Category Archives: Tyranny

Friday Follies for April 18, 2014

Posted on by

Today is Good Friday and many across the country stop, reflect and pray in gratitude for the events that occurred nearly 2,000 years ago. This will be a busy weekend for many of us, Mrs. Crucis and I included. We wish you all a great Good Friday and Easter.

***

The US is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to Russia’s military expansion in Eastern Europe. Putin all but admitted the recent events in the Crimea was conceived and led by Russia and manned by Russian troops. That placed Obama in a quandary. How can he oppose his buddy, Vlad?

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fx27UjodyWs/UE24f8ROkxI/AAAAAAAAAB0/pLkv6Omx2ks/w426-h427/STS-135_final_flyaround_of_ISS_1.jpg

International Space Station (ISS).

Sanctions? Not a good idea. Why? Russia is our only means of access to the International Space Station. We must use Russia because Obama has defunded NASA and the United States no longer has manned space flight capability. The Shuttles are gone to museums or scrapped and NASA has no plans for replacements. How can we have sanctions when we must pay Vlad half-a-Billion dollars for access to the ISS?

[Spacing out on sanctions – WaPo: “NASA recently renewed a contract that allows Russia to ferry U.S. astronauts to the International Space Station. The U.S. is, essentially, cutting Russia a $457.9 million check for its services — six seats on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft, training and launch prep, landing and crew rescue and limited cargo delivery to and from the International Space Station. This contract also adds additional support at the Russian launch site.”]—FOXNewsletter, April 18, 2014.

Way to go, Obama!

***

When you want to know who is behind some act, watch and see who squeals the loudest. In the Bundy v. BLM controversy, it appears to be Harry Reid. Interviewed about the issue, Harry Reid called the Bundys and others, “Domestic Terrorists.” Seems to me, the act of the BLM and the Feds fit that description more than the Bundys and their supporters.

Reid called the Bundys lawbreakers. It appears hypocritical to me for Harry Reid to protest others for ignoring federal law when he has and does the same. Regardless, the controversy continues and no one believes it is over.

‘Patriot Party’ gathers at Bundy’s Nevada ranch, Reid deems them ‘domestic terrorists’

By Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times, Updated: 10:21 a.m. on Friday, April 18, 2014

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called supporters of rancher Cliven Bundy “domestic terrorists” Thursday, turning up the rhetorical heat on the already tense situation at the Nevada cattle operation.

“Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Mr. Reid in remarks at a luncheon, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which sponsored the event. “… I repeat: What went on up there was domestic terrorism.”

…

Mr. Bundy stopped paying to graze his cattle on federal property 21 years ago after the land was declared habitat for the desert tortoise and he was ordered to reduce his herd from roughly 900 to 150 head of cattle.

In August, however, the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center announced that it would begin euthanizing half of the 1,400 tortoises at its facility as a result of federal budget cuts. BLM officials have emphasized that healthy tortoises will be relocated and not euthanized.

***

In my digital travels this morning, I found this piece that best describes the GOP establishment in Washington, DC, specifically Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and many others.

The Parable of the Pharisee Conservative

By on 4.17.14 | 11:58AM

I thank thee Lord that I am not like those other conservatives. 

Those xenophobes, nativists, obsessives about border security, drinkers of tea, and other bitter enders.

For I support comprehensive immigration reform.

I sup with the lords of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the chiefs of the AFL-CIO, and the titans of Silicon Valley.

I am welcomed at the editorial houses of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal.

I receiveith gold from George Soros, Bill Marriott and Mark Zuckerberg, and praise from the mainstream media, the Gang of Eight, and the princes of tourism.  

Although my labors would enrich the treasuries of Corporate Mammon at the expense of the “least among us” of my fellow Americans of all races and ethnicities by lowering their wages and increasing their unemployment—I trust in my own righteousness.

For I am the Pharisee conservative.

***

In closing, I’m providing a link to a column in the National Review Online by John Fund, titled, The United States of SWAT. It’s an interesting, although long, read on the militarization of local and state police as well as the militarization of federal agencies—like the Department of Education.

Y’all have a great weekend, I’ll be back on Monday.

Facebook

UAW loses, a warning to Connecticut

Posted on by

I’ve two items for today’s post. In a sense, both are related, the failure of big government and big unions. Both entities are large, faceless organizations whose purpose is to force people to do something against their will.

In Tennessee, the UAW has been trying to unionize a VW plant for some time. Pet NLRB pols and administrative judges have been greasing the ways from the beginning using all the power of the federal government to force the UAW on the VW workers. The vote was taken and the UAW lost.

LIVE coverage: Chattanooga Volkswagen plant votes against UAW

published Friday, February 14th, 2014, by Staff Report

Volkswagen Chattanooga

Volkswagen Chattanooga

Volkswagen’s Chattanooga employees have spurned the United Auto Workers, rejecting two years of wooing by the Detroit-based union in a vote of 712 to 626.

