Pre-Revoluntionary America

Today’s post title is taken from an article that appeared in PJ Media. It mirrors concerns that I have and have spoken about for several years. The author of the column, Roger L. Simon, is polite and uses the term, “Revolution.” I’m not so polite. I have used another term, “Civil War.”

I’ve always been a student of history. There are many books written about the Civil War, and, now that we’ve reached its 150th anniversary, the Battle of Gettysburg. There are few books written, except for scholarly pieces not written for public consumption, the delve into the conditions and forces that lead to that civil war. Yes, slavery was an issue. For some, a major issue, but it wasn’t the only one. State’s Rights and Sovereignty played significant part as well. At least from the Southern side. However, the trends and acts of government that lead to the first civil war, mirror trends today, namely the further erosion of state’s rights, power and sovereignty. Instead of slavery, we now have governmental dependence…another form of slavery, but to the FedGov, the new substitute for slaveowners.

Please believe, I’m no advocate of revolution, or rebellion, or armed resistance to the federal government. But when the federal government itself violates the constitution, acts lawlessly, fails to enforce existing law while extorting compliance with federal regulations that have no basis in law, when the federal government ignores federal court orders that limits the power of government, our options and peaceful alternatives become more and more limited.

The article, “Is America in a Pre-Revolutionary State this July 4th?” written by Roger L. Simon, was mentioned on Mark Levin’s radio show yesterday. Levin spoke for some time on the subject and about the article. In fact, he read it over the air.

Is America in a Pre-Revolutionary State this July 4th?

Roger L. Simon, July 2nd, 2013 – 12:23 am

As we approach July 4, 2013, is America in a pre-revolutionary state? Are we headed for a Tahrir Square of our own with the attendant mammoth social turmoil, possibly even violence.

Could it happen here?

We are two-thirds of the way into the most incompetent presidency in our history. People everywhere are fed up. Even many of the so-called liberals who propelled Barack Obama into office have stopped defending him in the face of an unprecedented number of scandals coming at us one after the other like hideous monsters in some non-stop computer game.

And now looming is the monster of monsters, ObamaCare, the healthcare reform almost no one wanted and fewer understood.

It will be administered by the Internal Revenue Service, an organization that has been revealed to be a kind of post-modern American Gestapo, asking not just to examine our accounting books but the books we read. What could be more totalitarian than that?

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal warns the costs of ObamaCare are close to tripling what were promised, and the number of doctors in our country is rapidly diminishing. No more “My son, the doctor!” It doesn’t pay.

And young people most of all will not be able to afford escalating health insurance costs and will end up paying the fine to the IRS, simultaneously bankrupting the health system and enhancing the brutal power of the IRS — all this while unemployment numbers remain near historical highs.

No one knows how many have given up looking for work while crony capitalist friends of the administration enrich themselves on mythological clean-energy projects.

In fact, everywhere we look on this July Fourth sees a great civilization in decline. And much of that decline can be laid at the foot of the incumbent. Especially his own people, African Americans, have suffered.  Their unemployment numbers are catastrophic, their real needs ignored while hustlers like Sharpton, Jackson, and, sadly, even the president fan the flames of non-existent racism.

Tahrir Square anyone?

Ironically, if our society enters a revolutionary phase, liberals will find themselves in the role of the Islamists, defending a shopworn and reactionary ideology on religious grounds, because it is only their faith that holds their ideas together at this point.

The facts of the American decline tell us otherwise. We don’t need the contempt of Vladimir Putin to remind us how bad things are and that the seeming result of the end of the Cold War is that American presidents are now mocked by the second coming of the KGB (not that it was ever gone).

We all know the famous Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times!

We certainly are, and I am of two minds about it. Like so many Americans, I have lived a comfortable, privileged life, vastly so compared to most of human history.

But I am filled with foreboding about what’s to come, indeed about what is already here. When I look at the masses swarming in Tahrir Square, I am at once repelled and attracted, repelled because, to be honest, I find their culture more than a bit crazy, but attracted because I know something is seriously wrong, not just in Egypt but in the USA.

