More Wednesday’s Words

It seems my shot at the US Postal Service the other day hit home. They’ve just announced they are ending Saturday mail pickup and delivery—other than at the Post Offices. If they weren’t authorized in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, they would have long been bankrupt.

This announcement is just another example of the USPS’ stagger towards irrelevancy and extinction. If they truly wanted to save the Service, they’d end union domination and outsource most of the operation. But, that will never happen and UPS, FedEx and other commercial package and delivery services will continue to grow while the demand for the USPS diminishes.


This is an interesting item.  The unions want to become drug dealers…specifically dealing marijuana.

Together, the dispensaries are a symbol of the growing bond between the nascent medical marijuana industry and struggling labor unions.

During the last few years, unions, led by the UFCW, have played an increasingly significant role in campaigns to allow medical marijuana, now legal in California, 17 other states and Washington, D.C.

In the November elections, UFCW operatives also helped get-out-the-vote efforts in Colorado, where voters approved a measure that made possession of one ounce (28.3 grams) or less of the drug legal for anyone 21 and older. Washington state approved a similar measure and both states require regulation of marijuana growers, processors and retailers. — Reuters.

At least the unions are limiting themselves to a quasi-legal area. If they expand beyond medical marijuana, they’d find themselves in competition with the Mexican Cartels and their US allies, M13 and others. The difference between unions and the gangs is blurry enough without making the distinction worse.


The tensions in WesPac between China, Japan and the other western pacific nations is heating up. A ChiCom warship engaged missile radar lock on a Japanese warship. Many nations consider this an act of war. At one time, the US Navy considered such an act as an attack worthy of immediate response, i.e., an anti-radar missile fired back along that radar path.

“The incident is a dangerous conduct that could have led to an unforeseeable situation. It is extremely regrettable that China carried out such a one-sided, provocative act when signs are emerging for dialogue,” Abe told parliament.

“I ask the Chinese side to return to the spirit of mutually beneficial, strategic relations and prevent the recurrence of an incident like this. I strongly ask them for restraints so that the situation will not escalate further.”

Fire control radar is used to pinpoint the location of a target for missiles or shells. Directing the radar at a target can be considered a step away from actual firing.

The radar incident, which Japan said took place in the East China Sea on Jan. 30, came days after Chinese Communist Party chief Xi Jinping told Abe’s envoy that he was committed to developing bilateral ties. — Dawn.Com.

The territorial disputes arise from the claims of a number of nations to the oil and gas fields in the South China Sea and the Spratly Islands. China has laid claim to the entire area and has threatened to close it to shipping of other nations.  In response the US sent a carrier battlegroup through the South China Sea to show support for open navigation.

SpratlyScarboroughShoalMapThere have been unverified reports that China may seed the disputed area with mines in an attempt to deny access to other nations. In January 2013, China announced naval exercises in the South China Sea in another attempt to intimidate Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and the Philippine Islands—all parties with interests and claim to that area.

China to conduct naval drills in Pacific amid tension

updated 1/30/2013 3:20:08 AM ET

BEIJING (Reuters) – Three advanced Chinese warships left port on Wednesday for naval drills and war games in the Western Pacific, and the fleet will likely pass through disputed waters in the East and South China Sea, state media said.

The official Xinhua news agency described the maneuvers as routine, but they come as China is engaged in an increasingly bitter, high stakes dispute over maritime territory with Japan and with several Southeast Asia nations.

“The fleet will carry out more than 20 types of exercises including naval confrontation, battle drills far out at sea, the protection of maritime rights and command and control,” Xinhua cited the Defence Ministry as saying in a statement.

“These exercises on the high seas will take in the Yellow Sea, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, the Miyako Strait, the Bashi Channel and the seas to the east of Taiwan.”

In the US, everyone’s attention is on the Mideast with Iran’s announcement they are now nuclear, and by inference, have a nuke. However, if WW3 erupts, it’s more likely to occur in the Pacific.  China is a nuclear power. Taiwan is one of several nations, like Israel, South Korea, who have quietly developed nukes or could develop nukes quickly.

