Category Archives: Constitutional Freedoms
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Editors Note: T.L. Davis, an excellent writer, and American Patriot, wrote both of the following posts. I put them here, in entirety, because they should be read by every fellow patriot in this country. Once every decent, constitutional believing, God-fearing American is designated as a terrorist, which is being done by OUR government of these United States – Then we are ALL in this together and you and I have to make a decision just as T.L. Davis describes in these two articles. Everything is now in clear Black and White. To me there is no “gray area.” I know where I stand. Do You? ZTW
Miller Dilemma - Post One
Jared and Amanda Miller finally gave the feds the excuse they were looking for to put all of us “domestic terrorists” on notice. It was bound to happen wasn’t it? And now the post I made only yesterday asks the question of today. Do we have the ability, as a movement, to stomach the sort of thing the Millers did and still stand by our previous statements? Who knows if they were white supremacists, how can anyone know for sure? They draped the cops body with a Swastika, does that say something about them, or the cops? Who are the Nazis in this scenario?
See, how do we, as a community, deal with this act? We know who the cops are; what they are willing to do to innocent citizens. I don’t agree with white supremacy. I don’t agree with racism. I don’t agree with flash-banging a baby in his crib either.
At the Bundy Ranch the feds were willing to unleash snipers. On who? Grass poachers? The Millers are not innocent, possibly racists, perhaps that is what got them kicked out of Bundy’s Ranch and rightly so in my book, but like them or not, we just got associated with them and as far as the cops are concerned they are free to kill our families; our babies, to justify their bloodthirsty desire for retribution.
I know the tendency is to back away from the Millers, to let them swing alone, but their rage was not created out of racism, or anti-government conspiracy theories. It was created out of armored cars and militarized police departments encouraging the type of tactics that make the deaths of innocents almost guaranteed. We have all seen the hundreds of cases a year of extreme police brutality and hardly ever a legal case brought against those guilty of what can only be described as executions.
If anything pushed the Millers to do what they did it wasn’t the “patriot community” (as several news stories claim, using that particular term that I have probably used a few thousand times and never heard it used in a news story before). What does that tell you? Anyone who identifies themselves with that term is now a target of retribution. They were also connected somehow to the militia and I doubt seriously if they had ever had contact with the militia outside of Bundy Ranch.
I know this will not be a popular post. I know there are several police officers and deputies who read this blog, so let me be very clear here. It is not a question of whether I support the Millers for their act any more than it is a question of whether they support the deputies who flash-banged a toddler in his crib in Georgia.
There is also a distinction to be made. Yes, cops risk their lives and many, many times in arresting true criminals, murderers, thieves, gang members and rapists. That conscious decision to engage these criminals takes courage and they deserve our respect, but they chose that occupation; they knew the risks and assumed them. In this case a couple of officers were killed with, as far as I know, no connection to the Bundy Ranch, or other acts of overt, criminal oppression, but they tolerated in their midst bad cops and probably said nothing, perhaps laughed at their antics of cruelty.
A child in a crib did none of these things and suffered the same fate (even though the child in GA did not die). It was sleeping in a crib for heaven’s sake and got flash-banged by eager, arrogant, careless and ruthless men with badges. I know the life of a baby means nothing to the media, they report on them every day, they encourage abortion and see nothing valuable in the state of innocence of a child, but I do.
That distinction is critical to understanding the difference between the causes of one death and the senseless death of another. It is the difference between understanding that one makes themselves a target by their complicity to corruption and brutality and not understanding what a baby in a crib could possibly be complicit in.
The feds have put me in association with the Millers, because they want me there. It gives them a reason to kill me and my family without regret, remorse or anything, except a high five. If that is you, if you recognize yourself in these words, you do not deserve my respect and I will not feel sadness at your passing.
You cannot continue to take citizen’s lives so lightly and expect them to cherish yours. The police department is supposed to be a cooperation between citizens and those expected to enforce the laws the people have designed to order a civil society. When the police turn their power against the people they cannot expect and do not deserve the support of the people. If that manifests itself in acts as committed by the Millers, only the police have the ability to reverse the trend.
Perhaps you have enough cover on the force that they would never come after you, but they will come after people like me, who will not blanch in the face of pressure. My beliefs in God and the Constitution are solid, that will never change and if those things make me a target, well I will have to deal with it, but you are looking at yourself as an individual suddenly targeted by psychotics and feel uncomfortable. Trust me, it is a much different feeling when you see some of those psychotics driving around in police cruisers, with the weapons, law and society on theirs side. Not all, surely, but enough. Did you know that a police officer is 137 times more likely to be guilty of misconduct severe enough to warrant a news story than of being killed in the line of duty? That is one in five. Now, what are my chances of encountering a cop who is willing to commit misconduct severe enough to warrant a news story? 1 in 5. I think I have a lot more to worry about than you. I mean, in my line of work, I put my life on the line every day as well. I can’t even begin to count the close calls, not of mere disfigurement, but death. I accept that and I assume you have as well.
Of course there are no absolutes, but I don’t know which one will turn their eye on me on behalf of a police department owning many thousands of gifts to the current administration in the form of military-style vehicles and weapons including snipers and night vision goggles.
