After reading this article, please join us in sending this email to the Minister of Justice of Latvia to request him to investigate this rogue agent, support the Religious Liberty Rights of Latvians and follow the Latvian Constitution. Thank you, KrisAnne~
Please copy and paste and send the following email to these people:
Minister of Justice Janis Bordans,
I am writing to request that you investigate into the practices and actions of Prosecutor General, Juris Stukāns. By evidence of his own report, his actions against New Generation Church is based in extreme bias, prejudice, and violation of the Latvian Constitution. Prosecutor General Stukāns’ actions are violating the rights of the people of New Generation Church, specifically sections 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 100, 101 by requesting fines and sanctions against the people of New Generation Church without any proof of violation and denying the people of New General Church “equal protection before the law.”
Although I am not in Latvia, I am concerned about the questionable motives of Prosecutor General Stukāns and I hope that you, as Minister of Justice, will consider the rights of the people of Latvia and the future of Latvian Constitution and stop this unlawful persecution of the people of New Generation Church, by this rogue agent of government.
Thank you for your time.Latvian Prosecutor General Persecutes Christian Church Contrary to Latvian ConstitutionBy KrisAnne Hall, JDJanuary 6, 2022
The Latvian Constitution makes guarantees of certain human rights, to include the “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” The Latvian Constitution even codifies, in section 99, that separation of church and state is a fundamental right. All of that is true in Latvia, unless a certain prosecutor general happens to disagree with your Christian beliefs, then your rights as a Latvian become subject to arbitrary and discriminatory attacks and threats of fines and permanent shutdowns. This is the current experience of New Generation Church, its pastor Alexei Ledyaev and several thousand members nationwide.
On November 10, 2021 Latvian Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns, filed a petition against New Generation Church, its pastor and members for refusing to comply with mandates that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs and for criticizing government. Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s disregard for fundamental human rights is rivaled only by his disregard for facts.
The Latvian people have written their Constitution to consent to a limited government authority which is established to protect and defend the fundamental human rights of every Latvian. Among those fundamental human rights are freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
The Latvian Constitution, section 93 establishes that the government of Latvia must protect “everyone’s” right to life. Section 96 puts the Latvian government on notice that “everyone” has an “inviolable” right to their private life, home, and correspondence. This right would have to extend to verbal as well as written correspondences, otherwise the right itself would be nullified. This understanding of the extensive nature of the inviolable right to all correspondence agrees with section 100 of Chapter VII of the Latvian Constitution: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to freely receive, keep, and distribute information and to express his or her views.” All should recognize that people ought to speak well of their governments, when they deserve to be spoken well of: but to remain silent in the presence of an abuse of power is only the right and joy of tyrants. A free people will know they are free by their freeness of speech. Section 100 of the Latvian Constitution specifically says, “Censorship is prohibited.” Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns inclusion of accusations against the church for “criticizing government” serves as proof of the lawless violate nature of the Petition.
Contrary to the claims of Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s Petition, it is not New Generation Church that is violating the law; it is Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns who is violating the law of the Latvian Constitution, violating his duty to the people, and operating in direct and explicit violation of the rights of the People of New Generation Church.
The Latvian people have also declared that all Latvians “shall be equal before the law” and have the “right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair court” being “presumed innocent” until proven guilty. Sections 94 and 95 state:
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one may be deprived of or have their liberty restricted, otherwise than in accordance with law. The State shall protect human honour and dignity.
Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns implies that the exercise of one’s religious beliefs are not an essential service to life. However, all of history and humanity contrasts with this assertion. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead gave a truly relevant and powerful explanation of the fundamental nature of religious liberty and the essential right to practice that religion.
Religious and other beliefs and convictions are part of the humanity of every individual. They are an integral part of his personality and individuality. In a civilised society individuals respect each other’s beliefs. This enables them to live in harmony. This is one of the hallmarks of a civilised society… This freedom is not confined to freedom to hold a religious belief. It includes the right to express and practise one's beliefs. Without this, freedom of religion would be emasculated.
James Madison, author of the American Constitution and advocate for the defense of the Natural Rights of the people, stated this in his essay on the inherent rights of all humanity:
Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.