Note, too, that Japan has nuclear technology. They have the knowledge to make nukes whenever they want. However, they also have a cultural prohibition. I would expect that prohibition to go out the window if China ever threatened Japan with a nuke.  Japan also has missile technology that could be easily converted to ICBMs.

If large scale war erupts in the Pacific with an exchange of nukes, strategic or tactical, I expect Iran to “accidentally” go poof.

Cowboys vs…no, not Aliens—the Post Office

USPSThe U.S. Postal Service has been taking lumps in the last few weeks and some customers and cities are fighting back. One case is between the USPS and the city of East Cleveland, OH. The issue there is traffic and parking tickets…some $700 worth of traffic tickets issued to USPS drivers who ignored speed limits, traffic lights and no-parking zones. The USPS replied through a USPS litigator.

“In providing mail service across the country, the Postal Service attempts to work within local and state laws and regulations, when feasible,” Breslin wrote in response to a summons for payment. “However, as you are probably aware, the postal service enjoys federal immunity from state and local regulation.” — The Leaf Chronicle.

I used to be amazed by the arrogance of governmental spokesmen. That was long ago when I was younger and more…naive. I was soon educated and lost that innocence.

The problem with this USPS stance is that they are not a full federal agency. They are a constitutionally mandated service, independently funded. That’s far from being a federal agency.  I note that NPR, too,is also a quasi-independent agency that is partially funded by tax dollars. I don’t believe anyone thinks NPR is a federal agency comparable with…USIA, the US Information Agency. But, the USPS is a money-losing operation. Unions have locked the Service in the past, not allowing full automation and burdening the Service with an enormous underfunded pension fund.

The USPS answer astounded local city officials. East Cleveland Mayor Gary Norton was bewildered by the news.“I was unaware that the post office doesn’t have to stop at red lights or obey the speed limit. But since they are, I wish I’d get my mail faster.”

This case is undoubtedly going to Federal court. Given the tendency of the Judiciary towards more statism over the last six decades, I wouldn’t be surprised East Cleveland loses in court giving the USPS freedom to continue to ignore state and local law.

Another case that is already in court is from Colorado, a 2nd Amendment issue this time. The suit is against the blanket USPS prohibition against weapons by customers of the post office. Again, the USPS uses the “federal agency” excuse and Obama’s government-wide order prohibiting weapons carried by legal, law-abiding citizens on federal property.

PENDLEY: A real gunfight in the Old West

A Colorado case emerges as a test for the Second Amendment

By William Perry Pendley, Monday, February 4, 2013

As defenders of the Second Amendment grapple with President Obama’s second-term onslaught against the “right to keep and bear arms,” a rural Colorado man is already in federal court in Denver challenging the Obama administration’s first-term refusal to adhere to the commands of the Constitution. Briefs have been filed and oral arguments await in Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Service, a gun rights case that could eventually reach the Supreme Court.

Tab Bonidy, who lives in rural Colorado outside of Avon—a tiny town in Eagle County, two hours west of Denver — is licensed to carry a handgun and regularly carries one for self-defense from wild animals and criminals whenever he drives the 10 miles roundtrip from his home, where mail delivery service is not available, into Avon to collect his mail. On his arrival in Avon, however, he is barred by a Postal Service regulation from carrying his firearm, or even locking it in his car, on Postal Service property. The Postal Service regulation, which was renewed in 2007, provides: “Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on Postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on Postal property, except for official purposes.”

In July 2010, Mr. Bonidy wrote the Postal Service and asked it to withdraw its regulation, which is overly broad and, given Heller, of dubious constitutionality. The Postal Service refused. Therefore, in October 2010, Mr. Bonidy, joined by the National Association for Gun Rights, filed a federal lawsuit in Denver. U.S. Department of Justice attorneys, defending the Postal Service, have twice moved to dismiss the suit. The judge denied the motion both times.