No, I am not cowering inside my home for having written the previous post, I wouldn’t give them the satisfaction, but it is nearing the time when you will have to decide whether you are on your employer’s side, or the side of liberty.
I risk a lot writing this blog, but I consider it a duty to express the frustration and outright illegality going on as commonplace in the world of government. I have suffered the wrath of the government already in my journey of patriotism, so I am not confused as to whether I have been targeted or not. I don’t care, because my right to free speech is as dear as the right to bear arms. Put me in jail if you must, kill me if you think it will get you a promotion, but do not mistake your role in the affair.
Don’t take my word for it, the bad cops are running loose in society with guns and badges we gave them, go here. It is, at best, an epidemic. There were seven convictions in May alone and we have to figure in that these were just the ones to get caught, run through the process and eventually convicted. How many get away? How many criminals get away rather than convicted? How much harder is it to get a conviction against a cop?
Having said that, the police officers and deputies that frequent this blog are like all who consider themselves defenders of personal rights, good, decent, hard-working people. I don’t mean to besmirch them all, but the odds are not good. These are truths that must be faced in order to begin a restoration of the proper order of things. It will take a critical look at the facts and make some judgments and maybe take action against it.
At some point the good cops have to take some responsibility. Yes, the link above shows that the system can work, but my point is the system must work or it breeds people like the Millers. I daresay that it is breeding them much faster than is imagined. An escalation of force can do nothing other than make martyrs and breed resistance. It is hard for cops to recognize that while they might have all of the armor, the tanks, the SWAT teams it wants, a few motivated people who feel the injustice of the system can do unprecedented damage to society as a whole.
My advice is to back off, reassess the trajectory of militarization of your forces and the message it sends to everyone who values their rights. If you light enough fuses a few bombs are liable to go off.
By T.L. Davis
I have not revealed my philosophy concerning the coming counter-revolution in the past simply because it would classify me as one thing or another. People always draw the wrong conclusions. They leap headlong into a definition that suits their opinions and always to the detriment of actual understanding. Karl Popper, an Austrian philosopher and economics professor said a few things that strike me as true, one of them is the statement: Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood. The other is this: You can choose whatever name you like for the two types of government. I personally call the type of government which can be removed without violence Democracy and the other Tyranny.
Voting Republican will not remove the government. It will not repeal Obamacare, the Patriot Act, the offending clause of the NDAA or any of the things Republicans promise in exchange for your vote. There will be no reversal of NSA spying, or IRS intimidation, because the government relies on these things to keep us all in line. Patriots are a threat to the government, whoever is in charge of its offices. The Bundy Ranch was attacked by every administration from the first Bush on down. That should tell you something, so when a person is offered the right to vote with no possibility of change, the vote has no value. Voting Republican will only prolong the increasing injustices.
There is no answer other than the determination of a small band of patriots dedicated to the ideals embodied within the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. But, these documents are not sacrosanct, they are not perfect. They cannot protect the citizen from evil done to them under their authority. That role is reserved to the people, the militia, the unorganized militia; it is reserved to those who will go against all odds to enforce them with arms. That is the only Constitutional remedy.
This is a fight, a war against the politicians who have twisted the laws to turn the standing army (the police) against the citizens. It is a form of enslavement, because there is no provision of law left to the patriot other than natural law. As such, every patriot must watch the days pass and the injustices mount until they are no longer able to sit and take it. Each patriot has a different level of tolerance, so no action might be coordinated. Even the victorious outcome will not guarantee liberty as there will always be those left, who did not fight, who did not sacrifice to take the stage and appeal to patriotism as a means of securing their own power and corrupting the intentions of those who did.
For what then does one lay down his life? There appears to be only one rational reason to take up arms, to step out onto the field. It cannot be to secure liberty, because that is not assured; it cannot be to restore the Constitution, because that is likewise not assured. The only pure cause of action is retribution for enslavement.
Bob Copeland, Donald Sterling And The Criminalization Of Private Conversation (For Whites)
Like most Americans (I suspect), I was disappointed by the abrupt resignation of Bob Copeland, the 82 year old part-time Wolfeboro, NH police commissioner who used the “N Word” to describe President Obama to a friend while having a drink at the bar of a local restaurant, thus triggering the latest Political Correctness witch-hunt. At first, Copeland defended himself bravely and it looked like we might get another test of Paul Kersey’s thesis that this whole Ruling Class Show Trial strategy is about to collapse. But apparently the social pressure on Copeland’s family was too great. So Kersey has one winner (Duck Commander Phil Robertson) and two losers (Cliven Bundy and Don Sterling)…plus, of course, the ultimate loser: America. [N.H. police commissioner who used racial slur in reference to Obama resigns, By Wesley Lowery, May 19, 2014]
It’s important to grasp the details of this appalling story.
A woman at a table in the restaurant, Jane O’Toole, overheard Copeland’s remarks and decided to take offense. She even found out who the elderly man was and then contacted the Wolfeboro Police Department to complain about his use of the N-word…in a private conversation.