When we understand the principles both Lord Nicholls and James Madison describe, we must conclude that one’s religious beliefs and their practice are vital elements of “Human Dignity” and “Life,” making Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s declarations a violation of Latvian Constitution, written specifically to protect such fundamental rights. Although Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns may argue that the Latvian Constitution establishes that certain rights “may be subject to restrictions,” a baseless and arbitrary order to cease and desist the entire operation of the churches of thousands of people is not a restriction, it is an obliteration.
If the Latvian Constitution declares in section 101 that “every citizen of Latvia has the right, as provided for by law, to participate in the work of the State and local government…” which the current government has deemed essential, how can Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns legitimately assert that the exercise of religion, as codified in section 100, is less of a right by declaring freedom of worship non-essential?
Additionally, the facts at hand completely contradict Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns accusations. Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns accuses New Generation Church of violating the indoor occupancy rules for the COVID-19 orders. The fact is, New Generation Church has gone above and beyond the demands of government for indoor occupancy and has taken extra measures to ensure the cleanliness and safe environment of the church.
Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns however offers no proof, whatsoever, that New Generation Church is a threat to the community.
Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns offers no proof that any one person within New Generation Church has become ill or been the cause of further infection in the community because his or her attendance in the church.
As a matter of fact, because certain government facilities and shopping places remain open, it would be impossible to assert that the church was any more of a threat to the health and safety of the community than a government facility or a store. These accusations give the impression that the prosecutor has an axe to grind.
Let it be understood; Constitutions do not grant rights to the people. Constitutions are a covenant by the people that create government for the sole purpose of protecting, defending, and securing the people’s inherent rights. Governments are instituted among the people deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Constitutions are the written declarations of that consent. Listen to this relevant analysis from the Supreme Court of the United States:
The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of its legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.
Therefore, the act of any single agent of the government contrary to the Constitution is also unjust, unlawful, and void of legitimate authority.
Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s Petition is contrary to multiple provisions of the Constitution of Latvia, therefore this Petition, by all legal, social, and moral justifications, is without legitimate authority. Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s Petition is a violation of the rights of the people and the purpose of the power of the Latvian government. To say otherwise is to declare Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns an autonomous agent who is not bound by the supreme law of the land.
If the government and its agents are not limited and defined by the Constitution and the rights of the people are not protected by the declaration of Fundamental Human Rights, then one must ask, what is the limit to government power and what is the actual purpose of that declaration within the Latvian Constitution?
When one studies the years of political and social crisis that led to the drafting the Constitution of Latvia and to the adoption of the declaration of Fundamental Human Rights, Latvians should resist setting aside these vital protections for any reason. The words of the Supreme Court of the United ought to carry the same power and impact in Latvia as they do in the United States:
The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.
The Petition of Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is an arbitrary attack of the rights of every Latvian. The question every Latvian will have to ask is: Will the government be confined to the limits of its power as defined in these foundational documents or will the government be allowed to attempt to “emasculate” the church through unjust and discriminatory laws? Latvians must demand equal application of the laws. If it is safe to meet in the store, if it is safe to meet in a government gathering, it must be equally safe, if not safer, to meet in the church.
Now the People of Latvia must make a choice. Do you stand for the inherent and inalienable Rights given to you by God, or do you submit to draconian and violative demands made upon you by government officials that look more like dictators than servants of the people? Do you wish to remain free, or trade away the freedom given to you by those who sacrificed to give it to you? If the Latvian government will not condemn and withdraw the Petition put forward by Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns, the people of Latvia must collectively make a public condemnation, to the saving and securing of their own rights. If Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns can be allowed to violate the Latvian Constitution and the most sacred rights of humanity with impunity, then no Latvian is secure in their rights.
Finally, but not least, the people of the world must make a choice. Do we allow our brothers and sisters in other countries have their natural and inviolable rights trampled upon by their government with our silent permission? Make no mistake, silence is consent. If the history of the world does not condemn us for our past silence in the face of government oppression it must embolden us to speak up today.
Learn more about the History of the US Constitution and its proper application at LibertyFirstSociety.com
 Regina v. Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others (Respondents) ex parte Williamson (Appellant) and others  UKHL 15.
 James Madison, Property. National Gazette, March 29, 1792.
 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
 Home Bldg. L. Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934).
January 3, 2022
Robert Altomare, Founder of the BreathEasy App. Coming Soon
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is the Ignorant Communist gift to Conservative, Free Market satirists that keeps on giving. I mean, really, who were the applicants they decided against when they were picking who to run in the election??