Perhaps the most interesting quote from this article is, “Ironically, if our society enters a revolutionary phase, liberals will find themselves in the role of the Islamists, defending a shopworn and reactionary ideology on religious grounds, because it is only their faith that holds their ideas together at this point.”

We conservatives have our point of faith, our political doctrine, the U. S. Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers. For those of us who are believers, we also have our Bibles. The liberals who oppose us have their own religious views, environmentalism, humanism, and, contrary to their claims, Marxs’ Das Kapital.

Karl Marx thought that capitalism inevitably lead to economic collapse. History has proved him wrong. It is his theories, when applied to government, that has failed. Note the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the communist governments in Eastern Europe. Liberals here and in Europe believe their versions will work…as long as they don’t run out of other people’s money.

We’re fast approaching a point where we will either run out of money, or, the people will rebel in some form and refuse to allow more spending. The failure of the so-called Farm Bill in June, was an example of the latter. Unfortunately, the feds will continue to spend at the previous rate—fed by the last “continuing resolution.”

If you read the article at PJ Media, the comments are worth reading as well. George B, said:

The revolution won’t be people heading to the streets with guns. The revolution happens when the people who have been following the rules simply quit obeying the federal government. The revolution will be millions of independent contractors working for cash or barter and not reporting income. Just like the 55 mph speed limit was the object of ridicule before it was repealed, the whole system of big stupid government comes crashing down if enough people ignore it and simply quit paying.

I could easily see ObamaCare causing the return of cash payment for medical services. What happens if doctors find cash business is profitable while government managed 3rd party payer medicine is not? What if many thousands of small businesses simply “Go Mexican” and drop out of the regulated economy?

If everyone in the federal government was suddenly cut off from the rest of the country, would life end? No. Most of the day-to-day useful things done by government happen at the local level. It has to be one of the biggest fears of the ruling class that a majority of the people discover that they can live just fine without intervention from the national government.

It is the fear of social collapse, of anarchy, that restrains the people…so far. If the tyranny of and opposition to the federal government reaches a level where that fear of social collapse is less that allowing the FedGov to continue as-is, then we will reach the state where non-compliance is more palatable than compliance. At that point, the union ceases to exists.

As we go out to celebrate the Fourth of July (Note: the Declaration of Independence was approved on the 2nd of July), let us celebrate that we are still able to do so.

Friday Follies for June 7th, 2013

There are so many items to post about today that it’s almost overwhelming.  Where shall we start?

How about some bullet items.

As you can see, there are numerous subjects for a post. However, everyone is focused on the revelation that the NSA has been seizing call data for ALL (I’m still not sure that is accurate,) Verizon subscribers—and Verizon isn’t the only carrier involved!

What people are overlooking, is that this isn’t new. What is new is the volume of the data and the scope of the data seized.

The movies have misrepresented call tracing since the advent of the digital switch. Way back in the ’30s and ’40s, telephone switches were analog. In order to trace a call, you can to follow, trace a call, through the internal connections of the switch. It was a slow and laborious process.

With the advent and deployment of digital switches and modern call routing techniques, it’s much, much easier. A call detail record is created when the call is dialed. More data is added when the connection is made and additional data, timestamps, is added until the call is terminated. If either the originating or destination number is known, a carrier can retrieve the call data in seconds—a minute or two at most.

What is NOT available is the conversation.

You see, when digital switches were deployed in the ’60s and ’70s, the audio of the calls were digitalized, compressed, to better utilize and manage the telephone circuits between switches. If you tapped in on a circuit, you’d hear nothing. It’s digital data, not analog audio. The only place to tap is what is known as “the last mile,” the circuit between your home and the local switch. When wiretaps were granted, the taps had to be placed at or near the subject’s premises.

Digital central office and long distance switches weren’t designed to enable tapping and many, most perhaps, still aren’t. It’s extremely difficult. The FedGov, using FISA, asked the major telco carriers, in the early years of the 21st Century, to develop switches to enable tapping and to retrofit existing switches. It would be extremely expensive to retrofit the deployed switches and the carriers told to FedGov to pound sand.

