George Rebane
Last Tuesday night almost 300 Nevada County residents gathered to hear a report from our Congressman Doug LaMalfa, and a presentation by Stewart Rhodes of Oathkeepers in the Grass Valley Veterans Hall presented by CABPRO. The very stark presentation by Mr Rhodes was on the progress of government overreach and focused much on defense of the Second Amendment. The message for Americans at the grassroots level was to resist all state efforts to actually or constructively confiscate our firearms.
I don’t want to do a rehash of what has been covered so much on RR during the almost seven years it has served as forum for the Left and Right to debate the most crucial questions that face our Republic in this new century. But leaving the Vets Hall on a cold and blustery night again brought to mind a question that has puzzled me for some years – how should a liberal state deport itself toward its citizens when a goodly portion of them feel strongly that its government is in the process of destroying the nation?
Last Tuesday night almost 300 Nevada County residents gathered to hear a report from our Congressman Doug LaMalfa, and a presentation by Stewart Rhodes of Oathkeepers in the Grass Valley Veterans Hall presented by CABPRO. The very stark presentation by Mr Rhodes was on the progress of government overreach and focused much on defense of the Second Amendment. The message for Americans at the grassroots level was to resist all state efforts to actually or constructively confiscate our firearms.
I don’t want to do a rehash of what has been covered so much on RR during the almost seven years it has served as forum for the Left and Right to debate the most crucial questions that face our Republic in this new century. But leaving the Vets Hall on a cold and blustery night again brought to mind a question that has puzzled me for some years – how should a liberal state deport itself toward its citizens when a goodly portion of them feel strongly that its government is in the process of destroying the nation?
Polls tell us that for starters about 85% of Americans feel that the country is not headed in the right direction. Now that doesn’t mean that all these folks agree on what is the right direction. On the contrary, about half of them believe that more government involvement at all levels is needed to bring things back onto an enlightened and even keel. And about another half feel very strongly that we are already headed pell mell into an irretrievable autocracy cum tyranny.
But, dear reader, accept neither of these propositions. Instead, let’s expand the posed question. For example, should an enlightened state make it easy for its citizens to modify or even overturn its current form of government? If so, how would it communicate, or more strongly, invite such a fundamental transformation? If not, what means should it be able to employ to inhibit such a transformation, or more significantly, are there any limits to what force the established government can bring against the cohort of its own citizens that seeks to either unseat it or separate themselves from it?
Today we see several concrete answers to that question – poster child Assad of Syria – that are being implemented by admittedly illiberal Islamic countries and Russia. When we look into the mirror do we see, or do we condone our federal government to also use such means?
The test case to answer these questions may well be upon us. It involves our ability to possess firearms of sufficient power and capability to successfully resist federalized local police agencies for a sufficient period so that word of that resistance can spread across the country. In other words, arms of appropriate mettle in the hands of civilians so that, if neighbors gather to mount their own ‘stand at Lexington green’, the state will not be able to quickly and quietly put them down, and whisk away the evidence of their courageous grievance. I’m talking about resistance of a form and magnitude that cannot be hidden from the nation, no matter whether that nascent resistance ultimately succeeds or not.
That is what the diverse movements like Oathkeepers, Constitutional Sheriffs, …, movements that are spreading across America, are really all about. Consider for starters, Stewart Rhodes openly called for citizens to refuse the registration of their firearms (Californians are already behind the curve), and then went on to press people to publicly call out their local sheriffs, constables, and other electeds to have them declare where they stand with respect to their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. (Do you see the wisdom of the Founders in that phrasing?)
Things are rapidly passing the point where our local leaders – all of whom have sworn to defend and uphold - can continue to hide behind inanities and lame responses such as ‘we’ll have to see where the courts come down on this’. All British courts in 1775 backed the Crown in its colonial dealings.
Our military has long been taught that it cannot hide behind the Nürnberg defense of ‘I was only following orders from my superiors.’ As officers – commissioned and non-commissioned - we were told in the strongest of terms that our oath required us to follow only lawful orders. And here’s the hard part, as Americans operating within the legacy of liberty and individual responsibility, it was the duty of each of us to put the measure of lawfulness on every order we were commanded to carry out.
That is a terrible burden that all men who seek to remain free must always bear. For to err in that call will not be forgiven. We know the oath taken by so many of us did not lapse when we took off our uniforms. So today, as the government prepares to confront massive civil unrest within our borders, what do we do when laws become lawless?
But, dear reader, accept neither of these propositions. Instead, let’s expand the posed question. For example, should an enlightened state make it easy for its citizens to modify or even overturn its current form of government? If so, how would it communicate, or more strongly, invite such a fundamental transformation? If not, what means should it be able to employ to inhibit such a transformation, or more significantly, are there any limits to what force the established government can bring against the cohort of its own citizens that seeks to either unseat it or separate themselves from it?
Today we see several concrete answers to that question – poster child Assad of Syria – that are being implemented by admittedly illiberal Islamic countries and Russia. When we look into the mirror do we see, or do we condone our federal government to also use such means?
The test case to answer these questions may well be upon us. It involves our ability to possess firearms of sufficient power and capability to successfully resist federalized local police agencies for a sufficient period so that word of that resistance can spread across the country. In other words, arms of appropriate mettle in the hands of civilians so that, if neighbors gather to mount their own ‘stand at Lexington green’, the state will not be able to quickly and quietly put them down, and whisk away the evidence of their courageous grievance. I’m talking about resistance of a form and magnitude that cannot be hidden from the nation, no matter whether that nascent resistance ultimately succeeds or not.
That is what the diverse movements like Oathkeepers, Constitutional Sheriffs, …, movements that are spreading across America, are really all about. Consider for starters, Stewart Rhodes openly called for citizens to refuse the registration of their firearms (Californians are already behind the curve), and then went on to press people to publicly call out their local sheriffs, constables, and other electeds to have them declare where they stand with respect to their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. (Do you see the wisdom of the Founders in that phrasing?)
Things are rapidly passing the point where our local leaders – all of whom have sworn to defend and uphold - can continue to hide behind inanities and lame responses such as ‘we’ll have to see where the courts come down on this’. All British courts in 1775 backed the Crown in its colonial dealings.
Our military has long been taught that it cannot hide behind the Nürnberg defense of ‘I was only following orders from my superiors.’ As officers – commissioned and non-commissioned - we were told in the strongest of terms that our oath required us to follow only lawful orders. And here’s the hard part, as Americans operating within the legacy of liberty and individual responsibility, it was the duty of each of us to put the measure of lawfulness on every order we were commanded to carry out.
That is a terrible burden that all men who seek to remain free must always bear. For to err in that call will not be forgiven. We know the oath taken by so many of us did not lapse when we took off our uniforms. So today, as the government prepares to confront massive civil unrest within our borders, what do we do when laws become lawless?
Attending the Oathkeepers meeting I was reminded that it had been a long time since I had read the Constitution, which I had sworn to uphold when joining the Air Force. I discovered that Amazon has free copies which can be down loaded to a smartphone, iPad or Kindle. I recommend everyone with a smartphone down load a copy and in the moments between life's demands study this important document. If you have not read and appreciate the significance of the Constitution how can you defend it? With Amazon's help I am going to gift a copy to all of my children and grand children who have smartphones, iPads and Kindles.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 21 February 2013 at 07:25 AM
George, for some reason my recent post is not showing up? I posted it first using the I have it saved
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 21 February 2013 at 09:29 AM
Grrr.....posting problems....
