Next time they pull that nonsense...
Topic: Constitutional

"Citizens should only have single shot firearms for hunting"

"Theres no reason a Citizen needs a high capacity firearm"

 Heres the reply:

"State your reason for only allowing Citizens, with the Constitutionally protected Right to Bear Arms, using the Constitutionally protected Right to Free Speech, and further, explain how your position does not constitute either Subversion or Treason against the United States of America.

You only get to use ONE WORD to reply" 

 

Slippery slope crossed- constitutional problem
Topic: Constitutional

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vItJqpQ8U

  The "slippery slope" is often (rightly) cast as delusional, in this case, its accurate-

  Here's where the false idea that the Constitution grants rights goes right to hell - when its cast as 'government can assign rights'

  Appears they are... giving rights to one party at the expense of the rights of others IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

   There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the US Constitution (or the WA Constitution for that matter) that :

1.) grants rights

2.) grants rights to one group at the expense of others rights

  WHAT DOES THE WORD "CONSTITUTION" MEAN? IT MEANS THE MAKEUP AND FORMATION OF GOVERNMENT - AND THAT GOVT SHALL NOT INFRINGE.

  There's nothing wrong with Target "reassigning" Muslim workers because clear      (and clearly stated, previously evidenced) religious beliefs, its called "reasonable accomodation" and they are required, BY LAW, to do so where it does not cause material harm to the business operation.

  But, thats not the point. Thats PRIVATE. That has no effect on the Customer.

  Where the 'slippery slope' is crossed - the threshold of disaster is reached, is when Government, which is controlled under EEO laws (and employers who are controlled, or are supposed to be under incorporation laws) are forbidden from discriminating based on race, gender, ethnicity...tries to CONTROL CITIZENS WITH IT.

  Where that WENT wrong (not going, but WENT) is when people started accepting such conditions they observe at WORK, as an Employee,  in their lives as Private Citizens, WHERE IT HAS NO HOLD.

  Slippery slope - laws on rentals. Illegal to rent based on ethnic discrimination. Illegal to do business with ones own property with whomever you do or dont want to deal with??

 WHAT HAPPENED TO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS? 

FBI harassing Blogger on the behalf of a SO CALLED TEA PARTY CANDIDATE
Topic: Constitutional

 “This could be a knee-jerk reaction to the Tucson situation,” he said. “If you satisfy them you’re not a threat—they won’t be back.”"

1.) Could have been my ass. "Threats" as seen by a CREDIBLE LEO agency are based on CREDIBLE DATA, not OPINION or CLEAR RETALIATION as it the case here. If there was clear evidence, then go bust said Blogger, if not, leave him alone.

COULD HAVE BEEN IS NOT A VALID LEGAL STANDARD. It "could have been" is vague and subjective. "Could have been based on what evidence that would warrant a warrant?

But that doesnt play into the manipulation and GOVT TERRORISM game. "Terrorism" is not primarily about "killing people" its "making people afraid"

2.) if YOU satisfy them" is how the Spanish Inquisition worked. Make a false claim and make the VICTIM PROVE IT.

"“It’s political payback,” Bowler said after visiting Christian County Sheriff Joey Kyle Jan. 13 apprising him of the FBI investigation."

Say WHAT? Citizen has to go to the local SD to tell them the FEDS ARE IN HIS COUNTY? "The SHERIFF is behind this", is how it looks from here.

The problem is that while the Govt wastes time harassing Citizens, Al Qaida gets to see what a bunch of Keystone Cops they are, learn their methods, weakenesses, learn how to EXPLOIT the system. When it does come time for a REAL Islamic attack, these clowns wont know what to do but start the Clown Car and toot the horn in VAIN.

 Part of this is to stay RELEVANT. There are no credible threats, so they have to INVENT them.

====================

http://ccheadliner.com/news/article_3f8f1968-1f4f-11e0-91a1-001cc4c002e0.html?login_success=true#user-comment-area
 

Local blogger claiming FBI intimidation

Local blogger Clay Bowler said newly-elected 7th District Rep. Billy Long has tried to silence him before. And, after the FBI paid him a visit at his Ozark home Jan. 12, he thinks he’s trying to do it again.

“It’s political payback,” Bowler said after visiting Christian County Sheriff Joey Kyle Jan. 13 apprising him of the FBI investigation.

Bowler writes the Bungalow Bill’s Conservative Wisdom blog and said he’s been critical of Long since his candidacy for Congress. Bowler is also the author of the Long is Wrong blog that’s been gone since Long won the general election in November.

“I’ve poked fun at Billy,” Bowler said. “Part of it was satire—exposing Billy as not being a real Tea Party candidate.”

Bowler said Long even offered him a job on his campaign if he would give up his critical blogging.

Bowler was accompanied to the Sheriff’s Department by Michael Wardell, Nixa, who was also on the Republican primary ticket. Wardell said he just wanted to support his friend in what he believes to be intimidation.

“Clay is a friend,” he said. “This almost smacks of an overreach of power.”