The vote count came late Friday after three days of balloting by VW workers in the National Labor Relations Board-supervised election. Some experts said the result is a blow to the UAW and that the VW plant was its best chance to organize a foreign-owned auto factory in the South.

Jack Nerad, executive market analyst of Kelley Blue Book, said UAW put a lot of work into trying to organize VW’s Chattanooga operation. He termed it “a publicity setback for certain.”

“On behalf of Volkswagen Group of America, I want to thank all of our Chattanooga production and maintenance employees for their participation in this week’s vote. They have spoken, and Volkswagen will respect the decision of the majority,” said Frank Fischer, CEO and chairman of Volkswagen Chattanooga. “The election results remain to be certified by the NLRB,” Fischer, said.

“Our employees have not made a decision that they are against a works council. Throughout this process, we found great enthusiasm for the idea of an American-style works council both inside and outside our plant,” Fischer noted. “Our goal continues to be to determine the best method for establishing a works council in accordance with the requirements of U.S. labor law to meet VW America’s production needs and serve our employees’ interests. ”

Sebastian Patta, vice president for human resources, said, “While there was intense outside interest in this election, our managers and employees inside the plant maintained high quality production and continued to work together in a calm and respectful manner.”

“Our commitment to Tennessee is a long-term investment. We look forward to continuing to work with the state of Tennessee and the city of Chattanooga to support job creation, growth, and economic development today and into the future,” Fischer added.

The voting had numerous groups observing the process and all, grudgingly for some, agreed the vote was valid. After two years and millions spent by the UAW, the employees of the VW plant spoke. No Union!  Richard Trumka of the AFL/CIO blamed outside right-wing extremist, economic terrorist, for the loss. I suppose his left-wing extremist, economic terrorist, union agitators that created the issue were blameless.

***

A situation is rising, one I’d hoped would not happen, in Connecticut. Connecticut passed a law requiring all gun owners to register their firearms.

Law-abiding Connecticut gun owners may face FELONY CHARGES for failing to register weapons

6:05 PM 02/13/2014

Connecticut’s gun control deadline requiring gun registration has come and gone — putting tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens at risk of felony charges, should officials decide to crack down on what one gun owner called a stand of “civil disobedience.” Last January after the Sandy Hook shooting, Connecticut passed a stringent new gun control laws, and in April, Gov. Dannel Mallory approved restrictions which redefined the definition of an “assault weapon” to ban 100 more types of semi-automatic weapons. The law’s grandfather clause allowed gun owners already possessing AR-15s and similar weapons to keep them, but they must submit their personal information to a statewide registry. A photo taken by George Roelofson depicting long lines of gun owners waiting to register their weapons and ammunition went viral in December as the law’s deadline approached:But that’s only a tiny fraction of the state’s gun owners.

Now, as Connecticut’s The Courant estimates, as many as 100,000 gun owners with 350,000 unregistered weapons have yet to come forward, making state officials uneasy. Furthermore, estimates concerning banned magazines holding more than ten rounds — which have no serial numbers and are impossible to track unless registered — show that only 36,932 have been entered into the state’s databases, while over two million remain on the market. “I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register. If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don’t follow them, then you have a real problem,” Republican state Sen. Tony Guglielmo, ranking senator on the legislature’s public safety committee, told The Courant. Last week, a gun owner informed Guglielmo during a constituents’ meeting that he and fellow gun owners refused to submit to the law’s registration requirements. “He made the analogy to prohibition. I said, ‘You’re talking about civil disobedience, and he said ‘Yes,’ “ Guglielmo said. Mike Lawlor, undersecretary of Connecticut’s Office of Policy and Management, said that the state will not yet aggressively pursue unregistered gun owners — even sending out a reminder letter could spark tensions between gun owners and officials. Lawlor instead suggested first extending the deadline and holding an “outreach campaign” to encourage submissions. Lawlor added that the law, having technically rendered otherwise law-abiding citizens with no criminal history felons in one fell swoop, has partly succeeded in its goal to eliminate assault weapon ownership in the state. “Like anything else, people who violate the law face consequences,” he told The Courant, leaving open the possibility of future prosecutions. “That’s their decision. The consequences are pretty clear… There’s nothing unique about this. The goal is to have fewer of these types of weapons in circulation.” Meanwhile, Scott Wilson, president of Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Inc. (CCDL) has led the charge against Connecticut’s gun restrictions, suing the state in May for passing an unconstitutional law that violates the Second Amendment. “I think that the state would be better served using its resources going after violent criminals — ones that are perpetuating acts of violence in their community — instead of going after law-abiding citizens,” Wilson told The Daily Caller. Many Connecticut gun owners either remain unaware that the law requires registration, or don’t believe that their particular models fall under the law’s jurisdiction at all, Wilson added. He also noted that he had been contacted by many gun owners after the registration deadline passed who were afraid to come forward and get slapped with criminal charges. “My sincerest hope is that the state of Connecticut will come to [its] senses and the law that was passed Jan. 1 will one day be repealed by the state legislature,” Wilson said.

