The terrorist protesters in North Dakota

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

Fascists: The protesters in North Dakota who had tried for the past year to prevent construction of an oil pipeline appeared to spend as much time threatening the families and children of police officers as they did protesting the pipeline.

While protesters were fueling worldwide outrage and fundraising over allegations of police brutality, an aggressive cohort of agitators was terrorizing the families of law-enforcement officers with threats of death, rape and arson. “There were threats made to us, mostly that they were going to come burn down our houses or rape us while our husbands were gone,” said Allison Engelstad, who’s married to Jon Engelstad, a sheriff’s deputy in Morton County, North Dakota.

She had good reason to fear that protesters knew where they lived. The North Dakota State and Local Intelligence Center compiled a 41-page document of social media posts with threats along with photos, names, addresses and contact information for officers involved with the protest. “Every one of these cops has familys [sic] … Make there [sic] family pay,” read one Facebook post.

A live video feed taken from a January protest on the Backwater Bridge includes the voice of an activist shouting, “We’re going to gang-rape,” “Watch your family,” and “We’re going to kill your daughters, your mothers, your fathers, your grandparents, even you!” [emphasis mine]

I think even more revealing is this tidbit from the article:

Figures released March 1 by law enforcement showed that 661 of the 709 arrests involved out-of-state protesters. Of those arrested, 227 had a total of 1,503 previous citations and charges, including domestic violence, child abuse, robbery, burglary, drug possession and driving under the influence.

This was not a grassroots campaign. This protest was staged, and its intent was hostile to America and to the people who live in it. Pay close attention to which politicians align themselves with this protest, because that will reveal to you what they really believe.



  • Ted

    How many of those arrested were actually then tried and convicted? What about the so-called RICO laws? This seems really organized and the crimes and threats seem real enough. Not being a lawyer I don’t understand that law(s) but surely this must come to bear in this situation. Were any of these protesters then extradited?

    This protest crap (my apologies) will continue as long as the governmental authorities fail to prosecute, try and jail if convicted.

    Also sites like FACEBOOK – Twitter etc. that continue to allow these courageous rants and threats to continue should be held to some type of accountability. Free speech – sure. Free violence not so much.

  • Dick Eagleson

    We’ll have to see what the Trump DoJ does – after all the progressive leftovers are combed out of its ranks of course. One hopes for at least a modicum of actual, as opposed to “social,” justice in this case.

    For people who were allegedly all about the environment, the anti-DAPL “protesters” were a notably slovenly lot. Local governments are said to have had to haul out roughly 250 tons of rubbish after the “protesters” departed.

    Save the Earth my arse.

  • Cotour

    Another example of the peaceful utopian Western existence when cultures clash and strategy is embraced out of a perceived necessity for survival over the civilized moral protest position.

    I would imagine that today would be exactly like 400 years ago, push a people too far in their opinion and they will push back and decide that its time to eliminate the perceived threat to their way of life. At that point the superior power decides that the inferior power must be neutralized. This is the definition of conquest.

    Fascists, terrorists, Hambres, black hats, Jihadis etc. its all a matter of perspective. I suspect that if there were not so many eyeballs watching things like this, depending on who is in charge, they would be put up with for just so long……………………………………and then it would end.

    Remember Waco Texas? Clinton and Reno felt justified at some point to make them all disappear, men, women and children. Just a matter of perspective.

  • wayne

    18 U.S.C. § 2101 : US Code – Section 2101: Riots

    (a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent –
    (1) to incite a riot; or
    (2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
    (3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
    (4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph.
    Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

  • pzatchok

    1000 tons of garbage because the protesters couldn’t be bothered to rent dumpsters and the authorities didn’t uphold any local laws about trash collection at gatherings.
    They also had to provide bus tickets to those snowflakes who were left behind because their organizers left them when they went away at the beginning of winter.

    They also had to pay for local towing services to take dozens of vehicles that were left behind stuck in the mud.

    The tribes and protesters have over a dozen more pipeline protest sites around the country they are planning for this year. Whichever one makes the news is where they will concentrate their forces.

  • Cotour

    This to me has the potential to be Fascist in how it might tend to suppress free speech under the cover of “fairness” and “justice”.