Kyle said he was unaware that an FBI agent, along with Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott, paid a 30-minute visit to Bowler, but cautioned against an overreaction.

“This could be a knee-jerk reaction to the Tucson situation,” he said. “If you satisfy them you’re not a threat—they won’t be back.”

 

how to tell a Liberal is LYING
Topic: Constitutional

Abercrombie is LYING. Know how I can tell? When a LIBERAL has nothing substantive to go on, but has an AGENDA to push, they ALWAYS resort to AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

 Notice he doesnt say "lets clear the record" - he ATTACKS everyone else who is questioning the CONSTITUTIONALITY of Obamas election.

But, he has to attack others and LIE about them, claiming they have a politcal agenda. But what HES DOING IS NOT  A POLITICAL AGENDA?

And apparently hes going to ignore his own States LAWS in his agenda? 

Add HYPOCRISY to the charged.

Listen CAREFULLY to Manning:

http://atlahmedianetwork.org/?p=12043 

The PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN
Topic: Constitutional

 THE PEOPLE SPOKE. They are TIRED OF THE PAY TO PLAY LEGAL SYSTEM HARASSING AND RETALIATING AGAINST US:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_d6b1aaca-edfc-527f-ad11-f1691fdc6e3b.html?mode=story

  Yes, its STUPIDITY to prosecute over 1/16th of an OUNCE.

 What this is is two things:

1 .) The JURY DID MEET and decide, they just did it outside of the PAY TO PLAY legal system.

2.) notice the "con" comments on the article are pro Govt and AD HOMINEM

3.) the paper is LYING with their title of "mutiny". The Jurors now should prosecute the paper for LIBEL.

 The papers writers are clearly biased.

Resist the urge to side with the State (Stockholm Syndrome), put away any pre-conceived notions you might have and look at the FACTS:

1.) he had a SIXTEENTH of an ounce.

2.)  they had been unable to prosecute and persecute him to their personal satisfactions, so they roll out RETALIATION.

The Jury has apparently had enough harassment and MONEY WASTING.

Who makes money here?

1.) Legislatures (make law$ for PROFIT)

2.) Police (make$ money enforcing these law$ 

3.) Courts (Judges make$ money holding trial$

4.) detention system (there is no rehabilitation, its warehou$ing for CA$H

5.) $ocial $ervice$ $ystem make$ dollar$ $tolen from taxpayer$..

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

No pro$ecution$, no PAYOUT$

Like Mark Levin says - OVERCRIMINALIZAION OF AMERICA 

R CONgressional candidate lays violent overthrow on the table
Topic: Constitutional

 

 

Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on the table'

12:00 AM CDT on Friday, October 22, 2010

By MELANIE MASON / The Dallas Morning News
mmason@dallasnews.com

WASHINGTON – Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership.

In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising "is not the first option," but it is "on the table." That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks "inappropriate."

Broden, a first-time candidate, is challenging veteran incumbent Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson in Dallas' heavily Democratic 30th Congressional District. Johnson's campaign declined to comment on Broden.

In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation's government as tyrannical.

"We have a constitutional remedy," Broden said then. "And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution."

Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to "alter it or abolish it."

"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain's King George III.

Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government.

"The option is on the table. I don't think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms," Broden said, without elaborating. "However, it is not the first option."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-broden_22tex.ART0.State.Edition1.33278a9.html

========================

Two critical comments:

1.) The critical text here is not the Constiution as much as the Oath of Office, as I leaf through my Heritage Foundation copy of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemnes, both foriegn and DOMESTIC;"

Apparently everyone except the President makes that oath?

CONgress have committed TREASONOUS ACTS against the United States.

2.) "Modify or abolish" our FORM OF GOVT is the LAST thing we want for two reasons:

a.) the form we were given was given to us by the Founders BY Almighty God. It is the RADICAL LEFT who want to modify and abolish because they are ATHEISTS.

b.) to modify or abolish requires having a well thought out plan to replace the current system with something better. Americans do not have the capacity for rational thought, hammered out through adversity as did the Founders to come up with anything better.

  It is beyond clear we have mass Treason going on in DC, the bums need a-throwing out. Replace them with what, more IDIOTS who have no idea whats in the Constitution. Those screaming about term limits have never read The C.

THAT THESE RADICAL LEFTISTS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS PROVES THAT ALL CANDIDATES TO FOLLOW WILL BE NO DIFFERENT. Where do Candidates come from? THE VOTERS.

"My people are destroyed by a lack of knowledge"

Not only are CONgress in mass violations of their sworn duty to the C, but the Separation of Powers has failed also - we have Courts loaded with Socialists, Communists and Marxists. Think they are going to care about redress of grievances unlss its one of their Leftist shills demanding it?

Did anyone notice how quickly and QUIETLY the one who threatened the man from South Park (made derogatory remarks against Islam) came so quickly to PRISON TIME? THe radical Left takes care of its own.

Its not "JUSTICE" - its "JUST US"

  The only viable option is to KEEP our God given system, suffer through enough election cycles to weed out the traitors, give that process 10-20 years to clean out the Courts..

