All posts by glennms

Free Speach

I was sitting here thinking, and yes that is never a good thing, and came to a small realization. Yes I know others have spoken about it, but maybe it is time to remind others. This small idea was simple, that of every time someone(mostly from the left) wants to force something that we find abhorrent down our throats, they make it so that it is now somehow immoral to talk against it. One of the latest cases are making it so the alphabet groups are somehow the norm and moral, and now we are seeing the same thing happening with a group that almost 20 years ago we all said we would defeat. We are seeing it everytime a politician makes a statement against a group such as hammas or cair or anyone of the other radical muslim groups.  All of a sudden, they are now a phiriah and must be forced out of their jobs, all because they spoke out in a public forum against one of these “protected” groups.

I don’t know when this became a tactic that has such wide spread use. But, WE must stop it. It does not make the whole better,  all it does is drag us down. We still , for the time being, have the right to say what we want, about what we want(mostly) as long as we are not calling for the harm of others. What ever happened to people being able to disagree but still understand why the other guy had that opinion. The tactics being used, do nothing but silence a group, and bring about a change that the majority does not want. Are we still under the constitution of the US, or have we come under the shell of some global group intent on destroying us?

I may not agree with that which you say at the top of your lungs, BUT, I will defend your right to say that which is wholey against my beliefs.

Mo. Walmart Guy with a gun



As I watch all the news feeds and all, here is one that has popped up and become somewhat viral. That about the Guy in Mo. that walked around the Walmart with a shouldered rifle.While I will not support, I will not condone with out more info. But at this time this is the conclusions I have come to.

first off you have to remember Mo. is a legal open carry state.
then you have to ask, did he do anything that would deem him a hazard? from the reports I have, the only thing he did was don a vest, and shoulder a weapon, then walk around Walmart with a shopping cart. this action alone in that state should not have ellicited any real reaction from the people of that state. However his timing makes him stupid, after the recent shootings. As far as I have heard he made no threats or threatening actions(left his rifle shouldered). yes he was videoing it the whole time but, with this generation, EVERYTHING gets videod. Even when confronted by the fireman he offered no resistance that I have heard of. I did not hear of any resistance when he was aressted. so as far as I can tell he is guilty of only 2 things, being stupid, and possibly creating a public panic.

any comments or more facts? let me know.

after El Paso mass shooting


I was sitting on the Internet yesterday discussing what we could do to fix this mess with a friend. She is a teacher and described herself as very liberal. that’s okay, let’s discuss this and try to use just the facts. We went through a lot of stuff that she would like to see laws that pretty much everybody does already.  Stuff like a title for each gun, gun training, practical test, health requirements, liability insurance, and renewals inspections. Well, I thought, most responsible gun owners already do this. A responsible normal first-time gun owner will typically get training on that gun simply because he does not know how to use it and the store that is selling it will offer and insist on it. All gun sales are already registered, in most states you have laws that say you cannot get a gun with a mental health problem. Okay that takes care of her list.

I said okay let’s try and solve this, what has changed in the last 60 years that we have come to so many mass shootings. I mean the guns are pretty much the same, the bullets are the same. So what do we have left? The human factor. What has changed with the human factor in this period of time. Let’s look at some of the changes –

Stuff like we have the breakdown of the nuclear family.
we have 2 parents working and not home for the kids
we have more fatherless homes (over 90% of mass shooters)
we have the internet
we have more kids on psychotropic drugs (again over 90% of the shooters)
we have more kids on addhd meds (that may not need it)
we had or have a system that rewards kids for just being there
we now have cyber bullying.
we have kids that (out of our love for them) are sheltered from everything in the world.
we have kids that don’t go out and play as much
we have kids playing war games on the internet
religion has been taken out of our everyday life
we have a breakdown of our moral code
so what can we do to fix what is happening? What is the magic bullet? More regulations on guns? Doubtful that will help at all, as according to statistics 95% of the shooters have larger weapons unlawfully. All a new law would do, would be to hurt the legal gun owners. The red flag laws are so badly written that they are dangerous. They trample on our constitutional rights. And can be abused way to easily.

My solution, being an observer as I have no children and can only watch and help other parents, is to start young and teach your children responsibility, morals, try to keep your kids about drugs (especially the legal ones that are prescribed (over 90% were on or recently on drugs such as Zoloft)), watch what you get is on the Internet, take your kids to church. Support your kid, when they say they are having trouble at school, talk to them and help them through it. Teach them that the world is a hard place, but they can make it through. Teach them a simple lesson, that no problem is so tough that you cannot let it go. And yes, when you’re young kids do wrong, give them a spanking. I realize at this time in our history, we are unable to solve at least part of this equation, in that of having two parents in the house or even one parent at home for the kids(over 90% have no father in the house).

