Today there have been many observances and rembrances of the explosion at the 2013 Boston Marathon that killed three, injured over 260, and blew the limbs off 16 of them. People were gathered at these planned events to celebrate their “show of defiance and resilience” in the face of this tragedy. NPR this morning assured us that nowhere would the source and purpose of this disaster be mentioned. It was to be a focused and positive city-wide celebration of healing, of how tough the citizens of Boston could be when confronted by such unstoppable natural disasters.
On this day we will not revisit the real cause of those explosions; neither will we examine the event’s larger context. We will not speak of the global terror that radical Islam spawns. We will not speak of the constant killings that are committed in the name of that religion, and the cultures it grounds worldwide (14apr14 Abujah, Nigeria – 71 killed, 124 wounded). We will not speak of the ignorance and hate that are taught in its madrassas. We will not speak of its age old and ongoing treatment of women as sexual and reproductive chattel. We will simply think of such occasions of medieval murder and mayhem as we would of any other incomprehensible act of God. And there we will be in complete agreement with the Islamists, because they too believe they are carrying out acts of God.
That we no longer nurture or care for our own beliefs may be the surest sign that our culture has no beliefs to care for and defend.
When tyrannies make the laws, all opponents of tyranny are then seen and treated as criminals.
The ownership and control of our public lands is a mess, both legally and constitutionally. Save for military bases (an arguably constitutional provision), why does the federal government claim ownership – laughably in the name of ‘the public’ - of large parts of the country? Save for preserving certain particularly scenic locales as public parks, why do states need to own land? (I find federal ownership of land for parks and recreation to also be constitutionally unfounded.) Yes, there are reasons for state governments to share control of ‘infrastructure land’ that contain navigable rivers, flood control dams and levees, and water reservoirs, but owning thousands of square miles of open range, mountains, and forests, the case for such has no reasonable constitutional basis.
(Recall the definition of ownership, you ‘own’ something only to the extent that you can dispose of it as you wish.)
Due to the Bundy Ranch gathering of citizens concerned with the jackboot behavior of various fed and state agencies, the BLM has decided to withdraw in order to regroup and replan their next assault, because they apparently expected none of what happened – e.g. consider the set aside of a little ‘First Amendment Rights’ pen for the few people who might show up to quietly protest as permitted by their betters.
I was heartened that this event finally demonstrated what can happen when citizens ‘just say NO!’, both in their courage to unambiguously state that a limit to overreach had been broached, and also by the rapid gathering of supportive citizens who were willing to take an unknown risk against militarized government units armed with machine guns, snipers, and helicopters. I hope that this might set an inspiring example for locals all over the country to resist the next diktat that comes down from above to perfunctorily limit more of what/how/when people can do, say, wear, eat, build, travel, stay, read, watch, learn, work, recreate, worship, display, spend, receive, join, … . If the Bundy standoff can serve as the starting point for Americans everywhere to change their recently inbred docile acceptance to one of critical examination and consideration before compliance or its rejection, then this will have been a productive milestone on the road back to liberty. (Nevada County electeds please take note.)
As to resolving the grazing on public lands matter, I expect that the feds will be back after an appropriate media propaganda blitz that will demonize the Bundys and others who may have similar thoughts. Here we can hope that this will raise the country’s awareness of the public lands issue, and after appropriate debate, lead to a resolution that gets the feds out of the land management business and, perhaps, shuts down a tax consuming bureaucracy. Important and exciting times ahead.
[19apr14 update] Contrary to the somewhat bombastic interpretations of our progressive constitutional pundits, the legitimacy of federal retention of vast tracts of western lands is being called to question by lawmakers in western states (more here). The historical legality of such federal retention which I and a number of other observers have criticized is now coming to the attention of some of our conservative political leadership. The bottom line is still that the feds have usurped the states’ intended rights to own and control (i.e. dispose of as they will) public lands within their borders, and a progressive judicial system has made mockery of the clear original intent of the Constitution in this matter.
Perhaps now a reasoned debate can start on the most appropriate process through which we can erase the overwhelming amount of the western red areas in the above map. To be sure, the big government collectivists will fight tooth and nail to retain as much central control of domestic policies in Washington as possible. America’s historical standards of liberty and self-determination demand the devolution of such central controls to the states and counties where the people live.