When Copeland learned of her complaint, he decided to reply by email. He did not deny making the remark and refused to apologize for it:
While I believe the problems associated with minorities in this country are momentous, I am not phobic. My use of derogatory slang in reference to those among them undeserving of respect is no secret. It is the exercise of my 1st Amendment rights… I believe I did use the “N” word in reference to the current occupant of the Whitehouse [sic]. For this I do not apologize – he meets and exceeds my criteria for such.
[Wolfeboro police commissioner under scrutiny for racist comments about Obama, By Sarah Palermo, The Concord Monitor, May 15, 2014]
Everyone knows what Chris Rock means by this distinction. That’s why it gets so many laughs.
Nevertheless, Jane O’Toole didn’t grasp the distinction. So she contacted the New Hampshire Main Stream Media about Copeland’s remarks and they, needless to say, gave the story prominent coverage.
Years ago, the local and national press would have considered reporting on the contents of a private conversation between two elderly men to be both off-limits and absurd. But now, in Obama’s post-America, it is Page One news.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Spend some time with any octogenarian men or women and you can bank on the fact that they will say some inappropriate things, especially if they have had a couple of drinks. We’ll all get there some day; so will Jane O’Toole.
More importantly: President Obama regularly socializes with rap stars who use the N-Word in public all the time. So it’s OK to use the term publicly if you’re black—but it’s a sin to even speak the word privately if you’re white.
Certainly if Bob Copeland was black, Jane O’Toole would never have made an issue out of this.
Is it not a remarkable double standard that blacks are allowed to speak freely in both public and private with no fear of condemnation, but whites must police every word they say lest someone catch a casual remark on their cellphone and post it online? Apparently, in Obama’s post-America, blacks simply enjoy greater political freedom than whites.
What kind of craziness is this?
Wolfeboro, NH is a charming town on the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee with a proud history dating back to colonial times. Many longtime residents can trace their roots back generations. My own parents used to live in Wolfeboro and my oldest sister was born there. A few summers ago, when I walked into a golf shop in Wolfeboro, I discovered that the owner had posted a sign on the wide open front door that read: “Sorry. Have to pick up my car at the garage. Be Back Soon. Make Yourself At Home.”
Business owners don’t have that kind of confidence in the more diverse areas of America. That’s what people love so much about Wolfeboro.
In fact, the central antagonist in this most unnecessary drama, Jane O’Toole, only moved to Wolfeboro four months ago—most likely because of the lack of diversity she unconsciously appreciates, but consciously resents. But this is precisely the kind of doublethink that characterizes most racial agitators.
There was actually a town meeting held at the Wolfeboro Public Library to discuss Bob Copeland’s private remark, or rather, the national controversy that Ms. O’Toole instigated over it. From what I can tell, despite MSM claims to the contrary, the turnout for this meeting was not very high. And some of the people there actually had the courage to defend Bob Copeland. Good for them.
True, a handful of blacks live in Wolfeboro, and some of them showed up at the meeting to protest as well. But I suspect that most of them are associated with Brewster Academy, a boarding school located across the street from the town library, and that few of them actually live there full-time. [VDARE.com note: Wikipedia says that Wolfeboro’s population(2000 census) was 6,083, of whom 0.16% were African American, which is <10 people.]
Certainly, Bob Copeland did a poor job of defending himself. You can watch video of him hobbling on his cane as he is confronted by people more than half his age in the parking lot of the public library. . [Video: Police Commissioner Who Called Obama the N-Word Snaps at ‘Skunk’ Reporter as Angry Residents Demand His Resignation, By Dave Urbanksi, The Blaze, May 16, 2014]
My guess is that Copeland suffers from some age-related infirmities of both the body and the mind, making him an easy target for racial grievance mongers
But the point is this: Informing on white people for sins committed in private conversations appears to be a growing trend.
Just recently, 80 year old Donald Sterling’s girlfriend coaxed him into making crude remarks about minorities during a private conversation and illegally recorded them before someone sent them off to TMZ. Now Donald Sterling has been fined $2.5 million and is being forced to sell his franchise for having an inappropriate private conversation.
And nearly everyone in the MSM and beyond seems to accept that the virtual criminalization of private conversations is entirely appropriate.
It is now perfectly respectable to make an example of a white person if they make an impolite remark about another race in private—and it doesn’t matter if they are friends, relatives, strangers, or even the elderly.
Incidentally, Mitt Romney owns a palatial lakefront estate in Wolfeboro where he remains a familiar presence. You can often see him with his large extended family getting ice cream on a summer evening downtown. But in case you need a further reminder of why Mitt Romney was not elected to the White House, he recently joined the chorus calling for Bob Copeland’s resignation: “The vile epithet used and confirmed by the commissioner has no place in our community,” said Romney loftily. [Romney Rips NH Officials ‘Vile Epithet, By Matt Stout, The Boston Herald, May 17, 2014]
Bob Copeland, a Navy veteran and longtime resident of Wolfeboro where his wife was born, will probably spend his few remaining years behind closed doors out of fear of running into people like Jane O’Toole.