    Ah NY, epicenter of the culture of dependency and wealth confiscation and redistribution.

  • Laurie

    We know that protests tend to bring out the lunatics, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay to force development upon the locals, particularly at gunpoint.

  • Cotour

    “force development upon the locals, particularly at gunpoint.”

    There is something called eminent domain that is exercised in the interests of the general public regarding public rights of way and other situations. What makes this more of an issue is the fact that it is being exercised on Indian lands.

  • wodun

    Trump was called a war criminal for saying he would go after the families of terrorists that are trying to exterminate us. What do Democrats have to say about their own members going after the families of their fellow Americans?

    I am a lot more forgiving of our country waging war against people who want us dead than I am of Americans engaging in war crimes against fellow Americans.

  • wodun

    March 17, 2017 at 3:21 pm
    We know that protests tend to bring out the lunatics, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay to force development upon the locals, particularly at gunpoint.

    The implication in your statement is that these actions are outside of the norm when in reality, they are the norm. This is standard operating procedure for Democrats and has been for well over 100 years.

    Also, people engaging in legal activity is hardly forcing something at gunpoint.

  • wodun

    March 17, 2017 at 4:04 pm
    What makes this more of an issue is the fact that it is being exercised on Indian lands.

    Isn’t this happening on private property and public lands?

  • Cotour

    The issue is that it is happening on Indian nation land or in close proximity to it that a failure of the pipe would effect them in a negative way. I assume that would be the argument anyway.

    Being a conquered people the government gave the land by treaty to the Indians who were displaced by the expansion of the United States of America. Does eminent domain exist on “sovereign” Indian land? I think the answer to that question would be, yes.

  • wayne

    It’s one thing to protest, it’s an entirely different thing to utilize terrorism. These people know no restraint.

    Referencing “oil pipelines” and “eminent domain.”
    There are also such things as “utility easement’s,” and “right of ways.”
    Eminent domain is rarely used for pipeline routes in general, but there are always hold-outs, but that is not the norm. It’s not necessary to own the land upon which the pipeline crosses.
    Pipelines are completely unlike, say, the government seizing a neighborhood in Detroit Michigan and giving it to a private company to build an auto plant.
    They have a small footprint, are often buried, and the route can be varied dramatically.

    The more common scenario, at least in the Mid-West;
    More often than not, your Deed already contains provisions for utility right of ways, buried electric/phone, sewer lines, natural gas lines, and oil pipelines, which can range from a 6 inches to 3-4 feet. Depending on your State, you may or may not be entitled to receive compensation for “some thing” crossing your land. It all depends.

  • Cotour

    ” These people know no restraint.”

    They are all strategy. That’s what makes them dangerous, anything in the name of the cause. This is the Leftist mantra. The best of them do it within the halls of power, like the Congress, the Supreme Court and most recently within the office of the president itself for the last eight years.

  • wayne

    Cotour– yes you are correct.
    Tribal lands fall under Federal jurisdiction and it’s often not even required that formal eminent domain proceedings be carried out. Most all of the “taking’s” are administrative edicts. There are a lot of National Parks and Federal Dams comprised of indian land, and it’s not exclusively “100 years ago.”
    Just 2-3 years ago, Obama took over a huge chunk of indian land to create a new National Park– pure administrative action. No Hearing’s required, no right to appeal, and no compensation.

  • LocalFluff

    I advocate ruthless brutality. They won’t be so tough after having been whipped in public. Southern democrats used to know how to do that, only now they should do it based on brain damage rather than skin color. Shouldn’t the anti-lynching law be repealed now before it has its 100th anniversary?

    “- You see? You do bleed the same red blood as all of us. Unite or die now!”

  • Alex

    @LocalFluff said: “I advocate ruthless brutality.” He is right. That is exactly what should be applied. These leftists/communists/liberals/progressivists “protests” will be vaporized as snow in spring sun by application of first real brutal action in order to enforce law (if required by weapons).

  • LocalFluff

    “@LocalFluff said: “I advocate ruthless brutality.” He is right. That is exactly what should be applied.”

    You are spot on right!
    I love you, believe me. That was a tremendous big league endorsement.