In recent weeks, this walking/talking cautionary tale has graced us with three, count them: 3, examples of what Stalin meant by ‘useful idiot.’ And I swear to God, I don’t know how she pulled it off, but this ignoramus has managed to be both a self-important, narcissistic apparatchik and demonstrated a lack of self-awareness so great that it rivals Joe Brandon, but without that pesky, pant-crapping dementia (or so I’m told).
Let’s start with an article I ran across a week or so ago by David Harsanyi entitled, AOC’s Grasp on American Governance is a ‘Farce’ which came out on Christmas Eve on townhall.com. In it Harsanyi describes AOC’s foot stomping little hissy fit about Joe Manchin torpedoing the Build Back Better raid of the American Treasury. Harsanyi quotes AOC as complaining that Senator Manchin engaged in an “egregious breach” of President Brandon’s “trust” when he refused to support the legislation. Further, she groused, “The idea that Joe Manchin says that he can’t explain this back home to his people is a farce.”
While I appreciated Harsanyi’s article and I felt it was well-written and insightful, he DID miss a key implication of AOC’s stupid (not ignorant) statement. And seeing her statement for what it implies gives us all the information we need to understand that there is no arguing with these enemies of a Free Republic. What’s the old saw about wrestling a pig…?
You see, Manchin is approaching the topic from the perspective of representative government and that he still has an obligation to explain to West Virginians his vote. Why? Because they (purportedly and without a vote audit) sent him to Washington to represent the interests of Wild and Wonderful West Virginia.
But if you read AOC’s caterwauling about President Brandon’s ‘broken trust’ in Manchin, she is unequivocally stating that Manchin’s loyalties should lay with the Party and not the people who sent him to Washington in the first place. She is almost explicit in her statement. She states that the interests of West Virginia must be negotiated in Washington DC and only then will the people’s fates be revealed and 'defended.’ Her statement implies the underpinning and assumptions embedded in her thinking: that government is to rule the people, not represent them. Sickening.
Separately, just the other day AOC provided yet more grist for the pity mill when she tweeted the following,
“If Republicans are mad they can’t date me they can just say that instead of projecting their sexual frustrations onto my boyfriend’s feet. Ya creepy weirdos.” She continued with, “it’s starting to get old ignoring the very obvious, strange, and deranged sexual frustrations that underpin the Republican fixation on me, women, & LGBT+ people in general.”
Wait…what? Mad we can’t date her? Is that what she said? Are we being punked? This imbecile is a walking SNL skit…if SNL were funny. How is it AOC can embody both comedy and tragedy at the same time? Quite the trick...
Let me just say that, as a bachelor who’s been around the block a time or two, can I just ask the obvious question? What in God’s name could possibly be at all attractive about a girl pretending to be a woman?
What I see underlying her stupid (not ignorant) statement is that AOC still has the mentality of the young girl working behind the bar. She is so used to getting hit on by drunk Chads that she stupidly (not ignorantly) believes that real (and sober) men find her equally attractive outside the dim lights of a bar. She has no frame of reference other than her former workplace where low cut shirts and Daisy Duke cutoffs juice the tip jar.
“But I’m a Congresswoman!” No, Miss. You are a toddler wearing your mother’s heels and pretending to be a grown-up. Just as Jordan Peterson refuses forced speech, I will similarly refuse to call you an adult.
Follow up question: What do you suppose her eHarmony profile looks like?
And finally, rounding out number three in the AOC stupidity Olympics, we have her showing up in Free Florida, maskless, with her boyfriend (you suppose they met at the bar?) sipping drinks while her actual constituency is left behind in NYC, masked up and fearing the next lockdown. If hypocrisy were a crime, she certainly wouldn’t get arrested since we all know that the Communists believe in a two-tiered judicial system. But maybe it’s a good thing that hypocrisy isn’t against the law? Or at least, it doesn’t matter.
Why? Because under the old rules of the game, her visit to Free Florida would never be made public due to the completely and utterly compromised ‘free press’ that would bury such a revelation. Under the old rules, AOC’s absence from the wan spotlight of political theatre would be explained away with a simple alibi of “visiting old friends” or “getting over a mild cold.”
