Acts of Rebellion

There were two acts of rebellion this week. One occurred in Washington…state, that is. The other occurred in Boston—241 years ago. That second act of rebellion is known as the Boston Tea Party.

http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/wp-content/themes/btps/images/tea-thrown-by-patriots.jpg

The Boston Tea Party, December 16, 1773.

If you look at root causes, you’ll notice that both events were/are driven by the same motivation—rebellion against a corrupt and tyrannical state. In Boston, the root cause of the Tea Party was an act of economic warfare by the British East India company with the compliance of the British government against the growing competition of the American colonies, especially the ship owners of New England.

In Washington state, the rebellion is more wide-spread. It is the conservative gun-owners and law enforcement officials against the liberals in control of the Seattle/Tacoma area. The conservatives own the statehouse, less the Governor. Seattle/Tacoma has the larger population and controls the Governor. Bloomberg paid for the passage of Initiative 594 that imposed unrealistic regulations on the ownership and transfer of firearms.

The anniversary of the Boston Tea Party slipped by with little attention, if any, from the mainstream media. Their attention was focused on Washington state and the public rejection of I-594 by gun owners and law enforcement across the state.

The MSM was watching, but not reporting—unless the Seattle liberal machine tried to enforce their new law at a rally and it blew up in their face. But, the libs backed down and no confrontation, other than in local headlines, took place. Even less attention by the MSM was given to a press release by the Sheriff and Prosecutor of Lewis County, WA. They declared they would not enforce the new I-594 law.

‘I Will Not Comply’ rally draws gun-rights supporters to Olympia

Protesters rallied at the state Capitol in Olympia to denounce an expanded initiative on gun-purchase background checks that voters widely approved last month.

Originally published December 13, 2014 at 7:00 PM | Page modified December 15, 2014 at 7:10 AM

By Joseph O’Sullivan, Seattle Times Olympia bureau

http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2014/12/13/2025232642.jpg

Alan Berner / The Seattle Times. Above, Sam Wilson, carrying a rifle on his back, waits on the Capitol grounds to address the crowd.

OLYMPIA — Following a tradition going back to at least the Whiskey Rebellion of the early 1790s, demonstrators gathered here Saturday afternoon at the Capitol to protest the tyranny of what they consider unlawful American government.

But instead of decrying a tax on distilled liquor such as Pennsylvanians did just years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, demonstrators here at the “I Will Not Comply” rally denounced a law expanding gun-purchase background checks that was approved last month by Washington voters.

Initiative 594, which voters passed by a 19-point margin, expands background checks to people buying firearms in private sales or exchanging them in a transfer.

Speaking to the crowd, rally organizer Gavin Seim blamed events like the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut on people trying to regulate firearms.

“The people that are trying to take our guns are the ones that are causing events where children and families and people are lost,” said Seim, who ran unsuccessfully this year for U.S. Congress.

Washington State Patrol put the crowd at about 1,000 people; Seim estimated 1,500.

You can read the entire artlcle here at the Seattle Times.

The Washington state liberals and Bloomberg used the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School as justification. This week, some of the families of the Sandy Hook victims filed suit against Bushmaster and others claiming the AR-15 is a military weapon and unsuitable for civilian use, therefore the sale of such a weapon should be banned.

I won’t post a portion of that article, it is just too stupid. You can follow the link and read it yourself. All I’ll say that New England, suffering under liberal oppression, is the only area such a suit has a chance of winning. Manufacturers cannot be held responsible for the use of their products. If that were so, no brewery would now exist in the United States, nor would alcohol be allowed to be imported.

The act of rebellion in Washington state was largely ignored outside of Seattle. The Connecticut lawsuit, however, could have wide-spread impact if the families win. Of course it would be too much to expect for them to sue the real culprits, the local school district who chose to allow those students and teachers to be unprotected, exposed and vulnerable to a mental defective and thief.

Lawfare in Missouri

If you haven’t heard, there is another constitutional amendment on Missouri’s November ballot, Constitutional Amendment #6 (HJR 90). No, it’s not the education amendment, it’s another one to define early voting. Democrats usually push for early voting. They remember the old adage, “Vote early, Vote often.” In many areas of the state, precincts in Kansas City and St Louis for example, early voting allows for massive vote fraud.