 Which will change naught, because THE PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM. Dont Elected Representatives come from the PEOPLE? (not in Obamas case, hes from Kenya)

So, next stop, Civil War.

MUST READ DOCUMENT
Topic: Constitutional

Drop whatever it is youre doing (including reading this Blog) and READ THIS, all 140 pages. The survival of your Nation may depend on it.

 Center for Security Policy Team B II Report on infiltration of the US by Islamic Sharia

 http://tool.donation-net.net/Act4America/ThreatReport.cfm?dn=1097&commID=37994637&ID=218692

a treasonous little thing called "private property rights"
Topic: Constitutional

You all know the scam - "Party A cannot posess a firearm because he is on Party B's property and Party B has the right to regulate what goes on on his own property."

 Now, its taken considerable time to wrap my mind around this delectable fraud, because its insidious, tricky and fraudulent at best. It came to me whilst washing the driveway. I wash my vehicle in my own driveway and I DARE the WA State Car Wash Police to come and get me.

What a F-king STUPID LAW. (PS I neutralize the oils and etc that come off the vehicle with Super Clean- what hits the driveway is not oil...its bio-broken down by whatever chemical process...)

 1.) Someone underline what part of the US Constitution AND the WA Constitution grants private property rights.

 THAY AIN'T NONE. (thats pronounced "thay'ntnun") And, PS, the WA Constitution incorporates the US Constitution as LAW OF THE STATE.

2.) Someone underline what part of said Constitutions speaks of the enumerated Right to Bear Arms.

THEY BOTH DO.

Houston, we have a problem, but the root of the problem is not obvious. It's taken me a few months to really un-veil the SCAM here.

Party B only has the indirect right to posess property (land, for example) through the general provision of "pursuit of happiness."B MUST HAVE PUBLIC PERMISSION TO POSESS LAND. That Deed B is so proud of...

BOTH parties have the ENUMERATED RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, and there IS NO DEED TO A FIREARM, AND NEITHER GOVT OR PUBLIC SHARE ANY OWNERSHIP RIGHT IN IT.

Put THAT in your smoke and pipe it!

There's something wrong when B not only does not want said Right for himself, but wants to bar A from enjoying it. B must be smoking something...

 Again (TALKING POINT) ITS B'S RIGHT ALSO.

 But B is on a power trip. B feels insecure of himself, so he inevitably petitions Government (which HAS NO RIGHTS, only RESPONSABILITIES) to wage war on A to deprive A of his Rights.

Whose side does a Corrupt Government take? The one that benefits Government, of course, as it is the irresistable nature of Man to be corrupt and favor himself.

The Corrupt Government takes B's side for several corrupt reasons:

a.) Government pretends to have power whether favoring A, B, or none of the above.

b.) Government is comprised of Citizens who too often, knowing it or not, are on a personal power trip,  money, vainglory or both, and what better way to fill that void than judging among the masses and making laws? More fun yet, try to RULE OVER THEM.

c.) a Corrupt and UnConstitutional Government does not like being inhibited by the Constitution(s) so it welcomes the chance to use whatever Straw Man happens along to suit its own power trip purposes.

d.) Government wants MONEY. Which Party, A or B,does Corrupt Government benefit more from- Party A who pays a one time SALES TAX on a firearm, or Party B who pays YEARLY PROPERTY TAXES?

 Now, youre onto the SCAM.

 So, when Party B, with un-civil motives, comes a-petitioning Government to secure his own property (so he says) Government obviously favors whom is FUNDING ITS MEMBERS SALARIES.

Party A has the superior Right to Bear Arms. Party B's assertion that he has the right to prohibit A from his Constitutional Posession of Private Property, SOLELY BECAUSE A IS ON B's PROPERTY, is a LIE and a FRAUD, for A's posession of his own lawful property, whether physically on B's premesis or not, is neither affected by B's rights nor has any effect on B, or B's property, 

The two rights have no relationship.

If A goes marauding and shoots B;s property up, then B has a legitimate right to seek damages from A, but that is an ACTION beyond B's RIGHT to real property. But, that is the other part of the SCAM - that B, in coercion with a Corrupt Government, can pre-empt A from doing some imagined wrong.

THAT IS HOW  COMMUNIST GOVERNMENTS WORK. Thats not Constitutional representation, its totalitarian control.

Party B is LYING when he asserts that infringement on A's Rights somehow secures his property, for what better security than to have a HUNDRED ARMED FRIENDS is there?

When's the last time you heard of a robbing or other ill on a GUN RANGE? I'll dare-say it's never happened.

The idiot that is B does not realize that in the process, hes giving up OWNERSHIP OF HIS OWN PROPERTY TO THE GOVERNMENT. Let Fool B try not paying the PROPERTY TAXES that B pays to have Government hear his treasonous petition.

And theres Greedy Corrupt Government ready to take that money. And as it goes in this State, throw it down a rat hole.

 Compare this to the rotten, money grubbing group called the "NRA" (acronym for "in it for ourselves") playing dog an pony with a photo of NRA folk along with Law Enforcement proudly heralding "shalll issue" with regard to Concealed Carry.