But those Good Ole Days are long gone and it seems that these idiot communists simply haven’t gotten the memo (which is good for us) that we are paying attention now. These hypocrites continue acting as if the old rules are still in play when in fact, literally everyone with a phone is a citizen reporter now. Just ask Project Veritas founder, James O’Keefe how he got his start.
And the more these fools continue to act foolishly, the more consistently the message will be delivered to the People that you must obey and that they aim to rule you. The good news is that this message will be consistently delivered precisely because these idiots can’t stop acting out their despotic and hypocritic tendencies. Fine with me, honestly; We see you now.
Given all this then, how can we possibly engage with AOC on any substantive issue? She is a spoiled child playing pretend and demanding obedience from the people she treats not as individual citizens of a Free Republic, but as the little dollies she dresses up on the floor of her bedroom festooned with Che and Justin Beiber posters. This poor creature merits pity, not attention.
Now, maybe when I want an Old Fashioned served up by an empty-headed nobody who did nothing more than answer a casting call for her government job….Maybe I’ll give her my drink order, but definitely not a microphone or any real responsibility.
Founder of the BreathEasy App, coming soon
Had I known in advance the path I was going to travel, I would never have made it this far...
Recently the United States Federal Court for the 5th Circuit held that the federal agency, Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA), cannot lawfully mandate vaccines on American businesses while a trial concerning the matter is pending. The majority opinion establishes that this mandate is “staggeringly overbroad” and the “loss of constitutional freedoms ‘for even minimal periods of time…unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’”
What The Court’s Opinion Means for The Rest of America?
During the Trump Administration, the Senate confirmed federal judges for the 5th Circuit making that circuit one of the most “conservative” courts in the federal court system. The 5th Circuit was the perfect court, from a constitutional perspective, to hear this issue. Other circuits, namely the 9th Circuit, would likely find, under the same conditions, a completely different result.
The federal court system is divided into twelve circuits that divide the States into twelve legal districts. Each federal district court holds a binding authority in federal issues over the lower federal courts of that district. Under normal circumstances, the 5th Circuit opinion would put a halt to OSHA enforcing the mandate in every district, so as to act in the abundance of caution; but, we are not operating under normal circumstances. Since this presidential administration is already refusing to comply with court orders it doesn’t agree with, there should be no surprise when they treat this order with the same contempt. Additionally, the main objective of this administration has not been to uphold the Constitution, but to force this vaccine on as many people as they can convince or bully into taking before the Supreme Court legal hammer falls. Because the 5th Circuit opinion is only legally binding in the 5th Circuit courts, OSHA could legally continue to enforce the mandate within the States located in the other districts.
The Supreme Court Will Have to Settle The Issue
Now that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has been assigned the task of resolving the other suits against OSHA, the Supreme Court will ultimately be tasked with settling any disputes or hearing any appeals. The OSHA vaccine mandate question will have to be answered by the Supreme Court to have finality and possibly the respect of this administration. The question then becomes, “How will this particular Supreme Court decide this case?”
The issue of an OSHA vaccine mandate will definitely test the so called “conservative” justices; this will likely be a 5-4 split opinion -- the only question being, in which direction? In my opinion we can almost guarantee which way several of the justices will cast their vote. If past opinions dictate future trends, we can be guaranteed that Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer will cast their vote in favor of any government mandate issued by the Biden Administration. If past opinions dictate future trends, I believe we can be equally guaranteed that Neil Gorsuch will vote against this mandate. That leaves the justices that many believe to be “conservatives:” Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, and Alito.
If I had to make a prediction based upon experience, I would say that Roberts is more likely to side with the liberals than with Gorsuch. Not necessarily because he is a liberal in disguise (and he is), but because Roberts is a corporate courtier; he almost always sides with the big money. I also believe, in spite of Thomas’s occasional tendency toward the police powers of government, that Thomas will side with Gorsuch. I believe that Thomas will feel a greater pull to his Constitutional tendencies than his “security over liberty” leanings. Justice Alito’s tendency is to follow either Thomas or Gorsuch. Since I am predicting that Thomas and Gorsuch will be on the same side, I will put Alito in the group that will vote against the mandate. That leaves just Kavanaugh and Barrett. What made be unknown to many conservatives in America, unless they were watching my podcast during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh is NOT a consistent constitutionalist. During the confirmation hearings I warned that Kavanaugh is most aptly described as “Kennedy 2.0” and he has lived up to that title so far. He is a moderate at best who leans conservative on some issues and liberal on others. In this case I will, with hesitancy, predict that Kavanaugh will lean conservative. With these predictions we now have a 4-4 court that leaves only Barrett to break the tie.