This amendment, however, the dems don’t support. Why? Because it limits early voting to the five business days prior to the election and only during normal business hours—9am to 5pm…and only if the Legislature provides funding. Such an amendment makes it more difficult, not impossible but more difficult for the democrats to exploit and makes vote fraud more difficult as well. This amendment is thought to be a pre-emptive strike at democrat sponsored bills that would allow up to 6 weeks of early voting including weekends.

Since the amendment has been passed in the legislature, the dem’s only hope is to obfuscate the language on the ballot. One of their pet judges changed the ballot language to read like the dems wanted. The Secretary of State immediately appealed the decision.

THE 2014 BALLOT — ‘Missouri court reworks early voting ballot summary,’ AP: “A Missouri appeals court panel rewrote the ballot summary Monday for an early voting proposal, ruling that the wording approved by lawmakers was misleading because it failed to mention the measure is contingent upon funding. A proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot will ask Missouri voters whether to authorize a no-excuses-needed early voting period for future general elections. The six-day voting period would be limited to business hours on weekdays. In its ruling Monday, a panel of the Western District appeals court said the summary prepared by the Legislature failed to note the early voting period would occur only if the Legislature and governor provide funding for it. …

“The appeals court ordered additional wording to be included in the ballot summary. The rewritten ballot summary will state: ‘Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to permit voting in person or by mail for a period of six business days prior to and including the Wednesday before the election day in general elections, but only if the legislature and the governor appropriate and disburse funds to pay for the increased costs of such voting?’

“The legal challenge to the measure had been brought by an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of civil rights leaders Norman Seay and Nimrod Chapel. The lawsuit argued that the court should simply strike the measure from the ballot if it decided the Legislature’s summary was unfair. But the appeals court rejected that approach, concluding it has the authority to rewrite the wording.” — PoliticMO Newsletter, September 16, 2014, and The Southeast Missourian.

Like I said, lawfare. If you can’t win, or don’t believe you can win at the polls, sue.

***

Remember the internecine battles during this year’s primaries between the Senate Conservative Fund (SCF) who was backing conservatives and the National Republican Senate Committee (NRSC) who was backing RINOs and anyone running against SCF supported conservatives? Well, the NRSC wants to make up.

Red State has a report today about the NRSC’s attempts to gain—not the SCF’s support, no, just their money. The NRSC spent all theirs fighting Republican conservatives during the primary.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee Loves the Senate Conservatives Fund (Or At Least Its Money)

Remember how the National Republican Senatorial Committee wanted everyone to know just how terrible the Senate Conservatives Fund is?

Remember how NRSC consultants took to op-ed pages, pushed reporters, and tweeted about the lavish and extravagant expenses of SCF?

Remember how when a candidate got endorsed by SCF, everyone knew immediately NRSC would support the opposite candidate out of spite? (See e.g. Ben Sasse v. Shane Osborn)

Remember how the NRSC, Chamber of Commerce, and other establishment groups poured tons of money into primaries to stop SCF gains and those of other outside groups?

Well, NRSC spent so much money trying to ensure its incumbents were protected that it now has no money to pick up new seats. Brilliant strategy there Jerry Moran and Josh Holmes. Just brilliant.

So what is the NRSC doing now? Begging the Senate Conservatives Fund to spend money.

The column continues at the Red State website. As far as I’m concerned, the NRSC is nothing more than a parasite, attempting to maintain the RINOs’ status quo in Washington.

***

This is the next gun-grabber tactic. Sue ammo retailers.

Online ammo retailers targeted in lawsuit by anti-gun violence group

– The Washington Times – Monday, September 15, 2014

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is filing a lawsuit against online retailers that allegedly sold ammunition to James Holmes, the suspect accused of the Aurora theater killings.

“The lawsuit alleges that the websites negligently supplied Holmes with the arsenal he used to kill 12 people and wound at least 58 others by failing to use any screening mechanism to determine his identity or intent for the products,” the Brady Center said in a media release, Fox-affiliated KDVR reported.

The lawsuit comes as the Brady Center continues its “Stop Bad Apple Gun Dealers” campaign, which seeks to target those who “supply guns to criminals by selling them to straw purchasers (people buying guns for others), gun traffickers (people buying guns to illegally resell), and other dangerous people,” according to its Web page.

The lawsuit in the Aurora, Colorado, case will be filed on behalf of Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter Jessica Ghawi was killed on July 20, 2012, when Mr. Holmes allegedly gunned down 12 people at a Century movie theater. The official announcement was set to be made Tuesday in Denver, KDVR reported.

