Category Archives: Governmental Interference

Thursday’s Thoughts

Posted on by

The FCC is about to vote on their seizure of the internet. There are five Commissioners, three dems and two ‘pubs. The new ruling was authored in the White House and handed to the democrat FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to ram it through. The vote is expected to be along party lines. I first wrote about the nationalization of the internet earlier this month.

The title of the Rule-Making is a lie. It’s not about internet neutrality. It’s about government control of the means, infrastructure and content of the internet. If it is passed, nothing good will come of it and internet access costs WILL go up.

***

Did you hear that the DoJ had decided not to charge George Zimmerman in the Travon Martin case? The DoJ said there was insufficient evidence for any civil rights violation. What it meant was that the federal persecution of Zimmerman was finally over. Oh, the media did their part accusing Zimmerman of wife beating, girlfriend beating and of being a drunk. What they failed to tell you was that the two women admitted Zimmerman had done nothing. Their claims were lies.

An article appeared in the American Thinker with some thoughts on the actions of the DoJ, none of them complimentary.

Finally Cleared, Zimmerman Should Sue the DOJ

By Jack Cashill,  February 26, 2015

“In all criminal prosecutions,” reads the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.”  In its dangling of George Zimmerman over the pit of judicial hell for the last three years, the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) violated the spirit of that amendment for no better reason than to pacify the Democrats’ increasingly bloodthirsty base.

Finally, on Tuesday of this week, the DOJ announced that it had found insufficient evidence to pursue federal criminal civil rights charges against Zimmerman.  A White House so seemingly appalled by torture had no qualms about torturing Zimmerman needlessly for nearly three years.  Indeed, within months of the February 26, 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, the DOJ knew it had no criminal case against Zimmerman, but it kept dangling him nonetheless.

The article continues with an in-depth examination at the American Thinker website.

***

CPAC is meeting with a long list of potential GOP candidates queued to speak. Dr. Ben Carson was one of the first and he seized ‘the third rail’ of democrat politics. The UK Daily Mail reported on his speech. (Why does this story not appear in the US media?)

Ben Carson charges Democrats with taking advantage of blacks, ‘trying to keep them suppressed and cultivate their votes’

By David Martosko, Us Political Editor For Dailymail.com, Published: 10:11 EST, 26 February 2015 | Updated: 11:25 EST, 26 February 2015
  • Prominent black GOP presidential hopeful got aggressive at the Conservative Political Action Conference
  • ‘If you’re black and you oppose the progressive agenda, and you’re pro-life, and you’re pro-family, then they don’t know what to call you’
  • ‘It really is not compassionate to pat people on the head and say, “There, there, you poor little thing, I’m going to take care of all your needs”‘
  • Carson, a world-renowned retired pediatric neurosurgeon, hopes to follow Barack Obama with a right-wing black presidency

Dr. Ben Carson grabbed the Democratic Party’s third rail with both hands Thursday morning, launching a political attack based on his complaint that liberals are ‘making people dependent’ in majority-black American inner-cities.

Race politics have been the near-exclusive domain of the Democrats since the civil-rights era of the 1960s, and Barack Obama’s successful White House bid in 2008 solidified their position.

But Carson – the most prominent black Republican in the 2016 presidential picture – told the Conservative Political Action Conference near Washington, D.C. on Thursday that the Democrats now see African-Americans’ support as an entitlement – choosing to ‘keep them suppressed and cultivate their votes.’

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/26/261E843200000578-2970478-image-a-1_1424963237700.jpg

‘SUPPRESSED!’: Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson told conservatives near the nation’s capitol on Thursday that Democrats are keeping black Americans dependent on government, and he’s the man to fix it. – UK Daily Mail

Scores of supporters chanting ‘Run, Ben Run!’ – almost exclusively white Americans – arrived with him.

Matthew Brown, a New York college student attending the conference, told Daily Mail Online that Carson is just hitting his stride.

‘He’s shaking people up and freaking people out,’ Brown said. ‘The days of a lily-white GOP are starting to fade, and the only people who seem to oppose this energetic and thoughtful black guy are teh Democrats. That should tell you something.’

Carson, who led off the conference, couched his talk of a presidential run and committed to little, outlining his positions ‘if I were to run – you have to say those things.’