Many conservatives would be overjoyed with that conclusion, believing that Barrett is not only a conservative, but someone who would choose the Constitutional and Religious Liberty option to deny the mandate. Unfortunately, nothing in Barrett’s term of service in the Supreme Court or her previous legal experience supports that conclusion. During Barrett’s confirmation hearing, the American people were told that Barrett was a constitutional, religious liberty nominee. Other than being a devout educated Catholic, nothing in Barrett’s history establishes that she is either constitutional or religious liberty minded. Barrett is a slave to precedent. She will mindlessly adhere to whatever the court has established in the past, right or wrong. Since she has become a Supreme Court Justice, Barrett has sided with the liberal justices on some of the most important cases. I am not comfortable with Barrett being the tie breaker on what could be the most important Supreme Court issue of my lifetime. Will she side with the errantly portrayed precedent of Jacobsen? Or will she side with the Constitution and the rights of the people?
What Is the Most Certain Solution To This OSHA Overreach?
The uncertainty and the tendency of the courts to be personally biased in their opinions is the reason why the courts are not the ultimate or final check and balance of federal gourmandizing of power. Those who ratified our Constitution and designed our Constitutional Republic were repulsed by the notion that the federal government itself would be its only check and balance. The designed ultimate and final check on the federal government exercise of authority is and always has been the people through their States. Thomas Jefferson (18120 explained it this way:
…when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another…If the States look with apathy on this silent descent of their government into the gulf which is to swallow all, we have only to weep over the human character formed uncontrollable but by a rod of iron…
The design of our Constitutional Republic created a most powerful check on the federal authority through the power of the State to refuse to comply with unlawful federal laws, regulations, and executive orders. Proponents of the Constitution made multiple arguments regarding the authority of the States to be the ultimate limit upon the federal government when that government steps outside the specifically enumerated and delegated powers of the Constitution. Hamilton’s explanation may have been one of the most influential since he was the one arguing for federal power, yet explaining that even the power he proposed was limited by the Constitution to be enforced by the States. Alexander Hamilton expressed the basis for this check by the States in Federalist 78:
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.
Hamilton’s explanation is a direct reference to Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution that declares that when the federal government makes laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution, “the judges of the State” are not bound to them. When the judges of the States are not bound, no one in the State is bound; those laws, regulations, and executive orders are “null and void.” There is no authority delegated to the federal government to exercise an Occupational Safety and Health Association within the boundaries of the States. Without a specifically enumerated delegation of power to do so, the federal government’s assertion of power is invalid.
Florida is exercising this State authority to check and balance unconstitutional federal power as it begins to separate the State from federal OSHA authority altogether. Florida is making moves to refuse OSHA authority and regulations and create their own State agency that will fill that gap. There are some in the federal government who profess, like political activist lawyer Ron Coleman, that it is outside Florida’s authority to deny OSHA in their State. For people like Coleman, that errant understanding of State authority and professed unlimited power of the federal government is the product of one hundred eighty-eight years of bad education sparked by federal supremacists and certain political activist Supreme Court Justices. People like Coleman have decided to set aside the true design of the Constitution and the facts regarding its proper application as dictated by those who actually wrote the document, in favor of an ideology that the federal government itself is its only limit to power, and the courts can alter and expand federal power through judicial opinions contrary to Article V of the Constitution. This progressive ideology flies in the face of every agreement made to ratify the Constitution, every limit to power designed by the Constitution, and the very principles of separation of powers instituted to ensure that the people are the governors over government and not subjects to rogue federal agencies. Coleman’s assertion, and those who agree with him, that the “commerce clause” is some kind of boilerplate phrase that endows upon the federal government the authority to create for itself unlimited authority over every aspect of life as long as they can somehow bootstrap a “money” argument to it cannot find any justification in the Constitution or the writings of those who created that Compact. No to mention Coleman’s argument was brilliantly defeated by James Madison in 1792 (see the Cod Fisher Debate, also see Federalist #45).