    As a society of humanity, we really need to get rid of that violent gang. Across the imagined divide of right and left and whatever race, nation or religion, each sensible individual who wants to have a family and a productive job and some hobby. We all agree on getting rid of those attacking us, don’t we?

    The method used to restore order is maybe debatable. I’d ultimately leave it to the police profession to pick their tools. I suggest ruthless brutality because I think it would have a deterrent bonus effect. One just has to start the aggressive violence all out at an unreasonable level, and next suddenly escalate it to a bloodbath much beyond what anyone thought was possible. Then the gangsters will be terrified (or even better butchered) and ordinary people will be let alone to keep on creating the good society they/we all want to live in.

    I think violence used when upholding basic human rights laws should be not only ruthless, but even unreasonably ruthless. When the enemy is unreasonable, so should we be. And we should escalate the violence at least one step ahead, or rather two steps ahead in order to derange their deranged plans.

  • pzatchok

    The river that the Indians are trying to stop the pipeline from going under is already crossed by several other pipelines. So the risk of leaks is not going to go up significantly.

    Plus that Dakota tribe has a billion dollar trust fund waiting for it to claim on an old court case against the US Corp of Engineers. they built a damn and flooded some of the tribes land accidentally.

    Out of pride the tribe refuses to accept the cash. They do not want ‘paid’ for land they already own and do not want to give up.

    And watch for the new terms the Indians are using to confuse you. Reservation and Traditional Tribal Lands mean two different things.
    Reservation means the ‘compound’ they have been reduced to live on and Traditional Tribal Lands mean all of North America.

  • wodun

    March 18, 2017 at 12:59 pm
    The river that the Indians are trying to stop the pipeline from going under is already crossed by several other pipelines.

    Yup! There is one literally right next to the one being built. Any artifacts would already have been disturbed by the previous construction and sampling of the dirt cleared didn’t turn up any artifacts.

    And watch for the new terms the Indians are using to confuse you. Reservation and Traditional Tribal Lands mean two different things.
    Reservation means the ‘compound’ they have been reduced to live on and Traditional Tribal Lands mean all of North America.

    Yup! Yup! The construction isn’t taking place on the reservation. The Sioux are not even native to the land they now claim as having ancient ties too, although they have lived in the area for several hundred years. But considering that the land has been under the ownership of different people for a large portion of that time frame, even the several hundred years bit is a little misleading.

  • wodun

    March 18, 2017 at 8:10 am
    “@LocalFluff said: “I advocate ruthless brutality.” He is right. That is exactly what should be applied.”

    You are spot on right!
    I love you, believe me. That was a tremendous big league endorsement.

    I hope you guys are just joking around. Brutality isn’t needed. All that is needed is that the law is enforced and Democrats reign in their activist groups.

    I’d ultimately leave it to the police profession to pick their tools.

    The sensible option.

  • Alex

    @Wodun: We are serious about the stuff. Let us make the leftits cry. Shock and awe. Police has a wide range of measures.

  • wayne

    We aren’t at that point, yet.
    Wodun is correct– just enforce some of the laws we have. Those terroristic threats are 5 year felonies alone. Interstate travel to riot is another 5 years, etc. Low hanging fruit. (I imagine Littering on federal-land is a major-league crime as well.)

    I’m not entirely without empathy however, to your general sentiment.
    –Illegal alien’s who get caught making or carrying out terroristic threats/actions– rendition off-shore to sunny Cuba, or to a friendly nameless 3rd-world country who will make them disappear for us in hopes of a better trade deal.)

  • Laurie

    Someday you might find yourself in their shoes (although surely better cleaner and behaved shoes), so be careful what you advocate.

  • LocalFluff

    “I hope you guys are just joking around. Brutality isn’t needed. All that is needed is that the law is enforced and Democrats reign in their activist groups.”

    In an alternative reality that would be really nice!

    But since the islamists and the socialists now use total violence to kill all of us, the only possible option to be able to exist is to exterminate them, isn’t it? There’s no room for negotiation since they are attacking us. So total extermination is the only possible survivable alternative they have left us with. We should immediately make sure to exterminate all of them, kill all islamists and all socialists. We have the guns and all the moral and rational reasons to do it. They made the game an issue of we or them, either all of them die or all of us die. Why wait? No, hit them as hard as possible NOW! And then keep on escalating the violence against them with no end.

