NC Renegade Videos and Links

Hand Signals

  Follow NCRenegade on Twitter

NC Renegade YouTube Channel

Alan Kay’s YouTube Channel

Posted in Editorial | Comments Off on NC Renegade Videos and Links

Food for Thought

Posted in Editorial | Leave a comment


Posted in Domestic Enemies, Editorial | Leave a comment

Do You See What Is Happening?

There are several points made at the end of this video. Do you feel like a second class citizen? Do you see a two-tiered justice system? Do you watch what you say (and think) because of being politically correct? Is being politically correct just another word for submission?

David DeGerolamo

h/t WRSA

Posted in Civil Unrest, Domestic Enemies, Editorial, Immigration, Radical Islam | 6 Comments

I Have Been Accused of Five

Posted in Editorial | 1 Comment

I vote NEITHER … serve ’em up with gravy …

Which turkey should President Trump pardon in this year’s National Thanksgiving Turkey Pardoning Ceremony?*

  • Drumstick 
    Drumstick                                         … AKA McConnell
  • Wishbone 
    Wishbone                                           … AKA Ryan
Posted in Editorial | 3 Comments

The Friendly Faces of Fascism, by Robert Gore

Like flies drawn to steaming manure, tycoons are drawn to politics and government, all in the interests of a better world, of course.

There are two modes of human interaction: voluntary and involuntary. The symbol of the former is the market; the symbol of the latter is government. Historically, the pendulum has swung back and forth. Since the early 1900s the pendulum has swung towards government and the involuntary. Humanity’s future hinges on whether or not it will swing back. Ominously, many of the biggest beneficiaries of voluntary free choice are ideologically opposed to it.

It may seem paradoxical that Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Tim Cook, among others, build fortunes on the voluntary choices of billions of customers, then join forces with those aligned against voluntary choice. Silicon Valley used to be almost a libertarian outpost, now it’s a bastion of statism. However, there are skewed rationales for it, lodged in the nature of government and business in the 21st century, psychology, and historical precedent.

Government has become so big and all-pervasive that once a business reaches a certain size, it’s going to run into the behemoth blob. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft are huge, and aside from Apple, they dominate their markets. (Apple had a little under 15 percent of the smart phone market in the first quarter of 2017). Computers and the internet are at the heart of the national security state, and Facebook, Google, Apple, and Microsoft are the heart of social media, search, smartphones, communications, and business computing. Along with Amazon, they all have significant roles in cloud data storage. In its voracious quest for information with which to track, blackmail, and subjugate the citizenry, it was inevitable the government would turn to these treasure troves.


Posted in Editorial | Leave a comment

Many Good Questions but No Good Answers

Posted in Editorial | 1 Comment

Practical Efficiency and the Death of the US

Today, we see that justice is completely coopted by politics, a condition no republic can tolerate, but that is very apparent, even necessary, in a democracy. Is this why the leftists continue to insist that America is a “democracy?” It is not, but the United States is constantly referred to by senators and representatives as such.

A republic depends on the deliberation of competent individuals to write whatever laws are called for by the conditions of society, not at the whim of the mob. A democracy is, by definition, a mob demanding laws by popular whim, it is a very unruly and dangerous thing.

This is what America suffers from today. Popular television shows presented as “the news” stir up public outrage at some condition, true or not (most often untrue), but sensational and lending itself to irrational and emotional law-making. That impulse is supposed to be tempered by rational and deliberate individuals elected by those in their community and knowledgeable of their character and ability to be discerning.


Posted in Editorial | Leave a comment

A Facebook Thread on the Judiciary

William M. Nix The judiciary is quietly being changed. That is great for the future.

David DeGerolamo The judiciary will never recover from Marbury v. Madison. Too bad Jefferson was not present for writing the Constitution. He would have been able to add his provision for Congress to remove a Supreme Court judge. He warned us about this genie getting out of the bottle.

William M. Nix What does Article III of the Constitution say regarding the tenure of a court member?