The Brady Center said it plans to name Lucky Gunner, at BulkAmmo.com, as well as other online weapons sellers in the lawsuit, the station said.

We must be ever vigilant.

The Follies for Friday, July 19, 2013

Mrs. Crucis is like a kid waiting for Christmas. She’s finally gotten our cats interested in playing with some toys. We bought a laser toy recently. Our tiger-striped tabby, Amber, reacted when Mrs. Crucis shined the laser on her paws. Our big black cat, Snowflake, just yawned.

Both, finally got into the game batting at a string off a short pole. We’ve had these cats for eight years and it’s only recently they’ve been interested in toys. Mrs. Crucis has been watching “Cats from Hell” on Animal Planet and has obviously learned something.

She saw some cat toy on TV and ordered it. She’s be not-so-patiently waiting for it to arrive. We received a shipping notice earlier this week and since has been waiting, on pins ‘n needles, for the mailman to arrive.

Just like a little kid. I’m not sure which is funnier, the cats or her.

***

We’re beginning to see Holder’s next step in the Zimmerman persecution. Holder issued orders to the Sanford, FL police to retain custody of Zimmerman’s pistol pending a federal investigation.  The FBI has already investigated and found nothing to pursue.

Justice Department places ‘hold’ on Trayvon Martin trial evidence, including George Zimmerman’s gun – which Florida law says must be returned to him

By David Martosko, PUBLISHED: 16:34 EST, 18 July 2013 | UPDATED: 08:54 EST, 19 July 2013

The U.S. Department of Justice, overseen by Attorney General Eric Holder, has ordered the Sanford, Florida police department to keep possession of all the evidence from George Zimmerman’s second-degree murder trial – including the exonerated neighborhood watch volunteer’s gun.

Sanford police confirmed on Thursday that the DOJ asked the agency not to return any pieces of evidence to their owners. Zimmerman was expected to get his firearm back by month’s end.

Want to bet Holder won’t trump up some charge? I don’t.

If Zimmerman attempts to buy a replacement pistol, I’ll bet the NICS check will flag him. There’s no legal reason for that to happen but I’m sure it will. So what do we have to fight this type of state tyranny? Private sales.

Now you know why the libs demand all firearm sales pass through a FFL—to keep their enemies defenseless.

***

Remember all those recall petitions in Colorado? The lib legislators tried to block the recall election.  They failed. The recall election is on!

Latest win for Colorado gun-rights activists: Recall election set Sept. 10

By Valerie Richardson – The Washington Times, Thursday, July 18, 2013

DENVER—Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper set Sept. 10 as the date for the state’s first-ever legislative recall election Thursday after a judge rejected a lawsuit aimed at stopping the recalls of two Democratic state legislators.

Denver District Court Chief Judge Robert Hyatt said the recall may proceed, ruling that the right of citizens to recall officeholders outweighed the technical objections to the petitions brought by constituents of Senate President John Morse and state Sen. Angela Giron.

“I’m really, really happy, obviously,” said Victor Head, president of Pueblo Freedom and Rights, which organized the Giron recall. “He ruled with the people instead of with the lawyers and the bureaucrats.”

Citizens’ groups began circulating petitions in April to recall the two lawmakers in reaction to their votes in favor of three gun-control bills, which took effect July 1. A petition drive to repeal the bill restricting ammunition-magazine capacity is also underway.

Yes, what goes around, comes around. Actions have consequences. It’s time the libs learn the consequences of their actions.

***

It’s not really news, now. It’s been plastered all over the news, cable outlets and the internet for several days—Detroit is bankrupt!

‘Motor City’ Detroit files for bankruptcy with 100,000 creditors

Detroit has become the largest city in US history to file for bankruptcy, owing 100,000 creditors $18.5 billion.

By 1:14PM BST 19 Jul 2013

The city of Detroit filed for bankruptcty on Thursday afternoon, ending weeks of speculation about a possible such move.

Kevyn Orr, the city’s emergency manager, handed over a 3,000 page document detailing all the money which the city is unable to pay.

The list of those owed includes the names of all of the city’s active employees and its retirees, a list of properties that have tax claims with the city, numerous bondholders, business creditors and companies that insured Detroit debt.

The largest creditor is the city’s general pension scheme, which is owed $2 billion.