Dr. Carson is a likable, charismatic speaker. He’s not afraid to attack the left’s sacred cows. I like much of his views…except for those of his concerning the 2nd Amendment and RKBA. He’s spoken about those views and they are soft…very soft. Still, he would be a better president than any democrat or RINO, i.e, Jeb Bush or Chris Christie.

Facebook

Will it pass?

Posted on by

For a number of years now, ‘Pubs have filed Right-to-Work (RTW) bills in the legislature. This year is no different. If I’ve counted correctly, three bills have been filed that address RTW, one, a partial implementation, was filed by a St. Louis democrat.

RTW has failed in the past. Narrowly, each time and each year the margin narrows toward success. Will this be the year when Missouri finally passes a true, not some watered down ineffectual version, Right-to-Work bill?

Maybe.

All three bills have successfully passed out of committee. Speaker John Diehl has placed all three on the House calendar for a floor vote. The two bills sponsored by ‘Pubs are nearly identical. The democrat version limits RTW to the construction trades only.

The unions believe they have enough legislators in their pocket to block RTW again. They cite a number of ‘Pub union shills newly elected last November. I note most of them are from the eastern side of the state, primarily around St. Louis.

The unions have gone so far as to put at least one legislator, a democrat, on their payroll. I’d call that an ethics violation. Will the ethics committee? Doubtful. It cuts too close to home for many legislators on the eastern side of the state.

***

Obama’s feud with Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu led him to send for partisan assistance to Bibi’s opponent in the upcoming Israeli election. The fued wasn’t just about Netanyahu’s upcoming speech before Congress. It’s a knife fight in a darkened room.

Israeli Election Update: U.S. Intervention Appears to Backfire

Likud takes its largest lead yet, shortly after news broke of the Obama administration trying to sandbag Netanyahu.

February 9, 2015 – 1:00 pm

Israeli polling published Friday seems to indicate that the Obama administration’s push to remove Binyamin Netanyahu from power and to replace him with the more pliable Yitzhak (“Buji”) Herzog is backfiring. The intervention was first reported by the left-leaning newspaper Haaretz just over a week ago.

This is how the numbers look as of Friday:

zarmi_israel_poll_numbers_2-9-15-1

This is the most significant lead either of the front-runners has had since this election cycle began. Previously, Likud or HaMachane haTziyoni had led the other by only one or two seats. If the final election results look like this, the most likely governing coalition will involve Likud, HaBayit haYehudi, Yahadut haTorah, Kulanu, Shas, and Yachad (64 seats out of a total 120).

It should be noted that such a coalition, incorporating not only the right-wing Bayit Yehudi but also the nationalistic Yachad, would be on a collision course with the EU and U.S. as the party platforms now stand.

Yachad in particular would tie Netanyahu’s hands and limit his flexibility in ways he would not find congenial. The Yachad party is comprised of three elements: loyalists of former Shas head Eli Yishai, who heads the list; religious Zionist elements disappointed with the secular nationalistic constitution forced upon Bayit Yehudi by Naftali Bennett, who in consequence left that party under Yoni Chetboun; and the radically national ‘Otzma Yehudit faction, who had not joined HaBayit haYehudi when Bennett created the current party out of two smaller, earlier ones because it was insufficiently nationalistic for them.

A split between the Yishai/Chetboun faction and ‘Otzma Yehudit under the strains of coalitionary negotiations appears likely, which would yield a smaller but more wieldy coalition for Netanyahu (probably 62 seats as of this writing).

Obama’s incompetency abounds. The Israeli Parliament has no two-party system. Like most similar governments, governance is by a coalition of small parties constantly in turmoil. Such a government has great difficulty getting anything done. On the other hand, it is much easier to remove a political leader who alienates the country. All-in-all, I still like our bicameral system better.

***

If the Obama and his pet chairman at the FCC have their way, the Internet, as we have know it for its free-wheeling ways, will soon be gone. Net-neutrality is coming via regulation. The dems have failed to pass Net-neutrality in Congress. Now, Obama will implement it via regulation.

Republican FCC Member Warns Net Neutrality Is Not Neutral

Chriss W. Street 9 Feb 2015
Ajit Pai, the sole Republican Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), inferred in a Tweet that President Barack Obama’s secret, 332-page “Net Neutrality” document is a scheme for federal micro-managing of the Internet to extract billions in new taxes from consumers and again enforce progressives’ idea of honest, equitable, and balanced content fairness.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler recently acknowledged that the two Democrats on the commission had decided to avoid Congressional input regarding the Internet by adopting President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1934 Communications Act to regulate the Internet with the same federal control as the old AT&T customer monopoly. To make sure that libertarian advocates would remain in the dark, Wheeler “embargoed” release of any of the specifics in the new administrative “policy” that will act as law.