David DeGerolamo What is your definition of “good behavior”? Jefferson wanted a mechanism in place where Congress would be able to remove a sitting Supreme Court Justice with a vote.
William M. Nix Since the Congress is the only group allowed to create laws in our Republican form of government, they have the authority to remove any justice they see fit in issuing an opinion that is not specifically stated in the law as written. Period! Congress over the years has subrogated their responsibility for properly defining laws that they know would not pass public muster and leave it to the court to take the hit. It is a self serving cowards way out. Both parties are responsible and share equal blame. These people are appointed and approved, not elected. The ACA is I prime example of what I am referring to. As written it was illegal but the court rewrote it and redefined it to make it fit within some pretty strict standards mandated by the Constitution.

David DeGerolamo Diane Rufino Do you want to explain Marbury v. Madison.

Diane Rufino David DeGerolamo The explanation doesn’t have to reach to the Marbury decision. It is explained by the Separation of Powers doctrine. Each branch is separate and each provides checks. Although we call them co-equal branches of government, that wasn’t the original intent. The Judiciary was expected to be the least important, only empowered to render an “opinion.” It was not the intent for the Court to have absolute dominion over the legislative and executive branches and over the States.

Diane Rufino The only opportunity for Congress to get rid of justices is by using the impeachment option.

David DeGerolamo So how do we stop activist judges from making laws?
Diane Rufino The Congress re-legislates around the decision.

David DeGerolamo Like Obamacare?

Diane Rufino The Supreme Court SHOULD have struck the ACA down, and in the opinion offer that had the law been written as being supported by a built-in tax. Then if Congress really wanted a healthcare bill characterized for the American people as a tax than it could have redrafted the law as such and put it to a vote.
David DeGerolamo The consequences of being able to blackmail the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Diane Rufino But to your point, David. It was in the Marbury v. Madison decision when Chief Justice John Marshall claimed that extreme power for the Supreme Court. That decision said that when the Supreme Court renders its opinion, it necessarily will decide WHAT the Constitution means. A law that is challenged for constitutionality will either be upheld or struck down – and the Supreme Court will make that decision. And that decision is binding on the parties – meaning the other branches of government, the States, and the parties to the lawsuit. The question is,who watches the watchers? We see everyday, how hard it is for something to come out of Congress. A final bill looks hardly like the initial bill. And then there is the threat that the President won’t sign it. Or that he will sign it with an executive order directing that part of the bill not be enforced because he questions its constitutionality. And then after that, Congress can expect legal challenges. Lots of checks and balances, built into the system and by the nature of our political system. Same with the President. We are watching that play out right now. Congress is frustrating him with phony charges and a special prosecutor is investigating him and liberal circuit courts are blocking his lawful executive orders. What are the meaningful checks on the justices of the Supreme Court? Who watches the watchers? There is impeachment, but it has never been used effectively (Jefferson came closest to actually impeaching someone from the bench, Samuel Chase).

Diane Rufino Sorry I’m responding late. Anyway, to continue: Read the wording of Article III of the Constitution (The Judiciary). At the same time, keep in mind the type of law that governs the meaning and intent of the Constitution — Contract Law. 

