Reply To: NARSOL responds to untruths posted on Twitter

#44697
Avatar
Timothy D. A. Lawver

Congratulations on the success of both groups for their victories.

The early challenges to the regime tossed lots of arrows but at the incorrect target. Janice indeed falls into the same trap with IML case#1 which failed as clearly pre-mature; a repeat of SMITH V. DOE As no factual record to implicate liberty deprivation could be applied in effects portion of the test.

IMHO focusing on INTENT is\was the tact to take. Had the DOE court been informed about the reality of the indenture of human to state machines, the outcome may have been altered for the predisposed folks anyway. Mr. Roberts ability to turn the question on its head, and congresses purpose filled mis-naming the regime “Registration” won the day and eventually to his eventual nomination. Our deep state very much needed that ruling for the collateral implications for certain other governmental uses of the database, namely domestic electronic surveillance. (eff.org)

As an wrongly convicted and Ex post registrant, I have always known the unstated intent of the electronic lists. My introduction to computing came much earlier than my age peers, because I had an uncle who taught programming in the late 70s.

The warning I have for both groups is this. DO not underestimate who you are really fighting against. These are the industrial complexes Ike warned about. They are uber powerful. They can and will split wherever & splinter whenever possible. Too much money at stake for them to roll over. They want to maintain their piece of the tax pie and they will not let bleeding hearts stand in their way. IMHO, Project Angel Watch is missionary work, plain and simple, so the facility in which it is housed is not a coincidence.
Using tax payer dollars to protect foreign nationals on their soil is antithetical to government formation and therefore no justifiable constitutional position of duty exists. Attack INTENT! Has there been even one story in the press describing IML in this way? Not one.