We knew the city was bankrupt. We’ve known it for years. Detroit is and has been financially and morally bankrupt for years, decades, really. A large city government, led and controlled by libs, socialists and democrats, has been run into the ground. The residents has been leaving in droves. The population is half what it was in 1950. Vast swatches of the city is empty and the houses, falling into deep disrepair, are being razed.

And the unions are still fighting, in the courts, the inevitable result—bankruptcy. Why? Because they have been bleeding the city’s finances for decades. If the city really is placed in bankruptcy, the money stream will be cut off. Detroit is nearly $20 Billion (yes, that is Billion with a B!) in debt. A significant portion of that is to the union pension funds. Now the unions with have to fund the pension funds themselves using money that had been used for political purposes as well as lining the union leaders’ pockets.

City leaders are already calling for Obama to bail them out.

***

Finally, this blurb from the Heritage Foundation concerning Benjamin Franklin. The libs belittle Franklin at every opportunity. They claim he’s one of the countries first atheists. An incorrect fact. He was a Deist. 

Benjamin Franklin: The Sage of America

By

There was a time, not too long ago, when every schoolchild in America learned about Benjamin Franklin and his exploits; a great many read his brief Autobiography. Unfortunately, that time has passed. None of the American Founders is the icon he once was, of course, but in the case of Franklin, this is especially lamentable because Franklin addressed himself more to the common man, and to the young, than did his colleagues. He directed his writing largely to the formation of popular character and had a very salutary effect on that character for as long as he was widely read.

Life

Born in Boston in 1706, Franklin was older by a generation than most of his fellow Founders. The youngest son of youngest sons for five generations back, as he tells us with pride, Franklin necessarily made his own way in the world. He tried several trades before settling on printing, the one mechanical trade that suited his bookish and searching mind.

While still very young, he read books of “polemic Divinity,” mostly attacks on Deism that he found in his father’s library. These books had an effect “quite contrary to what was intended by them,” Franklin tells us, and he became “a thorough Deist” by the time he was 15.[1] His unconventional religious beliefs, together with his fondness for disputing with his fellow Bostonians, contributed to his eventual need to depart for Philadelphia.

When only 16 and a printing apprentice to his brother James, he penned a series of essays under the pseudonym Silence Dogood, devoted to chiding the faults and encouraging the virtues of his fellow Bostonians. It was a device he returned to again and again. In Philadelphia, he wrote as the Busy-Body, a self-proclaimed censor morum, and at other times as Alice Addertongue, Obadiah Plainman, Homespun, and of course Poor Richard, whose sententious proverbs (many gleaned from other sources) remain part of our heritage. Franklin considered newspapers (as well as almanacs) to be “another Means of communicating Instruction”[2] to the wider public and filled his out with small, edifying pieces. It was part of a larger educational project, to which his Autobiography also belongs.

Franklin’s curiosity extended not only to politics, morality, and theology, but also to science. He investigated natural phenomena from weather patterns to the Gulf Stream to electricity. He founded the American Philosophical Society to advance the cause of science in the New World. His research in electricity led to the discovery of the polarity of electrical current; his invention of the lightning rod and many other advances brought him international renown. He was admitted to the Royal Society of London and other European learned societies. Franklin was the only one of the Founders with an international reputation before independence, and that reputation was scientific.

I invite you to read the entire article. Have your children read it, too. They’ll learn much about our Founding Fathers and Franklin that I doubt is being taught in their schools.

It’s @)$*&(+_*& Monday!

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.

Snow day!

Everyone seems to be taking a snow day today…and maybe tomorrow as well. I underestimated the snowfall last week. Once I got outside and made some measurements, we averaged 14″ in our yard. Our deck had a drift more than two feet deep. Fortunately, about half of the snow melted over the weekend.

Last night and continuing through today, we are receiving more snow. Using my Mark I eyeball, I would estimate we have around 8″ of new snow, so far. It’s a wet, heavy snow, clinging to trees and power lines.

Some 55,000 homes across Kansas City are without power including Mrs. Crucis’ cousin who lives in Kansas City.  We had a power ‘blink’ sometime during the night but it was brief. In our neighborhood, the power lines to houses are buried and the above ground lines are free of trees.

Here’s a couple of obligatory photos.

Snowstorm_02262013_tblet-1Snowstorm_02262013_tablet-2

***

Shenanigans.

The dems are using twitter  to send pro-gun control tweets to ‘Pub congressmen. I suppose I can’t really complain since we conservatives do too—to ‘Pub congressmen.