Of course this is an un-Constitutional SCAM on the part of Corrupt Government, corrupt Law Enforcement (the incorporated law of this State is "shall not be infringed") and greedy money grubbers at NRA, because CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS ARE FORBIDDEN BY BOTH CONSTITUTIONS.

Of course, NRA is so proud to have the Police on board and of course the PDs are glad to share in the power grab. A Dog and Pony show cant go on without both Dog and Pony, now can it?

Sure, power hungry PDs might prefer "may issue," but if "shall issue" prevails, there is still the process that leaves them in control, or so they think.

...not failing to forget for a moment that said PD SWORE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, did they not?

 I like Kennesaw GA's position better - "shall posess" which HAS ELIMINATED CRIME IN KENNESAW.

 Now, lets bring it home. I wrote to our So Called Representative Delvin about doing similar to VA in repealing firearms laws. He promised to meet with us over the last break.

Havent heard a peep from him, even though I gave him a copy of the Email in which he promised at the last Constituent meeting.

Dont believe for a minute that EITHER party is anything but a SCAM.

Hell, with broken promises like that, I may as well vote Democrat.

Your assignment in Constutional study- read this crap and analyse it
Topic: Constitutional

The Tri Cities herald is foaming at the mouth with its Communist Big Govt  drivel again under the guise of a Public Forum. Of course, people with empty heads full of opinions who want to look relevant will chime in with all sorts of Un Constitutional and illegal, immoral, irrational trash as they always do.

 Read it, if you can keep from puking. Ill post the "low-lights"

  http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/05/12/1012171/editorial-preview-may-13-19.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=9393625#Comments_Container

 

Editorial Preview — May 13-19

Our frustrations with the functioning of government at various levels is providing plenty of fodder for editorial topics in the coming week. We’ve also noticed some positive developments worthy of comment. As always, you’re encouraged to jump into the conversation.

Benton County commissioners — We’re writing this one for Thursday. Before deciding major policy issues, why don’t’ the commissioners take a deliberate approach that includes full participation of stakeholders and the public? On both the potential fairgrounds sale and the future of the bi-county health district, they’re failing the engage in the discussions needed to make informed decisions....<snip>

Attorney General mulls Miranda rights revision — The war on terror is different than any other war in our history. We’re not fighting a nation but an ideology, so the old rules don’t apply. How can we rewrite the standards for terrorist suspects to serve both our national security and our democratic ideals?

 ================================

What a load of goat roping! This crap is known as "straw argument" and isnt asking questions, its deceitful and evasive tactics to plant ideas in peoples minds. It's called DIALOGING TO CONCENSUS. Never mind that: 

a.) most of them dont have minds of their own or they wouldnt fall into traps like this in the first place

b.) the crap theyre spreading is UNCONSTITUTIONAL 

Read the Wiki on "straw argument" then read the editorial. Then read Miranda and the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. Yes, Miranda was a ruling, but its based in the Fifth Amendment. ALL LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT ARE. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man 

Here are my responses, of course, they'll delete them. I've been kicked off The TCH, WSJ and Reuters websites for my Free Speech.  Yes, the Tricycle Herald retaliates against those who speak out against them like any other good Communist-sympathizing organization does. I posted those details earlier on this Blog.

==============================

"The issue of Miranda rights for terrorists is taking an early lead in the polling. We're guessing the interest expressed here is representative of the broader community"

That is a "straw argument" thats borderline treasonous:

In violation of presumption of innocence
Generally contrary to the Fifth Amendment and specifically Miranda.

RIGHTS are not something that Government grants. They are reserved to the People, not Govt, corporations, stakeholders, NGOs or newspapers.

Wiki defines straw argument as based on fallacy based on misrepresentation which, here, is a deliberately false initial premise that ACCUSED terrorists have no/diminished rights based on an ACCUSATION.

They are not terrorists until proven so by a COURT."

There are two "straws" here (false/misleading arguments)

1.) "The war on terror is different than any other war in our history"

Off topic (red herring) . The topic is not "war" it is "arrest" and there is no cause to change it for one individual.

2.) "We’re not fighting a nation but an ideology,"

No, idealogies cant make bombs and shoot guns. People do

3.) "old rules don’t apply"

The agenda of Big Govt Liberals is to destroy Peoples Rights. Since that is not possible within the restraint of Government by the Constitution, faux arguments have to be sold to people. This summary is predicated on two false arguments before and if People arent aware of the Constitutional limits placed on Govt, they may fall for these slick fables.

The root problem from 1.) is the utter incompetence of Govt to "protect us" or prosecute crime. The system fails repeatedly so in a useless attempt to gain some hold on a criminal, we invent more laws and rules to try to hang on them. The Police failed their PAST legal duty (Miranda was in force when they arrested him) and are attempting to blame someone else for their failure. Since they failed their legal duty, HE'LL GET OFF.

 >>>

"Before deciding major policy issues, why don’t’ the commissioners take a deliberate approach that includes full participation of stakeholders and the public?"