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 21 February 2013 at 09:29 AM
StevenF 929am - On this end everything seems normal, other comments are appearing on other RR postings, and RussS' 725am appears normal. Please keep trying, and let me know what happens. Thanks.
Posted by: George Rebane | 21 February 2013 at 09:45 AM
Very odd George, my post goes up, then immediately comes down. Is there a built in size limit? (my post is rather long)
When I post short questions they seem to stick. I will keep trying...it must be a problem with my browser.
Posted by: Steve Frisch | 21 February 2013 at 10:15 AM
George-- What polls are you using to determine that 85% of people are dissatisfied with the country's direction? Besides good anti-government rhetoric that number seems a bit useless to me because practically everyone (as the numbers indicate) has a gripe about government in one way or another. I think some specifics as to what they are dissatisfied about would help. How many of those "dissatisfactions" cancel each other out? For example, X number of people may think the country is headed in the wrong direction because the govt. is "trying to take away their guns" while another X number of people think the country is headed in the wrong direction because they want more strict gun controls. Both sides ring up on the 85% but they are dissatisfied about the same thing, only opposite viewpoints. Isn't that always going to be the case?
As for massive civil unrest.. that is a real possibility when people get hungry. Maslows theory. Perhaps if the robber barons moved some of their jobs back to America there would be fewer hungry people. Yes, that will make more hungry people on the Pacific Rim, but I think since the multinationals use the American military (paid for by all tax payers) to protect and expand their foreign holdings (not shared with the taxpayers), they should show a little gratitude to the American people who make it all happen instead of raising their middle finger at American workers. Of course there is also "crisis capitalism", the making of a buck off tragedy, like arms sales, and home security services and devices (for those who can afford it) to protect your stash from the roving gangs of hungry people.
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 21 February 2013 at 10:20 AM
SteveF 1015am - As you can see from JoeK's 1020am TypePad seems not to be the problem. Sometimes having a long user session on TypePad does create different types of 'time outs' that may limit comment length. Try refreshing the page before posting, and always compose in another text editor and not in the comment box.
Posted by: George Rebane | 21 February 2013 at 10:23 AM
JoeK 1020am - I think I covered your observation about people dunning the government for different reasons in my post. But I don't agree with your 'cancelling out' example - if some oppose a policy because it doesn't go far enough in direction A, and others don't like it because it doesn't go far enough in the opposite direction B, then both cohorts are dissatisfied with their government, and their numbers add. Finding a solution that appropriately reduces those numbers is another (orthogonal) problem/issue.
I wish you had stuck more to your "massive civil unrest" thread. Of course, hunger is and has been a reason for such unrest, but that has happened mostly in third world countries. Most certainly that was not a cause of either the American or the Bolshevik revolutions, nor any of the civil wars of Europe or Latin America during the last century.
Posted by: George Rebane | 21 February 2013 at 10:32 AM
Very strange... tried refreshing, I'm already in a separate text editor, and I tried changing browsers. I fear when they come up you will get like 10 of my posts! Are you sure the federal government is not blocking lengthy posts on your web site while they investigate you for sedition?
Posted by: Steve Frisch | 21 February 2013 at 10:33 AM
SteveF 1033am - Interesting observation Steve - investigating me for sedition, hmm - maybe things are further along than even the Oathkeepers reckon. Since others can post long comments, I see no reason why you should not be able to. And I can't think of a comment that you would post that would not be fully endorsed by the administration to appear especially on a blog like RR ;-)
If all else fails, email me your comment, and I'll post it with the appropriate citation. In the meanwhile, maybe other readers can also advise you based on their experiences.
Posted by: George Rebane | 21 February 2013 at 10:40 AM
[Steve Frisch sent me the following comment pursuant to unsuccessful tries to post it himself (see above discussion). It is posted here as received. gjr]
I am not even quite sure what to say about this post. I wish I could have gone to the Oathkeepers event, but I am out of town on business. However, looking at their web site, at the prominent placement our elected Sheriff has in their materials, and hearing your analysis, provides me with a solid grounding in just how out of touch with our country and its founding principles these 300 people are. But it is indeed troubling that 300 people showed up on a dark and stormy night to partake in a dark and stormy dialogue.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/02/09/california-cabpro-presents-stewart-rhodes-and-sheriff-keith-royal/
But let me rebut a few of your points. First, your contention that 85% of the country feels the nation is on the wrong track. I am not sure how you came up with that number, but here are a few data points:
Rasmussen (favored by many who blog here) (Google it as “Rasmussen right track”)
RealClear (a polling aggregation site) (Google it as “RealClear right track”) (I have deleted links to keep this post to one link.)
You are overstating 'wrong track' by about 100%. In addition, the 'wrong track' polling tracks very closely with 'wrong track' polling at a similar time in the recession of 2001, 1993, and 1982so we are not in a place that we are either unaccustomed to, or at any unprecedented level. Is it too high? Certainly. But as you adroitly pointed out, many of those who believe that the country are on the wrong track are people like me, who see the serial attempts by a Republican Congress to create the false crises of, "an irretrievable autocracy cum tyranny", as a main cause.
Second, for gentle readers who cringe at the question of whether or not our citizenry should encourage, "....an enlightened state [that] make[s] it easy for its citizens to modify or even overturn its current form of government?", I remind them that doing so is exactly what all of the Great Divide talk all these many years at Rebane's Ruminations has really been about. Our method of making it easy to modify or overturn our current government decisions is the law, Bastiat’s vaunted law, rather than extra-legal methods of overturning our FORM of government. RR is all about manufacturing a crisis that will lead to a reactionary response, spreading fear, and counting on human nature to perpetuate the crises in order to gain political advantage. Thus, the question, ".. are there any limits to what force the established government can bring against the cohort of its own citizens that seeks to either unseat it or separate themselves from it?", is intended specifically to imply that the answer is no, there is no force the government will not use, thus you, the citizen, must rise up and defend your rights against this manufactured crises. It is always easier to motivate people through fear than hope, and these pages have been a master course in the perpetuation of fear.
How many readers here really believe that the correct path today is overturning our FORM of government, and by that I mean our Constitutional republic? I suspect very few if any.
"The test case to answer these questions may well be upon us. It will involve our ability to possess firearms of sufficient power and capability to successfully resist federalized local police agencies for a sufficient period so that word of that resistance can spread across the country. In other words, arms of sufficient mettle in the hands of civilians that, if neighbors gather to mount their own ‘stand at Lexington green’, the state will not be able to quickly and quietly put them down, and whisk away the evidence of their courageous grievance. I’m talking about resistance of a form and magnitude that cannot be hidden from the nation, no matter whether that nascent resistance ultimately succeeds or not."