The carriers did, as new switches were added and older switches replaced for added capacity, comply with the FedGov’s directives. Eventually, their networks will be replaced with switches that will have the capability of listening in on live conversations—but that time is still in the future. The transition will continue for several years, maybe a decade or more. Businesses just won’t replace a large, significant portion of their infrastructure at a whim of bureaucrats.  The expense would put them out of business.

However, the FedGov has carriers over a barrel…and a club called the FCC. The FCC licenses telecommunications carriers and using the threat to withdraw that license, can coerce the carriers into doing whatever the Feds want—within some fiscal reason. That’s why the transition has and will take significant time.

So, we have a reprieve for awhile. I don’t know how long. Years, maybe? A decade, possibly? We must put that time into good use. First, by electing a CONSERVATIVE congress. Next, repeal the Patriot ACT and disband DHS, or, failing that, severely curtail their power and scope.

It’s not too late…yet, if we are to preserve out liberty.

Convergence, Part II

I wrote yesterday about the three major scandals in Washington. I overlooked the 4th—HHS Secretary Sebelius extorting money from insurance carriers to fund Obamacare when Congress didn’t.

GOP probing Sebelius’s fundraising push: “Clear appearance of a conflict of interest”

posted at 2:01 pm on May 14, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Lest we forget amidst the several other scandals currently blowing up in the Obama administration’s face (it is rather difficult to keep up), last Friday we learned that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been hitting up health-care industry executives and groups, directly asking them to make donations to the non-profits that are working to enroll uninsured Americans and increase public awareness of ObamaCare’s benefits.

It is no secret that ObamaCare’s implementation is on the strugglebus, and Democrats see a lack of public awareness about the law as a pretty serious threat to their 2014 midterm prospects; hence why President Obama is putting more focus on the issue and Sebelius is trying to secure more — er — voluntary funding. The Washington Post described it as Sebelius approaching these execs “hat in hand,” but I would describe it more like approaching them with a gigantically threatening regulatory cudgel in hand. She is currently in charge of remaking the entire American health-care industry, remember? As Peter Suderman put it at Reason:

An “industry official who had knowledge of the calls but did not participate directly in them said there was a clear insinuation by the administration that the insurers should give financially to the nonprofits,” according to the Post. Something like this, perhaps? Hey, we’re short on money here. It would be nice if you could help with whatever you can, hint-hint, nudge-nudge.

Or maybe just: Hey, insurers. We just passed a law mandating that everyone in the country buy your product. So how about a million bucks? Or even a couple million? Over the weekend The New York Times reported that, according to an insurance industry executive, “some insurers had been asked for $1 million donations, and that ‘bigger companies have been asked for a lot more.’” That sounds rather like there was a direct solicitation.

The HHS Department maintains that they are not doing anything improper, but whether it is flat-out illegal or merely deeply unethical, it is definitely sketchy, and House Republicans got their probe on the matter going on Monday, via The Hill:

Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee, however, said the solicitations give a “clear appearance of a conflict of interest.” The committee questioned whether Sebelius is violating a federal law that says government employees may not raise money from entities they regulate.

“As the Secretary of HHS, ObamaCare gives you unprecedented power to regulate a significant share of the U.S. economy, from health plans to hospitals,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Sebelius.

Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee sent a separate letter to Sebelius, asking similar questions about her outreach to healthcare stakeholders on behalf of Enroll America.

“Currently, health insurers are seeking HHS approval to qualify for the health exchanges established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act so that they may attempt to sell their services to the public when enrollment begins in a few months,” lawmakers wrote. “Your agency also has the power to review the insurance rates that providers wish to charge.”

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), has asked the GAO to investigate Sebelius’ fundraising activities. “It could be bigger than Iran-Contra,” he’s said. In an interview with Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post, Lamar and Kliff had this interchange.

Sarah Kliff: You’ve been one of the first Republican senators to raise concerns about the secretary’s fundraising for Obamacare. What would you like to see happen next?

Lamar Alexander: I’d like for her to stop. One issue is if she’s raising money from the people she regulates. But I’m more concerned about her using private funding and private organizations to do what Congress has refused to do. I and other members of congress are going to ask GAO to look into the extent she’s coordinating with Enroll America or other organizations.