Republican rep claims Obama backers using fake Twitter accounts in gun-control blitz

Published February 25, 2013, FoxNews.com

President Obama supporters appear to be using fake Twitter accounts to send pro gun-control messages to members of Congress, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman and conservative bloggers who also reviewed the messages said Monday. 

Bloggers first spotted the trend and said they suspected some social media funny business because the senders had sent no other tweets, had no followers and followed nobody.

In addition, blogger Stacy McCain said his review found the majority of the accounts supporting Obama’s gun-control campaign were created less than 48 hours before a member of Congress was contacted.

The tweets in question included the #WeDemandAVote hashtag – which President Obama told gun-control supporters to include in their Twitter messages to Congress.

Stockman is among 16 members of Congress who appear to have received the tweets.

On Monday, the congressman suggested “Obama’s anti-gun activists” were behind the allegedly computer-generated messages, which his office called a “scam” similar to those selling “male enhancement pills.”

Stockman also said accounts are linked directly to a former Obama staffer and called on the president to denounce the spamming.  

“Obama’s anti-gun campaign is a fraud,” Stockman said in a statement. “The White House has some explaining to do. To what extent is the White House involved in this attempt to defraud Congress?”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

‘Nuff said.

Dinosaur Media Watch

Over the last few years I’ve posted numerous times about the death of media dinosaurs—here, here, and here. The Boston Globe is one such. It was up for sale some years ago and there were no takers. It’s owned by the parent company of the New York Times who is also on shaky ground. The NYT is putting the Boston Globe up for sale, again.

New York Times puts Boston Globe up for sale again

By Jennifer Saba, NEW YORK | Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:06pm EST

(Reuters) – The New York Times Co is putting The Boston Globe on the auction block for a second time as it seeks to focuses solely on growing its flagship newspaper.

The company said in a statement that it had hired Evercore Partners to advise on the sale, which also includes the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

The sale is expected to come at a big loss. Ken Doctor, an analyst with Outsell Research, estimated that the Globe could fetch about $150 million. The New York Times paid $1.1 billion for the newspaper in 1993.

The New York Times is putting all its effort into being a global information source and “the Globe is a distraction,” Doctor said.

Morningstar analyst Joscelyn MacKay said in recent years revenue at the Boston Globe had declined much more than at the New York Times.

The New York Times first put the paper up for sale in 2009 as it struggled with losses. But it halted the sale process and decided to hang onto the paper after winning concessions from Globe’s unions and implementing cost cuts.

Most print media organizations in the US, and in Europe,  have umbilical cord ties to unions. The unions block modernization that would reduce production expense while demanding higher wages and benefits. The unions have been sucking the economic blood from their partners until, one by one, major metro newspapers are dying.

Given the fact that newspapers have devolved into liberal propaganda tools, their passing is a good thing. The internet—and bloggers, are replacing them. And that, too, is a good thing.

***

Illinois tyrants are trying to kill free speech in the state. Illinois state Senator Ira Silverstein wants to prohibit the use of “anonymous” comments on websites. Now on one hand, I can sympathize. Ninety percent or more anonymous postings are spam of one form or another. Another six or seven percent are vitriol by opponents of the post or of the author and use “anonymous” to hide their identities. I’ve had a few of those on my website as well. The remaining percentages are those who don’t have an internet identity they wish to publicize.

It is the last two catagories above that involve free speech.  As much as I hate the rants spewed by liberals directed to my site by the Democrat Underground or the Daily Koz, they do have a right to say their message—just as I, as a website owner, have to right to remove their posts when they exceed the bounds of propriety.

Silverstein wants the state to enforce those prohibitions. Why? The site owner may approve of the statements and if/when those same statements offend Silverstein or his liberal buds, he has no recourse to force the removal of those statements.

His bill would grant him that authority regardless whether the website owners agree or disagree with Silverstein’s demands. It’s nothing more than another liberal attempt to stifle free speech.

Illinois state senator pushes anti-anonymity bill

3:42 AM 02/21/2013

A recently introduced bill in the Illinois state Senate would require anonymous website comment posters to reveal their identities if they want to keep their comments online.

The bill, called the Internet Posting Removal Act, is sponsored by Illinois state Sen. Ira Silverstein. It states that a “web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”

The bill, which does not ask for or clarify requirements from entities requesting the comment removal, would take effect 90 days after becoming law.