RR, in its long suffering and dedicated effort to continue the posting of announcements of public import, your attention is invited to the following two.
Con-Con or the Constitutional Convention as called for in Article 5 has become an item of some urgency for factions widely separated in their ideology and their view of our country’s future. On the one hand we have national conservative leaders like Mark Meckler – President of Citizens for Self Governance – promoting the assembling of a constitutional convention of the states. And on the other extreme there is George Soros, joined by hundreds of leftwing organizations and institutions, who are promoting the very same thing. Both sides have widely differing agendas for what they think they will be able to accomplish during such a convention. A main focus for both sides is the Second Amendment, approached for diametrically different ends. The conservatives also want to revamp the Constitution to clearly “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”, in short, a return to the kind of federalism envisioned by the Founders and much discussed in these pages. (more here, here, and here)
It appears that 34 states, the required two-thirds, have already passed resolutions and given other formal nods to holding a con-con. However, not everyone is happy with the possible outcomes from such an undertaking. Both sides feel that they can control and limit the convention to favorably address just the concerns on their agenda. The requirements for any significant change – from amendment to rewrite – are strict and require a level of co-operation and consensus among the states that today is not visible. So one can reasonably argue that the most probable outcome of a con-con is a shouting match resulting in no agreement on anything. However, there is a chance that one side or the other may actually prevail, and that’s the scary part.
Common Core. Switching gears to the plague now afflicting the nation’s K-12 curriculum, there will be a town hall meeting on the subject here in Grass Valley on 29 April 2014 at the GV Elks Lodge. Jan Collins (530-802-0865) is chairing the event and states that “there is growing grassroots opposition nationwide to the new one-size fits all curriculum, and its accompanying testing and collection of invasive personal data about our children and their families. Home schools, private, and charter schools may find they are affected as well.” Anyway, mark your calendars and come hear the speakers, and get the latest info on what all the fuss is about; it’s important. More about Common Core here and here.
[CABPRO is going through some considerable internal dissension between its formerly uncontested Executive Director Mr Chuck Shea and its formerly uncontested Board of Directors. Today both parties are claiming to be in legitimate control of the organization. Ms Melinda Monaghan, one of the formerly uncontested directors wrote a letter to the CABPRO membership and asked me to post it on RR. It was posted on 27 February last (‘CABPRO’s 25feb14 letter to member’).
Mr Shea wanted me to inform readers of his side of the controversy which I offered to do. In response he emailed me the following disclosure which has now also gone out to the CABPRO membership. It is printed below as received (minus some formatting). The email had attached three JPEG images of the marginally scanned resignation letters by the formerly uncontested directors. The referenced video will explain.
FYI, the formerly uncontested directors have called a membership meeting for this coming Monday for the purpose of receiving guidance on the future disposition of the organization. Mr Shea’s piece follows. gjr]
What’s really going on in CABPRO
First let’s deal with just the facts.
You all have been getting only one side of this dispute and it is from the people who resigned and who have “Pirated the corporation” under false pretenses.
Please refer to these points below as well as the attachments to this email.
Point one. On September 1, 2013 the following people resigned in writing from CABPRO 1. Kim Janousek, 2. Kirk Pharis 3. Melinda Monaghan
Please see the resignation letters from each Defendant which are attached
THEIR CLAIM: They claim that there have been a number of “Official Board Meetings” and that Dick and Tina Marshall failed to attend three Board Meetings that they were properly noticed, that they failed to attend and were kicked out of CABPRO.
FACT: there have been no Official Board meetings since April 9, 2012, there have been no Board Meetings ever called or recorded at all, by anybody as they have stated.
FACT: Dick and Tina Marshall did not resign. Period
Please see Dick and Tina’s memo to the defendants which is attached
FACT: If there were Official Board meetings as the Defendants claim, then where are the records and minutes of those meetings?
We have asked multiple times for these minutes to be “Brought forward. They have refused! Because,………….They do not exist!
FACT: on the weekend of October 5, 2013 Kim Janousek telephoned Dick Marshall to request reinstatement to the CABPRO Board, The request was denied!