I am wondering if people are really comfortable with the idea that a significant segment of our population is engaged in rhetoric like the paragraph above? Who determines which segments of our society are experiencing a diminution of their rights? And in so thinking has a right to take up arms against the law of the land? Should any group of citizens who feel their rights are being diminished be free to take up arms, fight their neighbors, and overthrow the state, if they believe their safety is at risk? And how far a cry from revolution is the contention that, "All British courts in 1775 backed the Crown in its colonial dealings"? Courts, and law, are the very essence of our republic, and attempts at nullification led to a conflict leaving hundreds of thousands of Americans dead 150 years ago. We have had our nullification crises, and many believe, overcome it. How far a cry from anarchy is the statement, "So today, as the government prepares to confront massive civil unrest within our borders, what do we do when laws become lawless?" There is no 'massive civil unrest', no crises, no police state bent on undoing the Constitution out there; there is merely the rising of fear and tension as a political tool being deployed here, and by a network of fear-mongers who desire a Divide. The framing of the statement as a question does not make it less seditious when the asker of the question implies the answer in everything they state.
I would counsel our elected Sheriff that the greater threat in Nevada County is not the potential registration of certain guns, but the potential for acting out against peace and public safety by a few fired up 'constitutionalists' who believe that the revolution has come. I half expect Carl Reiner to be in the lead.
Sheriff Royals 'Constitutional crises' is more likely to come from within, when his sworn duty calls on him to react to a local militia minded band of vigilantes, than from a federal government doing what was done regularly in frontier society, asking people to check their guns at the town gate to keep the peace. Sheriff Royal is playing with fire, and if anything happens here, like a standoff with a self styled militiaperson, he is going to get burned.
For Sheriff Royal to be playing footsie with this kind of rhetoric is dangerous, and I believe contrary to the will of the vast majority of Nevada County voters. As an elected Constitutional representative Sheriff Royal’s role is to keep the peace not act as an agent provocateur in the right wing revolution. It is one thing to state publicly that one supports the second amendment, and quite another to imply that a duly authorized Congress acting to restrict that amendment within the confines of the law, is extra-Constitutional, and thus a rational for nullifying it.
Posted by: George Rebane | 21 February 2013 at 11:38 AM
George
I'm sure you're aware of Hedges vs Obama which is currently the strongest legal challenge to the indefinite detention portions of the NDAA. AT least in this case it is the left who is leading the charge against the constitutionality of the policy.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_ndaa_and_the_death_of_the_democratic_state_20130211/
Posted by: Paul Emery | 21 February 2013 at 12:11 PM
Just how does one 'restrict an amendment' that states plainly that a right "shall not be infringed"?
Just wondering, does Steven Frisch think guns like this one, pictured in TheUnion, should be banned?
http://www.theunion.com/news/4888617-113/gun-royal-county-nevada
It seems to me that Frisch is confused; insisting on having the means to change the government is not a call to change the government or a paean to vigilantism. In fact, ensuring the health of the 2nd may be the best route to insuring the continuity of our Republic. Switzerland and the USA have both had remarkable political stability over the years, and having armed and uppity citizens seems key to both situations.
Posted by: Gregory | 21 February 2013 at 12:13 PM
SteveF (in GeorgeR's 1138am) - Thank you Steve for sending me your extended comment, I’m glad that we finally got it posted. (The 80+% dissatisfied number is regularly reported on Fox News, and per my posted statement, includes all people dissatisfied but not agreeing on the proper way forward. But diminish the number by half, and the opposition expressed through the cited organizations will not change.)
What concerns me and so many of the conservetarian bent about your response is that you immediately see such assessments of what our government is doing and has been doing as sedition. This seems to be the continuation of ongoing efforts to shut off public expressions of dissent. The alternative in countries where such proscriptions are successful is to drive these observations and discussions underground. America is not supposed to be that kind of a country, and our history is rich with such loud and even more vehement complaints.
When considering these issues, it always comes back to me and mine that you of the Left are a fearsome lot. You are ever eager to march people into the dungeon or to the wall when they oppose your prescriptions for how everyone should live their lives. And your strong admonitions to stifle debate create a palpable fear in us, for we have seen where your ways lead.
The frustrations in the land are such that hundreds of thousands in the several states have signed petitions of secession. I would think the proper response to that by those of us seeking to preserve the Union is for some self-examination instead of reflexive accusations and indictments intended to silence dissent with the established regime.
We of the conservative/libertarian wing of our body politic are in the minority, and see the march of populist democracy making that a permanent condition for us in America. As a minority are we to simply acquiesce to what we see as the insane tyranny of the majority. And are we to do this in the face of federal and states governments that now unabashedly and openly flaunt established laws through their selective and pernicious enforcement, and openly urge the arbitrary abandonment of our Constitution by the claim that it has become an outdated and ineffective basis for our laws, and for guiding our country into this century?
And to oppose all this in open forum is now called sedition in the eyes of our new masters of the Left? The constant of your response is that the important message is ignored, and the messenger(s) attacked - not a promising way forward. Through uniting our voices we wish you no harm, but only to reclaim our freedoms.
Posted by: George Rebane | 21 February 2013 at 02:42 PM
So George how do you then explain that it is indeed the Left that is leading the legal charge against portions of the NDAA and illegal surveillance on civilians by the military using the Patriot Act as a cover?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 21 February 2013 at 03:27 PM
Paul, I'd suggest it's because the left thinks the targets are most likely to be on the left.
Posted by: Gregory | 21 February 2013 at 03:37 PM
PaulE 327pm - Agree with Gregory's 337pm. And who knows, tyrannies (as do revolutions) eat their own children. After WW2 when communists took over a country that had been delivered to them by local communist partisans/terrorists, quite often the leaders of such cells were quietly executed under some pretext of counter-revolution or ... . Why? because such leaders frequently became disenchanted with the reality that communism delivered, and knowing the country, they were the most capable of overthrowing the new regime before it had established the power organs of state.
Posted by: George Rebane | 21 February 2013 at 03:57 PM
George -- 10:32 I think we agree on the issue of two opposites adding to the total of dissatisfied people, my use of the words "cancel out" may have caused confusion. What I meant by cancel out is that to say 85% of people are dissatisfied is misleading because many of them are disgruntled about the same thing only opposite sides creating, in my mind, a kind of numerical duplicity. A better indication of the situation might be to cluster the people by category. X number of people are concerned about issue B regardless of which side of an issue they align with. Also, people could be only dissatisfied with the direction of the country in some areas and may be satisfied in others. A good starting point in the search for solutions might be to see what issues people of all political persuasions agree about, if any. A better approach would be to use the Fischer and Urey focus on interests not positions. Much political disagreement seems to be about positions than more than interests. Our adversarial two party system seems to be more designed for competition than collaboration as a conflict resolution method, which as you know, is not the best way to solve problems.
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 21 February 2013 at 04:15 PM
George—about civil unrest and hunger. Very few revolutions are about hunger per se. The Russian revolution started over participation in WWI, and the American was more about money than anything else. Revolutions are usually marketed to hungry oppressed people as “freedom from tyranny”, “spreading democracy”, “let them eat cake” or some other catch phrase to entice the working masses who provide the bulk of the cannon fodder. I do not think many economically secure people would seriously participate in a revolution (unless they stood to make large gains), for fear of losing their lifestyle. So as in the past, if unrest and increased lawlessness occur, it will come from the bottom of the economic ladder. Haven’t most revolutions been class warfare? I read the other day where shop lifting food is on the rise. There is a simple fix, give them jobs. The problem, once again, seems to be how to accomplish that goal. Given the current extreme ideological divide in that regard, I don’t see much hope for a resolution until all of us old fogies die and take our ideological baggage with us. Despite all of the media distractions and information overload, I think the young people of the world have a better sense of reality than we do and if they band together they can influence great changes. Hopefully it won’t be too late.