The FCC legislation that was passed eighty-one years ago by the most leftist Congress in American history to ban companies from participating in “unjust or unreasonable discrimination” when providing phone services to customers.

But in 1949, the Democrat-dominated Commission implemented the “Fairness Doctrine” that required holders of media broadcast licenses to present “issues of public importance” in a manner that is “honest, equitable, and balanced” in the “Commission’s view. It would take 39 years before a conservative Congress could overturn a policy that hijacked the mainstream media to kowtow to liberals or face loss of their licenses.

If the Internet economy was a country, it would rank fifth, behind only the U.S., China, Japan, and India. Economic activity on the Internet totals $4.2 trillion, and almost half of the earth’s 7 billion people are already connected to the Web.

Ajit Pai’s description of “President Obama’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet” sounds Orwellian. He tweeted a picture of himself holding the 332-page plan just below a picture of a smiling Barack Obama with a comment, “I wish the public could see what’s inside.” The implication depicted Obama as George Orwell’s “Big Brother.”

Pai also released a statement: “President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works,” he said. “The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband… These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.”

Pai had previously observed that he was concerned about the plan would hinder broadband investment, slow network speed and expansion, limit outgrowth to rural areas of the country, and reduce Internet service provider (ISP) competition.

“The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market,” Pai said. “As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get.”

Pai’s confrontational comments came after FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler penned an op-ed in Wired Magazine detailing his spin on the core aspects of the Democrat’s desire to lump ISPs under the amended Title II of the 1996 Telecommunications Act — which was used to break-up the AT&T telephone monopoly into four regional Bell companies at the dawn of the digital age.

“Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC,” Wheeler wrote on Wednesday. “These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services.”

Pai responded that the “Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation” during the Obama Administration. On January 14, 2014, the D.C. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals struck down most of the FCC’s November 2011 net neutrality rules. The Appellate Court vacated the FCC’s “anti-discrimination” and “anti-blocking” as essentially discriminatory and blocking in an attempt to again give the FCC political appointees the power to dictate what they believe is honest, equitable, and balanced.

Pai said that after a year of debates responding to the courts twice striking down FCC efforts to regulate the Internet, “There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.”

Pai promised he would make further comments as he reviews the plan himself in the next two weeks in the run-up to the FCC’s public vote on February 26. He has blamed the two Democrat Commissioners’ for their dismissal of any negotiations with Congressional Republicans in setting the “basic rules” governing Internet access.

As Breitbart has highlighted before, turning the Internet into a “telephone service” would “empower an intrusive public sector that thrives on high taxes, heavy-handed controls and the status quo.”

The real purpose for these regulation is to enable the FedGov to regulate content on the internet, i.e., to impose censorship. Do not be mislead by democrats, there is nothing ‘neutral’ about this. It’s nothing less than an attempt to nationalize internet access and censor content.

Many people are concerned about the intrusiveness of social media like Facebook. If these new FCC regulations are enabled, Facebook will the least of your privacy concerns.

Just as an FYI, you have to pay a tax in the UK to have access to the internet. In times past, you actually had to have a license to have a webserver, a website, or a phone in the UK. I ‘think’ the latter has loosened up a bit. Maybe.

When federal bureaucrats control our internet, internet access taxes and licensing will not be far behind.

Facebook

It could happen here

Posted on by

I was driving home last night from a meeting and was listening to the radio. The program was about the riots in Kiev, the tensions between the protesters and Putin, Merkel, and Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. The show reported on the riots, the battles between protesters, police, security forces and the casualties.

A Russian expert, an academician from somewhere, stated that the western half of the Ukraine was no longer under the national government’s control. Only the Olympics and all the western media in Sochi has prevented Putin from taking action as the old USSR had done in East Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. All the show participants agreed that Putin was starting a new cold war and Washington was clueless.

One of the more liberal, if that description was possible, participants on the show said, “That [anti-government riots] can’t happen here.” My immediate thought was, “Yet.” You see, there is already rebellion in some of our states. Not rebellion as in riots, clashes with police, firebombs, tear gas and water cannon, and gunshots.