The only sure solution to ending federal vaccine mandates will be when the States decide to exercise the powers reserved to them as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment. That will mean that the people in the States must get educated and demand that our States start behaving more like the “independent sovereign governments” the Supreme Court in NFIB v. Sebelius recognized them to be and less like the subservient colonies that Coleman and his political and educational aristocrats want them to be.
If you would like to understand the principles of limited federal power and the State check and balance as the founders created them, please consider joining LibertyFirstSociety.com and learn from the founders themselves instead of activist professors.
Don’t Be Your Own Jailer
By Robert Altomare, Founder of the BreathEasy App
November 11, 2021
I can still remember the first time I said ‘no’.
It was at a Radio Shack in San Diego, California in 1995. I had recently learned that Blockbuster was selling their customers’ personal information to businesses called ‘Information Brokers’ and it certainly didn’t sound like it was for my benefit. I had never heard of such a thing, but as I learned more about these information traffickers, I finally understood where all those robo-calls and junk mail in my mailbox came from! I realized that my personal information, everything that defined me as a person, was a commodity to be bought and sold like so much wheat, peanut butter or gasoline. While this might seem obvious today in 2021, in 1995 this was very new information.
I also learned that I had even agreed to my commodity status when I signed up for my Blockbuster membership! I didn’t believe what I was hearing until one day when I asked to see a blank contract. Sure enough, down at the bottom in the fine print, there it was in black and white: I had expressly given Blockbuster, Inc. the permission to collect, retain and sell my personal information. How naïve I had been. How naïve we had all been.
After learning the ways of the new and emerging “Information Age,” I decided to take a more active role in policing my own information and Radio Shack was going to be where I made my stand.
So, one day, I needed to purchase some long-forgotten something and to this day, I don’t recall what it was, maybe some batteries, a universal remote control or a new phone (Land line! Remember those?) and went to my local Radio Shack to engage the information enemy.
As I brought my item to the cash register placed upon the glass display case full of watch batteries, flashlights and radio-controlled cars, I could feel the anxiety rising in my chest. I had never actually told Radio Shack (or any store, for that matter) ‘no’ before when they asked for my phone number or address. I’d never even seen anyone deny Radio Shack’s request! What would happen? Would he allow me to buy my item? Would he call his manager? Would he make some sort of scene? I was charging into terra incognita armed with nothing but righteous indignation.
I truly was a little nervous as I approached the cashier. I placed my item on the counter and in a short moment he rang it up and, right on schedule and not even looking up, he asked, “phone number?”
Moment of truth…
My voice cracking slightly, I responded, “I don’t really want to give my phone number, is that ok?”
The look on his face told me that he hadn’t come across this response too often. It was a mixture of surprise and confusion. After I drew my line in the sand, there was a moment that seemed to last seconds, my heart beating just a little harder than normal. I looked down at the counter avoiding eye contact hoping to squeak out of this unscathed.
“Well,” he began, “that’s fine. I’ll just put in the store’s phone number so I can get to the next screen.”
Was that it? My chest was tight as a coiled snake for that?
I audibly exhaled, not realizing I had been holding my breath through the short interval waiting for his response...
Suffice it to say, a lot of water has gone under the bridge since that day nearly 30 years ago. I now realize that ‘no’ is quite possibly one of the strongest, most potent words known to man. ‘No’ embodies the Human spirit’s need and right to chart its own course; even more so than what ‘yes’ could ever possibly be.
There is a mile’s worth of difference between, “Yes We Can” and “No, I Won’t.”
Fast forward to 2020. The “Pandemic,” the lockdowns, the business closures. The movie “12 Monkies” had come to life with abandoned signs everywhere declaring to nobody in particular that masks, “vaccine” tests or something else were required to enter buildings.
And it was under these circumstances that I would rely on my POW training and Radio Shack Resistance to summon the courage, gumption and self-confidence to get through the madness we’re experiencing now.
You see, in addition to the tenet of “Little Wins” to help you survive captivity (or the Brandon Administration) that I described in my previous essays here, here and here, there is also the closely related technique of “Testing.” Testing is the act of essentially dipping your toe into the lagoon of resistance and seeing how long it takes for the piranhas to bite.
For example, if your jailors insist you eat your prison gruel with your left hand (but you’re right-handed) simply eat with your right hand and ‘test’ to see if they correct you. Every moment that you are eating with your dominant right hand and NOT succumbing to their rules, you are freer than you would have been otherwise. No need to fight, no need to yell. Claim your Freedom.