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 21 February 2013 at 04:49 PM
But why does the Right seem to ignore Constitutional challenges through the courts?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 21 February 2013 at 05:21 PM
JoeK 449pm - Thank you for your good thoughts. I first introduced Fisher and Ury to these pages some years back and have long argued the use of principled negotiation (I used it successfully in business and taught its use as a consultant.)
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2009/11/why-reason-fails.html
The problem with applying PN with and in government is that most politicians are unprincipled self-gratifying creatures by nature; and bureaucrats, no matter their moral colors, are immersed in an environment (best described by The Tragedy of the Commons) wherein principled negotiations are definitely to be avoided because the principled always lose to the perfidious. It was ever thus, and is the prime reason that government is inherently a necessary evil in society whose impact should at all times be monitored and minimized.
And sadly, your "...the young people of the world have a better sense of reality than we do ..." is not even close. On the news we see and hear what young people of other cultures (e.g. Europeans and Islamists) know of world events. In Europe I have spoken at length to the young as they grew from high schoolers to entering job markets. Here at home, I am able to interact on a more or less ongoing basis with high schoolers.
Conclusion: in the aggregate their sense of reality is essentially non-existent, they are totally contained in the bubble wrap of their most intimate and proximal affairs; their knowledge base stops five feet from their heads. They have been purposely educated by an already dysfunctional system to have a very hazy and unreal worldview, which almost all of them admit. Their solution, perhaps the correct one, is that the real world is screwed up and figuring it can wait. In the interval they (the sharp ones) are concerned with what's required to get a real job and get out on their own. Their ideology, those that have one, is three slogans deep. All the others just have their heads firmly planted in their asses, and they will become the preponderant 'stash ladies' and gentlemen of the next decade.
The bottom line is that never in our history have we created a generation less ready to meet adulthood than today. In 'The Fourth Turning' historians Strauss and Howe provide a very plausible scenario which now awaits us all in the coming decade or two. It isn't pretty.
Posted by: George Rebane | 21 February 2013 at 05:46 PM
PaulE 521pm - Paul, you're going to have to make that case emphasizing the asymmetry that you here imply.
Posted by: George Rebane | 21 February 2013 at 05:49 PM
Let me re-phrase my question by asking you if you are aware of Hedges vs Obama? It is the strongest legal challenge to provisions of the NDAA that allow indefinite detention of civilians by the military at their discretion. If not start with this
"Chris Hedges, a former correspondent for the New York Times and a senior fellow at The Nation Institute, is lead plaintiff in a suit brought by a group of reporters and activists against the Obama Administration over the NDAA provision authorizing indefinite detentions without trial. He was one of a group of reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the New York Times’ coverage of global terrorism.
Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/remnant/2013/feb/17/hedges-vs-obama/#ixzz2Laeo9CMW
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter
Posted by: Paul Emery | 21 February 2013 at 06:16 PM
"But why does the Right seem to ignore Constitutional challenges through the courts?" Paul E
Like Citizens United and DC v. Heller?
Posted by: Gregory | 21 February 2013 at 07:10 PM
Well countered Gregory
That's the ruling that allows Unions and corporations unlimited spending to influence elections allowing the creation of Super PACS immune to campaign spending limitations.
The Unions love that ruling.
I was referring specifically to constitutional questions re NDAA.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 21 February 2013 at 07:50 PM
"All enemies, foreign and domestic". Wow. I will have to ponder that phrase for a good spell before commenting. The ramifications are weighty.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 21 February 2013 at 07:53 PM
I should have known that you fixate on the word "sedition" George, and ignore the other, and in my opinion much more important, parts of my post.
But for the reader, here is the definition of sedition: "In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws."
So you seriously claim your post is not seditious? I will let the readers determine whether that is the case.
But let me restate my key points:
1. The data disproves your 85% claim directly.
2. There is no crises, there is a manufactured sense of crises for political purposes.
3. Your statement not only refutes the policy of government it refutes the FORM of government, and is thus seditious.
4. You are essentially proposing nullification as a policy (Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld; rather, the Supreme Court has rejected it.
5. The Oathkeepers are openly proposing nullification on their web site and in their materials.
6. The elected Sheriff of Nevada County is supporting an organization that supports nullification, in contravention to his oath to the people and the Constitution of the United States.
I would say these are pretty serious issues for a naturalized United States citizen. I would say you should take them back where they are more at home, like the former Soviet Union.
Posted by: Steve Frisch | 21 February 2013 at 08:45 PM
[email protected]:45PM
When is the last time you read the Constitution? It was written to support our God given rights, not to subvert them. Any policy that subverts those God given rights needs to be nullified. Period. End of argument.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 21 February 2013 at 09:11 PM
Who makes the call Russ that"God given rights" have been subverted? Does anyone who feels the spirit in that direction therefore have the right to nullify whatever laws they feel are wrong and act appropriately?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 21 February 2013 at 09:26 PM
Paul, I'm going to guess you or your friends did just that on more than one occasion ignoring State and Federal law regarding drug use and feeling justified in doing so. Is that materially different?
Frisch 8:45 you're off the deep end.
Posted by: Gregory | 21 February 2013 at 10:30 PM
SteveF 845pm - it appears that you are again up to the old crappola that you have pushed on this blog numerous times. Like for example, your #3 - what statement of mine refutes America's form of constitutional government? I am the biggest proponent of that form of government, it is your tribe that is openly tearing down the Constitution and fundamentally transforming America. And your point #4 is laughable - "essentially proposing nullification" - even if I did, so what? Is that one more tenet of the First Amendment that you and the Left have now removed from public discourse.
Finally, and pay attention to this, if you even hint once more to this Estonian born American that I am violating my oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, and threaten this naturalized citizen that I should take anything back to the Soviet Union, you are going to be spewing your collectivist bullshit on Pelline's echo chamber.
Posted by: George Rebane | 21 February 2013 at 11:10 PM
Russ, I read from the Constitution quite often. I enjoy reading constitutional cases, ever since reading The Brethren almost 30 years ago. I'm also a regular reader of the SCOTUS blog. But I see your point, God is on your side...just like some other mass movements I have heard of.
Go ahead George, kick me off your right wing fantasyland. I SEE YOU CANNOT REFUTE THE NULLIFICATION POINT.
Posted by: Steve Frisch | 22 February 2013 at 03:18 AM
Stevie.....the first amendment trumps your sedition charge every time. Maybe you need to go back to Wiki from where you see and peed the sedition quote and read the remainder of the article. Also do check out the wiki article for sedition conspiracy.
Posted by: MikeL | 22 February 2013 at 05:29 AM
Steve.. Just which rung of the Progressive political ladder do you reside?