    In another alternative reality, if I were president, my first session with the cabinet would order that Jefferson painting put up on this wall, a 20 megaton ground detonation in Mecca within one hour, and PLEASE change the curtains to something that matches my fake hair color for God’s damned sake! You’re dismissed until further orders tomorrow. But I could never become president, because I wouldn’t run on “win win win” but on “kill kill kill”! And the general public in western societies still don’t understand why that is necessary for survival. I’d make an alliance with the environmentalists who also think that too many humans are alive and want to do something about it. The only relevant issue is WHO is allowed to stay alive. And in my world that is no arab. Not a single one. Zero. We have to make a historical example here, Biblical style. That’s the only way to stop the eternal wars and oppression that has destroyed the southern half of the Roman Empire during the last millennia: Kill kill kill’em all!

    Mister president, press that button!

  • Laurie

    Yeah, I drive my wife crazy, too :)

  • Alex

    No way to talk to those people (view video), whose are the new fascists in reality, calling themselves anti-fascist (ANITFA). New US government has to impressive by strength and force! As example for all left liberal western governments, which are supporting ANTIFA in secret.

    This woman has balls, in contrast to many today’s western men.

  • Cotour

    I notice something interesting here in this particular discussion, Localfluff and Alex both are from I believe Europe and both of them promote the most violent reaction to these anarchists / Leftist operators, Indians / Indian advocates.

    They either understand how dangerous these kinds of activities can be based on their knowing their own long history of conquest, violence and subjugation, and / or they just are not aware of how effective applying the already passed reasonable law in America can be.

    Is it one or both? (Strategy = violence and blood……..or……..Morality = reasonably apply reasonable law)

  • Alex

    It is not about Indians, but we both reject in general the pressure, which is enforced by ruling liberal/leftists elite on European (and in case of USA European based) white people in order to press them that we give up our high-standing culture, heritage and ethnicity. We both – viewing what happened in our home countries – are becoming more and more political radicalized by observing the decline of your ancestral homelands. We would like to see that our left and liberal enemies (elite as well their storm troops called Antifa) should also pay price, if possible in person. BTW, there is an overload of morality (all this humanity stuff), which is used as a tool against us right-winger in order to suppress our identity demands and our heritage pride with the objective to replace our lineage by aliens, at most Islamic ones.

  • Max

    Oh my!
    Local fluff, I do not understand your rant. It has no rational objective, not civilized at all. You are thinking as they would think, therefore you become no better than they are, making them justified in their actions. “Kill them before they kill us” The victims become the killers in the cycle continues without end.

    At first I thought you were quoting Hitler in Mein Kampf, or an Iranian fathwah, or the Chinese Redbook.

    Local fluff said: “We should immediately make sure to exterminate all of them, kill all islamists and all socialists. We have the guns and all the moral and rational reasons to do it. They made the game an issue of we or them, either all of them die or all of us die.”

    One part of a long rant that demonstrates The thought process in how genocides take place.
    Hitler blamed the gypsies and the Jews, and how the world would be a better place if all dark skin people were killed to solve the problem of racism. Why? Because he could, “might makes right”. Survival of the fittest. A very animalistic view in a civilized world.
    His approach to the problem was not unique, like your declaration, it’s been tried before.
    Russia killed the ruling class, and all the rich to confiscate their wealth to make it a better world. Did it work? And when they killed the rebellious farmers in the worlds bread basket because they were a problem, did the 20 million dead fix it?
    When China wanted to solidify the new communist government, the people had their traditions and did not want to change. 50 million troublemakers were starved to death. (New information reveals the number to be closer to 100 million)
    Like China and Russia, Pole Pot, of the “killing fields,” thought his troubles would go away if he just killed all the university teachers and intellectuals. 2 million died and some for no other reason then they wore glasses and they looked like an intellectual.
    Fidel Castro killed all those who opposed him. Is that the world you wish to live in? In constant fear? Being part of the “we”, until someone sees you frown during a speech and suddenly you become one of “them” and need to be eliminated…