I ask you, what else have you seen that may be a cause, and what would be the solution. Obviously a new law will not help. As there are so many laws on the book right now it is not funny.there are so many laws on the book right now that police do not even know them,lawyers do not even know them.

So help me out and maybe we can find THE solution that would actually help. We do not need yet another Band-Aid law that will tear down our rights as citizens.

related posts:

another on mass shootings –

some thoughts on the red flag law –

A thought after NZ on Gun Control –

a “radical law”? –

Unconstitutional taking . New mag ban –

New Jersey and gun rights –

Murphy and guns? –

The 2nd Amendment –

on what to do to stop the next mass shooting –


another on mass shootings

I ask that you think about what I am about to badly write in this missive. I do not think I have all the answers. But in this time of high emotions I ask that you put your emotions aside and think.

I have watched over the last few years, and posted thoughts on my blog My thoughts at every turn and incident that has arisen. I am now doing the same.  I see every time that we have one of these mass shootings the politicians going the same route and using emotions to slowly take away our rights as citizens.  Yes over the weekend we had a tragedy.  No I will not go the way of the conspiracy people and say it was a false flag and that the info does not line up.  Rather I will attempt to look at the facts as I can see them.

Right now the left is calling for you to help them disarm America in baby steps. They are counting on your emotions being raw from all the coverage that you have seen. This happens every time. Let us go through some of the details.  The El Paso shooter acquired his gun unlawfully.  Where did he get it? Would any of the current legislation they are pushing have stopped him? I say no.  The left is calling for an assault weapons ban. Ok, can you tell me what is an assault weapon? is it a bat? As I previously posted the very reason we have weapons are 3 fold, to protect our family, to protect our state from external attack and to protect our state from internal attack.  Those are the reasons our founders enumerated this right in the 2nd. To be able to do so we must have weapons capable of this. Why did the Japanese not attack mainland USA? Because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

Now let us look at a more frightening thought. setting aside the abberations of the mass shootings, just how many shootings/dead happened over the weekend? I know of at least 6 in my area. how many in Camden? Trenton? Newark? Chicago? NY? name the area? What effect would the legislation have on these shootings? NONE! all or most of the shootings were gang related with unlawful weapons. 95% of the “mass” shootings are with unlawful weapons. How will a law fix that? As to the Ohio shooting, well my thought is that was an assasination of his sister and attempted on her date killing others to cover that fact.

So what do I think would help? What law that would be constitutional? The only solutions I can see are get rid of the gangs and the reason for them, and a more controversial measure,  require that all purchasers of ammo show their FID to buy ammo, just like you need to show id to buy beer. The sale would NOT be required to recorded or registered(you don’t register every purchase of beer do you?)  This might have the effect of slowing the flow of ammo to those that have unlawful weapons. Might not but it is all I got.

That for now is all I have. Think with your brains on this, not your emotions.

Thank you


call for Murphy’s Arrest

This is the letter that I would send if I had any balls. But a few factors prevent such.  First the wife said she would rather not have me shot, and then there is the part that I don’t want myself or my family put through the issues that might come up. And I am also not a rich man that can afford attorney’s to defend myself in this quest. (anytime you go to court you need a lawyer to protect you, even as the complaintant being represented by the prosecutor.



to: FBI

Re:Citizen call for the arrest and indictment of Governor Phil Murphy

I am asking for full confidientiality as far as the law will allow of my identity, out of a real fear of physical or other harm to myself and my family.

Whereas the New Jersey constitution provides no protection from arrest of the Governor.

Whereas an illegal immigrant is guilty of federal crimes by being in the country unlawfully.

Whereas Mr Murphy has as Governor of the state of New jersey has broken federal crimminal codes as detailed, I am calling for the immediate arrest and indictment of Mr Murphy.

details of activity:

Mr Murphy has aided and abetted in the furthance of a federal crime by aiding and abetting illegal Immigrants by directing state funds to defend such persons.

Mr Murphy has by directives and laws given illegal immigrants the rights of a citizen by providing for them college education.

Mr Murphy has by directive and or laws provided for the harboring of fugitives with his sanctuary state directives.

As per US constitution I am a citizen of the state involved and Mr . Murphy was acting as the state.

(Amendment 11 – Judicial Limits
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.)

As per the constitution this falls under federal guidelines

(article 1 section 8  – to establish a uniform rule of naturalization)

U.S Code Title 8 Section 1325 (a) Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than  as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

8 U.S. Code § 1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts, shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
(in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Is the 14th amendment itself unconstitutional?