The article concludes with this statement. “Connecticut state police declined to comment, while the state’s firearm licensing department could not be reached.” There is great concern from a growing number of Connecticut citizens and others around the country that the Connecticut State Police would start confiscation raids on the homes of those who failed to register. When officials were contacted and asked that question, those same officials refused to answer.The seriousness of the situation has lead to gun-rights activists across the country to weigh in on the side of the state’s gunowners. Mike Vanderbeorgh, one of the bloggers who investigated the BATF’s Fast and Furious gun sales to Mexico’s drug cartels, wrote this open letter to the members of the Connecticut State Police. The email is long, too long to quote here. Instead, I’ll post portions of the email and ask that you follow the link in the article title and read the entire message yourself.

The following letter was sent via email to members of the Connecticut State Police, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. There are 1,212 email addresses on the list. There were 62 bounce-backs.15 February 2014To the men and women of the Connecticut State Police and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection: My name is Mike Vanderboegh. Few of you will know who I am, or even will have heard of the Three Percent movement that I founded, though we have been denounced on the national stage by that paragon of moral virtue, Bill Clinton. Three Percenters are uncompromising firearm owners who have stated very plainly for years that we will obey no further encroachments on our Second Amendment rights. Some of you, if you read this carelessly, may feel that it is a threat. It is not. Three Percenters also believe that to take the first shot in a conflict over principle is to surrender the moral high ground to the enemy. We condemn so-called collateral damage and terrorism such as that represented by the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Waco massacre. We are very aware that if you seek to defeat evil it is vital not to become the evil you claim to oppose. Thus, though this letter is certainly intended to deal with an uncomfortable subject, it is not a threat to anyone. However, it is important for everyone to understand that while we promise not to take the first shot over principle, we make no such promise if attacked, whether by common criminals or by the designated representatives of a criminal government grown arrogant and tyrannical and acting out an unconstitutional agenda under color of law. If we have any model, it is that of the Founding generation. The threat to public order and safety, unfortunately, comes from the current leaders of your state government who unthinkingly determined to victimize hitherto law-abiding citizens with a tyrannical law. They are the ones who first promised violence on the part of the state if your citizens did not comply with their unconstitutional diktat. Now, having made the threat (and placed the bet that you folks of the Connecticut State Police will meekly and obediently carry it out) they can hardly complain that others take them seriously and try by every means, including this letter, to avoid conflict.……tyrannical politicians in your state have been writing checks with their mouths that they expect you to cash with your blood. We have moved, thanks to them, into a very dangerous undiscovered country. Connecticut is now in a state of cold civil war, one that can flash to bloody conflict in an instant if someone, anyone, does something stupid. So please pay attention, for Malloy and Co. have put all your asses on the line and are counting on your supine obedience to the enforcement of their unconstitutional diktat. I apparently first came to your attention with this speech on the steps of your state capitol on 20 April 2013. It was very well received by the audience but virtually ignored by the lapdog press of your state. If I may, I’d like to quote some of the more salient points of it that involve you.“An unconstitutional law is void.” It has no effect. So says American Jurisprudence, the standard legal text. And that’s been upheld by centuries of American law. An unconstitutional law is VOID. Now that is certainly true. But the tricky part is how do we make that point when the local, state and federal executive and legislative branches as well as the courts are in the hands of the domestic enemies of the Constitution. Everyone who is currently trying to take away your right to arms starts out by saying “I support the 2nd Amendment.” Let me tell you a home truth that we know down in Alabama — Barack Obama supports the 2nd Amendment just about as much as Adolf Hitler appreciated Jewish culture, or Joseph Stalin believed in individual liberty. Believe what politicians do, not what they say. Because the lie is the attendant of every evil. . .Before this year no one thought that other firearms and related items would ever be banned — but they were, they have been. No one thought that the authorities of your state would pass laws making criminals out of the previously law-abiding — but they did. If they catch you violating their unconstitutional laws, they will — when they please — send armed men to work their will upon you. And people — innocent of any crime save the one these tyrants created — will die resisting them.You begin to see, perhaps, how you fit into this. YOU are the “armed men” that Malloy and Company will send “to work their will” upon the previously law-abiding. In other words, this law takes men and women who are your natural allies in support of legitimate law enforcement and makes enemies of the state of them, and bully boy political police of you. …

Just like King George, such people will not care, nor modify their behavior, by what you say, no matter how loudly or in what numbers you say it. They will only pay attention to what you DO. So defy them. Resist their laws. Evade them. Smuggle in what they command you not to have. Only by our ACTS will they be impressed. Then, if they mean to have a civil war, they will at least have been informed of the unintended consequences of their tyrannical actions. Again I say — Defy. Resist. Evade. Smuggle. If you wish to stay free and to pass down that freedom to your children’s children you can do no less than to become the lawbreakers that they have unconstitutionally made of you. Accept that fact. Embrace it. And resolve to be the very best, most successful lawbreakers you can be.
Well, I guess at least some of my audience that day took my message to heart. As Connecticut newspapers have finally begun reporting – “Untold Thousands Flout Gun Registration Law” – and national commentators are at last noticing, my advice to defy, resist and evade this intolerable act is well on the way. The smuggling, as modest as it is, I can assure is also happening. This law is not only dangerous it is unenforceable by just about any standard you care to judge it by. Let’s just look at the numbers mentioned in the Courant story.