    Killing them all will never stop until you are the only one left. “We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us”

    Do we send in the drones to kill them all? Whenever there is a riot we blow them away? And if they show up to a wedding, or a funeral, are you justified that everyone there are guilty by association and are just collateral damage? Then you are in agreement with Obama! The ends justify the means, because I can, who’s gonna stop me, might makes right. One hand washes another as the blood of your victims swirl down the sink into the sewer of history.
    The examples I could name go back every generation for thousands of years to some of the greatest butchers of history like Genghis Khan. “Wars without end or purpose”

    A wise man once said, “do you want to destroy an enemy forever? Then make him your friend”.
    Capitalism has united more of the world, and people’s within nations, for a common cause, than any other system in history.
    Humans have common needs and common goals. By working together, each doing our own part, can contribute “by choice” to the whole in TRADE. In an exchange of goods, services, ideas. All these things serve to bring us closer together for the simple reason that people are more alike than different. Just because those who are the most ruthless rise to power does not mean the people of the same race should be tainted by his actions, or the actions of demented religious fanatics. (This goes for social Democrats as well)
    It’s not that power corrupts, power attracts the corruptible. This is why a new constitution would never work. In the United States, all those entrusted with power “from the people” take an oath to the Constitution. (Military, police, elected representatives) If they do not keep their oath, do we throw away the Constitution and the law?
    What makes anyone think politicians in power will obey a new constitution if enacted? Will a new, unfamiliar constitution that is “thousands of pages long” suddenly cause politicians to be moral?… “Power corrupts”
    The unintended consequences of the new constitution would be to release every moral person in the country from their oath. That which binds our country together will be there no longer. It would be every man for himself, and justice would flow from a barrel of a gun…

    The subject matter is what to do with the lawless who riot, make threats, damage property, and do unacceptable behavior.
    Arrest those who are caught in the act, and charge them with a crime that is already on the books for just this reason. Follow the law, for this is how civilization works. It is fortunate that technology can identify all those involved in such actions, even if their faces are covered. Cameras and drones can be used to separate the anarchists and troublemakers from those who are peacefully protesting under their constitutional right.
    By enforcing the rules, everyone has a level playing ground on which to act according to their freedom without fear, or miss trust allowing the masses to be happy, and to trade.
    A system that works is coveted by those who have a system that does not work. They will adopt a working system without force. They will do so on their own terms for their own needs. Their country will be prosperous and join the prosperous world as an equal. No need for death and destruction…
    If those countries choose to stay in the dark ages and ignorant in the information world, then they will eat their own and destroy themselves without your help. Trump is right to contain those who would do violence. Do not allow the export of a way of life that has known no peace. They will join the rest of the world when they’re ready, and the world will be stronger for it when we act with common goals.

  • wayne

    I’m intrigued by your comment:
    “What makes anyone think politicians in power will obey a new constitution if enacted?”
    –If you referencing an Article 5 Convention of States, it’s a Convention of States and not a Constitutional Convention.
    Reference Article 5, section 2.
    That was specifically inserted for the reason the separate & sovereign States of the Union would never have ratified the Constitution without the inherent ability to restrain the Federal government–which only exists because of the States. The Federal government is a creature of the States, not the other way around.
    We believe in Federalism, or don’t we?

    Referencing the destruction of one’s enemies–

    I already consider the United States to be in WW-3; the Nor-coms threaten our destruction on a daily basis, same with the Persians.
    I have no problem pre-emptively striking either one with nuclear weapons or VX nerve-gas, and inflicting sufficient casualties and destroying all their infrastructure’ to the extent their existence poses no threat.
    I don’t want their land or their resources– I just want them gone & their threat eliminated forever and always, by whatever means necessary.
    I would put forth the proposition– if one is not prepared to kill sufficient numbers of ones enemies, one is not prepared to kill any of them.
    They die, we live.
    Don’t want to “co-exist” with my enemies or “make a deal with them,” I want them dead.