The argument by the Department of Justice is straightforward. Second Amendment rights are limited to the home. Moreover, Postal Service property is sensitive because the Postal Service says so. Thus, its regulation is reasonable. In addition, in reviewing the Postal Service’s regulation, the district court should defer to the expertise of the Postal Service. Finally, argues the Obama administration, unlike most other constitutional protections, the “right to keep and bear arms” is not subject to strict or even intermediate judicial scrutiny. That is, the federal government must simply demonstrate its regulation is “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling governmental interest.”

Mr. Bonidy argues that the Second Amendment guarantees his right to carry a firearm for self-defense in case of confrontation, that his right to do so is clear from the Constitution’s text, which is illustrated by the English Common Law and that it has long been protected by the states. The Postal Service’s Avon property is hardly “sensitive,” especially in light of the Obama administration’s argument that any property that serves a “quintessential government function” is “sensitive” and hence a government-decreed “gun-free zone.” In fact, the Avon post office is open to the public and lacks any indication of being a sensitive place. Finally, although the Postal Service may have a compelling governmental interest when it seeks to protect lives and the mail, its total ban is not “narrowly tailored” to serve those interests.

The last paragraph in the article is most appropriate. It states simply, “In the long battle now beginning to preserve the Second Amendment, it is fitting that an initial and important skirmish occurs out West.”

Living in a liberal paradise

It’s a new year.  Our mailbox did not survive New Year’s Eve. We arose yesterday morning to discover it was laying on it’s side.  We share that mailbox with a number of neighbors. Fortunately, we still able to retrieve our mail.  With the consolidation of mail delivery from Raymore to Belton, our mail now arrives after dark. Before the consolidation our mail arrived before noon. Perhaps it’s just as well. We receive less and less real mail. It it weren’t for the coupons and ads we probably wouldn’t bother checking the box at all.


The libs are at it again.  After the large negative response to their latest gun grabbing scheme from Senator Feinstein, they are trying a new tactic—mandatory liability insurance. As usual, this will only affect the law-abiding gun owners. Criminals will ignore this new law like they ignore all the rest.

Law on liability insurance eyed for gun owners

Idea resurfaces after Newtown killings

By David Sherfinski – The Washington Times, Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Hoping to get beyond the debate over new gun-control laws, a group of economists and legal scholars is floating another plan they say could cut down on spree shootings: require all gun owners to carry liability insurance, similar to what automobile owners must have.

The plan, which was floated in Illinois’ legislature in 2009, draws the ire of gun-rights groups who say it infringes on Americans’ Second Amendment rights and unfairly targets law-abiding gun owners. But backers say it offers a way to ferret out potentially dangerous or unstable criminals from the ranks of gun owners without having the federal government enact outright bans.

The horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. last month ignited a new national debate over gun law, but the liability insurance proposal may not have prevented that tragedy. Shooter Adam Lanza used firearms owned by his mother to kill her and then 26 children and administrators at the school before taking his own life.

“If you own a gun, you should expect some due diligence of all people who own guns,” said Tricia Dunlap, a Richmond-based lawyer. “We can stop debating about whether you can own a gun, because of course you can. Do we ban assault weapons? No, it doesn’t work. God, we’ve been having that debate for 20 years. Can we come at it from a fresh angle?”

So what do we really have here? Another tax. Some libs tried to sue the state of Connecticut after the NewTown shootings. The state replied that school safety wasn’t their responsibility but that of the local city and school district. The libs and their trial lawyer buds must have someone to sue and you can’t get money from ordinary people—you need someone with deep pockets…like insurance companies. Those insurance companies will, of course, pass the cost along to the gun owner.

It doesn’t matter than gun-owners are already liable if they misuse their firearms. The issue is who has money the libs and lawyers can steal acquire if they sue? Your average gun-owner doesn’t have pockets all that deep. This bill will provide a suitable (sueable?) source of money.