Because they dont want to. Because the People have ignored the process for too many years and paid no heed to Govt working (or not working) and the Corporations, "stakeholders" and others not guaranteed Representation have taken over - theyre called lobbyists and special interest groups.

"Stakeholders" have no say, they are not Citizens.

The question itself is improper, it should be:

"Why dont (whatever representative, County, State, Congress...) determine the will of the PEOPLE, then DO IT.?

They only want feedback when it suits their agendas. Any and all of them.

 ++++++++++++++++++++ 

Another problem for those of you who CAN think. "These people" (the outgrouping fallacy at work- us vs them - divisionary tactic) are NOT TERRORISTS.. Terrorists want to make people afraid. A terrorist puts a fake bomb in front of the Post Ofice.

These people are MILITARY OPERATIVES. They dont want people afraid, THEY WANT THEM DEAD. They use REAL BOMBS.

And now - TREASON IN THE WHITE HOUSE
Topic: Constitutional

Dingell admits that Obama Care (insurance reform is NOT health care reform. thats red-herring) is about "controlling the People"

 http://www.breitbart.tv/shocking-audio-rep-dingell-says-obamacare-will-eventually-control-the-people/comment-page-11/#comment-4618061

  And (part of) my letter to Doc Hastings predicting this:

  ----------------

 

1.) While searching for a valid OMB Control Number for the 2010 Census, which I cannot find, I noticed a troubling thing in several Executive Orders (EO’s).

Previous EOs repealed by Klinton contain limitations on Agency authority, with language such as:

“ Section 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Order:

(a) "Regulation" or "rule" means an agency statement of general applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the procedure or practice requirements of an agency,...”

and

“Sec. 9. Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal government, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers or any person. The determinations made by agencies under Section 4 of this Order, and any Regulatory Impact Analyses for any rule, shall be made part of the whole record of agency action in connection with the rule.”

Direct quotations from EO 12291

Notice a problem, the Executive is attempting to, or in fact, making and interpreting LAW, which are functions reserved to the Legislative and Judicial under the U.S. Constitution.

Klintons EO 12866 changes things- it starts off with a bunch of Un Constitutional philosophy:

“The American people deserve a regulatory system that works for them, not against them: a regulatory system that protects and improves their health, safety, environment, and well-being and improves the performance of the economy without imposing unacceptable or unreasonable costs on society; regulatory policies that recognize that the private sector and private markets are the best engine for economic growth; regulatory approaches that respect

the role of State, local, and tribal governments; and regulations that are effective, consistent, sensible, and understandable. We do not have such a regulatory system today.”

We don’t have such a system because we should not have one. The President does not grant well being and performance of the economy...

“Section 1. Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles.

(a) The Regulatory Philosophy. Federal agencies should promulgate only such regulations as are required by law, are necessary to interpret the law, or are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material failures

of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the American people.”

and:

“Sec. 10. Judicial Review. Nothing in this Executive order shall affect any otherwise available judicial review of agency action. This Executive order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal Government and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.“

See how the language has been modified from previous similar EO’s from limits on what regulations may be made, to a ‘suggestion.’ In Sec. 10 of EO 12866, the requirement for Agency documentation requirement has been removed.

There are SERIOUS problems here, it concerns me that OMB is no longer under DoC but directly under the President. Why? Why is the Agency responsible for issuing Control Numbers itself not under the same requirement? Why is the Executive attempting to circumvent the Separation of Powers?

Theres a simple answer - A EXECUTIVE/MILITARY COUP. The Executive is also CIC of the Military. All it takes now is an EO or two to seize Legislative and Judicial authority in Agency rules binding as law, and when we attempt to ignore them, use military force to impose them.

 

--------------------

Administrative rules apply to some Agency, as stated in the EO. NOT TO THE PEOPLE. Only laws that the People authorize via their CONGRESS are valid.

 

The Lead Hour is fast approaching. 

 

WARNING-WARNING- DANGER-DANGER Initiatives I-1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065
Topic: Constitutional

GREAT ideas behind them, but these Initiatives are so POORLY WRITTEN as to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL themselves, or void, or subject to attack in the Courts.

 READ THEM CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING THEM. Read them on the front page here:

http://second-amendment.tripod.com 

 Yes, there is ample word-smithing and joking around on this Blog, but that is all set aside now for the following statement:

"There is a SERIOUS lack of English literacy, communications and critical thinking skills in the State of WA and that is evident in these Initiatives."

Recall in grade school when wed turn a paper in and the Teacher would say:

"I know what you mean, but youre not writing it clearly..." 

Thats the problem with these Initiatives, they are copy-cats of other proposals (Intra-State firearms in Montana) but are so loaded up with useless verbage and un-Constitutional provisions to render them, in my opinion, MORE DANGEROUS than the mess we have now.

Example from I-1065, Greenhouse gas Initiative

 "(5) "Toxic greenhouse gas" means any greenhouse gas that multiple
confirmatory scientific studies have proven beyond a reasonable doubt
is directly toxic to life under normal circumstances."