No, these rebellions have been a quiet ones, so far. The state of Connecticut has, by the stroke of a pen, created hundreds of thousands potential felons. How? by requiring them to register their “assault weapons.” A few thousand complied with the law; an estimated 150,000 or more, did not. When it came time to register their weapons, they just stayed home…a hundred thousand or more refused to obey the law.

The penalty of non-compliance is a heavy fine and a felony conviction.

There is a similar situation building in New York state. The New York state government is threatening to confiscate ‘illegal’ firearms. Mike Vanderbeorgh, one of the bloggers who investigated the BATF’s Fast and Furious gun sales to Mexico’s drug cartels, wrote an open letter to the members of the Connecticut State Police. He also wrote one to the members of the New York State Police.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

An Open Letter to the Men and Women of the New York State Police. The Deadline Approaches. What do you intend to do?

To the men and women of the New York State Police:

Deadline, noun:

1. the latest time or date by which something should be completed. “The deadline for submissions is February 5th.” Synonyms: time limit, limit, finishing date, target date, cutoff point

2. historical: a line drawn around a prison beyond which prisoners were liable to be shot.

The deadline for registration of semi-automatic rifles of military utility under the the wildly-misnamed “SAFE Act” is 15 April.(1) With this law, Governor Cuomo and the politicians of your state have written a check with their pens that they expect you to cash in blood. This blood could either be that of yourselves or that of their intended victims — the heretofore law-abiding firearms owners of your state — but almost certainly both. Apparently it is of supreme indifference to Cuomo and Company whose blood is spilled or how much, as long as you, the men and women of the New York State Police, work THEIR will upon the people of New York. I am writing you today to remind you that the deadline approaches and to caution you that it doesn’t have to be this way.

A couple of days ago I wrote a similar open letter to the men and women of the Connecticut State Police, entitled, “You are NOT the enemy (UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO BE.)”(2) It was so well received that many of my New York readers asked me to write one in a similar vein to you. As New Yorkers, I was informed, you appreciate being told the truth, directly, unvarnished and without much preamble, so I will try to make this letter as short as possible. Still, some introduction is in order since I’m certain most of you have never heard of me, nor is there any particular reason why you should.

My name is Mike Vanderboegh. I am one of the citizen journalists who — along with my friend David Codrea(3) — first broke the story of the Fast and Furious scandal on the Internet and who arranged the contacts between the ATF whistleblowers and investigators from the United States Senate, as well as media folks such as Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News. I have been a Second Amendment activist for more than 20 years and the Three Percent movement that I founded has 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 letter 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 New York 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.

Like Connecticut, I have been informed that New York state authorities have opened a criminal investigation of me. This began when I visited your state the day after I gave a speech on the steps of the Connecticut state capitol last April entitled “Defy. Resist. Evade. Smuggle.” (4) Since that time, my friends and I have been regularly smuggling 20- and 30-round standard capacity rifle magazines into Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado and yes, New York. I have further irritated Governor Cuomo by sending him a sample magazine in my “Toys for Totalitarians” program. (5)

But as amusing as the Toys for Totalitarians program was, the issue is deadly serious. Cuomo is a typical politician — an empty, expensive suit that is merely wrapping paper for an insatiable appetite for other people’s liberty, property and control of their lives. But his appetites have moved us all, but especially you in New York state law enforcement, into a very dangerous undiscovered country. New York, like Connecticut, Maryland and Colorado, 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 Cuomo 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 have quoted about half of the open letter. You can read the complete letter at the website. According to Mike Vanderbeorgh, a state of ‘cold’ civil war exists in several states. Those ‘blue’ states think people will kowtow to the all-powerful government, whether it be federal or state. I fear they may be proven wrong if they persist in their citizen disarmament plans.

Facebook

The Word

Posted on by

A word was spoken yesterday, in an open forum, by someone who is not a member of the media’s right-wing, extremist, whack-jobs. The speaker was Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies. He was speaking before a congressional committee hearing about the constitutional limits imposed on the presidency and the implications of President Barack Obama’s disregard for implementing the Affordable Care Act (AKA, Obamacare – Crucis) as written. His statement was this:

“There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restrains that the constitution places on the government,” Cannon said. “Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it.” — Mediate.

