmed, wealthy, elitist rhetoricians, shrouded in ridiculous robes, can simply bang a gavel and blithely state that you have no such right and that you never did. That, reader, is EXACTLY how it works; so much for your "inalienable, god given rights"; the concept is not only untenable, based on the above adjudicated cases, but utterly obtuse to anyone capable of critical thinking.
Facts are facts - throughout history, the race of man gives man rights. Rights are not given by a god, nor are the rights that man gives man "inalienable". Man can, and does, take them away, via legislation, judicial edict, or martial law - god, if such a creature exists, has nothing at all to do with it. At best, our rights are privileges at best, and during the past three decades, have been referred to by government shysters as "privileges"; simply watch old C-SPAN videos for verification.
Here are selected articles regarding your risible Fifth Amendment "right" against self incrimination, as applied to the IRS:
In addition, the very act of being legally required to file tax returns with the legally sanctioned protection racket known as the IRS is forcing one to give testimony against oneself, which is a violation of the Fifth Amendment - but I suppose that's another story. You are legally required to PAY THEM from the fruits of YOUR LABORS, receiving NOTHING in return, or "something bad" will happen to you, like fines and PRISON. Al Capone couldn't have figured out a better racket. The aloof, condescending, elitist criminals running the United States don't care about you at all - they are out to bilk, enslave and control you, so they can maintain their power over you.
The fifth section is simply ludicrous: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;". Tell that meaningless sophistry to the police, who mow innocent people down everyday, from every walk of life, killing them on the street, in vehicles, and even in their own homes.
Links to classic cases illustrating the above section as nothing but a lie are easily available, and have been referred to in my earlier essays as well:
Yes, I shall beat these thoroughly dead horses until they disarticulate from the relentless assault - considering that so many of the supposed "rights" of the above victims were deliberately ignored by the megalomanical tyrants and their jackbooted enforcers running this moribund nation.
Here's a few more, both cases have been referred to in earlier polemical essays:
I wager it is safe to say the above individuals were deprived of life, liberty and property, without due process of law. There are HUNDREDS of other victims of the sadistic, badged pirates called police, slaughtering innocent citizens in the "name of the law":
Yeah, I know - the police make "mistakes" - and then they LIE about their actions, and often get away with it. Further, their victims are DEAD, and there is no recovering from that.
The sixth section is now presented: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The authorities have gotten around this section using a ridiculously easy method: "Civil Forfeiture". You see, "civil" cases are not covered by the Fifth Amendment. All the soft palmed scoundrels have to do is to have their enforcers, badged, jackbooted, duly sworn pirates, declare you a "drug dealer", or a child molester, or perhaps a terrorist, without ANY EVIDENCE, and then they can "legally" steal your money, seize your bank accounts, take your house and car, and leave you utterly DESTITUTE, without "compensation" for your losses.
Here are links to several cases, proving that the United States Federal and State governments, using their enforcers, the police, can steal any of your property, for no legitimate reason at all, and there is nothing that you can do about it at all.
Here is a convenient link to the "rules" that our elected gangsters and their enforcers use to legally steal your property:
Even the mendacious, verminous, megalomanical jackanapes in the White House has gotten into the act of legalized thievery, with an Executive Order plainly stating that HE and his minions can steal YOUR PROPERTY, and any other property that he can lay his scurvy paws on, in the name of baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet.
Aside from easily proving the last section of the Fifth Amendment as the lie that it is, there is also a not-so-hidden reason for the explosion of asset forfeitures within the United States - the Federal Government and the States are virtually bankrupt, with the elected criminals now resorting to STEALING from their own citizens to fund their agenda of POWER for themselves and CONTROL over the people as serfs in a fiefdom. Eventually, the entire corrupt system, rotten from top to bottom, will collapse, igniting a vicious insurrection that will destroy whatever is left of the United States, in a blood-drenched revolt that will make the French and Bolshevik Revolutions look like amateurish skirmishes. Those who have nothing left to lose have everything to win, and it will take only a small part of the populace to achieve that aim.
Coming to the end of this polemical essay, after dissection, analysis, and refutation of each section by employing citations contradicting accepted beliefs, I submit that the entire text of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution is a tissue of mendacity, or quite plainly, a LIE. I have employed documents from the United States government to prove this - having used their own words AGAINST THEM.
Some may not like what I have written, but I don't care about that; I never have and I never will. I invite any reader, from accredited Constitutional Scholar, to jingoistic cretin, to refute what I contend, using the same method of historical precedent, citation of adjudicated cases, and explanation of cited cases, to prove me wrong.
Stay tuned for the next installment, when I destroy the Sixth Amendment, and prove it for the lie that it is.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Over several articles, followed by a terse, cynical potshot at the narcissistic jackanapes and the enjoyable slapping down of a superstitious, lunatic ignoramus, who has, fortunately, vanished for the time being, the reader has learned that the first three Amendments of the risible US Constitution's "Bill of Rights" are lies, and that some of the Amendments in the "Bill of Rights" don't even apply to the States, TODAY, according to our elitist masters. Didn't teach you those facts in "civics class" did they? No, they "taught" you what they wanted you to know, or rather believe, so you could live a life of DELUSION, thinking that you had "inalienable rights" given to you by some sort of god. Hell, not that I fault them, even they believed it, which proves that even academics are easily fooled by those who are cunning; i.e., the initiated, creepy, elitist, self-serving monsters that run this benighted dump for their own ends, in the name of "god": a cunning ruse promoted to dupe credulous fools.