How far up that ladder have you managed to scale? You do realize that
when and "IF" your dream of a new U.S.S. of A comes forth, only the political ruling class will have anything of value, or "status"?
The day may come when you look out the window with your kid and tell him," one day, NONE of this will be yours."
In that same utopia the gov. will tell you just what job you will have.
How much you can be paid.
OHH... Forgive me all to hell.... I forgot you have good friends in China.
Ca. will be the first tribute penalty payment. How much do we owe China?
They frown on civilians with weapons too. No wonder Ca. is doing it's best to disarm it's citizens.
Posted by: Conservative in exile | 22 February 2013 at 08:32 AM
SteveF 318am - What is there to "refute" about your nullification point? Nullification was promoted in debate by several prominent Founders. While SCOTUS ruled against nullification, it did so during an epoch that neither saw nor anticipated today's federal overreach. The history of SCOTUS rulings on any matter does not constitute a prohibition on further debate on such rulings. SCOTUS can reverse itself any time it wants to, and has done so throughout our history. Again I note that it is the Left that always assigns itself as the arbiter of free speech, of what can and cannot be debated.
As I have outlined, there is a significant movement afoot toward states' rights as envisioned by our Founders. And I believe if this movement grows, it will have an impact both on Congress and SCOTUS. States may again become the fertile laboratories of governance with degrees of freedom unimagined by today's progressive cadres. That may be the softest version of the Great Divide that then heals again to a sustainable Republic as the remaining socialist states (e.g. California) see the error of their ways. I will have more to say about that in the future, and we can debate its possibilities and probabilities then. (I hope that you will still be with us.)
Posted by: George Rebane | 22 February 2013 at 08:55 AM
Here in Ca. where they will most likely pass the gun confiscation bill,
how many "Ruby ridges" will we have? Maybe a "Waco" incident or two?
You know full well there are some overzealous law enforcement out there.
Hat's off to Missouri for bringing a bill to light that makes it a crime
to bring forth a bill that attacks the 2ND in any way.
In other words,, " We will SHOW you what happens." from the "show me" state.
And LIB news still won't report that the mall shooting in Oregon
was stopped by a person with a CWP. Nope,, that news will be kept as quiet as possible. How do I know this? A good friend of ours that relocated there passed that info on. Ya' might remember him.. Jeff A. ring a bell?
Speaking of Jeff, I hear he is quite the celebrity up there.
Our loss is their gain.
Posted by: Walt B | 22 February 2013 at 09:13 AM
George- 5:46 -- When was the last time you were in a college classroom? I agree that today's young people are awash in media distraction and socializing, as I have stated previously, particularly high schoolers. My statement about young people more refers to college age students.. those who have gotten out away from the influence of their parents and are starting to form thoughts and ideas of their own. I spent the last 20 years in a college classroom and while I must admit, the overall quality of work has diminished (the internet makes it too easy to cheat), the quality of their ideas has not. You may think ill of their abilities because they don't think the same things you do, and therefore, are stupid. You call the ones who are concerned with getting a job as the "sharp ones". I would use the term "narrowly focused". It could be that young people see more going on than getting a job and making money. What good is it to have a job and make money if everything around you is in chaos. I think many young people sense and see the hypocrisy we are surrounded by and are rejecting much of the politics and ideology behind that hypocrisy. The right doesn't like that much because it is their ideology that is mostly being rejected.
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 22 February 2013 at 10:10 AM
Russ
Can you show me where God gave us the right to possess automatic rifles? (god given right) Is it in scripture or in the mind of the gun owner?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 22 February 2013 at 10:11 AM
If not by one way, then our overlords will find another.
http://redflagnews.com/headlines/disarming-americas-heros-veterans-receiving-official-letters-prohibiting-them-from-purchasing-possessing-receiving-or-transporting-a-firearm-or-ammunition
I'm sure they could find any reason to place a VET into the " shall not own" category.
This may be how it begins. Disarm the ones who know how to use guns first.
Then there is good ol' Joe B. ... " Just get a shotgun...JUST get a shotgun... A double barrel shotgun. Go out on the back porch and fire off a couple of blasts.. That will scare off anyone in your home."
Anyone else see that? For one, that is not safe advice. You will be lucky not to get hauled away for unsafe discharge of a weapon. But you will wind up in front of a judge. Guaranteed... That is of course if you live through the home invasion. with joe's advice, two shots and your done. Some lady will be too damned scared to figure out how to reload the gun... " Just where in Hell did we put that box of shells?... I know we put them somewhere safe so the kids wouldn't find them!!.... How do I open this thing?"
All the while hearing the intruder getting closer and closer.
Yup... Great advise Joe.... You just may have gotten a women killed.
And did you take acting lessons for that? Your great at laying on the sappy lines.
You were so good at it, Tammy Fay Baker came to mind. And you did it without a tissue.
( I was ready to hurl before he was done.) " Just,,, just get a shotgun. (sniff ,sniff,,, with as much sorrowful emotion he can muster.)
Posted by: Walt B | 22 February 2013 at 10:18 AM
JoeK 1010am - Joe, you are most likely more up on today's college undergraduate than am I. Today my experience continues with high schoolers and grad students (actually post docs). However, I must remind myself also that you see them through different eyes than I. I do NOT see them as "stupid" (that is a more or less permanent processing disability), but I do see them as profoundly ignorant. They are products of an extremely broken educational system, and most of them have a collectivist cum communist worldview that has been drilled into them throughout their public schools experience. And, sadly, most of them want to prepare for government jobs.
I also recall that it has always been the "narrowly focused" yet broadly tolerant people who built the country we inherited. In today's world of accelerating technology, if you don't focus on getting your STEM (related) toolset in place, then you may spend the rest of your life spouting redistributionist pabulum.
There definitely are two distinct groups of young people out there. I hope that one group does not stifle the other. More on that in an upcoming post.
Posted by: George Rebane | 22 February 2013 at 11:08 AM
Perhaps today's students have had a collectivist view drilled into them....which gives them no credit for being thinking, analytical human beings.... or it is also possible that after seeing the possibilities for the future, they have decided on their own, that a collectivist world view (as you describe it) is the best course of action for them to take with regard to their future and the future of the planet they plan to raise their children on. Conservative thinking seems to want to blame rejection of their ideas on some external force, like brainwashing "collectivist view drilled into them", or the liberal bias in the information system painting a distorted viewpoint, rather than rejections based on individual thought processes deciding which courses of action seem the most reasonable to them and their future.
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 22 February 2013 at 11:25 AM
WB, the fellow who stopped the mall shooting was interviewed on Portland TV news:
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
It was covered by the Portland Oregonian:
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2012/12/security_guard_said_he_had_rob.html
So, it was well covered by local media. For some strange reason, it wasn't picked up by the New York Times.
Posted by: Gregory | 22 February 2013 at 11:45 AM
I'm still waiting to hear if Frisch thinks the gun pictured here should be banned:
http://www.theunion.com/news/4888617-113/gun-royal-county-nevada
Paul E., I'd also like to know your opinion on that. *Semi* automatic weapons have been owned by civilians worldwide since the first successful design, the "Broomhandle" Mauser, came on the market circa 1896, and now comprise most of the guns sold. The Mauser was fitted with 10 and 20 round magazines, and shoulder stocks (now illegal, is considered a sawed off rifle) to give them more accuracy. It's also amusing to note that the sidearm "blasters" carried by the likes of Han Solo and Luke Skywalker in the movies were, in fact, real, actual Broomhandle Mausers with added black plastic bits to make them look more, well, like ray guns.