Revolution. Civil War. Scary words that should make everyone hearing or reading them have second thoughts on the consequences of their current, past and future actions. A second Civil War in the United States would make the Lebanese Civil War of the last century look like a walk in the park among cool breezes and playing children. No one who has seen war takes those words lightly, but they have now been spoken by a credible speaker, before a congressional committee. Once spoken, the words cannot be retracted.

The nation has been on this path for decades. It started under Reagan when the democrat congress passed laws to make differences in foreign policy a crime. An incident occurred call the Iran-Contra Affair. The prosecution of Ollie North was the result. North was convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity, obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents, but the ruling was overturned since he had been granted immunity.

From criminalizing differences of political policy to ignoring, failing to enforce law and selective enforcement of law, the democrat party has lead the country to this point—massive repeal of federal laws, abolishment of federal agencies used by democrats to persecute political opposition, and a restructure of the federal government to restore state sovereignty—or chaos and war.

The Republican Party has been an active partner in many of the actions of the democrats. They have ignored the wishes—the demands, of their constituents to maintain their personal positions of power in Washington. They are not guiltless, either.

Michael Cannon continued to say, before the congressional committee this final statement.

“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate,” he continued. “If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”

“That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to wantonly ignore the laws,” Cannon concluded, “to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.” — Mediate.

Have we reached the point in this country when law become irrelevant? Many believe so.

Facebook

Revolt!

Posted on by

..or, perhaps, “Bye-bye Boehner.” I’ll take either one. Following the GOP sell-out to the Gang of Eight, John Boehner was on the path to sell-out the country as well—until 80 Representatives gave him a slap upside his head and a reality check.

Boehner had said after the meeting with conservative Representatives the immigration would be presented to the House only if a majority of the GOP agrees. At this moment, that won’t happen.

John Boehner gets a wakeup call.

John Boehner gets a wakeup call.

 

Boehner tells GOP caucus: I won’t bring an immigration bill to the floor unless a majority of you support it

posted at 1:11 pm on June 18, 2013 by Allahpundit

Not for a moment do I think he’s following the Hastert Rule here on principle, but that’s okay. As long as the House GOP gets a veto, I don’t care what his motive is. Fear works just fine.

“I don’t see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn’t have a majority support of Republicans,” Boehner told reporters following a closed-door House GOP conference meeting…

According to a member who attended the meeting, Boehner argued against the Hastert Rule, but assured his colleagues that he would adhere to it on immigration.

On Monday, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher warned that Boehner should lose his gavel if he moved forward on immigration without majority support, saying it would be a “betrayal” of the party…

Asked by reporters if he agreed with Rohrabacher’s assessment, the Speaker considered the question and replied “maybe.”

GOP Rep. Tom Cotton told Guy Benson last night that he doubts even a small number of Republicans would support a bill like the Gang of Eight’s where amnesty comes before border security. That depends, I suppose, on what he means by “amnesty.” Democrats will insist on probationary legalization first, although they’re willing to let the path to eventual citizenship start later. If Cotton means that security will have to come before even legalization, then immigration reform’s probably dead. A note of caution, though: Boehner also told reporters yesterday that he’s “increasingly concerned” that Democrats would “rather have this as an issue in the 2014 election rather than a result.” That’s the ol’ “sabotage” theory that’s constantly being used to convince conservative amnesty skeptics that the way to really stick it to Obama and Schumer is to pass reform and deny them a wedge issue next year. It’s the purest nonsense, and the fact that Boehner is pushing it even now shows how eager he is to make something happen here. Promising to follow the Hastert Rule is encouraging, but don’t rule out a last-minute betrayal if he thinks he has 218 with Democratic support.

In fact, per National Journal, Boehner and the House leadership have been leaning on conservatives quietly to play ball:

Republicans on and off the Hill say Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy all want to do something on immigration. Boehner “really wants to get that done but he has to be real quiet about it because if he puts his name on it and his brand on it, like he did with the big (fiscal-cliff) deal, then it’s probably going to die under its own weight,” a former GOP leadership aide said…

“What will have to happen, and is happening in private discussions, is that we have to convince these guys if we’re going to go to conference, we’re not going to cave on our principles,” a senior House GOP aide said. “That is the sales job you have to make to those guys.”…

“This is one of those issues where they may only get 80 to 100 Republicans to vote for it on the House floor, but there won’t be the huge internal backlash,” the former aide said. “And that gives (leadership) some room to maneuver and they have some conservative cover. They have (Sen. Marco) Rubio and (Rep. Raul) Labrador,” who are two key conservative Republicans pushing reform.