That's why I am here; I don't think there are gods and I never did; I scornfully spit in the face of all men and I laughingly spit in the face of your non-existent deities, from Anubis to Zeus. I arrogantly dare any of those fraudulent constructs to strike me dead before I can post this polemical essay.
Oh well, so much for god; and for those so inclined, your contrived, conjectural, calligraphy strewn sophistries cannot stop me, only the ravages of unstoppable time, together with man-made knives, bullets or bombs can stop me - I await you, smiling, with nary a care - death comes to us all, and my unavoidable demise and coming non-existence does not frighten me in the least, unlike YOU, who so cares about your personal "importance" in this meaningless goddamned universe. Conversely, I scare you feckless, posturing, superstitious bastards to death - I KNOW exactly what man is, be you black, white or yellow, male or female, young or old - first and foremost, you are a self-interested, devious, cunning, talking animal with the average brainpower of a fucking dog; a greed driven, bare-faced liar and two-faced hypocrite unworthy of the respect given to common cockroaches. Yeah, you don't like that. Ask me if I care; I don't give a fuck what you think, and I never did.
Moving on, by employing the Hegelian dialectic, sharpened by the atavistic, defining lens of Protagoras and the focusing lens of Karl Marx, I KNOW that the Bill of Rights is a blatant tissue of fucking lies, written for credulous goddamned idiots, and that the US Constitution is a document better used as bathroom tissue than it is as a guidebook for anything, including masturbating in a basement, standing next to a hot coal furnace. Just look at the corrupt force of amoral elitists making up the US Federal and State Governments - who RULE YOU, in the name of "freedom". Open your goddamned eyes, the criminals running this place have their own rules, much different than the rules for you, and usually when the hapless, deluded serf discovers this fact, they are either under arrest or in prison.
They, our esteemed "betters", like Louis XVI or Czar Nicholas, are allowed to bilk you, extorting funds that you WORKED for in the form of taxes, so they can live like KINGS over you. They are permitted to make millions of dollars via insider trading, you are not, and can be fined and imprisoned for doing so, unlike THEM. They are permitted to have and use automatic firearms at their pleasure, you are not allowed to possess or use such weapons, or you will be jailed for decades, in the name of the law. They are allowed to steal from you and confiscate your property at their whim; you can do nothing about it, while they laugh at you, and tell you how "free" you are. They are allowed to employ enforcers; armed, sanctioned, jackbooted thugs who break into your home, and quarter theirselves within, breaking your jaw or worse if you get in their way. Using their thugs, commonly called pigs, they are allowed to kill you and anyone else who gets in their way, for resisting their agenda.
Isn't it nice to be free? Honestly, this nation would be better off ruled by the Mafia - with the likes of Al Capone or Dutch Schultz as "president" - at least with them, you knew what you were in for from the beginning.
This polemical essay will conclusively prove to the reader that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution is a goddamned, motherfucking lie, just like the preceding three Amendments; little more than contrived sophistry written on parchment, by employing recorded historical occurrences as proof of the assertion. Whether mendaciousness was the intention of Madison, et al, remains to be seen, but whatever their intentions were, noble or not, history has proven that the first three Amendments are indeed lies, and it therefore naturally fallows that the remainder of the Amendments are lies, especially the first Ten Amendments, known as the "Bill of Rights".
Presented below, the text of the Fourth Amendment.
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
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.
This Amendment seems to be cogently written and promises a lot; too bad that it is, in reality, a lie, just like like all those "treaties" made by the United States with those gullible "dumb Injuns" in the Nineteenth Century. In addition, this Amendment has been "incorporated" against the States by the Warren Court in 1961, which supposedly means that the various States must adhere to the specifications of the Fourth Amendment, as does the Federal Government, which neither do - by employing legalistic trickery like "interpretation". Before 1961, the pigs were able to break down your door, seize whatever the hell they wanted, and then arrest you if any of the items seized were deemed "illegal". Now they supposedly cannot employ such methods, but they've figured out a cunning way around that small obstruction, by obtaining warrants based on nebulous, or even fraudulent, evidence. If they want you - Federal or State, they will get you, in any way and every way they can - and there is nothing that you can do about it.
The following links will inform the reader about the legalistic legerdemain that the Supreme Court used for nearly a century to keep the "rights" of the citizen/serfs in check. Prior to Twentieth Century "incorporation" of select parts of the Bill of Rights, individual States were, in effect, fiefdoms that suppressed rights and supposed "liberties". They still do, of course, but on paper, it is stated that we have "rights" - which I have proven and shall continue to prove as nothing but lies.
The above link is the first record of the Supreme Court boldly stating that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. Before that, I assume that they may have applied to the States, or may not have applied to the States - who the fuck knows? I wager James Madison wasn't half as smart as he thought he was, considering the glaring loophole in Article One of the Constitution that was so easily exploited by the Supreme Court; hell, by that time he was probably senile anyway. Honestly, if the Supreme Court decision of 1833 is in fact true, why did the States ratify such inapplicable nonsense - possibly to keep the Federal Government off their backs? That's one explanation, but I seriously doubt they were that sophisticated - to actually foresee the future of the nation with unbridled growth of Federal power, to this day?