Posted by: Gregory | 22 February 2013 at 12:38 PM
Good catch Gregory. And we still keep hearing that armed citizens don't stop violent acts. It's really difficult to find a story from LIB news when an armed citizen stops a crime in progress. Just last week a robbery was stopped with an AR15. Nope,,, you won't see that on MSNBC.
As I went to the dump today, I saw a sign about and auction on April 13th
put on by The Friends of the NRA. Anyone know more about it? I didn't see anything about it at The Range when I was there today. ( DARN... Five minutes late for the last bulk .308 can. )
If you have reloading equipment your not using,, I will be more than happy to take it off your hands, and pay the fair value. Even presses are now on a long back order.
Posted by: Walt B | 22 February 2013 at 12:42 PM
Just saw the previous post Greg,, I didn't hear about the Broom handle being used in the movie.(cool!) I will have to dig out the old flick and check that out.
I did hear that other "real" weapons were used as well. just as you said. A little extra space age furniture, and you have a blaster.
I don't think Paul can even identify the rifle, let alone who makes it, or what it is. It's "scarry looking". that's good enough for him.
Lets see if he can guess just which cal. it is.
Posted by: Walt B | 22 February 2013 at 01:03 PM
JoeK 1125am - I think your interpretation of conservative thinking re collectivist indoctrination is correct. The prime reason conservatives and libertarians have come to believe that is through the sad experience of history. Collectivism teaches the true worth of humans and that of achieving their highest potential is attained through membership in and working within an approved class, i.e. the collective.
As a conservetarian, I believe that such worth and attainment is achieved by people as individuals, whether nurtured by their proximal collective or not. Moreover, the more formal, comprehensive, and cohesive the collective becomes, the more is individuality and human creativity (potential) suppressed. And finally, we believe that the natural (i.e. as informed and directed by our double helix) state of Man is still as striving individuals belonging to small groups in/on which each can make a direct and measurable impact.
Hence, the collective mindset is one that now "must be carefully taught" to our young through ideologies that are a relatively recent product of misdirected minds.
Posted by: George Rebane | 22 February 2013 at 01:04 PM
Ooopppss,,, exchange "Paul" for Steve.
Yup,, mistakes happen... even for me...
Posted by: Walt B | 22 February 2013 at 01:05 PM
George 1:04 -- "must be carefully taught" "misdirected minds" Again you are attaching external circumstances to blame for ideological differences, which you seem to assume cannot be the result of rational thought only some devious plot to overthrow capitalism. One could also argue, and many have (Zinn, Chompski, among others) that the same can be said of conservative views and ideals... ie. going to the correct pre-schools gets you into the correct prep-schools, gets you into Yale, then into skull and bones and grooms you to be one of the movers and shakers of commerce and government. A quick look at some of the politico/economic dynasties of modern times sheds a little light -- Bush, Rockefeller, Kennedy, Romney... How many wealthy families of all political persuasions also entered into the world of politics in a multi-generational fashion? How many sons and grandsons have picked up the family political aspirations banner to become president? Maybe people disagree with conservative ideas because they see them as just plain bad from their own perspective. How many working people think laws allowing off-shore tax havens are a great idea when such laws are detrimental to their own well being?
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 22 February 2013 at 01:41 PM
Walt, just google 'Han Solo blaster' and you'll get plenty of hits. Here's a toy that one can probably assume was licensed by Lucasfilm:
http://www.geekologie.com/2011/09/09/han-solo-blaster.jpg
Yes, dear friends, that is 95% a toy Mauser replica, the very first successful semiautomatic gun on the market, dating from the 19th century.
BTW, "scarry" means it has scars. "Scary" is something that gives one fright.
Posted by: Gregory | 22 February 2013 at 01:46 PM
JoeK 141pm - Not at all. Collectivism can be framed as the product of rational thought, see Marx and Engels. As I have shown here, rational thought can lead one in many directions. But two of several factors which dictate the application of rational thought are its premises and the system of logic used. Marx, et al started with some pretty bad premises for openers.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2009/11/why-reason-fails.html
And your characterization that conservative ideals have a provenance similar to collectivist ideals is obviously in error. Conservative ideals of individualism and individual enterprise arise as naturally in a 4-year-old living on Main St USA as they do in a village shopkeeper in Bhutan. No careful teaching is required.
But you are correct in apprehending that when people see that their individual enterprise is deficient (for whatever reason), they (the underclass) become envious of the more successful and consequently collect themselves in the attempt to gain some of the fruits of success that has eluded them. In that, collectivism is often the natural repository of the darker side of human nature where envy and retribution are born, live, and grow.
Capitalism, as an expression of individual enterprise, can also screw up by ignoring the travails of the underclass. What comes as a surprise to the Left is that the bell curve of abilities in all dimensions is a real and discriminating attribute of our universe. The wiser capitalists account for this by establishing judicious redistributions of wealth that do not create commons and their inevitable tragedies. Such judicious means must always include corrective feedback wherein the less able are motivated to continually achieve at their available levels and see their rewards for that as fulfilling. In no circumstance should the ability to fog a mirror guarantee to an individual an equal outcome.
Posted by: George Rebane | 22 February 2013 at 02:26 PM
An interesting post
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/constitution.html
Posted by: Ben Emery | 22 February 2013 at 02:46 PM
My question was do any of you think ownership if semi automatic rifles is a "god given" right . Russ
"When is the last time you read the Constitution? It was written to support our God given rights"
What the hell is a God Given Right anyway? Whose god and whose religion are you referring to?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 22 February 2013 at 03:59 PM
OK Gregory,,, ya' got me. Ya' just had to pop a cap in my ,,,, butt. ( Now my limp is really noticeable)LOL
Ya gotta love the ingenuity of sci fi prop people.
Paul. Hasn't the tree hugger termites been pushing for the use of the latest and greatest ( even unproven) technology to "make our lives better"? Or does that only apply to worn farms and overpriced solar panels, batt. powered cars that we can't afford?
Just why in your eyes that the 2ND means that we should only be able to own and use smooth bore flint locks?( OK...Cap and ball) because that what was around when the law was written. We gun owners also have the right to keep up with technology,and nor be kept in the bolt action age with minimal ammo capacity.
Don't like high capacity magazines? WHY? YOUR not reloading them, or buying the ammo.
Since you don't believe in a higher being,(which is your "right" BTW,) then I take it you believe a politician is the one that grants you "rights". At least the ones you like at this point in time? What part of the Bill of Rights you just can't stand? ( the same goes for the Ten Commandments. Ever hear of them? )
Maybe you should spend some time in the Muslim world, and get a taste of that "tolerant and peaceful" society.. A word or warning.. Better not mention that atheism you subscribe too. They are not kind to "non believers".
There,, it's believe in Ala or die. Christians are under attack there daily.
For us, it's convert or die... Just ask the Christian Pastor that's about to be executed just for being a Christian. So much for that "tolerance" we keep hearing from the Progressives.