Contract interpretation. It begins by asking whether a valid ccntract (a binding understanding of responsibilities and burdens for each party) has been entered into and then, by determining WHAT the parties in fact agreed to. That is where the interpretation comes in. Only on those terms and meanings that the parties legitimately understood at the time the agreement was signed can be enforced against them. Think of us and mortgage agreements, or a contract to purchase a car. At the time the Constitution was signed, we have a few primary and contemporaneous documents that the States relied on in their decision to ratify or not. These documents are the Notes of the debates from the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 (although written notes weren’t available, but commentary was), discussions and debates from the State Ratifying Conventions (you should read these !!0, the Anti-Federalist Papers (these letters pointed out the weaknesses and the skepticism of the new Constitution, which caused the potential delegates to the State Ratifying Convention to side against ratification); and the Federalist Papers (the responses to the anti-Federalist Papers, and hence the most powerful of ASSURANCES as to what the terms and provisions of the Constitution really mean and what their intentions are). The Supreme Court hardly ever consults these primary documents. Why? Because they don’t care what the Constitution ACTUALLY means. In a sense, there is probably never a Supreme Court case where justices, as a body, truly “interpret” the Constitution before rendering an opinion. The court has fully abdicated its sole role – to interpret the Constitution (and laws made pursuant to it). So, back to Article III — It says nothing about the Supreme Court being the final word on the meaning and intent of the Constitution or having final binding authority. And if you read the Federalist Papers (written by Alexander Hamilton) that explain the Judiciary (No. 78 to start), you will see that is indeed the case, and clearly, the intent. In light of this, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had argued that the states must have the final word because the Constitution had not expressly established an ultimate authority on constitutional matters. On this rested their rightful remedies of Nullification and Interposition, to resist the government on its overreach and unconstitutional action. But we know the true nature of any branch of the federal government – which the Supreme Court certainly is. Every branch has allegiance first and foremost to the federal government and without a doubt, puts its interests first. The natural tendency is to disregard limits to its power and to concentrate more and more power in the hands of the federal government. And if you doubt this, look how quickly they started doing so. The first court was seated in 1789 (Judiciary Act of 1789). In 1801, Marbury v. Madison was decided (giving full supremacy to the Supreme Court, and federal courts of last review – taking enormous powers away from the States), and in 1819, Marshall handed down the McCulloch v. Maryland decision (which officially changed the meaning of the “Necessary and Proper” Clause to “anything convenient that the government sees fit” Clause, which profoundly enlarged the powers of government to essentially remove limits to its powers in Article I, Section 8). The list goes on. The Court wasted no time to dismantle the “Constitution of limited powers.” Marshall was so controlling that he required that only HE write the opinion of the Court. The other justices could not write their own opinions, explanations, dissents, etc.

Now, both Hamilton and Madison each mentioned that allegations that a federal law is unconstitutional should not be made only by a state legislature. They explained that if a court decision supported that allegation, it would have more merit. For example, in Madison’s Virginia Report of 1800 (in which he articulated Nullification and explained the natural and legitimate basis for that doctrine), he acknowledged that states can declare federal laws unconstitutional; but the declaration would have no legal effect unless the courts agreed. He wrote: State “declarations … are expressions of opinion, (intended only for) exciting reflection. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect.” But he wasn’t talking about the federal Supreme Court. He was talking about state courts. State courts have the states’ interests in mind. To show how controlling the Supreme Court has become (and ambitious for the federal government), look at the Aaron v. Cooper decision of 1958. In that decision, the Supreme Court said that Nullification is NOT legitimate and that States have NO legal right to oppose a decision handed down by the Court. (Arkansas attempted to frustrate the Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which it articulated was an unconstitutional decision based on a flawed interpretation of the Constitution). Nullification, like secession is a legal doctrine that supersedes the Constitution. Just like the individual’s inalienable right to Life supersedes the Constitution (meaning that a person never surrenders his right to life and hence the government never has any legitimate authority in that area), the States have innate rights, under the natural rights of self-determination and self-preservation, to Nullification and Secession which can never be surrendered. Hence they supersede anything in the Constitution. If these doctrines are not in the Constitution, the Court has no authority to render an opinion on them.

Diane Rufino Mr. Nix, I write a lot about Nullification. If you are interested in the topic, I have a blogsite –
Posted in Editorial, Education | Leave a comment

If This Is True, There Is Hope

What I know is that there are over 1000 sealed indictments pending in the US justice system. I also know that the corruption, immorality and tyranny running rampant in the halls of all government in this country have destroyed us. What has been destroyed will be rebuilt. The question is how it will be rebuilt.

What I hope is that the rumors concerning the drafting of Trump by the military to run for President to destroy the Deep State are true. As well as the rumors concerning the real reason behind the ASEAN summit. If the information below is true, then we are at the final crossroad. The government will have two choices: destroy the Deep State or submit to it. If the government does not prosecute the traitors in the government now, there is no hope for our freedom.

However, IF the Deep State is overthrown, the world may be on the cusp of a second Renaissance. A new financial system backed by gold is rumored to be in the works and its implementation was finalized at the ASEAN summit (gold was up $15.10 on 11/17/17). The real hope  for our freedom is one that most people do not understand: the cost of energy. Cheap or free energy equates to freedom. The higher the cost of energy, the less freedom we have. A corollary to this also pertains to health care. The classifications of civilization are also based on energy. There are more rumors concerning some energy breakthroughs that will provide free energy to the world.