Hardly; most of the folks in those days were either traditional country lawyers with bad teeth, or smelly, toothless, drunken shithouse philosophers with magna cum laude degrees from the school of hard knocks, but when compared to the manicured, cap-toothed, cunning rhetorician savants running the States today, I concede they were absolute geniuses. They, at least, for the most part, had some idea of what "justice" is supposed to be, unlike those amoral, elected hedonists living today, who live only for themselves, and will "legally" annihilate anyone that gets in their way. Further, based on SCOTUS precedents, why do some selected "rights" from the Bill of Rights apply to the States now, but others still do not? Weren't they all given by "god" whatever that is, or may be, and thus are "inalienable" rights?
No, our "rights" are a crock of shit, dependent on the whims of those in POWER, that's what they are.
This above link illustrates the "evolution of interpretation" with regard to the Bill of Rights applying to the States, proving that the talking apes called man are mostly composed of feckless idiots, with a smaller group of cunning scoundrels; the Supreme Court having been charged with defining and "legally codifying" the obvious intentions of the framers of the Constitution. Some may take issue with my usage of "obvious" - then why in the hell do most, but not all, Amendments of the Bill of Rights apply to the States today?
This above link plainly shows that the Fourth Amendment was only so much contrived horseshit, until 1961. It still is horseshit for the most part, but the Fourth Amendment is now considered "legally incorporated" against the States, by judicial edict, which in reality doesn't mean a goddamn thing, at least no more than waving a "magic wand" does.
Regarding the "Bill of Rights":
Looking at the situation critically, if the race of man, particularly those individuals called Americans, are "endowed" with "inalienable rights" given by some sort of god, then why did man, in the form of James Madison, have to conceive of such "rights" and put them down on paper? Then, why did people, consolidated into the form of "a State", have to "ratify" such "god-given" rights first, and then charge a group of judges, in the form of man, to "interpret them" afterward, and then have another group of judges "incorporate" them later against the very States that ratified them in the first place? Conversely, what of other "rights" not ratified, as in rejected Amendments originally in the Bill of Rights? Were they not given by a god too? Further, if god exists, how can, and how DO the people decide what "god" has already endowed them with?
Yeah, that may be hard to understand, so I will reduce the sophistry above to GLARING REALITY.
I'll tell you how, easily - our "rights" are contrivances, little more than mental constructs springing from the mind of man, and they have nothing at all to do with god, even if such a being exists, which, judging from the available evidence, does not. I submit that rights are given by man; they can be, and are, rescinded by man, history is replete with examples, from Hammurabi to Barack Obama. If rights were inalienable, and given by a god, they could not be taken away by man via proclamation, force or coercion, as they would be inherent and immutable, forever, guaranteed by "god". It is therefore easy to recognize the idea of god having given man rights as nothing but rhetorical sophistry for credulous idiots. Further, not one religious text that I have ever read, from the Bible, to the Koran, to the Baghavad-Gita, along with lesser known religious texts like the Avesta, state anywhere that the race of man, in any form, has "inalienable rights" of any type.
Please consult the above links if you like, and consult other sources for verification; in reality, you have no fucking rights and you never did, only privileges at best, and then only in select circumstances, decided by your betters who rule over you.
I hate being repetitive, but a classic example of an individual having no rights is the now deceased Jose Guerena, noted in the preceding polemical essay, and an earlier essay that I wrote in May 2011:
Reiterating, Mr.Guerena was an Arizonan spic ex-Marine with no criminal record, who was minding his own goddamned business, sleeping in his own goddamned home, when jackbooted pigs burst in on he and his family, on 5 May 2011, killing him in the name of freedom, apple pie and bald eagles. His killers had obtained a "search warrant" based on fraudulent "evidence" that he was a "drug dealer", you see. He wasn't a drug dealer, and Guerena's Fourth Amendment rights meant nothing at all, neither did any of his other supposed rights - especially since he's DEAD, courtesy of "our heroes", the pigs. I submit, considering the circumstances, that it is reasonable to view the search of his residence as rather "unreasonable", to say the least.
For the record, two of his siblings were in fact "drug dealers", but Jose Guerena was NOT a drug dealer, nor was there any reason to suspect that he was a drug dealer. You see, the "birds of a feather" excuse to defend the pigs will make no headway with me, as I only deal with the facts of the case.
If you don't like that, tough, close the fucking page; I won't give a shit.
I will again post links about this atrocious incident, for reference:
Here's a pile of articles on Jose Guerena, a man slaughtered in his own house for no fucking reason at all:
Again, if you don't like those links, just look elsewhere - left or right leaning, you will find the SAME irrefutable data at sites all over the Internet.
In the next example, citing ancient history, we have a little known rum-runner from Georgia, Mr. Mitch Miller, who made money by selling moonshine.Unfortunately for Miller, not only did he violate silly laws in place against distilling booze, he didn't pay his taxes on the hooch that he distilled and sold. Enter the greedy Federal Government, in the form of the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. On 18 December 1972, a pig from the Houston County sheriff's office stopped a truck carrying contraband supplies for the manufacture of illegal alcohol. One thing led to another and the ATF presented subpoenas to a bank for Miller's records and transaction statements. The bank complied, and for years, Mr. Miller and his lawyer fought against (attempted to suppress) the records being presented in court as a violation of the Fourth Amendment's supposed protections against the seizure of "private papers", and as such, the records were unrelated to his arrest for making and selling untaxed booze.