Do I really want to go down this rabbit hole?

Not really but here we go.

I have a question, Is the 14th unconstitutional. I have come to this question after doing a friend of the court brief ( I submitted. In that brief I detailed that it required that representation is only for male citizens 21 and over that can vote.(ok paraphrased a little).

Then today I was forced to show that the constitution is only for citizens of the USA.  I quoted article 4 section 2.  Then my mind went astray. (ok it took a few hours but).  I suddenly had the thought that because article 4 says all citizens, and the 14th specifies a certain group, they may be in conflict. Or can you have 1 part say one thing and then in another specify for whom it is for?

Remember article 4 is BEFORE the 14th so the 14th would over rule it.

Article 4 section 2 – The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

and now the relevant part of the 14th that is under suspicion

is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Now to help you understand how this, at the time may not have been in conflict, let me explain some of the differences between now and then.  When this was drawn up, a woman had little rights, if she was married she was totally under her husband. she could not own property, and was not considered a full person. If she was single she had little more rights (could own property) but was still not considered a full person. It was a hard time to be a woman for sure.

So there we have it, a woman was not considered to be a full citizen at that time. in the legal docs she was not even considered a person.  Now with the 19th giving her the right to vote, this did not change the 14th and she was able to vote for a representative that could not represent her as the 14th specifically gives that right to men. the 19th while ok, was not well enough written(and at the time fully contested due to concerns that a woman would vote the same as her husband as he was the head of her, thus giving the man 2 votes.) Remember different times.

notice how simple  the 19th is and how it ONLY does 1 thing and changes nothing else.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Now with the equal rights  act declaring a woman a full citizen (which is legal due to nothing in the constitution forbidding it) the definition of a citizen has been changed. Thus changing the meaning of article 4 and several others. But leaving the definition of the 14th unchanged, as that would take a constitutional amendment.

so I ask, is it unconstitutional or just sexist?

Draft brief on citizenship question

To: the Honorable justice

re: case #

census citizenship question.

Your Honor, I offer you this friends of the court brief in hopes to sway your judgment.

I am a simple man, not a lawyer, nor am I in any way connected to this case. I offer a simple persons thought on this subject based on a reading(many) of the 14th amendment. If I make some minor mistakes in my written oration, please forgive them.

The question before the court being, “should a citizenship question be added to the 2020 census”.

I would have the opinion that it should. As the 14th calls for it.

Your honor, in reading this amendment multiple times and asking myself some questions, I can see why no Judge wants to touch this question based on the constitution. To do so would surely overthrow previous SCOTUS decisions and create further issues with this precedence. I have gone thru this paragraph multiple times trying to find the law that is within. There is in the reading of this Amendment and a reading of the laws of the time an answer covertly hidden to most.

The answer I found is not what I was led to think. I found that in the writing they specified that only male citizens over the age of 21 were to be counted for representation. Thus over throwing previous SCOTUS decision that said all were to be counted. This surely would throw a monkey wrench into the works, As it would force the representatives to only consider this group of people. This surly will be an issue. But I can not, based on this amendment, support any other premise. Why else would they specify that which they did in the latter part of the amendment? That, quote “ the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”

As you read the amendment please remember this was written in a time well before women had gained the right to vote (and also at a time that a married woman had few rights and were considered to be subservient and therefore near to property of the husband, and a single woman while enjoying more rights was not considered for legal reasons to be a full person and same as a man) and it was meant to make a small correction after the civil war to properly account for the newly freed slaves (original version showed a black male was only worthy of being 3/5ths of a man).

So by this writing they had made it so that only those that were male citizens over the age of 21 were deemed worthy of representation. And with out further amendment this is what is the basis of the law. They did not mean for non citizens or women or children to have representation in the house.

Even with the advent of the 19th and 26th amendments this did not change the wording of the 14th. The 19th simply says women can vote, and the 26th simply says the voting age is lowered. There is no mention in them of extending these rights any further in the constitution in the amendments. The lack of such a change while troubling, is the law. The underlying laws may have changed, but not the meaning of the amendment as it is plain and clear on the fact of whom it is meant for. It was meant to cover only males 21 or older that for other than rebellion or crimes had not had their rights to vote in a federal election abridged. The lack of such a change also leads to a conundrum in that persons that are able to vote for such representation will themselves not be represented.

Absent a change to the Constitution to be true to this amendment and to follow our oaths to protect and serve the constitution would beg to ask the following questions on the census, are you a citizen, are you a male, are your rights to vote in a federal election abridged for other than a crime or rebellion?