By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.

That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.

And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

“I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register,” said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature’s public safety committee. “If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don’t follow them, then you have a real problem.”

This blithering idiot of a state senator is, as I warned Mike Lawlor the other day, extrapolating. It is a very dangerous thing, extrapolation, especially when you are trying to predict the actions of an enemy you made yourself whom you barely recognize let alone understand.

The email continues. Suffice to say, the situation in Connecticut has the potential to be very dangerous. Firearm confiscation led to the confrontation at Lexington in 1775 that led to the Revolution. If the government of Connecticut continues down the path like that of King George, no one knows what will happen. It the State Police follow the orders of the state government, sooner or later, there will be armed resistance.All of us around the country do not want that to happen.

The consequences are too dear. Public pressure can make those petty tyrants in the Connecticut state government reverse their path. It has happened before.In the end, the real issue is not about so-called ‘assault weapons.’ It is about the supremacy of government over the individual.

Facebook

So it begins…

Posted on by

Yesterday, Harry Reid detonated the nuclear option in the Senate by arbitrarily changing the Senate rules concerning federal appointments, including the Judiciary. Before Reid’s act, appointments required a 60 vote super-majority. Reid changed that to a simple majority.

Immediately after the vote, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) called for more reforms—eliminating the filibuster for legislation. Harkin’s call for eliminating the filibuster was retaliation against Senator Ted Cruz’s and Rand Paul’s filibusters this year.

Reid’s act and Harkin’s call to eliminate all filibusters is a blatant power grab effectively making the Senate a democrat rubber stamp. The days of polite discussion, of gentlemanly discord are gone. The democrats have known this for decades. The ‘Pubs, hopefully, have finally realized the same. Politics has turned bloody. When will the ‘Pubs realize you don’t show up unarmed to a gun-fight?

I’ve said before, our current history appears to be a repeat of those days before the start of the Civil War in 1860. The issue then was not solely about slavery, although that was a very significant issue. A major issue at that time was the loss of political power by the Southern States to the more populous and economically powerful North. Tariffs and trade issues were passed that favored the North to the detriment of the South, issues that reduced the South’s trade with Europe. The result, when the South saw no other recourse,  was Secession.

Reid’s act yesterday followed immediately by Harkin’s call to eliminate all filibusters is another step that mirrors the conditions immediately before December, 1860. South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860. Is it coincidence that Reid’s elimination of 225 of Senate tradition, of a history of a balance of power, happened in November? Are we approaching a day like that of 153 years ago?

***

Positive Discrimination. What is that? It’s better known by its other name, Affirmative Action. Erick Erickson was invited to a debate on the issue at Oxford in the UK. The debate subject was “that positive discrimination is a necessary evil.”

Oxford Union Results: Winner

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  November 21st, 2013 at 08:03 PM

It is after midnight here in Oxford, UK as I write this.

Tonight, I debated in the Oxford Union — a society that has gathered each Thursday night for a black tie debate since 1823.

The proposition debated tonight was “that positive discrimination is a necessary evil.”

The side favorable to the proposition went first and vice versa to the end with me as the final speaker of the night. Each side had four participants — one student and three guests. The proponents included both Martin Castro and Ada Meloy, along with Carla Buzasi and Oxford student Toby Fuller. My side included Richard Kahlenberg, Heather McGregor, and Oxford student Martine Wauben.

I must thank Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity for encouraging me toward talk radio. I spoke for 8 minutes unaided by notes, which would have been impossible, but for two years of doing a talk radio show consisting of just me talking with no script. If you’ve ever seen the British House of Commons, you know how it went. We all stood beside dispatch boxes given by Winston Churchill. We all were interrupted by points of information by opponents.

Everyone told me I should expect to lose. Just last week the Oxford Union voted against patriotism. I simply made the point that positive discrimination, or affirmative action, is still discrimination and evil is still evil. Likewise, I pointed out that the United States is 150 years removed from the Gettysburg Address, we have our first black President, and we still have people clamoring for positive discrimination. We cannot trust that those who benefit from it will ever say we need no longer have it.

Likewise, I pointed out that we have had and will always have racism. A government that claims we are equal under the law, but still sees racism is not a government we can expect to write a law to dramatically get rid of racism.

But we do know that those negatively affected by positive discrimination will be bitter and those who benefit from it will always be under a lingering doubt that they were chosen as tokens, not on merit.

I had a wonderful time, topped off by a pint of Guinness with my wife and friends. Thanks for the prayers along the way. A guy who sounds like me somehow convinced a group of Brits that affirmative action is wrong.