Whats wrong:

a.) There is no such thing as "greenhouse gasses" because that presumes the greenhouse effect is correct, thus the term. Vague, contradictory, void

b.) CO sub-2 IS TOXIC, try BREATHING IT for a few minutes. A "few minutes" is all you can breathe it, then ye shall be DEAD, because CO-2 is DEADLY TOXIC to humans:

Websters: 

1 : containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation <toxic waste> <a toxic radioactive gas> <an insecticide highly toxic to birds>

HUMANS CANNOT LIVE WHEN BREATHING CO-s therefore it is TOXIC. Since CO-2 is TOXIC, the language of this Initiative is null and void.

Example from I- 1059:

"(1) Any law-abiding citizen of Washington state has the right
under the United States and Washington state Constitutions to protect
themselves"

 NO, THEY DO NOT, because NEITHER CONSTITUTION grants Rights to Citizens. HAVE YOU READ THEM? If Rights are granted by the Constitutions, then the C.s can be AMENDED to remove those rights. EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. BOTH Constitutions FORBID Government from INFRINGING, they DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS.

READ THEM. 

another dangerous provision:

"(2) Any law-abiding citizen of Washington state has the right to
defend himself or herself, unless he or she is in the act of
committing a crime, without interference from federal or state
agencies."

Dangerous because:

a.) law is now presuming to grant rights, which it has no power to do

b.) all it takes to circumvent this is to declare possession of Arms a Crime and the Cities in WA are already attempting to do that - this is what Pre-Emption is about.

another:

 "(3) Law-abiding citizens of Washington state shall not have their
firearms, ammunition, or other means of ensuring their constitutional
rights of self-defense waived,"

Poorly written, the subject is incorrect. The premise is limiting the Fed from action in the State, but the subject is the WA Citizen. Again, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, it is simply referenced in the Constitutions as something that Government SHALL NOT INFRINGE UPON.

The "law abiding" phrase is also dangerous, all thats needed to circumvent that is to declare all Citizens who own/possess firearms as criminals and this is voided. And again, the CITIES in WA State are trying to do that RIGHT NOW.

This one is particularly poorly written (I-1062)

"(1) The tenth amendment to the United States Constitution
guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to
the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to
the state and people of Washington certain powers as they were
understood at the time that Washington was admitted to statehood in
1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract"

W-R-O-N-G. Have we ever READ the Tenth Amendment?

a.) It is not "tenth amendment" it is Tenth Amendment. We CAPITALIZE the Proper names of persons, places and things. We have people ILLITERATE of the rules of English crafting legislation! It is "States", not "states."

b.)  Powers are DELEGATED, not GRANTED. WORDS MEAN THINGS.

c.) powers are NOT granted to the "federal government"  - GO TRY TO FIND A "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" in the Constution! IT IS NOT THERE. It is "not delegated to the United States." To cite "federal government" defeats the Constitutions and this Initiative because it re-defines the Constitution into something the Framers did not intend. The Constitution forbids certain actions on the United States, whether it is expressed in a federal government or not.

d.) why re-write the Tenth Amendment? Why not just CITE IT DIRECTLY.

"(2) The ninth amendment to the United States Constitution
guarantees to the people rights not granted in the Constitution"

IT DOES NOT. HAVE YOU EVER READ IT?   IM reading it right now, and the ORIGINAL, NOT A MADE UP VERSION. Here it is, QUOTED, not my opinion:

"The ENUMERATION in the Constitution of certain rights..."

IS NOT a creation of a right, it ENUMERATES  RIGHTS that exist elsewhere.

Heres another danger:

" (4) The second amendment to the United States Constitution
reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right
was understood at the time that Washington was admitted to statehood
in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract
between the state and people of Washington and the United States..."

Since when do the Constitutions hinge on UCC? Contract? I dont think so!

A contract is a legal construction. Our Constitutions are NOT bound by LAW.

"(5) Article I, section 24 of the Washington state Constitution
clearly secures to Washington citizens, and prohibits government
interference with, the right of individual Washington citizens to
keep and bear arms."

 NO, the Constitutions prohibit Government from INFRINGING, not "interfering." All it takes to circumvent this game is to define "interfering" in a way that is pleasing to the gun grabbers and  this is void.

"NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. (1) A personal firearm, a firearm accessory,
or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in
Washington and that remains within the borders of Washington is not
subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration,
under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce."

 Yeah, tell us something we dont know already. That protection ALREADY EXISTS, therefore there is NO PLACE for law to stick its nose in the matter.

"The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms,"

Since WHEn does the WA Legislature have the authority to circumvent the US Constitution and tell Congress, elected of, by and for the People, what its authority is? That topic is already defined in the US Constitution. Why state the obvious?

This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in iteself:

" (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
(a) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(b) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than one and one-
half inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a
propellant;
(c) Ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion
of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(d) A firearm, other than a shotgun, that discharges two or more
projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing
device." 

This prohibits frangible ammunition, which is currently not regulated.