Hannah Arendt defined totalitarianism as the drive to control the inner life of private individuals. And Arendt argued that totalitarianism does not actually depend on government control, but on a “volunteer espionage network” of private individuals who strive to intimidate their fellow citizens into conformity with the party line. In a recent speech, Michelle Obama actually encouraged this: “Maybe that starts simply in your own family, when grandpa tells that off-colored joke at Thanksgiving, or you’ve got an aunt [that] talks about ‘those people…’” [Michelle Obama Would Like Students to Monitor Family Members for Racial Insensitivity, by Pete Kasperowicz, The Blaze, May. 19, 2014]
Thus in Bertolt Brecht’s short play, The Spy, [PDF] a mother and father are enjoying a Sunday lunch with their son during which the parents make some critical remarks about the Nazi regime. After lunch, the son leaves and the parents inadvertently learn that he has gone to attend a mandatory Hitler Youth meeting. For the rest of the afternoon, they both anguish over the prospect that their own son will report them to the authorities for expressing a thought-crime against the regime.
Incredibly, Brecht’s nightmare is becoming a reality in Obama’s post-America.
Matthew Richer (email him) is a writer living in Massachusetts. He is the former American Editor of Right NOW magazine.
Court: Cops Can Kick In Your Door And Seize Your Guns Without A Warrant If They Feel It’s In Your Best Interest
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals may have just dealt a serious blow to the U.S. Constitution.
. In a unanimous decision earlier this month the Court determined that law enforcement officers are not required to present a warrant or charges before forcibly entering a person’s home, searching it and confiscating their firearms if they believe it is in the individual’s best interests.
The landmark suit was brought before the court by Krysta Sutterfield of Milwaukee, who had recently visited a psychiatrist for outpatient therapy resulting from some bad news that she had received. According to court records Sutterfield had expressed a suicidal thought during the visit, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, when she said “I guess I’ll go home and blow my brains out.” This prompted her doctor to contact police.
For several hours the police searched for Sutterfield, speaking with neighbors and awaiting her return home. They received an update from her psychiatrist who said that Sutterfield had contacted her and advised that she was not in need of assistance and to “call off” the search, which the doctor did not agree to. Police eventually left and Sutterfield returned home, only to be visited later that evening by the lead detective on the case:
Sutterfield answered Hewitt’s knock at the front door but would not engage with her, except to state repeatedly that she had “called off” the police and to keep shutting the door on Hewitt. Sutterfield would not admit Hewitt to the residence, and during the exchange kept the outer storm door closed and locked. Unable to gain admittance to the house, Hewitt concluded that the police would have to enter it forcibly.
Sutterfield called 911 in an effort to have the officers leave; as a result of that call, the ensuing events were recorded by the emergency call center. Sutterfield can be heard on the recording telling the officers that she was fine and that she did not want anyone to enter her residence.
After informing Sutterfield of his intention to open the storm door forcibly if she did not unlock it herself, Berken yanked the door open and entered the house with the other officers to take custody of Sutterfield pursuant to the statement of detention. A brief struggle ensued.
Sutterfield can be heard on the 911 recording demanding both that the officers let go of her and that they leave her home. (Sutterfield would later say that the officers tackled her.) Sutterfield was handcuffed and placed in the officers’ custody.
At that point the officers conducted a protective sweep of the home. In the kitchen, officer James Floriani observed a compact disc carrying case in plain view. He picked up the soft-sided case, which was locked, and surmised from the feel and weight of its contents that there might be a firearm inside. He then forced the case open and discovered a semi-automatic handgun inside; a yellow smiley-face sticker was affixed to the barrel of the gun, covering the muzzle. Also inside the case were concealed-carry firearm licenses from multiple jurisdictions other than Wisconsin. Elsewhere in the kitchen the officers discovered a BB gun made to realistically resemble a Glock 29 handgun.
The contents of the case were seized along with the BB gun and placed into police inventory for safekeeping.
Berken would later state that he authorized the seizure of the handgun in order to keep them out of the hands of a juvenile, should a juvenile enter the house unaccompanied by an adult while Sutterfield remained in the hospital.
Sutterfield subsequently filed a lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee with the district court, a case that was initially dismissed. She then filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th District claiming that her Second and Fourth Amendment rights were violated.
In a 75-page opinion the court, while pointing out that the intrusion against Sutterfield was profound, sided with the city of Milwaukee:
“The intrusions upon Sutterfield’s privacy were profound,” Judge Ilana Rovner wrote for three-judge panel.
“At the core of the privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment is the right to be let alone in one’s home.”
But the court also found, that on the other hand, “There is no suggestion that (police) acted for any reason other than to protect Sutterfield from harm.”
“Even if the officers did exceed constitutional boundaries,” the court document states, “they are protected by qualified immunity.”
As noted by Police State USA, the court may have just created a legal loophole for law enforcement officials around the country, giving them immunity from Constitutional violations if they merely suggest that exigent circumstances exist and that they are acting in the best interests of the health and safety of an alleged suspect, regardless of Constitutional requirements:
In short, Sutterfield’s privacy (which was admittedly encroached upon) was left unprotected by the Bill of Rights because of the “exigent circumstances” in which police executed an emergency detention – with no warrant, no criminal charges, and no input from the judiciary. Similarly, the gun confiscation was also deemed as acceptable due to the so-called “emergency” which police claimed had been taking place for 9 consecutive hours.
The federal ruling affirms a legal loophole which allows targeted home invasions, warrantless searches, and gun confiscations that rest entirely in the hands of the Executive Branch. The emergency aid doctrine enables police to act without a search warrant, even if there is time to get one. When the government wants to check on someone, his or her rights are essentially suspended until the person’s sanity has been forcibly validated.
The implications of the courts legal decision are alarmingly broad. Though this particular case involved exigent circumstances in which an individual suggested she wanted to commit suicide, albeit tongue-in-cheek, the court’s opinion suggests that such tactics can be applied for any “emergency” wherein police subjectively determine that an individual may be a danger to themselves or others.
Under new statutes passed by the federal government these emergencies and dangers could potentially include any number of scenarios. Senator Rand Paul recently highlighted that there are laws on the books that categorize a number of different activities as having the potential for terrorism, including things like purchasing bulk ammunition. Last month, when a group of concerned citizens assembled at Bundy Ranch in Nevada to protest government overreach, Senator Harry Reid dubbed them “domestic terrorists.” Even paying with cash or complaining about chemicals in water can land an American on the terror watch list. Non-conformists who do not subscribe to the status quo can now be considered mentally insane according to psychiatrists’ Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders.
Law enforcement has an almost unlimited amount of circumstances they can cite to justify threats to one’s self or others, and thus, to ignore Constitutional requirements when serving at the behest of the local, state or federal government.
Have the Federal Court’s latest decision made it possible for these vaguely defined suspicious activities to be molded into exigent circumstances that give police the right to enter homes without due process, confiscate legally owned personal belongings, and detain residents without charge?
From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/#
It is easy to dismiss the NBA booting noted jerk Donald Sterling as good riddance to bad rubbish isn’t it? I mean no one, and I mean no one is defending this old fool and his foolish, deplorable words, or his taste in skanks, I mean mistresses. So, a bigot shoots off his mouth, and his fellow owners choose to throw him under the bus, fine right? Well, maybe not. What happens when an NBA owner, or an owner in the NHL, NFL, or MLB, or coach, or GM are “outed” for some other thought crime. Let’s say the individual is found to support traditional marriage, or tighter border security, or to oppose abortion, or affirmative action? How far are we from the day when those are found to be views that are just not welcome in our hyper sensitive society? Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid has already asked the NFL to go after Redskins owner Daniel Snyder because he refuses to change the teams name. The Congressional Black Caucus wants sports leagues to crack down on any owner that is “racially insensitive”. Ask the former Mozilla CEO about his situation. So, get ready folks, get ready to have a new thought police that will decide who gets to own, or run what in America. I will allow Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks to give us a final thought
A day earlier, however, Cuban — while criticizing Sterling’s comments as “obviously bigoted, obviously racist” — called it “damn scary” that a precedent could be set.
“Regardless of your background, regardless of the history they have, if we’re taking something somebody said in their home and we’re trying to turn it into something that leads to you being forced to divest property in any way, shape or form, that’s not the United States of America,” Cuban said. “I don’t want to be part of that.”
There are those that will say that as long as the government is not coming after people for words they say, then our right to free speech is untouched. But, at a certain point we are soon going to be living in a nation where we have the freedom to speak, but might be to afraid to use it. A nation with defacto speech codes barring certain thoughts from being expressed, then, maybe a nation with speech codes dictating that we MUST express certain views or else. In short, a nation where anyone stepping out of line will be subjected to bullying, intimidation, and thuggery. A nation where expressing yourself on Twitter, Facebook, or your personal blog, or even in a private conversation might cost you your livelihood.
From TDG : http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
We have set up two phone numbers for Bundy Ranch related issues.
The first number is for those wishing to volunteer for watch and other duties at the ranch and also for those who wish to send supplies to the ranch and need to know how best to send those supplies. Please do not call this number unless you wish to volunteer or send/donate supplies to the ranch. The individual on the phone will have a list of needed supplies. The main point of this number is to be able to establish a tentative schedule in order to best have all positions covered. We need people now but if you can’t make it for a few days or weeks we ask that you still call the line because we WILL have a need long term and we would like to get our roster fleshed out. If you are calling to volunteer be prepared to provide contact info, an estimated arrival date, the length of time you may wish to stay and give us some idea of the skills and equipment you have to offer.
Anyone volunteering for security/watch duty MUST put themselves under the leadership of the on-site security team leader, Jerry DeLemus, an Oath Keeper and the leader of the largest 912 Project group in New Hampshire.
The Watch Roster Hotline number is: 702-793-9217
The second number is to verify or quash Bundy Ranch related rumors. If you are hearing rumors, positive or negative, that are potentially of great importance use this number to get information directly from the folks on site. PLEASE use good judgement before calling this number. If we are overwhelmed with nonsense the line will be of no use.
The Rumor Verification Hotline number is: 702-793-9219
From WRSA: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you’ll live… at least a while.
And dying in your beds, many years from now,
would you be willin’ to trade ALL the days, from this day to that,
for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies
that they may take our lives, but they’ll never take…
Found at RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/
Found at mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
From WRSA: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
If a government passes a law, and nobody obeys, what is that government to do?
. When Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) signed the “toughest assault weapons legislation in the nation” last year, his administration estimated between 372,000 and 400,000 firearms would be registered and about 2 million magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
The registration requirement kicked in on Jan. 1 – more than four months ago.
To date, about 50,000 “assault weapons” have been registered – less than 15 percent – and only 38,000 “high-capacity” magazines have been registered – or about 2 percent.
This has liberals – led by the leftist Hartford Courant – in a rage. In a Valentine’s Day editorial, the newspaper said state police should comb the state and federal background check databases to find those millions of scofflaws and… well, arrest them.
The Courant doesn’t say this outright, they argue that the state should find these people, but since violating the new law is a felony, and “felonies cannot go unenforced.”
“A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit,” they write. “if you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.
What the newspaper is afraid to call for outright is the imprisonment of tens of thousands of gun and high-capacity magazine owners in the state. Throw them in prison for merely owning a weapon or magazine.
Luckily, Gov. Malloy is a little brighter than the good people at the Courant. Sending state troopers descending on thousands of gun owners can not end well. Some folks – even folks in Connecticut – are inclined to believe their Second Amendment Right is inalienable and would react rather negatively if somebody attempted to disarm them.
So that’s out. What about threatening them with criminal charges? That’s out too. The new law already classifies them as felons and they don’t seem to mind.
So what is Malloy likely to do? Nothing. Pretend the law doesn’t even exist and try to move on. Of course, this just proves what we’ve already known: tyrants are toothless against an armed and educated populace.
From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
. The media’s version of the end of the Bundy Ranch siege is that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) simply “left” the ranch and “returned” the cattle out of the goodness of their hearts. CBS News even outrageously reported that the BLM “released the cattle to help restore order and avoid violence“! This despite widely-seen video of BLM thugs tasing Bundy’s son and shoving a pregnant woman to the ground. And the protesters never threatened violence in any way during the nearly one-week siege.
The real story was that the BLM refused to give back the cattle, and would not leave the property or disarm, to which they had agreed. The result was an epic standoff that reporter David Knight described as being like “something out of a movie.”
Supporters of Bundy advanced on a position held by BLM agents despite threats that they would be shot at, eventually forcing BLM feds to release 100 cattle that had been stolen from Bundy as part of a land grab dispute that threatened to escalate into a Waco-style confrontation.
. ———————————————————————————————————————— .
. Here’s Judge Jeanine Pirro, proving once again that she’s not a part of the “mainstream” news media.
Turtles and cows have absolutely no relevance to the situation in Nevada. Does the Constitution make provision for the federal government to own and control “public land”? This is the only question we need to consider. Currently, the federal government “owns” approximately 30% of the United States territory. The majority of this federally owned land is in the West. For example, the feds control more than 80% of Nevada and more than 55% of Utah. The question has been long debated. At the debate’s soul is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which is know as the “Property Clause”. Proponents of federal expansion on both sides of the political aisle argue that this clause provides warrant for the federal government to control land throughout the United States.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…
Those who say this clause delegates the feds control over whatever land they arbitrarily decide to lay claim to are grossly misinterpreting even the most basic structure of the Constitution.
It is said the Constitution is “written in plain English”. This is true. However, plain English does not allow one to remove context. Article IV does not grant Congress the power to exercise sovereignty over land. Article IV deals exclusively with state-to-state relations such as protection from invasion, slavery, full faith and credit, creation of new states and so on.
Historically, the Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state. This was necessary during the time of the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of westward development. The clause was drafted to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, which the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to support. This ordinance gave the newly formed Congress the power to create new states instead of allowing the states themselves to expand their own land claims.
The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.
The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these few, enumerated powers.
Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislature to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.
Being a requirement, state permission was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase lands from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, etc. unless the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.
If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.
In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government could only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislature formally granted the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).
However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation. Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.
Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.
With Camfield v. United States (1897), Light v. United States (1911), Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) and multiple other cases regarding commerce, federal supremacists have effectively erased the constitutional guarantee of state control over property.
Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government. Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds – for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.
What does Nevada’s Constitution say about property? Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” reads: All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness (Emphasis added).
In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.
Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land.” Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada.
FROM TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Remember all those promises that were made to sell Obamacare? Like lowering premiums for a family of 4 by $2,500 a year, allowing people to keep their plans and their doctors, not adding a dime to the deficit, and all of that?
Well, let’s just see how much of a striking success “Obamacare” is based on the numbers so far. The Heritage Foundation created these charts based on the HHS’ own numbers, the CBO’s, and the Kaiser Family Foundation’s.
If you’re a young person, you’re pretty much screwed. Not only will you be paying higher premiums to subsidize your elders, you will be paying more taxes over your lifetime to pay back the loans we’re accruing just to pay for this boondoggle. You’re welcome, right?