Key to this strategy of ‘Testing’ is the fact that you are forcing your captor to enforce their rules. Every time you eat with your right hand, you put your captor into the position of stopping everything he’s doing to enforce his rule on you. How long will it be before even HE gives tired of it? Survival is a marathon, not a sprint.
Putting it another way, every time aPOW follows the prison’s rule, even when his health or wellbeing are not in danger, he has become his own jailor and easier to manage.
And so it was when the mask mandates and lockdowns began in 2020. We were all implored to wear masks, demanded that we wear them everywhere we went. Of course, because I don’t wear masks, I was, by default, testing these businesses on whether they would enforce their own mandates (You can read more about how the BreathEasy App emerged from this experience at www.breathez.org).
To be certain, some businesses did enforce their insults to Freedom and Liberty. I was living in the belly of the Beast, Portlantifa, Oregon. These hipster zealots were ruthless in their enforcement of meaningless rules; we’ve all seen the YouTube videos.
However, some businesses were not so anxious to be the government’s jailors and enforce a mask “requirement.” I specifically remember my first ‘test’ of a local chain grocery store. I could feel the anxiety rising in my chest exactly as it had that day in that long bankrupt Radio Shack 26 years earlier. I walked right past the ‘masks required’ signs, through the automatic sliding glass doors and into the store completely maskless while literally everyone in in the store was masked up and ‘following the rules’ like the unwitting POWs that they were.
I’ll never forget the looks I got from so many of my fellow customers. All I could see was their eyes, but their body language expressed everything I needed to know:
“I didn’t know we could do that...”
“Isn’t somebody going to say something to him?”
As I am writing this, I can already hear some of you thinking to yourself, “Sure. It’s easy for you to ignore those signs, you’ve been trained! I could never do that...”
Trust me, I empathize with these thoughts. We have been so numbed our entire lives to simply comply with any rule provided to us that we assume the rule is legal. The problem is that that we have forgotten how to say ‘no.’
I say to you now, dear reader, it is time for us to relearn what we have forgotten.
But how do we begin? We’ve all seen the YouTube videos of patriots fighting for their/our rights. Raising their voices, angrily and righteously resisting, telling the world of the injustice of it all; going toe to toe with Marxist employees or self-important Karen businesses.
That is definitely one strategy one could take and I by no means disparage it. I took this tack in the early days of the lockdowns myself! I was in the fight and had quite a few ‘forceful interactions.’ I even had the police called on me, twice. Once in Orlando by Southwest Airlines and the second by the Tallahassee Hilton. Understand, the police were not called because things were violent. They were called because I simply refused to abide by illegal ‘rules!’ The look on the police officers' faces said everything that needed to be said.
But I realized something during all this civil combat. The employees simply don’t care that they are driving business away. All my protestations were meaningless. It’s not THEIR business that will whither and die, after all.
So, instead of dying on every hill (and there were a lot of hills to die on in Portlantifa), I merely forced upon the businesses the economic results of their decision to support mask mandates: I avoided them.
But again, how do we begin? How does one test to find out if a business is friendly or unfriendly to Liberty and Freedom? It’s simpler than you think: Ignore every sign you see that mandates stupid masks or ‘vaccine’ requirements. Every one. And, if someone says something to you such as, “Do you have a mask?” feel free to answer truthfully. The answer is a very simply, “no.”
“Well, you have to wear a mask to be in the store”
And your response to this? “I see. Goodbye.” I treat every interaction with a business the same way as I buy a used car: be prepared to simply walk away and find a more reasonable business.
That’s all there is to it! Just leave.
Yes, while a loud declaration decrying injustice is definitely satisfying, it is ultimately
Don’t forget, the purpose of these POW techniques that I’m teaching you is to survive, with honor. It could be argued that getting arrested might not be considered ’surviving.’
And, while you’re at it, break out your BreathEasy App and let the world know to avoid that particular Vichy business and let’s direct our comrades in arms towards those businesses who are standing with us shoulder to shoulder in defense of Liberty and Freedom.
Who knows, maybe our example might stiffen the spines of those around us and give countrymen the courage to make the most powerful statement a free Human can make:
I will not comply.