WHERE IN EITHER CONSTITUTION ARE THERE LIMITS ON THE NUMBER, TYPES or CAPACITIES OF THE ARMS THE PEOPLE BEAR?

They dont exist, and this is PROOF that these Initiatives are created by Subversives, for they act to SUBVERT BOTH CONSTITUTIONS:

Main Entry: sub·vert Pronunciation: \səb-ˈvərt\ Function: transitive verb

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French subvertir, from Latin subvertere, literally, to turn from beneath, from sub- + vertere to turn — more at worth

Date: 14th century

1 : to overturn or overthrow from the foundation : ruin
2 : to pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith

The FOUNDATION of our Nation is /are the Constitutions, and these initiatives attack BOTH CONSTITUTIONS and attempt to subvert their limitations on government by placing the C.s within control of Law, where the GUN GRABBERS IN OLYMPIA can tear it down.

DANGER 

 Its not good enough to say that a Toyota accelerated and caused an accident, we have to say "why" and fix the problem. Here, the fixes are simple:

1.) Eliminate the attempts by whomever wrote these Initiatives to re-write History and sound intelligent, and just limit the wording to the matters at hand

2.) REPEALING ALL FIREARMS laws in required, because they ALL INFRINGE.

3.) Without flowerly language, dont play games with Sherriff First, just set it out straight:

'No Feds in our Sherriffs jurisdiction" without his permission. PERIOD.

4.) These Initiatives are as USELESS as existing Laws which dont work, because they carry no penalties for Govt violating them. Place specific, substantial CRIMINAL PENALTIES in them for anyone trampling on Citizens Rights.

You can tell these are bad Initiatives by two methods:

1.) the anti freedom gun grabbers in the Legislature will not object to them

2.) The CONSTITUTIONS ARE WITH RESPECT TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. These initiatives are not. They are about the States Rights, and the STATE HAS NONE. RIGHTS ARE RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE, NOT AN INCORPORATION UNDER LAW CALLED THE "STATE OF WASHINGTON."

Critical observations from "Defensive Arms Vindicated" Stephen Case, 1782
Topic: Constitutional

I could not have the bandwidth to comment on this writing, nor the ability or authority to do so. These men were there, at the time and witnessed what happened, and invented a new form of SELF Government while clearly having in sight, the failures of all previous forms.

http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=76759  

Three critical things to notice:

1.) First Concession, paragraph 12. The doctrine of obedience to a King was rooted in the failure of the kings of Israel, to paraphrase an old rhyme:

"when the king was good, he was very good, and when he was bad, he was awful."

And SO WENT THE PEOPLE. And there WE go.

We are not under a King or monarch, the War for Independence broke that mold in favor of LIMITED SELF GOVERNANCE. We do  not have a government to govern us. No one rules us. We broke that mold of the Kings and went back towards the ideals of Moses - back towards direct rule by God.

And now we have 'government' full of un-godliness. The source of our present problems, and the source of the American Revolution are the same - A-THEISM. From France then, from everywhere now.

2.) Sixth. I condemn all rising to revenge private injuries, whereby a country may be covered with blood, for some petty wrongs done to some persons great or small.

3.) "I once read of a good old general that was walking through his army, when, at length, he saw a young prodigal officer beating an old soldier unmercifully: O! says the general, lay on, for you know that he dare not strike you again! Which reproof, though very modest, covered the officer with blushes, and caused him to desist—and, in fact, it is a sure sign of a coward, to be beating a man that we know dare not, for his life, resist."

Think about that a day. "Lay on" is directed to the one being beaten, and not to, or though, the beater. The meaning is that after being beaten enough, that one having the might to resist dare not be resisted, because he has a power from somewhere higher.

Publius: The Federalist 85 (August 13/16, 1788)
Topic: Constitutional

  From the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, 1788, this CRITICAL OBSERVATION: 

" (The additional securities to republican government, to liberty and to property, to be derived from the adoption of the plan under consideration, consist chiefly in the restraints which the preservation of the union will impose on local factions and insurrections, and on the ambition of powerful individuals in single states, who might acquire credit and influence enough, from leaders and favorites, to become the despots of the people; in the diminution of the opportunities to foreign intrigue, which the dissolution of the confederacy would invite and facilitate; in the prevention of extensive military establishments, which could not fail to grow out of wars between the states in a disunited situation; in the express guarantee of a republican form of government to each; in the absolute and universal exclusion of titles of nobility; and in the precautions against the repetition of those practices on the part of the state governments, which have undermined the foundations of property and credit, have planted mutual distrust in the breasts of all classes of citizens, and have occasioned an almost universal prostration of morals)
"

 

WERE THERE, FOLKS.  And just after that section, why it is imperative we preserve theUnion. Just because the bath-water is dirty, we dont throw the baby out. Just throw the dirt out!

