Voices from Russia

Tuesday, 30 June 2015

Zakharchenko Introduced Standards of Personal Accountability for Local Officials



Today, DNR Chairman of the Government A V Zakharchenko issued a decree that local officials in DNR city and raion administrations will be personally responsible for the sociopolitical situation in their jurisdictions. The document (entitled On the Prevention of Political and Social Conflict) stated:

The heads of city and raion administrations are personally responsible for ensuring positive political, social, and economic stability in the territory entrusted to them. Connected with the need to prevent possible political and social conflict in the DNR, we require leading elements in all municipal and raion administrations to maintain this positive political, social and economic stability. We require all leadership elements to take prompt and prudent action to prevent political and social conflicts and economic problems in the territory entrusted to them.

This decree of the DNR Chairman entered into force on the date of signing, 27 June 2015.

30 June 2015

DAN Donetsk News Agency



Saturday, 9 March 2013

9 March 2013. You Can’t Make Up Shit Like This… Gun Nutter Governor in South Dakota Signs Bill Authorising Armed Guards in Schools… WHAT A MAROON!

MFP Image Format


On Friday, CNN reported that South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed a controversial bill that allows school boards in the mostly-rural state to let school employees, hired security personnel, or volunteers carry guns in schools. Under the new law, which comes into effect on 1 July, school boards will be able to establish school sentinel programmes “to secure or enhance the deterrence of physical threat and defence of the school, its students, its staff, and members of the public on the school premises against violent attack”. All “sentinels” will have to pass a weapons training course similar to the one designed for South Dakota law enforcement officers.

The move came in the wake of a brutal shooting at a school in Connecticut in December last year that left 20 young children and 6 adult staff dead. It also reflects a deep divide between tough gun control advocates, including US President Barack Obama, and gun rights supporters backed by the powerful the National Rifle Association. Recently, Obama called for a ban on military-style assault weapons, a limit on the number of rounds in individual magazine clips, and a comprehensive background check and database for all gun buyers in the nation.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees American citizens the “right to bear arms”. However, the historical and societal interpretation of those words is at the heart of the impassioned debate about guns in the USA today. Gun control advocates argue the Founding Fathers who drafted the Constitution and other documents didn’t necessarily mean that all citizens have the right to bear any kind of arms and have access to any amount of ammunition at any time and in any context. Gun rights supporters say the president’s proposals are unconstitutional and a violation of citizens’ rights.

8 March 2013



Editor’s Note:

Let’s take a look at the text of the Second Amendment:

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.

Hmm… the “right” to bear arms is linked indissolubly with “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”. That means that arms-bearing and militia membership go hand-in-hand. One could argue, using “strict constructivist” guidelines, that the only people who have an untrammelled right to bear arms are those who are members of a recognised federal or state military reserve unit (such IS the modern incarnation of a “militia”, after all). There is no “right” to have guns because one “wants to own them”… nor is there a right to own guns to “oppose a tyrannical government”. The only right granted by the US Constitution is that since guns are necessary to an efficient militia for the common defence, citizens shall have the right to own them. The wording of the Amendment does NOT confer an unrestricted or unrestrained right to own weapons… that is crucial to the intent of the Founders… do note that the clause concerning a militia comes first, implying that it trumps the later (subordinate) clause. This could mean that the government could ban handgun ownership, as handguns are militarily useless.

Strict construction requires a judge to apply the text only as it is. Look at the Second Amendment… it makes explicit mention of a “militia”, and that such a militia is “necessary” for the defence of the state. Therefore, strict construction, which is beloved of the Troglodyte Right, requires judges to strike down permissive gun ownership laws. In short, all pro-gun nutter judges are actually “activist jurists”, reading meaning into the Amendment that isn’t there. In fact, since there are well-regulated and legally-established military reserve units, with appropriate stored weapons and munitions, strict construction would lead one to the inescapable conclusion that the government could (and, indeed, MUST) ban most private-ownership of weapons (with the possible exception of registered hunters), as the already-provided-for military reserve is the modern “well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”. There’s no way around it. The wording of the Amendment is clear; it isn’t at all vague or incoherent. The maintenance of an organised militia force and arms-bearing by citizens go hand-in-hand. The NRA and Governor Daugaard are chock fulla shit. They’ve invented a “right” that the Founders never intended to confer.