Boehner, of course, claims he won’t bring it to the floor in the first place if there are only 80 to 100 Republicans to vote for it. Here’s a scenario that seems plausible to me: What if he rounds up, say, 60-75 Republicans to vote yes, which wouldn’t be close to a majority of the caucus but might impress people as a sizable enough minority that it makes the bill “bipartisan” for rhetorical purposes? And what if, on top of that, the RNC and the House leadership start rolling out lots of prominent Republicans to endorse passing the bill with those 60-75 GOP votes, even if it means violating the Hastert Rule? Rubio, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, maybe Jindal, maybe Chris Christie, maybe even Rand Paul — imagine all of them in a full-court media press declaring the bill a triumph, a gift to Republicans, and something that should be passed even if Democrats provide most of the votes. Passionate grassroots righties who follow this stuff day to day would bristle, but all the low-information Republicans out there would probably be impressed by it. The calculus for the party is deciding which is more dangerous to its future, taking the rap for killing immigration reform by having it implode in the House or alienating some conservatives by passing it with most of the Republican caucus opposed. I honestly don’t know which way they’d come down on that. Their eternal trump card, which they’d play again in 2014, is that RINOs are the lesser of two evils vis-a-vis Democrats and therefore most of the righties who declare “I’m staying home!” after amnesty passes will suck it up and vote GOP in the midterms anyway. One thing that would help head off that possibility is having more anti-amnesty conservatives speak up, to sway the low-information voters the other way. Where’s Ted Cruz? Are there no major young Republican governors willing to answer the bell?

By the way, Harry Reid’s suddenly very, very eager to keep immigration reform moving in the Senate. I think Byron York’s right as to why. Keep hope alive.

Let’s hope Boehner and the rest of the House GOP establishment heeds this call.
Facebook

Clandestine Government

Posted on by

I’m back, after a brief hiatus. I’m have been having some health reviews—test, physicals, etc., one of those things everyone should do on a regular basis.

I’ve been lax. I can’t remember when I had a complete physical. I have learned that physicals aren’t completed in one day. No, it’s one test here, another test there, some can be done with a blood test—and more than once when they forget to check off a particular item to be tested. Some are embarrassing, like mine yesterday. That one went well and I won’t need to repeat that one for five years.

All this has disrupted my schedule. I hope, now, the disruptions will become fewer…and less often.

***

I see the…I’m at a loss what to call them. They are dems, of course, but also more. They’re libs, too, but not just being liberals. Infiltrators? Yes, that, they are. They’ve been infiltrating government and our public institutions since the 1930s. Communists? That’s, while accurate, is blasé. I believe Marxists is the current term. Usurpers? That’s what they want to do.

What do you call those who wish to destroy our country, heritage, our republican form of government, our liberty? A good question. However, we cannot deny that they exist and have an agenda.

We see more and more evidence everyday, from the lies about Benghazi, the overt support for radical Islamics inside and outside the government, the attacks on Christian heritage and conservatism, using government agencies to intimidate political opposition, using government to coerce individuals to submit to bureaucratic regulations, many that may have no supporting law.

Yesterday, another piece of clandestine government was uncovered. A separate, secret layer of communication outside the official means of communication within government. Federal law requires all emails in, from, between government agencies to be archived and available to the public via FOIA, Freedom Of Information Act. Obama and his faction created a secret communication system, an illegal system, using a private e-mail platform and refused to make those e-mails public as required by law. Unless, of course, those wanting the emails pony-up $1,000,000…maybe.

We, here in Cass County, have had experience with clandestine government. With the election of responsible Commissioners last Fall, our county government is restoring trust in our local politics.

In earlier years, county government was government by oligarchy. A small group, of both parties, played fast and loose with contracts, money, and some actions appear to have been fraudulent and those involved guilty of conspiracy. Those allegations are under investigation by a number of agencies including the FBI.

Now, look at the changes that have been made to make county government open—and responsible to, county voters.

  • County Commission meeting are regularly scheduled and announced in advance.
  • Information packets of business to be conducted and agendas are released before commission meetings including supporting documents of the topics to be discussed.
  • Commission meeting minutes are posted publicly and available on CDs for a small fee. The county clerk is required by law to record the minutes of commission meetings. However in prior years, the minutes were frequently late and their contents did not always agree with the memories of those meetings from spectators. In some instances, the minutes were altered, after the fact, by request of some commissioners, some have claimed. Those claims have been echoed by some of the county’s elected officials.