The reason I used the analogy to Iran-Contra scandal is this administration’s persistent thumbing of its nose at Article 1 of the Constitution because that made it very clear that the purpose of creating Congress is to curb executive power.

SK: I wanted to follow up on the Iran-Contra analogy. That seems like an awfully strong historical example to pick in this situation.

LA: This is arguably an even bigger issue because, in Iran-Contra, you had $30 million that was spent by Oliver North through private organizations for a purpose congress refused to authorize, in support of the rebels. Here, you’re wanting to spend millions more in support of private organizations to do something that Congress has refused.

As more and more information on the activities of the Obama administration is exposed, the “I” word has appeared.

GOP Rep. ‘Not Willing’ to Take Obama Impeachment Off The Table

By  Andrew Johnson, May 15, 2013 10:10 AM

“I would say yes — I’m not willing to take it off to take it off the table,” representative Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) said about the possibility of seeking the president’s impeachment in the Benghazi scandal. 

“Look, it’s not something I’m seeking, it’s not the endgame, it’s not what we’re playing for,” Chaffetz explained in an interview with CNN. “I was simply asked if that’s within the realm of possibilities.”

Earlier this week, Chaffetz told the Salt Lake Tribune that impeachment is “certainly a possibility,” which drew attention but added, “that’s not the goal.”

Boehner, finally getting his butt out of dead slow, asked,Who’s going to jail over this scandal?”

I would hazard an answer of, “No one, at this point.” Clearly, some should—Sebelius, Lerner, the management of the Cincinnati IRS office that processed the Tax Exempt applications, Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue Steven T. Miller and others. Hilliary Clinton, too, should be charged with Criminal Neglect for her actions and inactions during and after the Benghazi attack.

My cynical side believes Hilliary and Sebelius will be defended to the end by Congressional democrats. After all, Hilliary is their favorite, at the moment, for Prez in 2016.

Continuing on a theme…

It’s Friday and I’m rushed again. Mrs. Crucis and I are busy as we always seem to be this year. I’m also lacking my usual two-hour prep for my daily post. That’s happened a lot this “Spring.”

Today, we’ll continue on a theme that still hasn’t fallen off the Nation’s radar—except for the MSM who never had this topic visible at all.

The Boston Mindset: Cringe Like Sheep

By William A. Levinson, May 3rd, 2013

Colonel Jeff Cooper’s To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth describes exactly what is wrong with the United States today.  Cooper wrote of the society in which he grew up during the 1930s,

Boys were taught to shoot and use their hands, and girls were taught to expect that in their men.

… In that society, it would have been both futile and ridiculous for two punks to assume control over 159 people.

 Cooper’s position was that there was no excuse — none — for 159 passengers to allow a pair of hijackers to take over an airliner.  It is easy to imagine what Cooper would say about more than a million people in Boston and its suburbs allowing one punk to lock them in their homes, and out of their workplaces, at a cost of up to one billion dollars.  The message to terrorists could not be clearer: Any deranged individual willing to sacrifice his life or his freedom can bring a major U.S. city to its knees.

Cooper explained exactly why:

The press, academe, and the law enforcement establishment preach: Do not fight back! On the street, in your home, on the airplane, on the high seas, anywhere, anytime. Do not fight back! You may be hurt.

 This contemptible, despicable, and pusillanimous culture has not, fortunately, infested the Old South, most of the Mountain States (except Colorado), or rural and suburban Pennsylvania and Ohio.  It is no coincidence that these are places where it is legal to carry a sidearm openly without a permit, and/or it is fairly straightforward to get a concealed carry permit.  The “cringe like sheep” mindset is, on the other hand, most pervasive in the major metropolitan areas that are also the clearly identifiable origin of almost all attacks on the Second Amendment.

I’ve trimmed this. Go HERE and read it all. It’s quite interesting.

Words fail me

I’m sitting here cruising for a blog topic and what do I find? This.