My side won by 9 votes.

I agree with Erick Erickson. Discrimination, positive and negative, is evil and must be abolished. I prefer a meritocracy, myself.

mer·i·toc·ra·cy  (mr-tkr-s)n.pl.mer·i·toc·ra·cies

1. A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.

***

An act of tyranny. The FEC by a 3-2 vote, refused to grant an exemption to the Tea Party Leadership Fund allowing them to keep their donar list private. The FEC has granted exemptions to the NAACP and the Socialists Worker’s Party but not the Tea Party.

Divided FEC rejects tea party group’s bid to conceal donors

Groups said disclosure opened door to harassment

By Kellan Howell – The Washington Times, Thursday, November 21, 2013

A sharply divided Federal Election Commission on Thursday denied a request from a leading tea party group for an exemption from disclosing its financial backers to protect them from harassment.

The FEC board voted 3-2 against a motion to exempt the Tea Party Leadership Fund. The fund will have to continue to disclose donors who contribute more than $200, despite its contention that its donors should be given an exemption given to special persecuted groups such as the Socialist Workers Party and the NAACP during the civil rights era.

FEC Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub, quoting Supreme CourtJustice Antonin Scalia, said “requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

Commissioner Steven Walther, who also voted against the fund’s motion, said the group was “not a minor organization” requiring special protection from the normal rules of disclosure.

The TPLF “has a lot more muscle and a lot more money,” Mr. Walther said. “I don’t think the donors are really worried about threats to themselves and safety issues that plagued the Socialist Workers Party.”

But Commissioner Matthew Petersen, one of the two Republican members of the panel who supported the exemption request, said the TPLF’s petition documenting past harassment justified the group’s request. The fund submitted more than 1,400 pages containing examples of harassment, ridicule and threats against tea party members from the media and the general public. The submission also noted the still-simmering scandal over whether the Internal Revenue Service deliberately targeted some conservative groups applying for federal tax-exempt status for special scrutiny and regulatory delays.

The case of the TPLF, Mr. Petersen said “is just as strong as, if not stronger than that of the Socialist Workers Party. I think [TPLF] is entitled to exemption.”

The FEC will grant exemptions to leftist, socialist organizations but not to conservative ones. This is what we get when Obama and the dems have unlimited power to appoint heads of federal agencies.

Tick…tick…tick…

Facebook

Obama’s Targets

Posted on by

“Make it hurt!” That’s been Obama’s instructions to his troops when the Shutdown began. He had been planning for the shutdown for some time. The blockages, barriers, and propaganda appeared within minutes of the deadline.

Who are Obama’s targets? Those who have invested the more in our nation—the veterans, the military, the sick, the rank-and-file conservatives, anyone who won’t line up and kiss Obama’s feet.

The Washington Examiner identified six target groups, groups chosen by Obama as his personal enemies. I can only hope he reaps what he’s sown. It will not be what he thinks.

6 groups targeted to make the shutdown look worse

By ASHE SCHOW | OCTOBER 7, 2013 AT 4:22 PM

A partial government shutdown just wasn’t going to hit people the way the Obama administration needed it to, so officials resorted to some unprecedented acts to make Americans feel the pain, as Conservative Intel’s David Freddoso notes:

Most people — even the poor in state-run safety net programs — don’t have that many interactions with the federal government agencies affected right now by the shutdown.

So it’s a challenge to make people notice that your agency is vital to the survival of the Republic. The feds have to apply a lot of force and behave in unsubtle ways to make you angry with Congress.

1. Veterans

No group has been more visible during the shutdown than veterans. Memorials were closed, and House Democrats voted against bills that would restore funding to veterans programs.

A short list of some of the monuments closed (note that veterans moved barricades to see their monuments anyway):

» World War II Memorial

» Normandy cemetery

» Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall

» Iwo Jima Memorial

Just 4 percent of employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs have been furloughed, according to Government Executive magazine, making it even more odd that the department’s funding wasn’t restored.

2. Lake Mead, Nev., property owners

Suddenly, owning a home on federal land causes homeowners to be kicked out of their domiciles.

Ralph and Joyce Spencer, an elderly couple who own a Lake Mead cabin, were forced out of their homes by park rangers saying they had to leave until the federal government reopens.

The Spencers have owned their home since the 1970s, and fellow Lake Mead resident Bob Hitchcock, who’s owned a cabin on the lake for 26 years, said he wasn’t told to vacate during the previous government shutdown that occurred under the Clinton Administration.

3. Cancer patients

House Democrats also voted against a bill to restore funding to the National Institutes of Health, a federally funded medical research center.

Yes, there is privately funded cancer research still occurring, but saying no to cancer research of any kind is probably not a winning strategy.

NIH is an agency within the Health and Human Services Department, which furloughed 49 percent of its employees, according to Government Executive.

4. National Guard and Reserve units

House Democrats (noticing a pattern?) also voted against funding that would allow members of the National Guard and Reserves to return to work during the shutdown.