A lower court agreed with Mr. Miller, and the case was appealed by the prosecution to the highest rubber-stamp, kangaroo court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States of America, AKA "SCOTUS", an entity famous for restricting the liberties of the people to benefit the ever growing, power grabbing Federal Government and its disgusting coterie of elitist gangsters who don't like the idea of anyone competing with their racket. In a majority decision, on 21 April 1976, Mitch Miller was fucked and his non-existent Fourth Amendment right negated, by six robed hypocrites who blithely stated that Miller's bank records were not his "private papers", but were "business records" held by the bank, in a stunning example of rhetorical semantics.
You see, anything can be defined variably, as man is the measure of all things, based on fact or opinion; e.g., liquid nitrogen is "hot", when compared to liquid helium, even when both are rather cold when compared to metallic mercury at room temperature, or even frigid when compared to molten pig iron sitting in an old Bessemer converter - whereas, in the relations of man, it is "good" to kill the "enemy", but "bad" to kill the "innocent", using either a political or religious prism to make the value judgement. You know - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and so forth. Yeah, it's all a bunch of shit - get over it, or become a politician.
Curiously, in United States vs Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), we see a prescient employment of the whoremonger William J. Clinton's method of "variable meaning", or perhaps more accurately, "variable definition". Oh well, so much for the "right" to be secure in your fucking "papers", I guess, one day I expect the Supreme Court to define reagent strength nitric acid as "water", due to both being clear, and delineate RTV silicone as "toothpaste" due to both being contained and dispensed from squeezable plastic tubes.
Here are two links to the above case, you may find them interesting:
Moving to a contemporary example of Fourth Amendment violations by badged privateers, we have the dreadful case involving Mr. Joseph Milcarek, 71, and his wife Mary Catherine, 67, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It seems that their son, Joseph Milcarek, Jr., 45, on 4 February 2012, was allegedly driving around in a vehicle with a suspended registration, and was collared for such by the fuzz. While a pig named David Sisak was checking Milcarek's information, he found that Milcarek, Jr was a defendant in a "protection from abuse" proceeding. Strangely, the woman who was supposedly "protected from abuse" by Milcarek was a passenger in Milcarek's vehicle, but I guess that's another story; logic and practical information don't seem to apply to planet Earth and its billions of delusional, talking apes.
Going into full "pig" mode, automaton Sisak found a lone shotgun shell sitting in the vehicle, and immediately arrested Mr. Milcarek for "violating" the PFA statute. It seems that possessing firearms or ammunition for PFA defendants is "illegal" in Pennsylvania - so much for the worthless Second Amendment, another "right" not worth the moldy parchment it is written on.
Adding insult to injury, determined jackbooted thug Sisak obtained a search warrant for the address on the license, which was the home of Milcarek's parents, and even after being told by various neighbors that Milcarek, Junior did not live at the residence beforehand, broke down the rear door of Milcarek, Senior's home, destroying it, and destroyed other items in their domicile during their search for "evidence", apparently without finding any firearms, all in the name of "freedom", "justice", and the "American Way". The pigs did leave the broken door leaning against the destroyed jamb, apparently to "rub it in" in the name of freedom, having flexed their mighty porcine muscles for all to see.
Below are independent articles regarding the above case. Please, don't believe one fucking word that I've said, in this, or any other essay I have written. NEVER believe ANYTHING you read unless you can VERIFY the data; for I could be lying to you, for whatever reason, e.g., a personal agenda not revealed on this blog. I could be a lying commie "Russki" posting disinformation, or a far right employee of the "Koch brothers", or even a paid blogger posting for nigger Obama and George Soros, though I doubt that the nigger jackanapes would pay me to call him a nigger jackanapes, which he is, let alone pay for all the other shit I've written here, but, considering his Machiavellian, false flag tactics, who the fuck knows?
That stated, look and THINK for yourself, read and digest links pertaining to the case:
Here are links to the lawsuit:
It seems that duly sworn Pittsburgh pig David Sisak doesn't like shitskinned jungle bunnies either, and enjoys beating on them:
"Officer" Sisak being SUED for it, as of this writing, along with being sued by Mr. and Mrs. Milcarek, for being a self-convinced, jackbooted pig who has no consideration for the supposed rights of other individuals. You see, being a banana-lipped jig is NOT a criminal offense, unless you are a Klansman, and the last time I looked, Klansmen were not duly sworn officers of the State.
Now I shall address an even more insidious example of Fourth Amendment violations by "Big Brother", in the form of the National Security Agency, or NSA, an "information gathering unit" of the Federal Government, created by an asshole named Harry S. Truman. I'm sure those overpaid cocksuckers have a dossier a mile thick on my ancient ass, probably filed under "unpatriotic dissenting crackpot" or other such puerile nomenclature.
Try refuting what I have written, paid government pricks, I wager you cannot, unless you reformulate the English language into nebulous Orwellian Newspeak, and then convince 1.5 billion speakers of English that my humble, UNPAID words are lies, using semantical rhetoric.
Anyway, those obsessed, paranoid NSA bastards are, at this very moment, allowed and sanctioned by the United States Federal Government to conduct "domestic surveillance" on US citizens without a warrant, which was promoted by the simpering, empty-eyed idiot, George W. Bush, who isn't half the idiot he appears to be. You see, he passed the "USA Patriot Act" on 23 October 2001, as a measure to turn the United States into a JAIL, using his "Homeland Security" apparatus created by he and Congress on 25 November 2002. One can be sure he was trained well by his asshole father, George H. W. Bush, former DIRECTOR of the CIA, and later President of the United States.