When and "if" you get back, you might find a new appreciation for those " God given rights".
Posted by: Walt B | 22 February 2013 at 04:46 PM
Here ya' go Paul E. ,,, If "they" can get away with this to a Christian, just think how far in their good graces you would get..
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/22/imprisoned-american-says-iranian-captors-waiting-for-me-to-deny-christ/
Go through what he is, and get back to me. those "God given rights" would look vary good if you come back. ( that's a big IF...)
BTW Don't count on "O" coming to your rescue. Remember our Diplomat? "O" left him for dead, along with a few others. And not a damned thing has been done about it.( and never will)
Posted by: Walt B | 22 February 2013 at 05:19 PM
Dr. R.. Did you hear or see Glenn Beck's explanation and/or description
of the Castle doctrine? Even a Progressive can understand it, and have an even tougher time saying it's not so.
Posted by: Walt B | 22 February 2013 at 05:41 PM
Paul, I think you can trace that right to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
That works whether one thinks "the creator" is the invisible man in the sky, or Mom & Dad.
Posted by: Gregory | 22 February 2013 at 05:48 PM
We can thank the LIBS for Ca. being #1 in another category, other than real bad finance decisions, or big union. We can add restrictive gun laws to the list of #1 stupid.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/22/what-are-the-best-and-worst-states-for-second-amendment-fans/
Posted by: Walt B | 22 February 2013 at 05:48 PM
WaltB 541pm - I did indeed. The explanation is spot on. Anyone who invades your home deserves no warning for he has violated sacred space with every intention of doing you and your family harm. You have no duty to launch an investigation as to what his real motivations were for being in your house both uninvited and surreptitiously. If he has dire need to be there, he can volubly announce himself way before he breaks and enters.
The natural law explanation is precisely correct, and it highlights the chasm between progressives and the rest of us - they recognize no natural laws, only the ersatz ones that they manufacture.
Posted by: George Rebane | 22 February 2013 at 07:13 PM
PaulE 359pm – Several of our Founders opined that the Republic they bequeathed us was operative only for a religious people who believed that there were absolute values, think ‘rules of engagement’, that came to us from our Creator.
Fundamental to those rules of engagement were behaviors revealed to us by nature. One of those foundations was security in your own person (your body, if you will). In the process, we were also allowed to evolve a mind that was adaptive in its assessment of our environment as it changed and complexified over the eons.
To cut to the chase, this principle allows us to adapt and use ever more sophisticated means to appropriately counter bigger and more powerful threats to our security, our person. As WaltB pointed out in his 446pm, just because the 2nd Amendment was written in the18th century does not mean that we are forever restricted to 18th century arms to protect ourselves. That was never a part of the natural scheme into which our species evolved.
And it is more than clear that our Founders contemplated the rogue state as not only a possible, but also as the most fearsome threat to our security, liberty, property, and our pursuit of happiness. Therefore, as our state contemplates and visibly prepares for our containment, so must we contemplate and prepare to resist such lawless assault. And today, that will take at least the private ownership of semi-auto weapons and high capacity magazines, the large scale ownership of which does not come free as we last saw at Sandy Hook. But in so doing, the utility tradeoff is far in our favor as governments – most certainly the modern ones - have demonstrated their readiness to sacrifice millions of their own citizens for causes that have been patently evil.
As an atheist (a strong religion in its own right), the best way to explain a “given right” to you is to frame it in terms of nature and natural rights enjoyed by the beasts of the forest, and our own ancestors disappearing into the mists of time. And if all else fails, take Gregory’s 558pm advising you to accept your mom and dad as bestowing on you the ability and motivation to keep your fuzzy butt secure from the bad guys, in and out of uniform.
Posted by: George Rebane | 22 February 2013 at 07:46 PM
George: I have been following this thread, and you explanation here about natural law and the connection to the not-so distant past is spot on. Thank you for summing up this thread quite nicely.
Posted by: Barry Pruett | 23 February 2013 at 08:57 AM
Well,, a small ray of sunlight has peeked through the darkness known as the super majority of LIBS in SAC. LIBS don't have it anymore.( at least for the time being.) They are now 1 short of being veto proof.
Then again that's not really saying much since Moonbeam is still at the helm of the broken tiller.
Posted by: Walt | 23 February 2013 at 11:25 AM
I do find this a bit interesting:
Sen. Michael Rubio abruptly resigns to accept a position managing California governmental affairs for Chevron Corp. Rubio resigns the State Senate and at least for now gives up the Dem super majority.
Rubio resigned as a sitting Senator vs. deciding not to run for re-election at the end of his term. I feel if you run for elected office and get elected you owe it to the people to finish out your term unless there's a REAL good reason not to. Resigning in mid term to take a lobbist job at Chevron Corp. is not a good reason to bail mid term.
Not only did he resign mid term, he did so to be the head governmental lobbist for Chevron Corp in CA.
Interesting stuff.
Posted by: Steve Enos | 23 February 2013 at 01:24 PM
Nice cut and paste Steve... 9 words of your vary own.
Now to get Conservatives to replace them. If the people in those districts put another LIB in their places, it goes to show just how far gone CA, really is.
Posted by: Walt | 23 February 2013 at 05:35 PM
So Walt, do you support the Sheriff actions against the MMJ crowd?
He is not following that sacred "oath" that you all are asking, so I'd like to understand is when someone is support to follow this "oath", do they get to pick and chose whatever sections of the law they want?
Can they lie to the public to get things passed?
Can they not follow the laws on public disclosure?
Can they not follow the laws on reporting supposed crimes?
Please "inform" me as to where these boundaries are, or are there none?
Thanks, and I look forward to your answer!
Posted by: Gerry Fedor | 24 February 2013 at 05:07 AM
For one Gerry,, our right to own guns is chiseled in stone.( Ya' know that document called the Constitution?) Ever read it? There is a nifty line where the 2ND is concerned... " Shall not be infringed". So what have the LIBS tried to do? Try and rewrite the definition of infringement.
Show me MMJ in that document.
And speaking of liars,, look no further than "O". Funny how the Left flat refuse to call him any of them. NONE....( and that goes for any elected LIB for that matter. Sen "perv" Menendez is a prime example.. His escapades have been known for some time and he still has his seat, and not one charge even today.. If that was you or me,, just which prison cell would we be in?)
Yes, Ca. has a "law"... So does the FEDS. One thing is for sure. Your priorities need a little retuning. It's fine for the state to restrict our rights on gun ownership, NO open carry, even an unloaded gun, then they messed with the gun itself. Do you know the list of banned guns in the state is much longer than the list of legal weapons?
But what gets you peeved at government, is their stance of weed.
Funny thing about weed growers. Most of the ones I know are anti capitalist LIBS.,, and once a year they become Capitalists. Sell as much dope as possible, at the highest price possible.
There is one problem with that. MMJ was billed as " non profit", and was voted and passed on that premise. NOW , NO ONE wants to play by that rule.
Sorry,, the cops CAN lie through their teeth to make arrests. Do I like that idea? Not really. So.. If someone is knowingly doing an illegal act that he should get off the hook just by asking if someone is a cop before the deal goes down? Ya... Right.