Isn’t it funny when the Righties bite their own arse? They can’t get around it without using the methods and arguments of “activists”. Reflect on this… they’re so stupid and dense that they can’t see the obvious truth in the Second Amendment. Do you really want such sorts in charge of the country? I don’t… and I’m not alone…


Sunday, 22 January 2012

22 January 2012. The “Statement” by the OCA Holy Synod on Storheim is Wicked and Beyond the Pale… The Sleazy SOBs Not Only Did the Pontius Pilate Routine in Public, They Refused to Offer Prayers for the Poor Bastard…


Read this.

Note this:

While taking an active interest in the proceedings, the OCA is not a party to the criminal action and has no information to impart regarding trial progress.  

I read this yesterday… I had to walk away from it all. It’s un-bloody-believable. Can you believe the above arrogant POS statement? “The OCA is not a party to the criminal action”… tell that to the Roman Catholic Church! They’ve paid out GAZILLIONS because the courts said that they WERE “parties to the criminal action”. Furthermore, they know the whole megillah on the court process; they simply refuse to share it. Isn’t this all too familiar? This sounds like the Iliff and Koumentakos cases. Remember how in the latter action, the OCA claimed with a straight face that it wasn’t liable, that Velencia was only their contractor? Trust me, the RCs would’ve loved it if that were a real legal principle. They’ve paid out TONS of cash… because that isn’t so. It smells like a crank court and a friendly judge… probably a pal of Velencia’s mouthpiece, Howard Needle, a long-time Democratic Party operative in Maryland (he was a delegate to a state constitutional convention, a typical reward for a political “button man”). In this case, the OCA is facing a professional Crown attorney… not a political fixer mouthpiece or a sleazy politico DA (the Canadian system keeps prosecution out of the hands of political hacks).

In short, these sleazy weasels washed their hands in public. “We’re not to blame! We’re not liable! We did nothing wrong! We admit nothing!” They had the obligation to state, “Archbishop Seraphim Storheim’s case was heard by Provincial Court Judge Pollack, who ordered it forward for prosecution”. THAT is what honest people do. That’s a matter of public record and knowledge. It proves again, that Ginny Nieuwsma is a drooling and obsequious incompetent hack flack. If she had googled “Seraphim Storheim”, she would have had the same information that I have. No doubt, she did, kids… and she REFUSES to post the truth. Reflect on that.

Ponder this… this bunch calls itself a Synod of Bishops… not once did they say, “No matter what, Seraphim Storheim’s a Christian, and we ask you to pray for him, Judge Pollack, the Crown Attorney, Mr Gindin, and all others involved in this case. That’s our duty and obligation”. Instead, we got, “the OCA is not a party to the criminal action and has no information to impart regarding trial progress”. This is too much of a muchness… just when I think that the OCA apparat’s plumbed the depths… I needn’t go on; you know what I mean.

I thought that my estimation of the OCA/ROCOR First Families couldn’t sink lower… I was wrong. For a Synod of Bishops not to mention prayer in its communication was unforgivable. These jabronies scream for “respect” and demand that we fork over ten percent of our earnings to them. After this… NEVER. God help me, but I wouldn’t give Fathausen or Lyonyo one single dime. If they can’t pray for one of their own facing trial because they’re afraid of the legal fallout, they’re lower than Tin Tabernacle Sectarians… in fact, the lowest Khlyst-like Pentecostalist is higher than they are. They’re arrant unbelievers…

God help us all.

Barbara-Marie Drezhlo

Sunday 22 January 2012

Albany NY

Blog at WordPress.com.