Deranged Laws Preceding Civil War

Back in March I devoted a few posts to deranged NYC councillor Peter Koo’s proposal to ban smoking while walking on NYC streets. I’ve heard little more about it since, and I’m told that most other NYC councillors aren’t interested. Why not? They all seem to be Democrats. Why wouldn’t they want another piece of legislation to stick it to reviled smokers? Isn’t that what they’re all about?

But in the USA another piece of deranged anti-smoker legislation is coming into force at the end of July: the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) home smoking ban, which will prohibit residents from smoking in their own homes.

From NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (CLASH) website:

Maybe you’ve found C.L.A.S.H. because you are a person who lives in any of the public housing complexes across the country and have received notice that you will be forced outside of your private apartment because the U.S. Dept. of Housing has dictated that smoking (cigarettes, cigars, hookahs, electronic cigarettes) will be banned inside your home effective July 31, 2018 (or sooner at the will of each local Public Housing Authority).  So in your anger and frustration you have searched for help and discovered C.L.A.S.H.

Whether you are a directly affected resident or someone who simply, and rightfully, finds this intrusion into private homes by a federal agency to be one of the most egregious assaults on and threat to everyone’s fundamental right to privacy to engage in a legal activity within the confines of one’s own home, know that C.L.A.S.H. is fully aware of the situation and has been since C.L.A.S.H. first objected to it when HUD first proposed it at the end of 2015.

C.L.A.S.H. agrees that HUD’s rule is fraught with serious constitutional questions.  To quote the editorial board of the NY Observer who wrote at the time: “It may be the most far-reaching, intrusive and over-reaching executive order of the entire Obama administration.”

CLASH’s Audrey Silk has mounted a law suit against the ban, using her own money, and set up a GoFundMe PRIVACY IN THE HOME legal fund page.

Since this mad law is the work of the Obama administration, one would have hoped that with Ben Carson running HUD under the Trump administration, steps would have been taken to nix the law before it comes into force. But Ben Carson is a doctor, and Trump doesn’t smoke, and Obama holdovers are still in place almost everywhere in the US government, so most likely they can’t do anything about it even if they wanted to (and they probably don’t want to).

If I had anything to do with it, I’d be working to set up a citizens’ resistance organisation – THUD (Terminate Housing and Urban Development)? – to fight it, using their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms if necessary (and it probably will be necessary).

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

If you have a right to bear arms, you must also have the right to use them.

This is how civil wars start, and there are more and more people in the USA predicting exactly that: civil war. Alex Jones on has been predicting it for a long time, most recently 4 days ago when he aired Mike Adams’ epic and shocking speech (which starts 18 minutes into the video). From ZeroHedge a day or two back:

Snyder: “While Many On The Right Are Sleeping, Many On The Left Are Promising To Bring War To The Streets Of America”

And earlier from Economic Collapse:

Civil conflict is coming to America, and it is going to tear our nation apart. Earlier today I received an email from a good friend about the rising tide of anger and frustration that we are currently witnessing in America. After thinking about it for a few moments, I wrote back and told him that I don’t know if there is any way to stop what is coming at this point. In my entire lifetime, we have never been closer to a “civil war” in this country than we are right now.

And here’s Lionel Nation a couple of days back:

He starts the video by saying:

“We are in – America is in – the midst of what is a civil war.”

And here’s Joe diGenova – an attorney who was (is?) going to work for Trump – speaking yesterday (4 minutes in):

“Could we possibly get into a civil war? We’re in a civil war in this country right now. Let me just make that very clear right now, underscore, end of sentence, simple: we are in a cultural and political civil war right now.”

It’s a civil war that’s likely to not only tear America apart, but also tear Europe apart as well. For the same forces are at work in Europe as in America. It’s a war that’s going to be fought between realists and idealists.

The HUD home smoking ban is as good an example as any of what the war will be about. On the one hand there are a bunch of idealists trying to legislate an utopian (smoke-free) ideal world into existence, forcing people to change the way they live, controlling everything they do. And on the other hand there are a bunch of people who want to preserve their chosen way of life, conserve their cultures and nations. It’s as simple as that, really.

In Europe it’s the conflict between the globalist, borderless, progressive, idealistic EU and the populist, nationalist, conservatives in most of the nations of Europe. It’s the conflict between Brexit and anti-Brexit.

It’s a conflict that’s even going on inside the Roman Catholic Church between traditionalists and progressives:

These German bishops “consider the secularization and de-Christianization of Europe as an irreversible development,” he said, and for this reason have abandoned the “New Evangelization,” since it is in their view “a battle against the objective course of history, resembling Don Quixote’s battle against the windmills.”

Having succumbed to modernity and defeatism, these German bishops believe that “all the doctrines of the faith that are opposed to the ‘mainstream,’ the societal consensus, must be reformed,” he added.

The conflict is found everywhere.

The idealists always believe that history is heading in some particular direction (usually called “Progress”), and they see their job as being to facilitate or enable the inevitable historical process (towards a smoke-free, fat-free, sugar-free, wind-powered, de-Christianised, borderless, New World Order) to be played out. It’s an ubiquitous mentality which Karl Popper was writing about in The Poverty of Historicism 80 years ago:

The Poverty of Historicism was first written as a paper which was read in 1936, then updated and published as a book in 1957. It was dedicated “In memory of the countless men and women of all creeds or nations or races who fell victim to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”

Nothing has changed in the intervening 80 years. Nothing at all.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Deranged Laws Preceding Civil War

  1. Clicky says:

  2. O/T…

    Frank do you know enough programming to make an App like this for smokers?

    • Frank Davis says:

      I don’t know how to write apps. I got a bit interested in commumications apps for smokers a few years back, Smokerhub

      and smokernet

      but neither got anywhere much.

    • Joe L. says:

      I’ve dabbled in Android app development. Not sure how much time I’d have to devote to a project like this, though.

      I don’t want to derail this thread, but I’m curious what kind features smokers would like to see in an app. For me, having moved across the country recently, I would like to be able to locate the most smoker-friendly destinations in a given area. However, I feel like keeping a database or other record of this info would provide targets for Antismokers to harass. I’d like to hear others’ thoughts.

      • I agree about smoker friendly areas and spots – although you’re correct in that it would likely result in creating targets for harassment as well.

        I could also seeing it as something similar to flipboard where it searches and compiles things from sources where are other people are already posting things (i.e. twitter, instagram, etc.).

  3. beobrigitte says:

    But in the USA another piece of deranged anti-smoker legislation is coming into force at the end of July: the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) home smoking ban, which will prohibit residents from smoking in their own homes.
    Not only in the US are these strange forces at work; This evil is spreading:
    Deborah Arnott, chief executive of anti-smoking charity Ash, told the newspaper that people were “frustrated by councils’ and social landlords’ failure to take action” on smokers damaging the health of those around them.
    Professor Linda Bauld, Cancer Research UK’s prevention expert, said: “Tobacco is the biggest preventable cause of cancer in Scotland and responsible for over 5,700 cancer cases every year. This new action plan to tackle smoking is much needed and will save lives.”

    Smokers “damaging the health of those around them” and “This new action plan to tackle smoking is much needed and will save lives”?
    What lives will they want to save when everyone is busy being angry? We simply have had enough of being told lie after lie.

    The HUD home smoking ban is as good an example as any of what the war will be about. On the one hand there are a bunch of idealists trying to legislate an utopian (smoke-free) ideal world into existence, forcing people to change the way they live, controlling everything they do.
    And soon there will be no “I” only a dictated “We”? That is the best recipe for disaster, a lot of people already are getting very angry about a number of things, conflicts are becoming more and more inevitable. At least it will be the end of the liars and Crook.

  4. Philip Neal says:

    Spot on about what the prohibitionists are up to, but I would question the bit about the supposed course of history. In my adult lifetime the left seems to have forgotten all the once considerable amount of history it used to know. Decolonising the curriculum, Rhodes must fall, Confederate statues and now, for crying out loud, Laura Ingalls Wilder. Some library monitor or other has noticed with astonishment that Ma Ingalls is prejudiced against Indians.

    It is apparently irrelevant to object that Ma reflects the outlook of her day, and that even in the 1930s readers were expected to regard her as lovable but amusingly narrow-minded. There is no longer such a thing as the thinking of a past age, only current enlightenment, and nobody took off the blinkers of the past until the day before yesterday.

  5. Smoking Lamp says:

    While the madness continues, cracks in the antismoking justification continue. Consider the rational for airline smoking bans–that is the occupational risk of cancer to flight attendants from second hand smoke.

    Today this article appeared at the Los Angeles Times (LAT). “Flight attendants call for action in response to study that finds the job comes with high cancer risk.”

    28 years ago smoking was banned onboard airlines based on the alleged occupational risk of second hand smoke to flight attendants. The tobacco control activists claimed excess cancers resulted for the exposure to tobacco smoke. Now after 28 years (nearly two generations) the cancer risk persists despite an absence of exposure to tobacco smoke.

    Indeed, current activists say: “The study, produced by researchers from Harvard University’s School of Public Health, supported the findings of other studies dating back to 2007 and said the risk of cancer is tied to the length of time flight attendants have been on the job.”
    And the LAT story states: “The greater risk of cancer among flight attendants, compared to the general public, comes despite an overall low rate of obesity and smoking among flight attendants, the study found.”

    The risk from onboard smoking was always overstated (if there even was an actual risk). One study Maria Blettner Hajo Zeeb Ingo Langner Gaël P. Hammer Thomas Schafft. Mortality from Cancer and Other Causes among Airline Cabin Attendants in Germany, 1960–1997. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 156, Issue 6, 15 September 2002, Pages 556–565, found “a rather remarkably low SMR for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group.”

    Bottom line, second hand smoke was blamed as a cause of excess cancers among flight attendants and therefore a justification for smoking bans. Now nearly 30 years later the risk of cancers remain despite an absence of smoking. No wonder the antismokers are so intent on forcing bans. They want them in place before their grift is discovered.

    • Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

      The ANTZ propaganda is relentless, the most successful govt mass brainwashing campaign in history, funded with money stolen from smokers. Civil Liberties Australia declined to publish Tony Ward’s excellent and energy dense article disproving the bogus smoking causes lung cancer claim. Response was they have no position for or against tobacco bully controls, stating it is not a civil liberties issue. I replied politely asking why not, given outright lies have been used as fraudulent justification for ever increasing bans, punitive discriminatory taxes, imposing a deadweight regulatory burden, fuelling the black market, corrupting border/revenue officials, and as the Trojan Horse for yet more petty intrusive micro management of personal behaviour. It seems CLA is unconcerned with such threshold ethical principles; the level to which any govt has moral authority or a mandate to dictate personal behaviour without consent. I may be wasting my time as a Board member… 😐

      • Joe L. says:

        It’s unfortunate that CLA declined to publish Tony’s exposé because they believe the discrimination of smokers is not a “civil liberties issue.”

        On this side of the pond, our equivalent organization, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is just as flaccid when it comes to protecting/defending smokers. In the FAQ regarding their stance against “Lifestyle Discrimination,” in which the ACLU states that they believe employers should not be allowed to discriminate against anyone based on lifestyle factors/choices (at the very least they’re fighting against this), the answer I’ve quoted below says everything one needs to know about how much the ACLU is looking out for smokers and business owners who were negatively impacted by smoking bans:

        Q: Isn’t this creating a “civil right” to drink and smoke?

        A: Not at all. The ACLU does not oppose smoking bans in public buildings, in the workplace or in locations where non-smokers may be subjected to secondary smoke. We object only to bans on smoking, drinking, diet and hobbies in a person’s own home.

        • Audrey Silk says:

          Worse yet (if there is such a thing as worse), the ACLU doesn’t even live up to that statement about the homes. I cited it myself when I appealed to them for pro bono representation regarding the HUD lawsuit. They declined. The only “good” thing I could say about them is that they at least answered. Other legal foundations never did.

        • Emily says:

          Wow, Audrey- did the ACLU give any reason at all for declining? I admit I am not surprised. I was more surprised to read in their FAQ that they ostensibly support the right to smoke in one’s own home.

          And yes, many thanks for your efforts!

        • Audrey Silk says:

          If I recall correctly (they phoned, rather than wrote — I suspect that’s more because it leaves no paper trail rather than an effort of being more personal) their reason was “we don’t have enough staff.”

      • Tony says:

        I don’t know anything about the Australian Civil Liberties Union but many thanks for your efforts and hope you manage at least some success with them on this.

        I hope it’s better than the apparent UK equivalent, the ‘National Council for Civil Liberties’ (NCCL) which became ‘Liberty’ in 1989. Patricia Hewitt was General Secretary from 1974 to 1984. She went on to become a Labour MP and then chief health minister by 2006 and although she claimed to be backing the Government’s manifesto pledge for a partial smoking ban, she used debating time to argue for a full ban instead which she then voted for. She then announced huge, last minute, penalty increases. I think the fine on landlords for failing to enforce the ban was increased from £200 to £2000 as a minor formality with no further debate as the law was passed. Nobody believed the ban would be adhered to if the fine had been only £200. I suspect this was one of the many reasons there was so little opposition to it in advance. BTW NCCL was also affiliated with the paedophile group PIE.

        I had no involvement but I know that f2c was advised not to pursue a human rights or civil liberties angle in its attempt to get a judicial review. I suspect Gian Turci and /or Audrey Silk must have been key advisors. Gian often commented that the anti-smoking industry had stitched that route up by claiming that ‘health’ trumps human rights. Unfortunately the f2c lawyers decided to ignore the advice and that was one reason why the attempt collapsed.

        Chakrabarti was one of Hewitt’s successors. I believe f2c wrote to ‘liberty’ in f2c’s early days (2007?). ‘Liberty’ did not even bother replying. As for Chakrabarti, she wrote what is widely regarded as a whitewash report on anti-semitism in the Labour Party and was it seems rewarded with a peerage.

        • Tony says:

          Having said that, I think that my article demolishes the claim that smoking is a major cause of lung cancer and so implicitly destroys the entire anti-smoking edifice including any health case that could possibly hope to trump civil liberties.

        • Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

          Thanks very much for your interesting if perhaps not very encouraging (for those of us discriminated against and robbed by our own governments) replies Joe L and Tony. Civil liberties seems to have a quite flexible definition. My reasonable (in my view, although admit I am becoming almost as fanatical against tax and ban prohibitionists) reply to CLA may sway them, but I won’t hold my breath! I will check when back at work. I also sent a formatted (easy to convert for desktop/online publishing) version of your article, Tony, to Matt Young, a journalist with News Ltd and the Australian Daily Telegraph. Matt is sympathetic to lifestyle control issues, and is one of few in the mainstream media willing to stick his head above the prohibitionist parapet… if he runs with it I will post a link. Thanks again guys – the truth is out there (The Yecch Files with Mouldy and Skulky). 👽

  6. Pingback: The Day That Freedom Died | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.