She was also asked by Dick Marshall, “Was Chuck Shea aware of what she was doing"? Kim Stated; “No! Chuck was not aware and would prefer that the conversation was kept from him". Dick Marshall declined and stated that He is required to notify Chuck since he is the Executive Director
This conversation is another confirmation that Kim Janousek recognized she had resigned and had “No Standing”!
FACT: these people all resigned, in writing and have no legal standing to do or act; 1. as “CABPRO or 2. to spend CABPRO Funds 3. To contract on behalf of CABPRO 4. To appoint or assign any persons to perform Duties or functions within CABPRO corporation, 5. To conduct any activities as set forth in the Corporate BYLAWS 6. AND they have not had any standing in CABPRO since Sept 1, 2013.
FACT: Anything that they have done has been illegal, a misrepresentation and a miss- appropriation of funds.
FACT: To date they have spent over $4,000.00 of CABPRO funds in an attempt to justify their illegal actions.
We suspect that it is higher as they have refused to provide an accurate accounting with an actual Bank Statement.
FACT: They have retained the Services of a Peter Broson Attorney who specializes in Bankruptcy at the initial cost of $963.50
So If their intent is to preserve CABPRO, Then why the Bankruptcy attorney?
If you have any question after watching the video please give me a shout!
Best Regards, Chuck Shea, Executive Director CABPRO
[This is the transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 28 February 2014.]
It is election season again, and, frankly, it is becoming so that election season has become a perennial pageant. With the troubles of Obamacare, Benghazi, IRS political targetings, DoJ’s fast and furious selective enforcement of laws, militarizing of federal departments, the economy’s doldrums, foreign policy fiascoes, and no end in sight for deficits and borrowing, …, you’d think that the Republicans would enjoy and easy sail to November and beyond. Not so.
News Item – Next year commercial talk radio of the liberal bent is slated to completely collapse in the remaining major media markets of New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. The problem is that the audiences for such content are miniscule and diminishing. Leftwing talk radio survives on non-profit outlets such as NPR which are funded through government grants and private donations. (More here, here, and here)
Now anyone who has been a longtime resident of Earth will not be surprised by this news, even though its dissemination has never been a high priority item on the nation’s lamestream outlets. The question worth considering once more is why such talk radio cannot get purchase in commercial markets, why are so few people listening to the collectivist side of the political spectrum when a large and growing number are listening to conservative and libertarian commentators.
To people like me, the answers are simple and straightforward. These answers are also totally rejected by progressives who respond to the asymmetry by their continuing attempts to shut down commercial rightwing talk radio on public airwaves (and now also on private channels) based on sinister yet hilarious arguments of ‘fairness’ and ‘balance’ that completely beg the question of why audiences differ in their preferences for such contents.
[update] We just go back at 11pm. What a fantastic evening of musicianship and entertainment was put on by Paul and friends for an appreciative crowd of locals that filled the Nevada Theater. Thank you Paul.
Tonight we recorded the sixth edition of Breaking Bread at the NCTV studios. BB6 may be the last program recorded at the former Grass Valley Group facility since the station is undergoing a transition which involves moving to new quarters for the new year. I hosted the program in which we introduced a new one-on-one format – a conversation between the host and invited guest.
The topics that I sought to explore Sheriff Royal’s views on were the militarization of the nation’s police and sheriffs, the constitutional sheriffs movement, and Nevada County’s preparedness for large scale emergencies. The hour went well, we both felt comfortable in the conversational format, and all topics received appropriate coverage.
BB6 was hastily arranged and scheduled for tonight. Producers Terri Hicklin and Patty Smith wanted to get in one last edition of BB before NCTV had to start disassembling its studio this Friday. After some thought, I volunteered to do the program due to the apparent unavailability of any of the other hosts. The program airings will be announced on the NCTV website, and it will be archived there for later viewing on demand. The working title of BB6 is ‘A Conversation With Nevada County Sheriff Keith Royal’. I will post the link when it's available.
Many thanks to the crew of all volunteers who showed up on a rainy evening to at least provide a professional effort behind the cameras. These folks make community television possible.