Pseudonymous and anonymous comments have long been a critical part of U.S. public discourse, though, and the bill may be on shaky legal ground.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) noted on its website that the “right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page.”

“Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the mayor’s office before going door-to-door,” wrote EFF, noting that the Supreme Court protects Internet commentary as it does pamphleteering.

The bill is part of a larger trend of lawmakers seeking to censor anonymous online speech.

Of course we must realize this is Illinois.  New York tried to pass a similar bill last year by establishment ‘Pubs. They failed.

***

This last item needs no added comments. It speaks for itself. New Yorkers, the British are coming. Where is your militia?

Report: Prosecutors to pursue felony charges against ex-soldier for possessing high-capacity magazine

New York prosecutors will pursue felony criminal charges against retired special forces soldier Nathan Haddad, who was arrested in LeRay, New York in January for allegedly possessing five 30-round AR-15 magazines, according to conservative law blog Legal Insurrection.

Prosecutors had reportedly offered Haddad a plea bargain that would spare him jail time if he admitted to five misdemeanors, according to Legal Insurrection. But Haddad’s attorney told the blog that Haddad, who currently works at the Department of Defense, will not accept the deal.

It is unclear how Haddad was arrested or discovered with the magazines.

Haddad was deployed four times during his ten-year Army career, and was once injured during special forces training in South Korea. He was discharged in October 2010.

A website established to pay Haddad’s legal expenses has collected more than $35,000.

Responsibilities

While trying to think of a theme for today, I remembered an encounter I had some years ago with an anti-gun liberal. I had worked with this woman for a couple of years. I usually had little association with her outside of some planning meetings. This time, our group met outside the office for lunch at a nearby diner well-known for its quality of grease.

Somehow the conversation got around to guns. Several of us in that group were shooters. This particular woman, of course, was not and made her opinions on guns known to the group, “No one should own guns! Guns only kill! The police will protect you!”

It was that last statement that made everyone laugh which made her angrier. We then attempted to educate her that the police have NO obligation to protect her, me, any individual and there were U. S. Supreme Court decisions to support that statement. This woman refused to listen, of course.

It is time again to remind people of these facts. The police, the Sheriff, any government agency, has no responsibility to protect any individual. Here are some pertinent court decisions to prove that point.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.”

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

Ah, but you say, that is the District of Columbia. It’s not a state but a federal enclave. It’s different for states.

Sorry, but you’re wrong. Here’s another case that originated in Colorado. It had the same result as did Warren v. DC.

 

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES .

 

On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales’ husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales’ family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one’s individual protection.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion of this decision. He said:

The horrible facts of this case are contained in the complaint that respondent Jessica Gonzales filed in Federal District Court. (Because the case comes to us on appeal from a dismissal of the complaint, we assume its allegations are true. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1 (2002).) Respondent alleges that petitioner, the town of Castle Rock, Colorado, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond properly to her repeated reports that her estranged husband was violating the terms of a restraining order.1

 We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband. It is accordingly unnecessary to address the Court of Appeals’ determination (366 F.3d, at 1110—1117) that the town’s custom or policy prevented the police from giving her due process when they deprived her of that alleged interest. See American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 61 (1999).14

Read more on this decision here.

This Colorado decision is somewhat unique because of the implied versus actual protected provided by the restraining order. The implied protection was valueless if the enforcing agency did not respond which the Castle Rock police failed to do in this case. In other words, the actual value of the restraining order was nullified by the inability or willful inaction of the police to enforce the order. In other words, a piece of paper, the restraining order in this case, provided no protection against an aggressor with a knife.

There has been another case, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services that pertains to minors in custodial care. In this case the Department of Social Services failed to respond to complaints of parental abuse against a dependent minor child. The beatings were reported to the Department of Social Services who refused to intervene. The issue came to a head when the father continued beating the child finally causing severe brain damage and retardation.

The Court’s decision can be summarized in this short segment.

A State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. — Cornell School of Law

The critical component of all these decisions is that the state, whether it be Federal, local municipality, or a state government has no obligation to protect any individual. In fact, government has no obligation to come to the aid of any individual for any reason. Since this has been proven true in the Courts all the way to the US Supreme Court, who does have that responsibility to protect the individual? No one…except that particular individual who must protect himself.

If the government has no obligation to protect individuals from harm by others, then that same government cannot prevent any individual from acquiring the means for the individual to protect themselves from any person or agency.

That is the real purpose for the Second Amendment.