At this point, we have to watch to see if the rumors of wars are true or the rumors of hope. If the evil that has usurped our government can be eradicated, we will have hope. Let justice be swift and not forgotten by our future generations.

David DeGerolamo


FBI Informant Has Video Of Russian Agents With Briefcases Of Bribe Money In Clinton-Uranium Scandal

An undercover FBI informant in the Russian nuclear industry who was made to sign an “illegal NDA” by former AG Loretta Lynch, claims to have video evidence showing Russian agents with briefcases full of bribe money related to the controversial Uranium One deal – according to The Hill investigative journalist John Solomon and Circa‘s Sara Carter.

The informant, whose identity was revealed by Reuters as William D. Campbell, will testify before congress next week after the NDA which carried the threat of prison time was lifted. Campbell, originally misidentifed by Reuters as a lobbyist is actually a nuclear industry consultant who is currently battling cancer.

As previously reported, Campbell was deeply embedded in the Russian nuclear industry where he gathered extensive evidence of a racketeering scheme involving bribes and kickbacks.


Posted in Civil Unrest, Domestic Enemies, Editorial | 2 Comments

Sandra Solomon on the Koran as hate literature

Posted in Editorial, Radical Islam | Leave a comment

Reveille in America


First Call, Americans. Out of your bunks. For a good portion of you out there, a year ago you went to sleep. That attitude driven by a very real fear of government out of control over eight years produced diamonds. For many, it meant getting serious about preparing yourselves, family and neighborhoods for uncertain times. And then, you went to sleep. Your guy got in, and he’d make it all right. Everything would be fixed, time to rejoice and rest on those laurels. He’ll undo all the wrongs and the lever pullers of power would truly yield to vox populi. And then, you went to sleep.

While you were sleeping a lot went on. The Left in America, pushed into a corner, has armed up. Keep telling yourself you’re better…after all, it’s entertaining to watch a kid posture in front of a camera with a half-cocked Nagant. Keep in mind, that same kid has all the fire you had 2008-2016, except that he’s half your age and has none of the aversion to violence that you do. That’s right. He has no social capital; no mortgage, no three kids and an SUV. All he has is a lifetime of debt and little hope for any future. Socialist revolution seems good, because after all, the same institution which holds the keys to history groomed him.


h/t WRSA

Posted in Editorial | Leave a comment

T.L. Davis: The Dangerous Lies of Omission

What are lies of omission? A lie of omission took place during the Uranium One deal forged with the Russian nuclear energy agency Rosatom, to access 20% of America’s uranium production. It was the responsibility of the FBI to investigate the Canadian company and ensure that if there was any misconduct committed by Uranium One that it would be revealed before the committee signed off on the deal. The lie was that Uranium One did nothing illegal or unethical in securing the uranium deal, a lie omitted by the FBI, because a number of the people and agencies that would decide to let the deal go through had been bought off or pressured in advance. Hillary Clinton said that her participation was of little consequence, because many other agencies were involved and it was basically a rubber stamp to what had already been decided. That lie of omission had to deal with the fact that everyone necessary to approve the deal had already been bought off or otherwise pressured to let the deal go through including Hillary Clinton.


Posted in Editorial | Leave a comment

Foreshadowing How to Drain the Swamp?

The mathematical calculation would be 3298 sealed indictments in the 10 day period. If this is the first step in draining the swamp, people must realize that the Deep State will counter attack.

David DeGerolamo

h/t Brenda M

Posted in Domestic Enemies, Editorial | Leave a comment

Israel on high alert, deploys Iron Dome batteries against missile attack

Israel remained on high alert Tuesday, Nov. 14, after deploying Iron Dome batteries in the center of the country as well as the south, against threatened Jihad Islami and Hamas missile attacks on towns in southern and central Israel.

Jihad has vowed to avenge the destruction of the tunnel it excavated between Khan Younis and the Israeli village of Kissoufim, and the deaths of 12 of its operatives who were trapped inside. However, despite a stream of oral threats, it appears to have decided to hold its fire for now. According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, this could change depending on whether the IDF initiates further action. Then, both Jihad and Hamas would make good on their threats.


Posted in Editorial | Leave a comment