  • wayne

    Brief primer on Article 5

  • wayne

    Texas Governor Abbott Declares Convention of States an Emergency Item for the Texas Legislature in 2017

  • Orion314

    as I’ve posted previously, the sheeple like snowflakes don’t have the stomach for a fight, {unless you wear a Trump hat]
    We are right where we were at circa 1940, a growing pacifist movement. All the time, our enemies sharpen their knives and got us lined up in the crosshairs. Along with MOGUL, it’s obvious that an attack on US soil is not a question of IF, merely WHEN. Stay out of the big shitties, or a , citys. No doubt 9-11 will pale by comparison when the other shoe drops. Nothing new in my post, just a revisit.

  • Max

    Wayne, I agree with your first statement that you posted in this thread. The rule of law should be observed, enforced and maintained. Only in this way do we keep our civilization.

    I understand that the convention of the states is to propose new amendments to the constitution to be ratified by the states.
    Utah, just recently, authorized it’s participation in the process by one vote. It is interesting that it was the rhino Republicans and Democrats who voted for it. Did ideas such as term limits and balance budget come up? Yes, and so did statements like making sure that someone like Trump is never able to run again, and to fix the negative liberties that are in our current constitution That Obama spoke of. The right of gun ownership only for the state and militia and not the individual was commented on as well.

    I was worried when the man, who is over the committee, reported live on local radio that the conditions and rules that they took months arranging and debating, that they all would meet under, came back from the first meeting last fall to say that the first act in official committee… Was to suspend the rules!

    Beware of people with good intentions.

    I remember when oral hatch proposed a flagburning amendment. I am as patriotic as anyone else I know. I was opposed this amendment.
    It did not fix the national debt, did not take care of the veterans or the elderly, did not lower taxes, or defeat our enemies, the only thing that constitutional amendment would do is make us feel good about ourselves. Not to mention it was not enforceable. They could not prevent a child from drawing a picture of the flag ending up in the garbage, or the little flags on parade routes being thrown in the garbage, and it had no provision for the scouts burning the retired flags in proper ceremony. In fact, they had no identification for what an official flag looks like. The gold fringe around a federal flag, for example, is not a proper flag. The problems come in when the federal government tries to enforce what you do with your own property. What seems so simple, is not.
    The language in the amendment also had unintended consequences which I’m sure was not overlooked. It says “desecration of the flag will not be permitted”. You cannot desecrate an object unless it was first consecrated. This is a religious term, and words have meaning especially when placed in the constitution. The supreme court would have to rule that the flag is now a religious icon and therefore the formation of a federal religion.
    This may seem as a stretch, but look what’s going on now with the judges. a Hawaiian judge has ruled that immigrants have constitutional rights? (has the world gone crazy?) It seems to me that they have representation without taxation… The only thing you need for constitutional rights is to be breathing? (Obviously there’s no rights for the unborn.)
    The convention of the states will begin for all the right reasons, and then with the wrong people in charge, it will go sideways. There’s already talk from California to change the rules to allow the state to vote by population there by giving them dominance over what is proposed. In the end, you won’t be able to know what’s in it, untell you vote for it…

    I would also point out an observation that we are no longer under the constitution as it was intended. The northern free Republic’s “unified”under a central government (freely gave up their independence) to go to war with the confederate of southern states which had already succeeded from the union. The South lost and was conquered. They were not beaten, taught a lesson, they were in the “rules of war” CONQUERED with all its intended meaning. All of the south and the territories associated with the south were under federal rule from then on. Where land that was held by states and private ownership before The civil war still remain so. The land held by territories of future states do not have possession or control over most of the property inside there republic.
    E PLURIBUS UNUM Is a statement of fact.

  • Laurie

    Preemption isn’t the answer.

    The most irrefutable logic is weak in the face of force – our weapons have made us callous and lazy when it comes to working out our problems. Instead, it is easier to “kill ’em all and let God sort it out” and then decide we’re God along the way.

    This site is, principally, a space news site. I can’t imagine this human race ever planting itself on other worlds, can you?

  • Edward

    Max wrote: “All of the south and the territories associated with the south were under federal rule from then on.

    Yet another reason for a Convention of the States: getting the power that the states are supposed to have out of the hands of the usurping National Government and back into the hands of the states.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *