Phoenix.
Tampa.
Stonewalling congress.
No communication of operation with Mexican or Honduran governments, whoops (and how many more countries we have yet to learn about).
Opacity in this, the "most transparent" government.
08 July 2011
Latest Gunwalker cartoons. Holder under fire.
Phoenix.
Tampa.
Stonewalling congress.
No communication of operation with Mexican or Honduran governments, whoops (and how many more countries we have yet to learn about).
Opacity in this, the "most transparent" government.
07 July 2011
Al-Qaida's invisible bomb threat
So now they want to step up the "interaction" with passengers because the "government says" that Al-Qaida's chatrooms and forums are full of chatter about surgically implanting bombs in a potential attacker. Some MSM reports say "they may have already done so". Other media reports say that these bombs implanted are not detectable on current micromillimeter or backscatter xray technology (pornoscanners).
What do you make of these stories? Does it give you pause? Are you afraid to travel now? Are you anxious for the TSA to get more intimate with your body to make sure we are all safer?
I believe that these stories are the government pushing back at the public for the anti-TSA wave that has been going through the country. How can the .gov counter this anti-government wave?
Fear. Bring up the terrifying mortal threat, and the herd animals will allow the round-up with nary a bleat.
There is no way for the public to assess the credibility of the threat that the government claims exists.
My 4th Amendment right stands. I will invoke that right whenever a personal search is unwarranted. When I am travelling through my own country with my family, I do not voluntarily give up my 4th Amendment rights. There is no way that I will let the TSA touch or irradiate my kids. I would rather be arrested and give up my trip.
Metal detector and xray luggage, yes. Pornoscanner or grope, NFW.
Since the current pornoscanner technology, already linked to a cancer cluster of TSA workers(probably a union ploy, though), are for surface imaging only, the xrays stop at your skin. The scanner doesnt penetrate to see any internally ingested or implanted device.
This is potentially harmful to skin (theoretical risk of melanoma), eye lens (cataract) and thyroid (thyroid cancer). Low power xrays (the backscatter machine) actually lead to a higher absorbed dose of radiation than if the xrays were sent at a higher power. The xrays at a higher energy would go through your body more effectively, but would cause radiation absorption in every organ, and the feds would have to put lead all around to prevent irradiating everyone else within a few meters. Can't be done.
There have been two whole attempted al-Qaida attacks on US connected targets since 9/11. One was the shoe bomber, December 2001, and one was the underwear bomber, December 2009. The attackers, incompetent as they were, were not stopped by airport security, not in the paranoia three months after 9/11, nor after 8 years of real world experience.
So really, based on the millions of flights, millions of travellers, etc., in the past 10 years, how many of us have been at risk?
A fraction of a fraction of a fraction. And we the people stopped the bad guys, not the feds.
How much of your money do you want on a system that is now metastasizing into a real Gestapo type organization, with that warm and fuzzy name, VIPR? Who will VIPR inconvenience? Who will end up fearing their appearance? Us. Feel safer yet?
So, with regard to implanted (currently invisible) bombs:
![]()
What will our protective overlords do? Deeper groping? Rectal exams? Endoscopy? Everyone on a conveyor belt, on their back, going through CT scanners?
How much money will they spend in a bankrupt country, chasing after internet chat room rumors?
What do you make of these stories? Does it give you pause? Are you afraid to travel now? Are you anxious for the TSA to get more intimate with your body to make sure we are all safer?
I believe that these stories are the government pushing back at the public for the anti-TSA wave that has been going through the country. How can the .gov counter this anti-government wave?
Fear. Bring up the terrifying mortal threat, and the herd animals will allow the round-up with nary a bleat.
There is no way for the public to assess the credibility of the threat that the government claims exists.
My 4th Amendment right stands. I will invoke that right whenever a personal search is unwarranted. When I am travelling through my own country with my family, I do not voluntarily give up my 4th Amendment rights. There is no way that I will let the TSA touch or irradiate my kids. I would rather be arrested and give up my trip.
Metal detector and xray luggage, yes. Pornoscanner or grope, NFW.
Since the current pornoscanner technology, already linked to a cancer cluster of TSA workers(probably a union ploy, though), are for surface imaging only, the xrays stop at your skin. The scanner doesnt penetrate to see any internally ingested or implanted device.
This is potentially harmful to skin (theoretical risk of melanoma), eye lens (cataract) and thyroid (thyroid cancer). Low power xrays (the backscatter machine) actually lead to a higher absorbed dose of radiation than if the xrays were sent at a higher power. The xrays at a higher energy would go through your body more effectively, but would cause radiation absorption in every organ, and the feds would have to put lead all around to prevent irradiating everyone else within a few meters. Can't be done.
There have been two whole attempted al-Qaida attacks on US connected targets since 9/11. One was the shoe bomber, December 2001, and one was the underwear bomber, December 2009. The attackers, incompetent as they were, were not stopped by airport security, not in the paranoia three months after 9/11, nor after 8 years of real world experience.
So really, based on the millions of flights, millions of travellers, etc., in the past 10 years, how many of us have been at risk?
A fraction of a fraction of a fraction. And we the people stopped the bad guys, not the feds.
How much of your money do you want on a system that is now metastasizing into a real Gestapo type organization, with that warm and fuzzy name, VIPR? Who will VIPR inconvenience? Who will end up fearing their appearance? Us. Feel safer yet?
So, with regard to implanted (currently invisible) bombs:
What will our protective overlords do? Deeper groping? Rectal exams? Endoscopy? Everyone on a conveyor belt, on their back, going through CT scanners?
How much money will they spend in a bankrupt country, chasing after internet chat room rumors?
Freedom of the Press? Not if you face federal cops in D.C.
Note: video only worthwhile through 2 minute mark, then meeting dissolves, nothing substantive happens.
On June 22, Reason.tv's Jim Epstein was arrested while attending a meeting of the D.C. Taxicab Commission. The DCTC is pushing a medallion system that would strictly limit the number of cabs in the nation's capital and Epstein's documentary on the awful plan will be released tomorrow at Reason.tv, Reason.com, and our YouTube Channel.
Epstein got into trouble when police took another journalist, Pete Tucker, into custody. Epstein, who had been making an audio recording of the meeting for his piece, filmed the arrest of Tucker with his phone (watch the vid above and go here to read more about it all). Epstein spent hours in a holding cell and the government took his phone away before releasing him. The latest word is that all charges against both Epstein and Tucker have been dropped and that they will not be prosecuted.
link here.
06 July 2011
Guns now walking to Honduras: Mike V and David Codrea scoop again
Operation Gunwalker style operation by ATF in Tampa by former Phoenix field office agent in charge sends guns from straw purchasers in Florida to Honduras...
Verbatim post from Sipsey Street Irregulars:
A. Brian Albritton, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida. It may not look like it, but that chair he's sitting in just became the latest hot seat of the Gunwalker Scandal.
Breaking News: Source claims ATF's Tampa SAC walked guns to Honduras. Part of Operation Castaway?
Exclusive Special Report by David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh.
Virginia O’Brien, Special Agent in Charge at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Tampa Field Division, ran a gun-running investigation that was walking guns to Honduras using the techniques and tactics identical to Fast and Furious, it was reported to these correspondents this evening via private correspondence from a proven credible source.
On 21 September, 2010, A. Brian Albritton, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida issued a press release on Operation Castaway:
The press release concluded, "This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys J. Bishop Ravenel and E. Jackson Boggs. Operation Castaway remains an ongoing investigation."
SAC O’Brien was previously the Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix Field Division, was later promoted to the Deputy Assistant Director of ATF, but then stepped down to the position in Tampa. Whether the allegations of our source refer to the on-going Operation Castaway remains at this hour unclear, but our source is certain that O'Brien has allowed the "walking" of straw-purchased firearms to Honduras using the same failed strategy as the Phoenix Field Division's Operation Fast and Furious. That Operation Castaway involved arms smuggling to Honduras is also certain.
"This is confirmed as accurate," the correspondence continued. "There are emails in existence where O’Brien has advised those involved that Tampa does not have to report their walked guns because Tampa FD is not a part of Southwest Border or Project Gunrunner."
"From a first person source she is shitting herself trying to cover it up," the report stated.
No one from ATF is available at this late hour to approach for comment. This information has also reportedly been disclosed to Chairman Darrell Issa of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee Member Charles Grassley for follow-up and investigation.
Verbatim post from Sipsey Street Irregulars:
A. Brian Albritton, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida. It may not look like it, but that chair he's sitting in just became the latest hot seat of the Gunwalker Scandal.
Breaking News: Source claims ATF's Tampa SAC walked guns to Honduras. Part of Operation Castaway?
Exclusive Special Report by David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh.
Virginia O’Brien, Special Agent in Charge at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Tampa Field Division, ran a gun-running investigation that was walking guns to Honduras using the techniques and tactics identical to Fast and Furious, it was reported to these correspondents this evening via private correspondence from a proven credible source.
On 21 September, 2010, A. Brian Albritton, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida issued a press release on Operation Castaway:
United States Attorney A. Brian Albritton, Virginia O’Brien, Special Agent in Charge of central and northern Florida Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) operations, and Susan McCormick, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations, Tampa Field Office announce the initial results of Operation Castaway, an intensive and wideranging Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force ("OCDETF") firearms trafficking investigation conducted by ATF, ICE, the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office, the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office, and the Miami-Dade Police Department. ATF describes Operation Castaway as the most significant firearms trafficking investigation in Central Florida history.
According to court documents, a group of defendants connected to Hugh Crumpler, III, were involved in a major international gun trafficking operation. . . . Firearms like those involved in this investigation are often smuggled through Honduras and other Central and South American countries before being used in violent crimes in Mexico and other countries in the region. A number of the firearms trafficked by the defendants in Operation Castaway have been linked to violent crimes around the world.
The press release concluded, "This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys J. Bishop Ravenel and E. Jackson Boggs. Operation Castaway remains an ongoing investigation."
SAC O’Brien was previously the Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix Field Division, was later promoted to the Deputy Assistant Director of ATF, but then stepped down to the position in Tampa. Whether the allegations of our source refer to the on-going Operation Castaway remains at this hour unclear, but our source is certain that O'Brien has allowed the "walking" of straw-purchased firearms to Honduras using the same failed strategy as the Phoenix Field Division's Operation Fast and Furious. That Operation Castaway involved arms smuggling to Honduras is also certain.
"This is confirmed as accurate," the correspondence continued. "There are emails in existence where O’Brien has advised those involved that Tampa does not have to report their walked guns because Tampa FD is not a part of Southwest Border or Project Gunrunner."
"From a first person source she is shitting herself trying to cover it up," the report stated.
No one from ATF is available at this late hour to approach for comment. This information has also reportedly been disclosed to Chairman Darrell Issa of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee Member Charles Grassley for follow-up and investigation.
Sheriff Mack on "Lamestream" Time magazine's view of the Constitution
Verbatim post, via Oathkeepers.org
Sheriff Richard Mack
Sheriff Richard Mack
In the July 4, 2011, issue of TIME magazine, Managing Editor Richard Stengel, calls the Constitution “elastic” and even goes so far as to claim that was exactly what the Founders intended to do; make the Constitution flexible and mutable. To follow this “logic” and revisionist philosophy, TIME would have us all believe that the Framers of our Constitution were merely forming a new government based on generalities and ideas of relativity, certain only of one thing, that future generations would hammer out something that might preserve some semblance of the “democracy” the Founding Fathers were leaving us.
It was actually a Republic.
The word ‘Democracy’ is never mentioned in the Constitution, but how would we expect TIME’s Managing Editor to know that? TIME stays deeply within its own mainstream culture to convince us all that everything going on in government today is exactly as it was intended. The Constitution has no absolutes, it was not written as a limitation, it contains no real law based on principles, it’s merely a record of suggestions by some well-meaning colonists who could have never known what we really need today.
It was actually a Republic.
The word ‘Democracy’ is never mentioned in the Constitution, but how would we expect TIME’s Managing Editor to know that? TIME stays deeply within its own mainstream culture to convince us all that everything going on in government today is exactly as it was intended. The Constitution has no absolutes, it was not written as a limitation, it contains no real law based on principles, it’s merely a record of suggestions by some well-meaning colonists who could have never known what we really need today.
In fact, Stengel makes two very startling, if not downright bewildering claims. First, and I quote, “Politicians ask all the time, What would the Framers say?”
Wow! Really? Today’s politicians ask all the time, “What would the Framers say?” Please show me one time! I watch the news every day. I have never heard Barak Obama say such a thing. When was the last time Nancy Pelosi asked, “What would the Framers say?” How about John McCain, Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, John Kerry, Mayor Bloomberg, Chris Christie, any of these politicians who are in the news daily; when did any of them ask about the Framers? Second, and even more astonishing, the Managing Editor of a major international publication, informs us all that we can never know what the Framers said; they’re gone, we can no longer use their wisdom to prove anyone wrong!
Wow! Really? Today’s politicians ask all the time, “What would the Framers say?” Please show me one time! I watch the news every day. I have never heard Barak Obama say such a thing. When was the last time Nancy Pelosi asked, “What would the Framers say?” How about John McCain, Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, John Kerry, Mayor Bloomberg, Chris Christie, any of these politicians who are in the news daily; when did any of them ask about the Framers? Second, and even more astonishing, the Managing Editor of a major international publication, informs us all that we can never know what the Framers said; they’re gone, we can no longer use their wisdom to prove anyone wrong!
So, according to TIME and Stengel, we cannot look at the intent of the Founding Fathers nor learn from their wisdom because “…they’re not around to prove anyone wrong.”
I guess we should all ignore the Federalist Papers, and all the other journals and writings of the Framers. We should ignore the warnings of Patrick Henry in his fiery “Give me Liberty or Give me Death” speech, or Thomas Paine’s Common Sense booklet or the biography of John Adams which quotes many of his beliefs in letters he wrote to his wife Abigail. Perhaps when we all walk through the Jefferson Memorial, we should ignore the quotes on the walls about freedom and Jefferson’s passion for American idealism. We can’t know what the Framers intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights and what on earth they could have meant when they proclaimed, “Congress shall make no law…”
I guess we should all ignore the Federalist Papers, and all the other journals and writings of the Framers. We should ignore the warnings of Patrick Henry in his fiery “Give me Liberty or Give me Death” speech, or Thomas Paine’s Common Sense booklet or the biography of John Adams which quotes many of his beliefs in letters he wrote to his wife Abigail. Perhaps when we all walk through the Jefferson Memorial, we should ignore the quotes on the walls about freedom and Jefferson’s passion for American idealism. We can’t know what the Framers intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights and what on earth they could have meant when they proclaimed, “Congress shall make no law…”
How convenient for our “leaders” that they interpret such ambiguity for all of us! What would we do without them? Could the Founders have actually thought that these rules should be obeyed instead of interpreted? Was the Bill of Rights written to protect inviolable principles? Nah! The Bill of Rights did nothing to limit Government. Why? Because TIME said the Framers knew nothing about airplanes, computers, or Lady Gaga! You got me there Mr. Stengel; who could argue with such profound brilliance?
Therefore, when the Founders fought for freedom and subsequent to the Revolution, wrote the Constitution, and required within the Constitution (Art VI last paragraph) that each soldier, each Judge, all legislators, all peace officers, and even specified the President himself, to swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, they meant only as far as they agreed with its elasticity. When they said the Constitution would be the chains by which all leaders would be bound, they meant only sort of bound, with elastic chains, perhaps even less confining than rubber bands, but certainly not chains!
Yes, Mr. Stengel, you and TIME are demonstrating once again that you have earned the title of “Lamestream Media.” You attempt to rationalize away our sacred Constitution and thereby assist with the mainstream destruction of what the FRAMERS, yes, the FRAMERS, established in the first place.
The one valid point TIME magazine made in this 4th of July issue, was showing the Constitution in shreds. And nothing is more evident of this shredding than TIME’s/Stengel’s idiotic explanation as to why politicians no longer follow the Constitution. No, I don’t know what the Framers would have said about Lady Gaga nor do I care one iota. But I do know what they would have said about forced socialistic health care, a $15 trillion national debt, and a bunch of Weiners in DC.
And about your article, I’ll let Thomas Jefferson tell you what he thought of your article and your magazine, and I quote, “The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.” It’s amazing how much the Framers knew!
And about your article, I’ll let Thomas Jefferson tell you what he thought of your article and your magazine, and I quote, “The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.” It’s amazing how much the Framers knew!
Richard Mack
Fredericksburg, TX
Fredericksburg, TX
05 July 2011
My Democratic Congressman either mis-uses or mis-interprets phrases in the Declaration of Independence
...and either way, it ain't good.
Ok, this is my response to my Congressman's email newsletter he posted on July 4th. I will also send it to local op-ed pages of his constituency.
Please leave a comment below.
----------------------------------------------------------
Ok, this is my response to my Congressman's email newsletter he posted on July 4th. I will also send it to local op-ed pages of his constituency.
Please leave a comment below.
----------------------------------------------------------
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice."
-- Friedrich August von Hayek, Nobel Prize for Economics, 1974
"Dear Friends,
July 4, 2011 ought to be more than a day to celebrate the birth of our beloved nation; it ought to be a day to remember the foundation on which our country was established and on which it has since developed...."
I agree. We must remember the foundation on which our country was founded: by studying and understanding original sources of the framers in order to understand their choice of language in the founding documents.
"...Our founders provided this foundation with this phrase in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson's use of "equal" here refers to equality in the eyes of the creator, and that each human being has the inborn Natural Right to their life, their freedom of action, and the freedom to decide how they spend the span of their lives.
"...Two hundred and thirty-five years have passed since our founding fathers signed their names in passionate support of these words, yet the meaning of this illustrious phrase has yet to be fully realized..."
The passage in the Declaration of Independence ("...all men are created equal, etc.,...") has nothing to do with legislation, or the efforts of human beings striving in good faith to improve their society. It simply means: G-d imbued man with rights at birth; i.e. this is the natural state of humankind.
"...We cannot claim that “all men are created equal” and simultaneously treat certain citizens unequally..."
This is a misuse of the context of the word "equal" in the Declaration. You are applying the word in its modern progressive sense.
July 4, 2011 ought to be more than a day to celebrate the birth of our beloved nation; it ought to be a day to remember the foundation on which our country was established and on which it has since developed...."
I agree. We must remember the foundation on which our country was founded: by studying and understanding original sources of the framers in order to understand their choice of language in the founding documents.
"...Our founders provided this foundation with this phrase in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson's use of "equal" here refers to equality in the eyes of the creator, and that each human being has the inborn Natural Right to their life, their freedom of action, and the freedom to decide how they spend the span of their lives.
"...Two hundred and thirty-five years have passed since our founding fathers signed their names in passionate support of these words, yet the meaning of this illustrious phrase has yet to be fully realized..."
The passage in the Declaration of Independence ("...all men are created equal, etc.,...") has nothing to do with legislation, or the efforts of human beings striving in good faith to improve their society. It simply means: G-d imbued man with rights at birth; i.e. this is the natural state of humankind.
"...We cannot claim that “all men are created equal” and simultaneously treat certain citizens unequally..."
This is a misuse of the context of the word "equal" in the Declaration. You are applying the word in its modern progressive sense.
You may legislate until the end of time; unfortunately, there will always be inequalities, and biases arise as a result. Just look at any playground, high school dance, infantry platoon, boardroom, or congressional committee room. There are inequalities of skill, intellect, and physical beauty that each of us perceives within minutes. Inequities and the biases that arise in society cannot be made more "fair" by law.
....We cannot emphatically declare our country “the land of the free,” and in the same breath deny fundamental liberties to millions of Americans...
The July 4, 1776 document is a declaration of secession of the thirteen colonies from the rule of Parliament and King George III. The Declaration does not carry the weight of law of the subsequent founding document, the Constitution of the united States. [--to the reader: "united States" purposefully left with lower case upper case]
Legislation attempting to engineer social norms is necessarily coercive, and such coercion is contrary to the general understanding of the "land of the free" concept to which you refer. Legislating "equality" of any group is certainly outside the bounds of the constitutional mandate given to Congress, enumerated in Article I, Section 8.
"Land of the free" refers to freedom from government tyranny, remote powerful interests, and the arbitrary will of an executive/monarch. It was never meant to refer to freedom from want, or freedom from bias, as noble as those goals are.
"...In Congress, we are currently finding ways to make sure that all Americans enjoy the same rights as their fellow citizens, further promoting the meaning of our founders' eloquence..."
The best way to achieve the only type of equality which is possible, equality of each individual before the law, is to promote a justice system that does not favor the connected/insider.
To wit: start by passing laws which provide for a panel of local constituents to serve on short-term jury duty where they pass judgements on the actions of judges in their county and legislators in their district.
In addition, trial jurors should be informed of the tradition of jury nullification, and their right and obligation to nullify at trial what they judge to be unjust laws. This is a Ninth amendment right (non-enumerated, non-delegated right, like the right to privacy, reserved to the people) and Natural Right. Nullifying an unjust law is the only opportunity of an individual to apply the golden rule (treat others as you would have them treat you) in a formal legal setting.
"...I am proud of my record in support of civil rights and equality and I haverecently earned an "A" rating from the NAACP and a 100% Civil Rights Score from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and from the Human Rights Commission. There is still work to be done in bringing about equality for all Americans. We must work to afford all of our children an equal opportunity to receive a proper education. We must strive to ensure that all Americans are equally able to obtain health care..."
There is no guarantee of education, health, health care, or prosperity to any human in the World, unless someone else is forced to pay for it.
When a person is forced to work for another's benefit under threat of punishment, is that not the essential justification of why we fought fascism and communism in the 20th Century? If not, can you please explain to me why 600,000 Americans died in the second world war?
Obligating health care workers to provide care without market rate compensation based on a formula derived from expenses plus a profit incentive, let alone "free" care funded, in part, by the tax money collected from those very health care workers, can be called indentured servitude or slavery by degree. The health care provider no longer controls their own labor. A central health care planning authority (likely to be as efficient and knowledgable at distributing resources as the Post office or Amtrak) and the legal system will coerce and limit the health care provider's actions.
There is no way to guarantee a lack of prejudice and racism by coercive legislation. On the contrary, the gall of legislators attempting to pass ways to obligate behavior in public is more likely to cause resentment and hardening of prejudice, in those who think that way.
Prejudice and hatred can arise through indoctrination by parents, educators, or personal experience. It cannot be legislated into or out of existence as long as we remain individuals possessing rationality.
"...I will continue to work so that the principle of equality on which our nation was founded might be fully realized..."
"...Half of our nation’s population has been fighting for equal rights for decades. Women have come a long way in the last 100 years, to the point where we have women who have and are running for President with legitimate chances of winning major party nominations... However, there are still too many women not being paid the same wages as their male counterparts. In the previous Congress, we passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to help bring equal pay for equal work for women...."
Again, think "land of the free": this is a law that makes potential criminals of business owners who are no longer free to decide that a particular worker is worth this or that level of compensation. If a worker is more (or less) productive, more (or less) loyal to the employer, who better to determine what compensation/bonus that individual is due than the employer?
The business owner who operates on a narrow profit margin faces a choice of losing their own profit, their ability to reinvest in their company, or even the threat or reality of an "unfair" compensation lawsuit or a wrongful termination lawsuit.
If that business owner with a narrow profit margin is obligated to raise the salary of an employee based on a federal "fair pay" Act, that employer may have to let the employee go. The supposed beneficiary of the law is then be added to the burgeoning ranks of the unemployed. That would be the Law of Unintended Consequences, perhaps Congress' best known law, to those who look beyond the letter or intent of a law at its inception.
"...I am a co-sponsor of Equal Rights Amendment, which originally passed Congress in the 1970s, and was only three states away from ratification before the deadline for ratification expired in 1982. June was Gay & Lesbian Pride Month, and members of the LGBT Community continue to fight for their inalienable rights..."
The inalienable rights to which you refer are the right to Life, Liberty, and personal Property ( also known as the pursuit of happiness).
Anyone, regardless of race, sexual orientation, or religion is born with these rights. These are referred to as rights and not privileges because everyone is born with them. They are not granted nor removed by governmental action.
When these Natual Rights are denied by other individuals it is a crime: murder, assault, kidnapping, involuntary servitude, or theft. These are crimes in the vast majority of states and cultures around the World.
When the Natural Rights are violated by government, they are called: the draft, personal income tax, socialized medicine, minimum wage laws, eminent domain, judgements setting aside a jury verdict, suspension of habeas corpus, "enhanced interrogation", Japanese internment camps, quantitative easing, etc., and represent examples of Tyranny.
"...No American should be deprived of the same rights enjoyed by others, but that is exactly what has been happening for far too long. This is the latest front in America's struggle for civil rights for all of our citizens. On June 24, 2011, the New York State Legislature passed same-sex marriage in New York State..."
Why make marriage a legal issue at all? It is a private, personal, and religious issue for everyone. Were our ancestors not married before a government sometime in the past realized they could collect personal information and raise revenue by charging fees for marriage licenses? In addition, as you invoke "the land of the free" are there not other ways to get around the issues of inheritance, joint tax filing, and health care proxies for couples of the same sex other than a marriage law?
I assure you, the majority of your constituents notwithstanding, many New Yorkers are discontented by such legislation.
"... This action [New York state law on same sex marriage] signified a pivotal step in defense of the equality for which our country’s first patriots fought so many years ago...."
Obviously, you don't mean this literally. You either misuse or misinterpret the context of the "all men are created equal" phrase.
"...I have long worked to assure that the members of the LGBT community be afforded the same rights as their fellow citizens. I was one of the few members of Congress to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and strongly feel that its repeal is past due. I also voted for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) and was very pleased to see this unfair policy repealed in December 2010..."
It can be argued that that these laws offend the majority of the 330 or so million people it affects, while pleasing the majority in limited constituencies.
Are these issues not better dealt with in each State, or better yet, each county, in order to be representative of the people's will, and to maximize the people's sense that they actually live in the "land of the free"?
No system is perfect, but decentralizing government avoids the difficulty of the red state blue state dichotomy on a national level. It brings back politics where it is supposed to be: local.
While burdensome financially, people would then by free to stay or leave the locality that passes a law that they find difficult or impossible to abide-- i.e. voting with one's feet.
"...My votes in favor of equal rights have been votes in favor of the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence. Without equal rights for all Americans, the words of the Declaration of Independence that we hold so dear are nothing more than that—words. We cannot simply hail this language within this document—we must live by it. Only when we do this can we claim to enjoy the “inalienable rights” that our founding fathers stood for and our forefathers fought for...."
"...The American Revolution ended over 200 years ago, but it is up to all of us to carry on the cause of our country’s brave revolutionaries. On this Independence Day, let us not only celebrate the strides towards equality that we have already made; let us also be energized and inspired by the memories of our forefathers to continue striving towards this goal. We should also not forget the men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice defending our liberties, regardless of race, creed, color, religion or sexual orientation. They all fought to earn and preserve the American Dream, as Americans, for Americans. Today, and into the future, we must continue working towards achieving the goal of equality for all Americans."
It is difficult to comment succinctly on these last paragraphs. I do not agree with anything stated.
Our revolutionary forefathers fought for political independence from a tyrannical government, and personal freedom from interference of government in their personal and financial lives. "Social progress" was never a stated goal.
As the current generation of veterans and service people come home from unaffordable, (now proven-to-be) non-defensive wars, they find 10% unemployment, stagnation of the economy, loss of the purchasing power of their meager wages secondary to inflation planned by their own central bank (by design or incompetence).
....We cannot emphatically declare our country “the land of the free,” and in the same breath deny fundamental liberties to millions of Americans...
The July 4, 1776 document is a declaration of secession of the thirteen colonies from the rule of Parliament and King George III. The Declaration does not carry the weight of law of the subsequent founding document, the Constitution of the united States. [--to the reader: "united States" purposefully left with lower case upper case]
Legislation attempting to engineer social norms is necessarily coercive, and such coercion is contrary to the general understanding of the "land of the free" concept to which you refer. Legislating "equality" of any group is certainly outside the bounds of the constitutional mandate given to Congress, enumerated in Article I, Section 8.
"Land of the free" refers to freedom from government tyranny, remote powerful interests, and the arbitrary will of an executive/monarch. It was never meant to refer to freedom from want, or freedom from bias, as noble as those goals are.
"...In Congress, we are currently finding ways to make sure that all Americans enjoy the same rights as their fellow citizens, further promoting the meaning of our founders' eloquence..."
The best way to achieve the only type of equality which is possible, equality of each individual before the law, is to promote a justice system that does not favor the connected/insider.
To wit: start by passing laws which provide for a panel of local constituents to serve on short-term jury duty where they pass judgements on the actions of judges in their county and legislators in their district.
In addition, trial jurors should be informed of the tradition of jury nullification, and their right and obligation to nullify at trial what they judge to be unjust laws. This is a Ninth amendment right (non-enumerated, non-delegated right, like the right to privacy, reserved to the people) and Natural Right. Nullifying an unjust law is the only opportunity of an individual to apply the golden rule (treat others as you would have them treat you) in a formal legal setting.
"...I am proud of my record in support of civil rights and equality and I haverecently earned an "A" rating from the NAACP and a 100% Civil Rights Score from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and from the Human Rights Commission. There is still work to be done in bringing about equality for all Americans. We must work to afford all of our children an equal opportunity to receive a proper education. We must strive to ensure that all Americans are equally able to obtain health care..."
There is no guarantee of education, health, health care, or prosperity to any human in the World, unless someone else is forced to pay for it.
When a person is forced to work for another's benefit under threat of punishment, is that not the essential justification of why we fought fascism and communism in the 20th Century? If not, can you please explain to me why 600,000 Americans died in the second world war?
Obligating health care workers to provide care without market rate compensation based on a formula derived from expenses plus a profit incentive, let alone "free" care funded, in part, by the tax money collected from those very health care workers, can be called indentured servitude or slavery by degree. The health care provider no longer controls their own labor. A central health care planning authority (likely to be as efficient and knowledgable at distributing resources as the Post office or Amtrak) and the legal system will coerce and limit the health care provider's actions.
There is no way to guarantee a lack of prejudice and racism by coercive legislation. On the contrary, the gall of legislators attempting to pass ways to obligate behavior in public is more likely to cause resentment and hardening of prejudice, in those who think that way.
Prejudice and hatred can arise through indoctrination by parents, educators, or personal experience. It cannot be legislated into or out of existence as long as we remain individuals possessing rationality.
"...I will continue to work so that the principle of equality on which our nation was founded might be fully realized..."
"...Half of our nation’s population has been fighting for equal rights for decades. Women have come a long way in the last 100 years, to the point where we have women who have and are running for President with legitimate chances of winning major party nominations... However, there are still too many women not being paid the same wages as their male counterparts. In the previous Congress, we passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to help bring equal pay for equal work for women...."
Again, think "land of the free": this is a law that makes potential criminals of business owners who are no longer free to decide that a particular worker is worth this or that level of compensation. If a worker is more (or less) productive, more (or less) loyal to the employer, who better to determine what compensation/bonus that individual is due than the employer?
The business owner who operates on a narrow profit margin faces a choice of losing their own profit, their ability to reinvest in their company, or even the threat or reality of an "unfair" compensation lawsuit or a wrongful termination lawsuit.
If that business owner with a narrow profit margin is obligated to raise the salary of an employee based on a federal "fair pay" Act, that employer may have to let the employee go. The supposed beneficiary of the law is then be added to the burgeoning ranks of the unemployed. That would be the Law of Unintended Consequences, perhaps Congress' best known law, to those who look beyond the letter or intent of a law at its inception.
"...I am a co-sponsor of Equal Rights Amendment, which originally passed Congress in the 1970s, and was only three states away from ratification before the deadline for ratification expired in 1982. June was Gay & Lesbian Pride Month, and members of the LGBT Community continue to fight for their inalienable rights..."
The inalienable rights to which you refer are the right to Life, Liberty, and personal Property ( also known as the pursuit of happiness).
Anyone, regardless of race, sexual orientation, or religion is born with these rights. These are referred to as rights and not privileges because everyone is born with them. They are not granted nor removed by governmental action.
When these Natual Rights are denied by other individuals it is a crime: murder, assault, kidnapping, involuntary servitude, or theft. These are crimes in the vast majority of states and cultures around the World.
When the Natural Rights are violated by government, they are called: the draft, personal income tax, socialized medicine, minimum wage laws, eminent domain, judgements setting aside a jury verdict, suspension of habeas corpus, "enhanced interrogation", Japanese internment camps, quantitative easing, etc., and represent examples of Tyranny.
"...No American should be deprived of the same rights enjoyed by others, but that is exactly what has been happening for far too long. This is the latest front in America's struggle for civil rights for all of our citizens. On June 24, 2011, the New York State Legislature passed same-sex marriage in New York State..."
Why make marriage a legal issue at all? It is a private, personal, and religious issue for everyone. Were our ancestors not married before a government sometime in the past realized they could collect personal information and raise revenue by charging fees for marriage licenses? In addition, as you invoke "the land of the free" are there not other ways to get around the issues of inheritance, joint tax filing, and health care proxies for couples of the same sex other than a marriage law?
I assure you, the majority of your constituents notwithstanding, many New Yorkers are discontented by such legislation.
"... This action [New York state law on same sex marriage] signified a pivotal step in defense of the equality for which our country’s first patriots fought so many years ago...."
Obviously, you don't mean this literally. You either misuse or misinterpret the context of the "all men are created equal" phrase.
"...I have long worked to assure that the members of the LGBT community be afforded the same rights as their fellow citizens. I was one of the few members of Congress to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and strongly feel that its repeal is past due. I also voted for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) and was very pleased to see this unfair policy repealed in December 2010..."
It can be argued that that these laws offend the majority of the 330 or so million people it affects, while pleasing the majority in limited constituencies.
Are these issues not better dealt with in each State, or better yet, each county, in order to be representative of the people's will, and to maximize the people's sense that they actually live in the "land of the free"?
No system is perfect, but decentralizing government avoids the difficulty of the red state blue state dichotomy on a national level. It brings back politics where it is supposed to be: local.
While burdensome financially, people would then by free to stay or leave the locality that passes a law that they find difficult or impossible to abide-- i.e. voting with one's feet.
"...My votes in favor of equal rights have been votes in favor of the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence. Without equal rights for all Americans, the words of the Declaration of Independence that we hold so dear are nothing more than that—words. We cannot simply hail this language within this document—we must live by it. Only when we do this can we claim to enjoy the “inalienable rights” that our founding fathers stood for and our forefathers fought for...."
"...The American Revolution ended over 200 years ago, but it is up to all of us to carry on the cause of our country’s brave revolutionaries. On this Independence Day, let us not only celebrate the strides towards equality that we have already made; let us also be energized and inspired by the memories of our forefathers to continue striving towards this goal. We should also not forget the men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice defending our liberties, regardless of race, creed, color, religion or sexual orientation. They all fought to earn and preserve the American Dream, as Americans, for Americans. Today, and into the future, we must continue working towards achieving the goal of equality for all Americans."
It is difficult to comment succinctly on these last paragraphs. I do not agree with anything stated.
Our revolutionary forefathers fought for political independence from a tyrannical government, and personal freedom from interference of government in their personal and financial lives. "Social progress" was never a stated goal.
As the current generation of veterans and service people come home from unaffordable, (now proven-to-be) non-defensive wars, they find 10% unemployment, stagnation of the economy, loss of the purchasing power of their meager wages secondary to inflation planned by their own central bank (by design or incompetence).
Our defender's wives, sisters, and kids have their fourth amendment rights violated in the most intimate manner possible, in their own airports, by their own government. If they bother to check, they will find that their own government can now arbitrarily imprison, indefinitely, without charges, or execute, any person they deem an "enemy combatant", including American citizens.
Perhaps these returning veterans will realize that as much as they have an adversary hiding in that building outside the Green Zone in Baghdad, or in Helmand province in Afghanistan, there are adversaries to their Lives, Liberty, and Property haunting the halls of Congress, the Executive mansion, the Judicial branch, and the Federal Reserve.
UPDATE: This will be published in the local (liberal) newspaper the week of July 11th. I will publish any interesting responses that come my way.
Perhaps these returning veterans will realize that as much as they have an adversary hiding in that building outside the Green Zone in Baghdad, or in Helmand province in Afghanistan, there are adversaries to their Lives, Liberty, and Property haunting the halls of Congress, the Executive mansion, the Judicial branch, and the Federal Reserve.
UPDATE: This will be published in the local (liberal) newspaper the week of July 11th. I will publish any interesting responses that come my way.
04 July 2011
Benjamin Franklin: Ideal manly virtues
Ben Franklin's 13 Rules for the Ultimate Man:
1. Temperance: Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
2. Silence: Speak not but what may benefit others for yourself; avoid trifling conversation. 3. Order: Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time. 4. Resolution: Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.
5. Frugality: Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing.
6. Industry: Lose no time; be always employed in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.
7. Sincerity: Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
8. Justice: Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
9. Moderation: Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
10. Cleanliness: Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, clothes, or habitation.
11. Tranquility: Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.
12. Chastity: Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.
13. Humility: Imitate Jesus and Socrates.
2. Silence: Speak not but what may benefit others for yourself; avoid trifling conversation. 3. Order: Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time. 4. Resolution: Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.
5. Frugality: Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing.
6. Industry: Lose no time; be always employed in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.
7. Sincerity: Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
8. Justice: Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
9. Moderation: Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
10. Cleanliness: Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, clothes, or habitation.
11. Tranquility: Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.
12. Chastity: Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.
13. Humility: Imitate Jesus and Socrates.
The July 4th letter I received from my "representative" Congressman
Dear Friends,
July 4, 2011 ought to be more than a day to celebrate the birth of our beloved nation; it ought to be a day to remember the foundation on which our country was established and on which it has since developed. Our founders provided this foundation with this phrase in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Two hundred and thirty-five years have passed since our founding fathers signed their names in passionate support of these words, yet the meaning of this illustrious phrase has yet to be fully realized. We cannot claim that “all men are created equal” and simultaneously treat certain citizens unequally. We cannot emphatically declare our country “the land of the free,” and in the same breath deny fundamental liberties to millions of Americans.
In Congress, we are currently finding ways to make sure that all Americans enjoy the same rights as their fellow citizens, further promoting the meaning of our founders' eloquence. I am proud of my record in support of civil rights and equality and I haverecently earned an "A" rating from the NAACP and a 100% Civil Rights Score from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and from the Human Rights Commission. There is still work to be done in bringing about equality for all Americans. We must work to afford all of our children an equal opportunity to receive a proper education. We must strive to ensure that all Americans are equally able to obtain health care. I will continue to work so that the principle of equality on which our nation was founded might be fully realized.
Half of our nation’s population has been fighting for equal rights for decades. Women have come a long way in the last 100 years, to the point where we have women who have and are running for President with legitimate chances of winning major party nominations. However, there are still too many women not being paid the same wages as their male counterparts. In the previous Congress, we passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to help bring equal pay for equal work for women. I am a co-sponsor of Equal Rights Amendment, which originally passed Congress in the 1970s, and was only three states away from ratification before the deadline for ratification expired in 1982.
June was Gay & Lesbian Pride Month, and members of the LGBT Community continue to fight for their inalienable rights. No American should be deprived of the same rights enjoyed by others, but that is exactly what has been happening for far too long. This is the latest front in America's struggle for civil rights for all of our citizens. On June 24, 2011, the New York State Legislature passed same-sex marriage in New York State. This action signified a pivotal step in defense of the equality for which our country’s first patriots fought so many years ago.
I have long worked to assure that the members of the LGBT community be afforded the same rights as their fellow citizens. I was one of the few members of Congress to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and strongly feel that its repeal is past due. I also voted for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) and was very pleased to see this unfair policy repealed in December 2010.
My votes in favor of equal rights have been votes in favor of the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence. Without equal rights for all Americans, the words of the Declaration of Independence that we hold so dear are nothing more than that—words. We cannot simply hail this language within this document—we must live by it. Only when we do this can we claim to enjoy the “inalienable rights” that our founding fathers stood for and our forefathers fought for.
The American Revolution ended over 200 years ago, but it is up to all of us to carry on the cause of our country’s brave revolutionaries. On this Independence Day, let us not only celebrate the strides towards equality that we have already made; let us also be energized and inspired by the memories of our forefathers to continue striving towards this goal. We should also not forget the men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice defending our liberties, regardless of race, creed, color, religion or sexual orientation. They all fought to earn and preserve the American Dream, as Americans, for Americans. Today, and into the future, we must continue working towards achieving the goal of equality for all Americans.
03 July 2011
Expect more of the same: Can't afford police...take up arms for self-protection
Face it. The country is broke, thanks to big government economics.
ALTO, Texas—People here are bracing for a spike in crime after the city put its police force on furlough.
Budget woes in Alto, Texas have forced drastic measures, including laying off the five-member police force. A newspaper's antique printing press is being moved to a museum for safe keeping. WSJ's Ana Campoy reports.
"Everybody's talking about 'bolt your doors, buy a gun,' " said Monty Collins, Alto's mayor, who was against the measure.
City Council members sent the police home when they decided they couldn't afford them. On June 15, the police chief and his four officers secured the evidence room, changed the passwords on their computers and locked the department's doors for six months—longer if local finances don't improve by then.
For now, the Cherokee County sheriff's office, based 12 miles north in Rusk, is policing Alto, a city of about 1,200. Sheriff James Campbell said the extra load would strain his 25 deputies and reservists, who oversee a 1,000-square-mile territory. The sheriff is already responsible for the nearby city of Wells, which has a population of about 800 and earlier this year shed its only police officer. Crime went up initially, he said, but has stabilized.
"I'm going to try, but I can't guarantee you there will always be an officer in the town," Sheriff Campbell said of Alto.
 |
| Welcome to the Alto metroplex |
The choice of the people, to me, is and always has been clear: take care of yourself.
Night watches with volunteers in the community, and an irregular militia is also something to consider.
If the maxim: "When seconds count, the police will arrive in minutes..." (and how much more so in a large rural area like around Alto) is true, as I believe, and the police get to the scene of a crime to pick up the pieces, it is a moral imperative for each person to be armed, and train their minds and bodies regularly to react to sudden scenarios.
There is no higher moral imperative than the protection of your own life, and the life of one's family.
From my perspective, it doesn't matter if you live in a very isolated rural area, a small town, or the middle of New York City. You should be armed, and you should train yourself for different potential scenarios in your AO.
So what are ya gonna do? Take care of yourself, or call the feds and squeal "help me, help me!"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)