Jingoistic American morons, Democrat and Republican, politician, pundit, and media drone, cried and still cry foul when Yuri Andropov and Vladimir Putin, both alumni of the KGB, became leaders, the former as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and the latter as President of its political descendant, Russia..Why? Because the fucking hypocrites running the United States wear "white hats" and are so much "better" than the rest of the planet, that's why! I don't really see one fucking bit of difference between the CIA and the KGB, both used the same methods and achieved the same results, except that the latter may have been, at least, less corrupt.
Now, with those laws in place, the NSA is allowed to record your telephone conversations, hack into your computers, and steal whatever information they want, without a WARRANT, as is specified in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Who knows what the FBI is doing, let alone the CIA. Remember, drone, they are your "friends" - who are paid with your tax dollars to facilitate your "best interests". With friends like the preceding, who the fuck needs enemies?
Read these, then seek out other sites for verification:
Here are links with regard to Bush's "Patriot Act" and "Homeland Security":
Here are more examples of the wonderful, free country you live in, where pigs BRIBE you to surrender your personal privacy:
Wonderful country we live in, isn't it? Authorities, in the form of pigs, can do whatever they want, whenever they want, our "rights" have no validity or meaning, the nation is run by elitist megalomaniacs who will harass, accuse, jail and even kill people to achieve their aims, with all of it wrapped up in "Old Glory" - a flag that is just as useless as the worthless Constitution it supposedly represents. No wonder that I couldn't care less if people burn the US flag, as it now represents NOTHING, other than TYRANNY.
Please remember, reader, that my "inviolable" Fourth Amendment rights were violated too, by pigs, when they arrested me decades ago for the "crime" of possessing my MONEY, that I EARNED FROM MY LABORS, repairing broken electronics for customers, PIGS slamming me against the left quarter panel of my long gone, former old junker sedan, hard enough to dent it, using my body to dent it with. Then they rummaged through my old junker and stole a toolbox full of MY tools, in the name of freedom. I used to be a "patriotic" voting citizen, until they made me their intransigent ENEMY for all time, using their pigs. I now despise all of them, and I hope to live to see them annihilated; I couldn't care less as to how it happens, as long as they are eliminated, using whatever means necessary to accomplish the task.
I again say that your "rights" are a goddamned, motherfucking LIE - try proving me wrong. Not one individual has as of yet, though one delusional freak has tried to claim that I am "Legion", a minion of the mythical Satan, the lesser god of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Really, folks, if I am Legion, what can silly mortals do to defeat me and my position? Go ahead, destroy me here f you can, by invoking your gods. I'll just reappear elsewhere, like I already have, it's as simple as that, if such as your puerile superstition is true. Your pathetic invocations cannot stop me, try as you will.
I'll even tell you what can defeat my words - NOTHING. Curse me if you want - I simply employ your OWN idiotic words against you, and I laugh in your feckless faces, like a goddamned jackal, and there is nothing that you can do about it. Try praying to your god; a few have even tried to contact Google; nothing has been done; I've sat here for six fucking years, mocking all that you consider "dear", and I will continue to do so.
Just wait until I utterly demolish the silly Fifth Amendment, before your very eyes, it is yet another motherfucking LIE for credulous drones. I will employ American historical precedent, case law, and contemporary examples to prove my position, and I dare anyone to try to refute it.
With a cynical nod to my vanished friend "Anonymous", I AM BECOME LEGION: for we are MANY, and are DESTROYERS of WORLDS.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
I shall intersperse deep analysis and associated commentary between each remark.
I considered such a post years ago when a fainthearted Muslim sandnigger fucked with me, but the faggot disappeared, so I didn't bother with it.
This time - I AM BOTHERING; I delight in making examples of idiots, and my friend Anonymous, who is too cowardly to reveal his or her name, is the epitome of an idiot.
Dialogue follows, with the Anonymous posters remarks highlighted:
Anonymous 20 March, 2014 20:06
I guess it depends on whose constitution you're talking about. / I find some to be a little more worthwhile.
Even at this point I find it impossible to believe that an individual would be so stupid to post meaningless drivel such as the above. I sincerely doubt that the poster has ever read much of anything, let alone a Constitution.
Conway 20 March, 2014 20:22
Well, I think it should be quite clear that I have been writing about the Constitution of the United States of America. I have perused other constitutions as well, and none I have read so far addresses personal liberty and freedom from governmental interference as well as Madison's Constitution does.
Too bad that it is only sophistry, words on a page, and not enforced as it was originally intended. I submit that the same goes for any other constitution, as man is the measure of all things, and is, unfortunately, prone to hypocrisy. The arrogant, elitist criminals running the United States today are absolute proof of that.
Here, I was attempting to be polite, thinking that possibly the individual was a foreigner, and clearly pointed out that I was writing about the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Anonymous 20 March, 2014 20:38
Do you not think actual enforcement of said constitution would lead to a number of someones getting hurt, and does that not concern you in the least.
This remark is either stupid, contrived, or the individual does not understand the meaning of the word "enforcement" with regard to the Bill of Rights. Then again, perhaps he or she was serious, thinking that enforcement of the Bill of Rights would "hurt" the elitists and their jackbooted pigs, duly charged with keeping the rest of us in line.
Anonymous 20 March, 2014 20:49
You don't think it's been enforced? How much more enforcing needs to take place? How many years, how many tears? Curious.
This remark seems to prove that the individual is a cretin, considering that "enforcing" the Bill of Rights would lead to less "tears", considering that the people's rights would be respected by the authorities.
Conway 20 March, 2014 23:27
Apparently, you do not understand what I have written.