Democrats say the reason they won’t pass piecemeal funding bills is due to GOP “cherry-picking” parts of the government to fund instead of funding the entire government.

5. Tourists

Imagine saving up to visit the nation’s capitol or the Grand Canyon. The family is packed up and ready to fly — or drive — cross the country to see the sites and have a great time.

Then the government shuts down. No worries, how can the government shut down open-air monuments? Well, apparently they can — and did.

The Grand Canyon National Park is closed. How does one shut down a giant canyon? Apparently with gates and barricades similar to those veterans crossed to see their monuments.

Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wis., refused to allow the federal government to close state parks in Wisconsin, since the state had the authority to operate the parks and provided most of the funding for them.

Mount Rushmore is also closed. Cones have been placed along the highway to keep tourists from pulling over and snapping pictures of the monument. Because it’s apparently cheaper to pay people to set up cones than it is to … not do that.

Across the country, in D.C., the Lincoln Memorial is closed. Note that this monument was not closed during the 1995-96 government shutdowns. Barricades were also set up outside the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial.

The National Parks Service attempted to shut down Mount Vernon, George Washington’s home. Problem is, the site is privately owned and operated by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association. Also, NPS tried to shut down the Claude Moore Colonial Farm, which hasn’t received federal funding since 1980. Oops!

The NPS is on a roll, actually, when it comes to closing down privately owned businesses.

6. Taxpayers

One thing that isn’t closed during the partial shutdown: tax collection.

“The IRS will accept and process all tax returns with payments, but will be unable to issue refunds during this time,” the IRS website said.

Every day we hear of more villainous acts by the federal government and their surrogates. The National Park Service seems particularly apt and eager to oppress the public. Over the weekend the NPS issued 21 tickets to people wanting to see the Grand Canyon. They must appear in person before a federal Judge.

I wonder how long it will be before some trigger-happy federal JBT shoots someone for wanting to see one of our nation’s treasures?

Facebook

Trends and Portents

Posted on by

Mark Levin’s book, The Liberty Amendments, has triggered a lot of discussion on the state of the nation, the Constitution and the constant violation of the Constitution by the federal government. Just scanning national opinion pieces this morning led to these headlines. One is a piece on the state of the government, another is on national trends and polls, still another proposes the country is in a pre-revolutionary state.

What Has Mark Levin Wrought?

By James V Capua, August 18, 2013

In The Liberty Amendments Mark Levin has delivered more than advertised. He promises a credible agenda for reinvigorating constitutional government based on an approach to the amendment process which avoids the liabilities of better known options.

Continued here…

Obama Flouts the Law

By Clarice Feldman, August 18, 2013

From his first presidential campaign to the present, the president, his party and his administration have openly flouted existing laws, and it doesn’t seem there is any legal means of stopping him short of impeachment.

Continued here…

America’s Tyranny Threshold

By Eileen F. Toplansky, August 19, 2013

As he finishes up his Martha’s Vineyard vacation, Barack Obama would be well-served to recall the fiery words of Jonathan Mayhew, who is famous for his sermons “espousing American rights — the cause of liberty, and the right and duty to resist tyranny.”

Continued here…

And finally, this one. Its subject is one few want to discuss all the while its one that is being discussed more every day.  Is a second American Revolution on the horizon?

Time for a New American Revolution?

By Richard Winchester, August 19, 2013

The United States of America was born in revolution. The Declaration of Independence asserted that people have a right of revolution. According to The Declaration, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [such as “life,” “liberty,” “the pursuit of happiness,” and “the consent of the governed”], it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The Declaration acknowledged that people should not, and will not, seek to overturn “long-established” governments “for light and transient reasons.” After “a long train of abuses and usurpations,” however, which are clearly aimed at establishing “absolute Despotism,” people have not only the “right,” but the “duty,” to “throw off such Government, and provide new guards for their future security.”

The U.S. has not experienced a successful revolution since the one between 1775 and 1783, despite Thomas Jefferson’s hope that “[t]he tree of liberty should be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Some think it’s time for a new American revolution. Moreover, many of the preconditions for a revolt exist.

Continued here…

One of Levin’s common quotes is that we are living in a post-Constitutional era. In other words, government, at least at the federal level, Congressmen and the Supreme Court no longer follow the constraints of the Constitution. The Obamacare decision forced by Chief Justice Roberts is a prime example of that latter segment of government. There was NO Constitutional basis for his decision. But, with his vote, he joined the liberal Justices and overrode the strenuous objections of the remaining Justices. Roberts followed the liberal diktat that the Constitution is whatever the Court says it is.

That is a lie. Few, however, were reluctant to stand up and say so.

Perhaps one of the best statements of the condition of our government and the accelerating discussion of revolution, is this article by In her article she cites the acts of Obama and the democrats in government that supports Levin’s premise that we no longer have a governing Constitution.

Today’s post as turned into a long one. I’ll close with this from Betsy McCaughey.