Calif. bill would let non-citizens serve on juries

By JUDY LIN, Associated Press, Apr 25, 8:09 PM EDT

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) — The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first in the nation to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.

Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, said his bill, AB1401, would help California widen the pool of prospective jurors and help integrate immigrants into the community.

It does not change other criteria for being eligible to serve on a jury, such as being at least 18, living in the county that is making the summons, and being proficient in English.

The bill passed 45-25 largely on a party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and will move on to the Senate. One Democrat – Assemblyman Adam Gray, of Merced – voted no, while some other Democrats did not vote.

Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill said there is no correlation between being a citizen and a juror, and they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge. Republican lawmakers who opposed Wieckowski’s bill called it misguided and premature.

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said there is no shortage of jurors.

What this bill does is to make citizenship worthless and irrelevant. Citizenship grants an individual certain privileges, rights and duties. Paying taxes, voting, serving on juries are a few of those duties. Apparently, in California, illegal aliens can now do the same. Therefore, what is the worth of actual citizenship? In California, nothing.

 

Boston under Siege

The Boston Marathon was bombed. The ones who set the bombs are either dead or in custody.  That’s good. But the method used to find them?  That’s another issue.

From numerous reports, most of them still waiting for verification, Government, by this, I mean the state, local and the Federal government, suspended the Constitution in Boston. I don’t remember any declaration of martial law in Boston, but that is what, in effect, happened. The 1st and 4th Amendments were violated repeatedly. In some cases, even the media was treated like criminals (should I cheer?) being forced to the ground at gunpoint.

For those of you with access to Facebook, you can view nearly 150 photos taken by individuals in Boston and Watertown. They are horrifying.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.471951542877595.1073741826.373523032720447&type=1

How would you like to look out your window and see this pointed at you?

Boston under Siege

Boston under Siege

This is what you can expect when the dems and liberals control government. When the search for Dorner was on in California, there was no lock-down until they had him located and then it was only for a few surrounding blocks. Boston was massive, massive over-reaction.

And, Bostonians submissively accepted this.

Pass…

I think I’ll pass on a post for today. The Boston bombing is all in the news and everyone is writing about it. I doubt if I could say anything that someone, probably several someones, can’t say more eloquently.

As I expected, the dust hadn’t settled before the dems were blaming “right-wing extremists.” Chrissy Matthews had a field day blaming conservatives. A dem from NY blamed Senate Republicans for refusing to approve an ATF official. The media is working hard to blame us, conservatives, while ignoring the fact that the one person being investigated is a Saudi citizen, like those in the 9/11 attack, here on a student visa.

I was out yesterday when the bombing happened. The first I heard about it was Obama’s presser on my car radio. Like Ft Hood, he bent over backward to not say the bombing was a terroristic attack.

Pah! I’ll let others write on this.

I could write on the Mancin-Toomey gun control bill. Alan Gottlieb, whom I respect, had some input on the bill—mistakenly, in my opinion. The Heritage Foundation is against Mancin-Toomey because it will criminalize innocent gun transfers.

The Schumer-Toomey-Manchin (STM) bill facilitates undercover sting operations at gun shows to arrest people for conduct they have no reason to believe is against the law. The STM bill lets the Justice Department send people at gun shows to jail for up to five years for a crime they did not even know was a crime.

Here is the zinger buried in the bill:

Whoever makes or attempts to make a transfer of a firearm in violation of section 922(t) . . . to a law enforcement officer, or to a person acting at the direction of, or with the approval of, a law enforcement officer authorized to investigate or prosecute violations of section 922(t), shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

It is neither surprising nor inappropriate that, in accordance with applicable law enforcement guidelines, undercover FBI or ATF agents infiltrate, or send informants to infiltrate, a gun show to see if they can catch people breaking federal firearms laws. But this new law goes overboard, by eliminating any need for a federal prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that the individual who allegedly broke the law had any kind of criminal intent. — The Heritage Foundation

Apparently, Mancin, Toomey and Gottlieb has forgotten the adage, “It’s better to do nothing rather than risking making the situation worse.”

I’m disgusted with all of them. I’ll pass for today.