Our Political processes have been SUBVERTED by Leftists pushing a Utopian agenda (Government can make everything all-right with Socialism) and the means to that suversion is this:

The representative democracy principle, and in fact, practice, has been subverted to "pick one of two parties, at least appear to have support of the People as evidenced by their majority vote (last Presidential election) at a time where all that is being voted on is WHO is elected, then transfer that vote to all succeeding legislation and process, where that is not acceptable, the VOTE must continue. The PARTIES are being voted in, not PEOPLE (elected Reps). Elected Reps are taking their platform as a mandate to then go vote in some direction instead of polling the People (who were the Electorate, but are, after the Election, not Electorate but Constituents) on each and EVERY ISSUE.

When the Nation was formed, it was a simple matter to poll the People and send a Representative, the land - area a population was small. Until recently, this was somewhat more difficult as the population has become very large in comparison to the communications abilities. Now with COMPUTERS its easier than EVER to poll the People. Computers are everywhere. 

Someone gets it right - US Attorney Generals on Constitution
Mood:  a-ok
Topic: Constitutional

Excerpt from an AP story tonite:

 ----------------------------------------- 

COLUMBIA, S.C. – Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska's political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.

"We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed," South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision," they wrote. "

and 

 " "Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation's legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation," the attorneys general wrote. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091231/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_deal_states

 

The AG's gets it RIGHT. The Constitution DOES NOT give People Rights.  The "and" conjunction expresses the true intent of the Constitution, We the People have Inalianable Rights and the Constitution prohibits Government from infringing on them.

  They DID NOT say "protect peoples Constitutional rights."

Three Thumbs up! 

these are Patriots? Or subversives?
Topic: Constitutional

  Heres an Email recently received:

=================

Hi there, 

Haven’t talked in you in forever.  Just wanted to make sure you received my personal invite. We are going to have 6 speakers (including Rep. Matt Shea speaking of legislation he is going to introduce) then we will move into meeting with your legislators and let them know why we expect them to uphold the constitution and the 10^th amendment specifically. 

Will you be able to join us? 

Tawnya

Today I am writing as one mad-as-hell patriot.  I have a stack of meaningless responses from our non-representing Representatives.  Health Care, Cap and Trade, A failed stimulus package, a second stimulus package on the horizon, net neutrality, terrorists in criminal court, and NO Christmas.....

I have had it!

I want to ensure I keep my freedom and make certain I maintain it for future generations.

HOW DO WE MAKE IT HAPPEN?     State Sovereignty - our last line of defense. 

Why Sovergenty? 

The 10^th Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  

“We the People” want our Freedom!

I am asking all Freedom Loving Patriots from across our state to STAND WITH ME for FREEDOM at the Sovereignty Winter Fest.

WHY JANUARY 14^TH?

January 14^th was chosen because it is the first week of the 60 day State legislative session. 

 

We must charge our state legislators to reaffirm State Sovereignty (HJM 4009), to support Health Care nullification (like Arizona), to endorse the Firearms Freedom Act (like Montana), and to put forth Sheriff First legislation before they get off track.  We must insist our state legislators STAND for FREEDOM.  We want them to uphold the 10^th Amendment of the Constitution and take their Oath of Office seriously.  We want them to know that we are armed and dangerous with our Constitution, with our vote, and with our numbers!

 

     We will assemble at the State Capital North Steps at noon

     Our numbers will show our state legislators that we mean business.

     We will work together to ensure our State legislators protect our Constitutional Rights. 

WE INVITE YOU TO STAND WITH US!

Will you, will your group join us in this STATE-WIDE STAND for SOVERIEGNTY 

Help us to get the word out!   

Several groups across the state have been connecting, but we want to make sure we make sure every freedom loving patriot is involved! 

January 14^th – Sovereignty Winter Fest, our last line of defense

Washington State Capitol, Olympia WA 98504-1031

North Steps 12 noon – 4pm
 

We understand that this is simply a starting point, and that we will have to maintain a huge endeavor to keep our non-representing Representatives focused on Sovereignty. 

We MUST remain watchful…We MUST remain vigilant….We must remain FREE! 

Thank you for your time and consideration, 

Tawnya CitizensforHJM4009.ning.com

 ===================

Isn't that nice, I can be part of the in-crowd! 

 Did you catch the DANGEROUS error:

" We will work together to ensure our State legislators protect our Constitutional Rights.

Since WHEN do Legislators grant RIGHTS and Protect us? Since when does a Constitution GRANT RIGHTS?

Read BOTH of them and point out to me where rights are "granted."

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm  

http://www.sos.wa.gov/history/constitution.aspx  

 

"HOW DO WE MAKE IT HAPPEN?     State Sovereignty - our last line of defense.   "

Bull **** it is. Soverignty of the radical Leftist CRACKPOTS in Seattle/Olympia MY last line of defense? HARDLY. My last line is making holes in things. 

Some defense against Federal abuses? Yes. An unconditional defense? NO.

If Government granting rights is "Patriotism", we're screwed. 

 And watch out carefully for these so called "Citizens advocating this or that law..." these proposed legislations often have bad things hidden within, like one a year or so ago that had provisions to grant Illegal Aliens drivers permit. READ THEM CAREFULLY before jumping on any bandwagon.