The Constitution of the United States of America is not being enforced, and people are suffering because of that.
Liberty, freedom and the full exercise of individual rights are the objective of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The elitists running this nation do not want that, and never did.
This needs no further explanation.
Conway 20 March, 2014 23:32
It's definite - you do not understand what I have written at all, your reading comprehension skills are lacking.
That, or you are deliberately trying to waste my time by posting a nonsensical argument.
Have a good evening.
Strangely, I missed his second reply until a little later, and his/her latter remark convinced me that the individual was incapable of understanding the essay.
Anonymous 21 March, 2014 04:59
No, Im the only one on here attempting to make sense of what the fick you're saying. And talk to you. Again, it seems, the only one to do so.
It is obvious that the individual cannot make sense of what I was saying due to either not reading it, or not possessing the intellect to understand what I was relating. That, or he/she was simply fucking with me, which, after reflection, is probably the case. Notice the missing punctuation in the contraction; and the misspelled "fuck". Then, the individual wrongfully assumed that I was interested in conversation with them, when the only thing I was and am interested in is having someone challenge or refute my position in the essay.
Conway 21 March, 2014 13:27
My dear Anonymous,
Okay, you asked for it.
Your poorly composed responses to my current polemical essay are little more than meaningless, incoherent drivel. Apparently you have not even read it, judging from your obtuse remarks. Further, I sincerely doubt that you could understand the article even if you did read it; I suspect that you do not have the intellectual capacity for such a task.
I candidly wager that you are some bizarre type of troll or perhaps a lower level NSA employee, too inept to even create a profile for reference, making a pathetic attempt to get a rise out of me for whatever reason. You are wasting your time, others have tried, and you have missed the mark by miles.
Moving on, judging from your writing "style", which I believe to be contrived, you are probably the same individual who showed up a few years back on the Wagist site and followed me here. If that is so, I suggest you find someone else to play with; so far I find you ignorant and quite unchallenging.
That said, I write for catharsis, not popularity; you are judging others by your own criteria, and have made an inaccurate value judgment with regard to my intention. Try the Hegelian Dialectic next time; I have instructed the reader how to employ that aspect of critical thinking in past essays.
My challenge to you and any other reader is to prove my assertions in the above and other essays as inaccurate, or "wrong", and to prove such charges by using cited facts, historical precedent, and case law. If you can accomplish that - I wish you luck in doing so.
That is all I am after, period - nothing else matters here.
If you cannot refute my position, simply say so, and move onto something else.
This needs no further explanation.
Anonymous 21 March, 2014 13:41
You are the most unpleasant human being I've ever come across, and I truly regret ever given time amd money to you. The waste of a life was spent trying to give anything of value to you. Don't contact me again. and go fucking die, you walking abortion.
Notice the extreme anger at my reply, which was not complimentary, yes, but my response was civil, for the most part.
Then, as if I should care, the individual informed me that I was "the most unpleasant human being they had ever come across". I wager he/she doesn't get out very much, or lives in an asylum of sorts or perhaps a monastery. Then the poster goes on to write "I truly regret ever given time amd (sic) money to you". Note the grammatical mistake as well; I suspect anger is ruling his or her thoughts, or perhaps the poster is simply uneducated. The time and money remark I find enigmatic, considering that the time involved in interacting with me was minuscule, and no exchange of specie was involved. Then, in a ridiculous attempt to manipulate the conversation, the poster wrote further incoherent drivel, telling me not to "contact them again", which I never have, and ended their rant with sophomoric expletives.
Anonymous 21 March, 2014 13:43
The waste of time comes from thinking that you actually had something of importance to say, and trying to make sense of it. I don't plan on doing that again.
Whether my words are important remains to seen; notice the poor word usage in the beginning of the the poster's sentence. It is fortunate that he/she didn't plan on trying to make sense of the essay, as he or she is evidently incapable of making sense of much of anything, including having the ability to pour piss out of a boot, with the directions written on the heel.
Anonymous 21 March, 2014 13:50
That means stay away from my friends and family too, creepy pathetic stalking freak.
This remark is thoroughly puerile. Apparently, it was meant to put me on the defensive; it actually made me laugh.
Conway 21 March, 2014 14:04
Please, go see a psychiatrist before you harm yourself, or others.
I actually meant that, the individual is obviously disturbed, judging from the "goofy" remarks so far. The disjointed, repetitive replies show that the poster has obsessive tendencies, and does not like being dismissed as irrelevant by anyone, even by an old fart like me who writes vitriolic polemical essays on an unknown blog for the sheer hell of it.
Conway 21 March, 2014 14:00
My dear Anonymous,
I never have contacted you - you contacted me. You could have avoided that by not bothering, but you insisted. Ergo, it is your fault that you are pissed off, and that I am laughing at you.
You have effortlessly proven my point before the entire world; you are an ignorant individual who doesn't even recall the idiotic drivel that you have composed. With each post you make you bury yourself further; good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.
I also notice that you cannot refute one thing that I wrote in the essay - I win the argument by default, and you are defeated.
Further, you have never given time or money to me, you don't know who I am and you never will, and as far as I am concerned, you can go fuck yourself, cretin.
My reply needs no further explanation.
Anonymous 21 March, 2014 14:04
You got that right. I don't . Don't plan on spending anymore time and money to figure it out either. You forgot the stay the fuck away from me and my family, however, you creepy walking aberration. .
This individual, the subject, is a very young, lonely person, 18 to 25, tops; I seriously doubt that they have a family, unless it is "Mother and Dad", in that order.