So… Mr. Smooth was going to save a family of four $2,500 a year in premiums, as promised so many times it’s laughable. About that… a family of four is likely to get an increase in premiums, and in addition, basically anyone who wants to work and live the American Dream will be penalized with higher taxes.
Speaking of taxes, check out these bad boys. Not just one, but 18 new taxes lumped into one giant bill that should be called “Obamatax.” Hey, it’s not a tax! Oh yeah, well, now it is.
You would think from all the hysteria nowadays about Medicaid expansion to the states that this was the main purpose of Obamacare – to spread a huge soviet-style welfare program to as many homes as possible (and let those who are on it tell ya about the amazin’ service while they’re at it!) Anyway, let’s frame some of that left-wing hypocrisy by pointing out Obamacare’s massive cuts to another government program – Medicare.
Now, show him the deductibles, Bob! Average deductibles on the “Catastrophic,” “Bronze,” and “Silver” plans are going through the roof. (No worries if you live in Colorado or Washington, just light up a joint and forget you read this.)
Now here comes the biggie – cost. If you were one of the supporters of this law who thought it wouldn’t “add a dime” to the deficit, I want you to turn to your (theoretical) children and grandchildren and apologize. We’ll wait.
No, tell them the part how you’ll be sticking your kids with your generation’s bills, and how debt is the unpaid portion of the federal budget that gets passed on to someone else.
Still don’t feel guilty? How about realizing that all those taxes coming out of the private sector to pay for this disaster will limit your children’s future, as being evidenced in part by the half of college graduates who can’t find jobs in their fields? Oh, now you feel guilty.
And lo and behold, this healthcare “reform” boondoggle passed through procedural gimmickry with no bipartisan support whatsoever loaded with nonsense and unread in full by most of the nation’s “representation” in Washington still has very little support – beyond those Democrats who would support anything the party told them to.
Boots on the ground seeing this post – please send pix and updates on .gov numbers/equipment/disposition on Twitter to #thisshitstopsnow and @WRSAblog.
Email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Spread the word.
From WRSA: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
. Just imagine sending to the Internal Revenue Service a bill for:
Actual damages for violating the Privacy Act.
The costs of complying with additional demands for information about an application.
Loss of donors.
Loss of membership fees.
Damages for the violation of constitutional rights.
Damages for loss of the benefit of tax-exempt status.
Damages for impairment of constitutionally protected rights.
A case of that kind has been filed, with a request to make it class action. A key proponent explained Friday to WND that the ultimate goal is to uncover what former IRS official Lois Lerner wanted to do and did.
It also seeks to uncover what other “responsible parties” were up to regarding the IRS attacks on tea party and other conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt. Evidence has been presented that the discrimination was coordinated to hinder the effectiveness of the groups when Barack Obama was pursuing re-election in 2012.
The legal action was filed in Ohio by an organization called Sue the IRS, which was established under the direction of Mark Meckler.
Meckler formerly was with Tea Party Patriots but now is with Citizens for Self-Governance. Its mission is to restore self-governance to America by connecting “warriors in order to take power away from big government and the big money that influences it… and return the power to its rightful owners, the people.”
That will happen, the group says, through shared values, incumbent accountability, dispersed power and engaged citizens.
“The grassroots must be in the town hall, the public square, or the village green to gather Americans who hunger to regain control of their government and their lives,” the group explains.
Meckler said the government has been trying to get rid of the case.
“The interesting thing to me is the federal government… making allegations that Americans have no right of recourse when government targets them and tries to prevent them from speaking,” he said.
That, he said, is absolutely fundamental to what American is about.
The case is pending on behalf of the Norcal Tea Party Patriots, Faith and Freedom Coalition of Ohio, Simi Valley Moorpark Tea Party, Tampa 9-12 project, South Dakota Citizens for Liberty, Texas Patriots Tea Party, Americans Against Oppressive Laws, San Angelo Tea Party, Prescott Tea Party, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and others.
It wasted no time getting to the point. In paragraph two, it states: “Elements within the executive branch of the federal government, including defendants, brought the vast powers, incomprehensible complexity, and crushing bureaucracy of the IRS to bear on groups of citizens whose only wrongdoing was their presumed dissent from the policies or ideology of the administration.
“In other words, these citizens were targeted based upon their political viewpoints.”
Specifically, the IRS and individuals involved “employed an array of tactics, including extra scrutiny, intimidation, harassment, invasion of privacy, discriminatory audits, disclosure of private information,and years of delay.”
The result was predictable: “A chilling and muzzling of free speech and association.”
The case seeks damages for violations of the federal law, damages against individuals, and injunctive and declaratory relief against the IRS and Treasury Department. Named individually are ex-IRS official Lois Lerner, acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, Chief IRS Counsel William Wilkins, Sarah Hall Ingram of the Tax-Exempt Unit and others.
The case is in the discovery phase in which evidence is being obtained and reviewed.
Some of the facts of the IRS targeting are well known: the agency’s identification of organizations likely to oppose Obama’s policies and the years of delays for the paperwork to be processed. There also were invasive questions, such as the content of prayers.