This case is such that it could be a major problem. And may overturn past decisions that ALL people be counted. I understand if in your wisdom you do not wish to decide this case based on the constitution and the 14th as it has implications further than a simple question.

However your Honor, based on all the above I would urge you to approve the question on citizenship on the census.

Your Honor, I thank you for the consideration to this Brief. May God lead your decision.

Thank You


Ref: The US constitution 14h Amendment

section 2-

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

SCOTUS overstepping it’s authority

I have been thinking. (that is never good).

I am charging the judiciary with over stepping their article 3 rights into article 1 items.  I have seen where the judiciary has, where congress can not, created laws that are against the constitution. How is this happening? Simple, They get a case, judge it, then that judgment is used in all future cases as fact and standard. Yes this is called precedence gone amok.  Instead they should look at precedent as it is, someone else’s decision, a guide, not law.


If for example, You have a case that says you can not have a cross in a senate chamber, they decide that is true based on the 1st. they have just created a law that says freedom FROM religion. when in fact that law says that congress can not ESTABLISH a national religion, nor can they deny religion to those that want it.  Thus creating a LAW that says from now on you can not do that, no matter the legal argument later on, it just gets denied based on that precedent. they wont even look at it. thus bypassing congress and invoking article 2 powers, (congress makes the laws, the judicial enforces them) and bypassing congress.

This is totally unconstitutional.

Precedents should be used as to the manner they were prescribed. That is, as a guide, not fact. To do otherwise would be to make the judiciary greater than congress or the President.

a few rough notes on the Mueller report part 2

I read thru the Mueller report part 2 (didn’t have time for part 1), made some rough notes , well here they are.


talking points for report:

pres asking for loyaty(did this happen or was it just the MSM
pres asking comey not to investigate flynn supposedly
the pres asking comey to say publicly he wasnt under investigation
trump asking his doj people on status of russia investigation
firing comey
the lie about the adoption meeting.
some focus on his russia tower project that never went beyond a letter of intent.
trump saying he could get along well with russia.
dns servers hacked? or as I heard a thumb drive given to wl
disgraces cohen saying that trump said good when the  wl released

the discussion of talking points:
russia saying they were in contact with trump people?
report went on for pages about the flynn thing
Private meeting with comey, about flynn, and there is apparent substantial evidence? wiretaps? what evidence?
why was cohen really afraid to be alone with the president?
there seems to be a lot that depends on “press reports”
trump attempts to get rid of mueller as special council due to previous dealings . mcgahn refuses. and thinks of resigning. however, it appears that after that “order” the president took no actions against Mcgahn. if no action taken was it a direct order? no follow thru for failing to follow an order?

If sessions firing was about his recusal, why didnt the pres accept the letter that was offered. and required a new letter later? theres more behind this than the recusal.

a thought: we all know one of the presidents famous sayings is – your fired – so if all this was happening with his advisors not following thru on orders, was were none of them punished? the report shows one of 2 things, either a lot didnt actually happen? or that the president was not in control of his senior aids and lawyers.

on the june 9 meeting, the presidents efforts to obstruct the release of information appears to be primarily against the press and the public. knowing how the MSM likes to blow things up he wanted to avoid the press doing what it did. the emails were never supposed to see the light of public day. no attempt to withhold from congress or prosecutors evident.
trump moscow tower project, a nothing burger again. a canadate trying to pursue business with no deal in place other than a letter of intent. deal dropped prior to election. nothing.

a thought after reading the whole of vol 2, while there may have been an attempt? at obstruction there was no obstruction due to various factors. and that the evidence of the intent is specious at best in most cases.

Mr. Booker and Reparations

An Open Letter:

Mr Booker;

I write this in answer to your obvious pandering for votes in your call for reparations. Sir it is obvious that you are doing the usual politicians promise,  to promise something you will never be able to deliver. How do I come to this conclusion?

Two things.

First you can not charge a crime for something that was not a crime at the time.  This is what you are doing by saying that we have to pay for a crime that, at the time was not such.

Second, The constitution, which you swore an oath to serve and protect when you were given the job you have, specifically says there can not be reparations.  Yes that is in there.  In the ONLY crime that the constitution defines, and sets the baseline for all other crimes, Treason, specifically says there will be no corruption of blood. Do you know what that means? It means that No one other than the offender can be made to be punished for a crime.

I would advise you to get a copy of the constitution and read it before you call for more unconstitutional laws. I would note that this tack has been tried in almost every election to pander to the black vote, and has failed. The people are generally smarter than you think. Yes it might sound good, but it is not.

In case a hard copy of the Constitution is too much for you to carry, here is the link to the OFFICIAL online constitutional page.

A very dissatisfied resident of NJ.