If the poster is male - a classic, infantile deviate, Freudian Oedipus Complex is indicated, with probable sexual inexperience, other than occasional masturbation with dominatrix overtones and guilt feelings afterward; possible homosexual tendencies as well, subject's attraction to men is subconscious, but evident, based on obsessive interaction and gravitation toward male or masculine figures.
If female, the subject is an overweight, rejected, easily orgasmic virgin, addicted to clitoral masturbation without penetration, due to guilt feelings; headed for spinsterhood due to unrealistic standards. Often sits quietly, unobserved, with the heel of her foot in her crotch, preferring one over the other dependent on dexterity for masturbation purposes, young male celebrities the object of her fantasies.
Please note the clumsy, second attempt to put me on the defensive, with the childish ending of the reply.
My evaluation of the gender of subject: 93% chance that the poster is male, or perhaps an extremely masculine lesbian; intersex hermaphrodite possibility as well; XXY or XYY karyotype possible. Further remarks on the subject will refer to he/she exclusively as "he, his or him".
Ethnicity undefinable at this time, suspected Caucasoid of southern European extraction.
Conway 21 March, 2014 14:09
You are the obtuse cretin who keeps making a fool of yourself - I'm actually enjoying this.
I'm laughing at you too - mentally ill individuals usually provoke laughter.
Incidentally - if you "know" me personally - what is my REAL NAME?
Yes, I was abusive toward the subject, as he was intent upon the delusional idea that he knew me personally, so the subject was challenged on that premise. Subject then became ambiguous, and then attempted to assign "supernatural" qualities to the object of his adversary. Paranoid delusion is evident. (See below, i.e. "Legion")
Conway 21 March, 2014 14:13
Incidentally - I think I'll do an article on YOU and your stupid remarks, posted en toto, with my responses, so the entire goddamned planet can see you for the absolute fucking idiot that you are.
Enjoy burying yourself further.
Have a nice day.
Anonymous 21 March, 2014 14:19
Legion is your real name you fork toungued pig. Is this your newest incarnation? Wow this newest facet I doubt is going to make you the money your other fake fraudulent personas did.
Supernatural fantasies, based on Judeo-Christian and Muslim dogmas, 78% chance that subject is fundamentalist Christian, e.g., primitive Baptist, Pentecostal, or Seventh Day Adventist. 15% chance that subject is Muslim, possibly of Druze or Sufi sect; 5% chance that subject is of Jewish faith, i.e., orthodox Kabbalist. Sanity of subject now in question. Overall percentage estimate of fanatical religious belief: 98%. Spelling mistake noted, perhaps due to stupidity.
Anonymous 21 March, 2014 14:22
Why not. You've al
Ready written about me, my family, my friends, not to mention how many other people you've stalked over the years. Go for it.
Subject now displays primitive fear/threat reaction, easily predictable, with regard to family, friends, et cetera; fabricated "threat" to dear ones noted and cataloged accordingly as a defensive posture. Subject continues to imply that I am a supernatural being from mythical place called hell, a creature named "Legion", taken from New Testament Bible, likely KJV or Douai translation, subject's reasoning based on archaic superstition. Please note the odd mistake in spelling - "alReady".
Anonymous 21 March, 2014 15:30
Put the other comments pig. I own your sorry evil ass and you know it.
Subject seems to think that old fart Conway is entirely devoted to him, and that my existence is dependent on his every word. Note the "pig" reference, either taken from my polemics, or perhaps employed from his personal, superstitious worldview. Percentiles have changed, if subject is fundamentalist Christian, a Seventh Day Adventist tops the probability, with Muslim Sufi coming second, and Jewish Orthodox third. Probability of subject being an atheist: less than one percent.
Conway 21 March, 2014 20:30
If you are indeed serious, and are not just mentally masturbating for some kind of puerile lark, you seem to delight in burying yourself. Alright; I'll play your little game, though I do realize that you have a very limited capacity for debate, if one can call this unproductive series of ludicrous exchanges a debate.
For example, you have absolutely no idea as to who I am, and your ridiculous, inane replies reflect that fact. That noted - kindly tell me what my given name is, here, and in what State of the Union that I reside in, that is, if you "know" me so well, which you do not, and never will. You are being mendacious, in other words a liar, for someone of your limited intellect, and if you actually do believe that you know me, you are in fact delusional. Considering your words; I suggest a visit to a psychiatrist, coupled with appropriate doses of serotonin re-uptake inhibitors. Such compounds may prove effective for assisting you in dealing with your delusions - do you hallucinate as well?
Further, your spelling is absolutely atrocious, and your grammar leaves a lot to be desired. You can barely compose a coherent sentence, and your obvious anger at my blithe dismissal of your ill-thought replies only makes the situation worse - for you. Incidentally, if you had even half a brain, you could easily find my given name and where I reside from various posts I have made over the Internet - I'll give you a clue - the initials of my first and last name fall between the letters of "F" and "N" in the English alphabet.
Oh well, this may help increase your ire - I don't care in the least of what you may think of me, and I dare you to make even one attempt to refute anything that I alleged in the article, which you cannot, due to not even understanding anything I have written. I actually find you entertaining, to a degree, and your remarks have made me laugh out loud. For that, I thank you.