“The IRS’s knowledge that this discrimination was illegal is evidenced by their scheme to keep the people’s duly elected representatives in the dark about it. When members of Congress asked IRS officials… whether the IRS was targeting certain groups for different treatment, the IRS officials provided misleading and deceptive responses,” the case notes.
Conversely, “there is no evidence that liberal or ‘progressive’ political groups or groups supporting the re-election of President Barack Obama or the election of Democrats were targeted for similar delay.”
Even the IRS referred to the process for “tea party cases,” the lawsuit alleges.
The invasive questions included, in the case of the NorCal Tea Party, details about the board of directors and its activities, copies of all corporate minutes, titles, duties, work hours, names of board members or officers who might run for public office.
The IRS repeatedly demanded information, threatening frequently that if there was no response, “we will assume you no longer want us to consider your application.”
“This conduct has caused irreparable harm to plaintiffs, and there is no other adequate remedy at law. This court may grant declaratory and injunctive relief against the IRS and Treasury Department, …declaring that the defendants’ discriminatory conduct is unlawful and enjoining them from using tax exemption applicants’ political viewpoints to target them.”
Among the questions posed: How did the scheme originate? Who ordered it? Who was involved?
The leadership of Sue the IRS said they intend to “bring those involved in this government overreach and abuse… to light.”
Also in the plan is to recover damages for organizations that were harmed.
And the campaign plans to shine light on the wrongdoing to “deter the IRS and other government agencies from engaging in illegal behavior without the fear of being caught, exposed and brought to justice.”
From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
From RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/
March 4, 2014 | Author: LAF Editor
Less than 48 hours after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear their case, sentencing them to almost certain deportation, the Romeike family has received a reprieve.
The Home School Legal Defense Association confirmed today that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has granted the German homeschooling family “indefinite deferred status,”allowing them to remain in the United States as long as they want.
“This is an incredible victory that can only be credited to our Almighty God,” Michael Farris, the HSLDA attorney representing the family, wrote on the group’s Facebook page.“We also want to thank those of [you] who spoke up on this issue—including that long ago White House petition. We believe that the public outcry made this possible while God delivered the victory.”
Read the rest here.
Found at: http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/
Tracked from RR: http://www.rural-revolution.com/
From 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
(Excerpt of the article: Obama’s terrorists are America’s Freedom Fighters by T.L. Davis)
“Those who believe they have the right to say anything they want; the right to decide what religion they will claim and the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs; the right to bear arms; the right to be free of federal troops occupying their home to spy on other citizens; the right to be free from government searches and seizures without sworn warrant; the right to life, liberty and property unless due process of law has given reason that the person should forfeit those rights; the right to a jury trial of one’s peers; the right to be free of cruel or unusual punishment; the rights to do many other things other than what are specified in the Bill of Rights; the rights of the states to do whatever has not been specifically given to congress under the Constitution are terrorists.”
In order to reclaim these rights, they must fight for their freedom. Obama’s terrorists have become America’s Freedom fighters.
Read the entire article at Christian Mercenary: http://christianmerc.blogspot.com/2014/02/obamas-terrorists-are-americas-freedom.html
By: T.L. Davis
This is just another in a long line of needless lawsuits arising out of an unjust and unconstitutional law, affectionately called Obamacare by Barack Obama, or otherwise given the ironic title of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which accomplishes neither patient protection, nor affordable care.
The Constitutional questions are not questions at all. There is no more clear wording in the Bill of Rights than: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” There simply is no more clear admonition than “Congress shall make no law…” What part of “no” is vague? What part of “congress” is vague? What part of “law” is vague? What part of “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is vague?
Very clearly, if Congress makes a law, drafts a law or passes a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion, i.e. requires that Christians, in order to obey such law, must violate their religious beliefs against abortion by funding that activity, providing that activity through any means, which violates their admonition from God in the Ten Commandments not to kill, is not unconstitutional, then words mean nothing.
Unfortunately, we have seen all too often that when it comes to federal government power, the federal Supreme Court, has found in favor of the government and against the citizen. It is hostile to religion. It is hostile to liberty.
If it is found that Hobby Lobby is forced to violate their freedom of religion, it is the intent of David Green to close its doors. Realistically, they will probably sell their assets to some other large retailer and the stores will stay open under another name. Christian values, however, will be largely diminished.
There are a long list of reasons Obamacare should have been ruled unconstitutional, not just for the violation of religious freedoms inherent in its language, but the violations of individual liberty wherein a mandate requiring the people to purchase anything, including medical coverage, is a violation of the Constitution.
Finding Obamacare constitutional is an example of how the Supreme Court is acting illegally by failing to uphold the Constitution. It is why every judgment made by this Supreme Court is an affront to justice. Allowing any nine people in the nation to encumber the entire population with unwanted, unwarranted violations of liberty is political malpractice. It changes the very fundamentals of a republican form of government and arrives at a system much more akin to an oligarchy.
Christians must fight back against these abuses of government. They are now involved in the fight and while many Christians find it unpalatable to engage in politics, politics have engaged them. To honor God is not to forfeit His will to bureaucrats because of sloth and a refusal to take up Christ’s defense in the public square. It is the duty of Christians to empty the churches and fill the streets.
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/