How different is our county government to that of the FedGov? A local government where we have elected officials dedicated to open government compared to the one in Washington, DC, where both parties, in the Administration and in Congress, work diligently to conceal their true motives and actions.

None of the activities being disclosed recently in Washington is surprising. We know the agencies and policies have been in place for decades—supported by both parties. The question now is how can we remove those impediments, remove the obstacles that hinder our liberties and our ability to reduce the power of federal agencies, and make government responsible to citizens?

That is a question that I have do not have an answer.

Facebook

It’s @)$*&(+_*& Monday!

Posted on by

For all too many, that’s the sentiment today. Moreso, because it’s also Tax Day where we pony up our gelt to the state and FedGov. Mrs. Crucis and I completed that onerous task last month.

As expected, the internet is filled today with articles about taxes—too many, too much, too little return for our money. If we fail to pay, we can expect a visit by federal leg-breakers. The FedGov’s tactics would make the local loan shark blanch.

An article in the American Thinker, expounds on the concept of taxes being the cost of civilization.

The Rising Price of Civilization

By Jon N. Hall

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously opined: “Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” Right, but that price is rapidly rising. Might we be paying for more “civilization” than we can afford?

I liked the article’s opening. The rest is just a rant about Missouri’s personal property tax. At one time, “paying the cost of civilization,” may have been accurate. No longer. Today, it seems to me, our taxes are paving our path towards tyranny and a dictatorship.

We see examples all over the country. New York, Colorado and Connecticut have repealed the 2nd Amendment within their states. They ignore McDonald, that declared the U.S. 2nd Amendment applies to the states. The New York law goes into effect today and that state’s Rifle and Pistol Association has filed a lawsuit against Cuomo’s power grab.

In our state of Missouri, our Governor, Jay Nixon, and a number of his department heads have violated state law and subverted the intent of those laws to send private data of the state’s citizens to the FedGov. In particular, Nixon, the Department of Revenue and the State Highway Patrol gave to the IRS a list of Missouri residents who hold CCW permits.

The reason? The IRS wanted to compare those lists with people who receive SSI payments for disability, possibly, mental disability. That would enable them to seize any weapons and ammunition, and possibly jail anyone who appears on both lists.

Nixon and his flunkies also sent Missouri citizen’s private information to a 3rd party to comply with the Read ID act. The problem with that is Missouri law specifically prohibits any state agency from complying with the Read ID act.

In addition to all the above, Colorado is back in the news today. Not only has the state violated the 2nd Amendment, they are now proposing to institutionalize vote fraud.

Voter fraud bill introduced in Colorado

Sunday, April 14, 2013 – Red Pill, Blue Pill by Al Maurer

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., April 14, 2013 — Under the guise of modernizing the elections processes and increasing voter turnout, Democrats have submitted a bill that will leave the state wide open to fraud. House Bill 1303 was written completely in secret by House Democrats — no surprise in this increasingly radical one-party state government — without the input of the Secretary of State’s office or any of the 64 county clerk and recorder offices who oversee elections.

The bill is 126 pages long and completely re-writes election law in Colorado, creating a permanent system of fraudulent elections.

Just as with House Bill 10-0917 exactly three years ago, this bill introduces same-day voter registration and all mail-in ballot elections. But there is much more.

Sponsors of the bill claim that both methods increase voter participation. In fact, it is a recipe for fraud and creates problems where there are none now.

…

If this bill becomes law, prosecution will be even less likely. In one very telling portion of the bill, vote fraud is reduced from a crime to a misdemeanor. The word crime is boldly crossed out:

“IT IS A CRIME CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR”

The intention is pretty clear from that change alone. But there is yet more.

The bill eliminates the category of “inactive voter,” requiring mail ballots to be sent to addresses that have not participated in the voting process in several years. These ballots can be fraudulently returned, causing serious issues of ballot verification.

The residency requirement is reduced from 30 days to 22. A subtle change in the voter’s affidavit is from “I am a resident of the state of Colorado” to “I have been a resident…”

So if you’ve ever lived in Colorado for twenty-two days, come on back and vote!

It seems that every day, the dems/libs make another move to institutionalize their power over us. At some point, we will rebell. I thought that day would be years off. Now, I’m not so sure.

Facebook