King Obama vs. Rule of Law

By on 8.14.13 @ 6:08AM

Have we ever seen such presidential contempt for constitutional principles and our nation’s history?

At an August 9 press conference, President Barack Obama said that when Congress won’t agree to what he wants, he will act alone. That statement, which he has made before, should send shivers through freedom-loving Americans.

The President was asked where he gets the authority to delay the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate, even though the law states that the mandate “shall” go into effect January 1, 2014. The Obama administration had announced the delay on July 3, without seeking Congress’s help in changing the law.

In response, Obama said that “in a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the Speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law… so let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do.” 

But Obama explained that he took a different route because Republicans control the House of Representatives and ardently oppose Obamacare.

Obama’s statement reveals how disconnected this president is from this nation’s history and constitutional principles. Divided government is the norm in the United States. Most modern presidents have had to govern with an uncooperative Congress or at least one house of Congress controlled by the other major party. With the exception of Richard Nixon, these presidents — from Eisenhower, to Reagan, to Clinton, and both Bushes — have not tried to exempt themselves from the Constitution.

Article II, Sec. 3 of the Constitution commands the president to faithfully execute the law.

Courts have consistently ruled that presidents have little discretion about it. President Obama can’t pick and choose what parts of the Affordable Care Act he enforces and when. 
 

The framers duplicated the safeguards their English ancestors had fought hard to win against tyrannical monarchs. Most important, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 barred an executive from suspending the law. 

The tug and pull between the president and an uncooperative Congress is what the framers intended. It’s checks and balances in action. Obama has no patience for this constitutional system. In June 2012, the President announced that he would stop enforcing parts of the nation’s immigration laws, because “We can’t wait” for Congress to offer relief to young illegal immigrants brought into the country by their parents.

Now the President is rewriting the Affordable Care Act. Delaying the employer mandate is not a mere “tweak.” Because individuals will be required to have insurance as of January 1, 2014 or pay a penalty, some ten million currently uninsured or underinsured workers who would have gotten coverage at work under the employer mandate will now have to pay the penalty or go to the exchanges. That means more people enrolling on the exchanges, more dependence on government and a bigger bill for taxpayers. It’s not the law that Congress enacted.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) has urged Congress to vote against any continuing resolution to fund the federal government after September 30, as long as it funds this distorted version of Obamacare.

“Laws are supposed to be made by Congress, not… (by) the president,” Lee explained. If the administration is not prepared to fully enforce Obamacare as enacted, including the employer mandate, it should agree to delay the entire law and remove its funding from the budget.

Sadly most members of Congress are too busy looking out for themselves to stop the president from chipping away at the Constitution. Last week Republicans and Democrats conspired with the president to weasel out of Sect. 1312 of Obamacare, which requires members of Congress to get health coverage on the newly created exchanges. Congress was happy to let the President unconstitutionally give them a special taxpayer funded subsidy that no one else in America earning $174,000 would get.

Such self-dealing brings to mind what Benjamin Franklin warned about, as he and his fellow framers finished writing the Constitution. It’s a republic, said Franklin, “if you can keep it.”

If Congress refuses to use its power to restrain the Executive branch, we then reside in a dictatorship. No one with the ability to enforce constraints is willing to do so and thus participate in the dictatorship.

 

Facebook

Preliminaries to 2016

Posted on by

I hadn’t intended to write about this subject, but…it…it just irritated me. If you’ve read any of my postings during the past election, you’ll find I’m no fan of Ron Paul. The labels of being an isolationist was earned. When it comes to national security, the best I can say about Ron Paul is that he’s naive to extremes.

That does not necessarily extend to his son, Rand Paul. I’ve been watching him. While Rand Paul has made his own errors in policy, he’s not gone to the extremes as has his father.

The article posted below, purported about Representative Peter King and a run for President in 2016, paints both Pauls, and Ted Cruz, with the same brush. In essence, it’s the opening shots of the next Presidential election.

Rep. Peter King aims to save GOP from Sens. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz

By Ben Wolfgang – The Washington Times, Friday, July 19, 2013

If he ultimately decides to run for president in 2016, Rep. Peter King will do it for one reason: to save the Republican party from the “isolationist” policies of Sen. Rand Paul and others.

“It bothers me when the leading Republicans out there — someone like Rand Paul seems more concerned about an American being killed in Starbucks by a CIA drone than he is about Islamic terrorism,” said Mr. King, New York Republican, during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. “We are the party of Eisenhower and Reagan, which believes in a strong national defense. I’m willing to be out there and be a spokesman.”

Mr. King said he’s being encouraged to run for the Republican nomination for president because of his strong positions on national security.

While the race is still three years away, it’s widely assumed that Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Sen. Ted Cruz also will seek the GOP nomination, and Mr. King believes the two freshman senators simply don’t represent true Republican views on national defense and security, Mr. King said.

“A number of people in the last several months, particularly in New York but also from around the country, were concerned about the lack of a real defense policy and a real defense debate among Republican candidates for president, focusing primarily on Rand Paul and Ted Cruz,” Mr. King said. “We have real national security issues. … We can’t have an isolationist trend, which I think is being pursued by Rand Paul.”