Referring to your pathetic attempt at assigning personal nomenclature to an individual you will never meet - your laughable Biblical references from the Gospels of the New Testament only reveal you to be some variety of idiotic, dogmatic religious fanatic, who believes in silly, non-existent creatures like demons, angels, and gods. That is your problem, all the belief in the universe will not bring such entities into existence. Further, your foul mouth and ad hominem remarks make you a hypocrite, which is very typical of the "Christians" I have met, along with other mentally disturbed fanatics like Muslims.
Look for my article on you, exemplifying you and your words before the entire world as a drooling cretin.
Keep replying, you are only pouring gasoline on a fire. Warning: If your replies are not sufficiently obtuse, and entertaining, I will simply delete them and be done with you.
Have a good evening,
This post needs no further explanation.
Anonymous 22 March, 2014 05:00
You're hardly one to prostelyze about hypocrisy, fraud. How did you make your money? Not by acting like the pig you portraying at the moment.
This post is probing, the subject is attempting to make me justify my position, without any compelling reason, ergo, observer ignored it. He cunningly asks about my livelihood; I have repeatedly stated that I built my position by servicing electronics in the past, along with trading equities in hard commodities. Then he compares me to a porcine creature, without having any effect, as I could not care less about his view of me. Refer to above analysis regarding the superstitious, with regard to pigs.
Conway 22 March, 2014 05:26
Ah yes, you are here - I am very glad of that, and I thank you very much for your response. You made me mentally cum with your latest inane reply; I am quite satisfied; I relish in your gross stupidity. Keep feeding me, you fucking idiot.
Your latest fecklessness easily passed my litmus test for both obtusity and entertainment; therefore I approved it. Fuck up and I will delete further replies and silence you at my leisure - you must pass my tests from now on.
As a public service, I will inform you when I decide to silence your squawkings, should you fail to be entertaining.
I have proven you for the utter superstitious fool that you are. I will even tell you the title of my post devoted to YOU: " A Tale Told by an Idiot, Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing".
You definitely signify nothing.
I have already written the outline, I'm simply waiting for you to post more entertainment; I've even posted another essay in the meantime, devoted to your moronic, inept, megalomanical nigger jackanapes.
Please, I appeal to you, keep burying yourself, I'm loving it.
Anonymous 22 March, 2014 06:21
I know the name you've decided to adopt, after challenging me to read your lanced, puss filled posts. It is however, not the name I originally associate with you, is it.
The adjectival definition of the the word "asshole" defines the subject's idiotic post, with allusions to "Legion" again; note how the subject uses a repeated "s" in his clumsy attempt to spell "pus", a purulent exudation of dead bacteria and white blood cells from a common abscess.
Conway 22 March, 2014 14:16
DANGER: MORON DETECTED.
I'm sorry, but your latest post, which I published for you, was completely obtuse, though not sufficiently entertaining. Therefore, I am forced to do something that I have never done before on this blog - I shall no longer approve further comments from you.
You have written enough to enable me to easily identify your peculiar prose, and even if you attempt to alter it, I will still be able to recognize, and delete it. Let's just say that I have a patented "moron detector", and leave it at that.
With great regret, I had to do this - I enjoy sparring with people, but even I have to draw a line somewhere - the poster is a delusional religious fanatic, probably an insane, fucking idiot, not worth my time.
Predictably, the attracted, obsessed, latent homosexual dummy had to post yet another inane rant - which I refused to approve; my stipulations binding on me as well, but I shall post them here for continuity, to show him for the fool that he is:
How apt. Free speech further limited by you, While you prattle away at the rights this country no longer affords people. And angry that once upon a time you felt That i limited free speech. All while having a fit that I dared try talking to you. Typical. Don't worry, you too have a pattern that seems to be your m.o.
Conway's take: Sour grapes from Aesop's Fables. Notice the ridiculous capitalization errors. The subject in question, a feckless idiot, doesn't even understand the concept of "free speech" as defined by the Constitution of the United States of America. Free Speech applies to GOVERNMENTS, not individual people, or businesses. I reserve the right to refuse to publish the inane replies of morons, using my patented "moron detector", and our friend anonymous is the absolute epitome of a fucking moron with the collective intellect of a ten pound bag of russet potatoes.
In fairness, I will give the deviant subject, an obviously obsessed, insane individual, a chance to reply, but only on this post - any remarks on earlier or forthcoming essays will be summarily deleted.
Go ahead, subject, I guarantee that you will have free reign here, to refute my analysis of YOU - I give you my word as a man that I will publish whatever you have to say, at MY LEISURE, but only on this particular post. Beware that I will slap you down accordingly with each post that you make. Take my bait, you goddamned fool - come on, you cowardly pussy, I DARE YOU to fuck with me - I will DESTROY YOU, with no holds barred. When you do not respond, as I flawlessly predict, I will repeatedly make note of that too in later essays.
Analysis and prognosis: Subject Anonymous is a goddamned deranged, delusional fruitcake and a dangerous, superstitious freak, who should be confined indefinitely in an institution, to ensure the safety of others.
ADDENDUM: The lunatic took my bait, and posted further absurdities, as follows:
Get it through your fucking head, you evil fucking stalking pig. I'm not your fucking dog, go fuckiñg die, diseased piece of shit. Stay gone from me and my family.
You ARE my dog, motherfucker - bark for me, then heel. If I decide to become charitable, I'll order you to fetch a dried up turd on my back lawn shat from the ass of my trained ocelot. Be nice, or I'll order you to fetch fresh turds shat from the asses of my Boudreaux bulldogs.
The subject is indeed dangerous - he is delusional, and should be forcibly confined before he hurts himself or others.