Peter King, like all to many members of the ‘Pub establishment, can’t tell the difference between external national security and internal federal tyranny. The more I read about this topic, and other quotes from King, Boehner, and the ‘Pubs in Washington, the more I believe they’re trying to find something to be a campaign issue against conservatives. The fact they’ve accused Ted Cruz with Rand Paul is telling.

To paraphrase Peter King, no one should be concerned about the CIA targeting Americans anywhere in the world—if it is for ‘national security.’ Domestic surveillance is the same as surveillance outside the US. It’s all about subversives and terrorists.

No, Mr. King, it is not. We have a document called the Constitution. It has an amendment, the 4th one, that protects citizens from intrusion by government. We only need to watch the police riot in Boston, turning people out of their homes without warrants, to see what can happen when that Amendment is ignored. The incident just brought to light in Nevada is also pertinent. That last one is a possible violation of the 3rd Amendment. It is certainly a violation of due process.

That does not mean Americans cannot be targeted outside of the US while actively committing treason. There should be, and is, I believe, existing procedures to provide due process in those cases. It does not mean, however, that we should give free rein to any federal agency, inside or outside of the US, to target US citizens for any reason—or, as it is appearing more often, for no reason that can be supported.

I fully support the use of drones to maintain our border security, to interdict illegal drug smuggling on land or at sea. I would even support some domestic use of drones—providing that use follows the issuance of a valid search or other warrant. I approve domestic use of drones as long as the use follows the due process provisions in our Constitution.

The establishment and Peter King seem to think such things as warrants and due process to be ‘flexible’ if circumstances warrant. I do not.

If this is to be a nation of laws, it cannot waive or ignore law at any level. To do so invalidates the primary premise. If warrants are deemed unnecessary, due to circumstances, the country is not, then, a nation of laws. It is whatever the governmental elites want it to be. A lawless tyranny.

Facebook

Surveillance

Posted on by

(Update: Audio recordings of the Cass County Commission meetings are available through the County Clerk’s office.)

Surveillance.

sur·veil·lance  

/sərˈvāləns/
Noun: Close observation, esp. of a suspected spy or criminal.
Synonyms: supervision – superintendence – oversight – control

 

A FB friend posted a link to the column in the UK Guardian about Verizon being ordered to send customer call data to the NSA. I saw a copy of what was purported to be the court order last night. It was four pages and was, to the best of my memory, identical to the one all communication carriers received around 2003 after the Patriot Act was passed.

The order we received back then was a preparatory order to allow the carriers time to put in place methods to retrieve Call Detail Records (CDRs) when requested by the FedGov. My area of the company created CDRs for specialty call centers used to help the deaf and hard-of-hearing communicate with hearing folks. The call centers were used for mundane things such as ordering pizza, making appointments, etc.

The processes we added were basically search engines. When we were given a telephone number and other criteria, such as receiving an international call or making one, making a call to, receiving a call from a specific number, we would extract the CDR for those calls and send them on to our legal department who interacted with the appropriate FedGov department.

In the following years, I can remember being requested to provide CDRs twice. In both cases, I was told, one of the parties were being investigated for some criminal act. I never really knew the details.

The bottom line is that we were never ordered to send Call Detail Records en mass, without some filtering, and then only for specific numbers. The supposed court order I read last night seemed to be worded the same as the one I read back around 2003.

That call detail records for specific numbers are being sent to the FedGov under court order is a fact. It’s governed by FISA, as amended in 2008. However, in this era of pseudo-journalism, is this “new” report, a change? That’s the real question.

We see so many reports today on Facebook and other social media sites, from various news websites and many stretch credibility. Many, very many, are subsequently proven to be false, complete fiction. However, the initial report frequently becomes viral, spreading throughout the internet. Everyone sees it. Few, however, never see the followup that proves the initial report false. Many who read the first report and pass it on, unfortunately, never send the correction—nor care, if it is contrary to their ideology.

When I see reports such as these, I try to perform my own due diligence. I read several reports on the subject, read, if possible, the original source documents and do my best to evaluate the validity of the report. I often find the initial report to be true. Just as often, unfortunately, I find the original report to be questionable or false.

This particular report about Verizon, has not, yet, passed my smell test. Without further confirmation, it stinks a bit. Why? The supposed order I read on the internet (link to it above,) has no date other than an expiration date in the body of the text. It appears to be a photo-copy. It has no classification stamps as I would expect and the document itself declares.

When I still had access to classified documents, every page was stamped, not just the cover-sheet. Classified documents had a specific form and format. If the copy being shown on the internet is a true photocopy, I would expect to see classification stamps on every page. That, and some other indicators, make me doubt its authenticity. It may be incomplete, or have been altered. I don’t know.

You, however, must decide on your own. Me? I’m waiting for more information. What I’ve seen so far, is lacking credibility.

Facebook