Politicians lie to us every day.. Lie in front of Congress ( you or me) and see what happens.
So start holding them accountable to us for a change.
The Tea Party is trying to do that. What LIB party is?
Posted by: Walt | 25 February 2013 at 06:00 PM
Feds Set Their Sites on Gun Owners
A bill was introduced in Congress on Valentine’s Day, HR499, that would expand the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to include Marijuana. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Gun owners are spooked by proposed legislation to ban assault weapons in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. All I can say is, WAKE UP. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Already the Justice Department is calling for “stricter penalties” for gun violations and some lefties are calling for total civilian disarmament.
Welcome to My World
Imagine if you can, sitting at home eating breakfast with your family. Suddenly, your front door bursts open and dozens of men clad in scary military SWAT team attire, storm your residence. They throw you to the ground, jam an assault weapon to your head, and handcuff you while they ransack your home. Perhaps they find what they are looking for, perhaps not.
Nevertheless, they confiscate your possessions, your cars, your cash, your home. Child Protective Services can take your children. Most of the time, no charges are filed but your possessions are not returned. They are divvied up between local and Federal law enforcement agencies as “spoils of war.”
Meanwhile should they decide to press charges, mandatory minimum sentences are dangled over your head. Unless you agree to a plea bargain, you are insured a very lengthy prison term. You will not be allowed to offer a defense; and even if you are perfectly innocent under local and state law, none of that will matter.
A Judge will have the power to stop you from taking legal doctor-recommended medication- even if it will cause your death (and it has). Can you imagine a Judge ordering a patient to stop taking a doctor prescribed pharmaceutical drug that is necessary to sustain life?
Oh, and gun rights? Forget about it! You cannot own ANY gun or ammunition either for that matter.
You can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars opening a business, but you will not get the same benefits as most business owners. You will be denied the right to deduct normal business operating expenses like rent, payroll, and insurance. Your bank will be pressured into closing your account and you will not be able to process credit card transactions.
Even if you get the necessary permits, pay taxes, never have a single complaint lodged against you, and your establishment is supported by local government officials, you’re likely to receive a letter from a US Attorney ordering you to vacate in 30 days or forfeit all your assets.
However, the law will not be applied equally; one shop may operate with total impunity while the one down the street is forced to close. In fact, the most successful, best run shops will be closed because “there is a greater possibility of wrong doing” without a shred of evidence that anything illegal has transpired.
The people who were elected to protect and defend you, will become your sworn enemy. Arrests for simple possession will skyrocket and our overcrowded prisons will reach the breaking point. The only solution will be to build more prisons and incarcerate more people. With only 5% of the world’s population, the United States already houses 25% of the world’s prison inmates. It gives “We’re #1” an entirely different perspective.
Think this can’t happen in America? Think again. Scenarios like this happen to law-abiding marijuana patients and business owners every day. Swap the word marijuana for guns and you will see a vision of your future.
It is exceeding difficult to get a voter initiative passed, less than 4% succeed. Prop 215 passed with a substantial majority - including in Nevada County. By law, a voter initiative cannot be changed or amended except by another initiative, yet rogue officials continue to ignore the will of the people to promote their own careers.
Americans for Safe Access- Nevada County has been trying to reach a compromise with our local officials to regulate medical cannabis cultivation while still preserving the rights of neighbors. Unlike Yuba and Butte Counties, our Board of Supervisors has refused our offer to mediate which leaves us no alternative other than to request a special election to let the voters decide the issue - again.
I believe that we will be able to gather enough signatures to overturn the County's ordinance but it will cost the County at least $250,000 to hold a Special Election. We feel this is a wasteful use of taxpayer’s dollars and strongly support mediation instead.
Patricia Smith
Chair
Americans for Safe Access
Nevada County
Posted by: Patricia Smith | 25 February 2013 at 06:37 PM
Interesting perspective Patricia has don't you think Walt, as I think she has a number of very valid points.
It's really sad that you and I have a completely different perspective on the MMJ in Nevada County as I believe that because you want to grow your medicine it does not instantly mean that the Sheriff's department has the right to come into your home as Patricia describes above.
I do believe that we have had some people that are in the business just to make money, but there are laws on the books that you can be compensated for your time and expenses. Many of these people are no longer around purely because of the profitability factor (and the left before the ordinance came into action.
Now the days of $3,000 pound pot are long gone and this is reflected in the current market of $1000-1200 per pound pot.
I'd like to hear your standpoints on the "proposed" loss of your guns while patients lost this right long ago, so where was your group then?
You can't really be a citizen and not understand the following quote and how it applies to all of us:
“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”
― Abraham Lincoln
So do you believe in denying the same freedoms you enjoy to Patients?
Posted by: Gerry Fedor | 26 February 2013 at 12:15 AM
One other thing, I am pretty peaved that I no longer can have weapons as we now have a large pack of Coyotes (@40) that have parked themselves right next door and they have gone after my dog, and caused problems with the chewing of my waterlines, and I can't seem to stop them (using spitwads and a blowgun), so are you OK with that?
What would you do if you had the same issues? Would you expect that the NRA, or any other progun group would stand up to help you? Or would you be left hanging in the wind by groups who are complaining about losing a little of the same right you completely lost?
BTW, not all of the MMJ are a LIB based group as a large majority of us want the government out of our lives, we want to have our constitutionally supported right to have guns protected, we want to live our lives and not have intrusion by our "overly active government" (in this case the Sheriff's department), we want to stop this spending nonsense, and we want people to stop relying on the government and start relying on themselves.
I may not be right, but I think you actually call that a conservative?
I think that both groups have much more in common, rather than the skewed view of patients that you describe above.
Posted by: Gerry Fedor | 26 February 2013 at 12:32 AM
Ms. Smith.. We do have growing limits. 10 plants is the limit as I recall.
Like I said before. MMJ was supposed to be "non profit". What happened to that?
I don't have issues with pot shops, as long as they operate within the state law. But it still falls back to FED law. ( like it or not)
Yes, some people just don't have the ability to grow. THAT I understand, and someone needs to do that for them. But that gets abused wholesale.
Whoever is doing the growing is selling the excess on the streets. We read about that ALL the time. " Nev. county weed found in N.Y." ( Or name your given out of state bust)
See the news today? A dealer trying to sell to a CHILD! I would love to see just where that was grown.
Posted by: Walt | 26 February 2013 at 11:51 AM
Walt, you're very far from being able to have 10 plants as you can have 100 sq feet of continuous space for both your veg and bloom for indoors.
You can be paid for reasonable expenses and the time you have involved. There are no provisions for collective grows to help the people that live in a condo type situation and cannot grow, so again they are cut out of the loop.
Just one question - How do you keep your plants from blooming prematurely (especially how do you keep your selected genetics from blooming and destroying the strain you need) as it's not possible to do both your veg and bloom cycles in the same room, so in effect there is no indoor growing.
Outdoors you can do 100-2000 square feet of fenced area, but you have to have a 8' tall fence surrounding it, you have to grow on a perfectly flat surface, and you have to cut the tops off your plants if they grow taller than your fence......
This ordinance was designed to stop all growing by the people who actually need it.
Our Sheriff had all of the tools that he needed to handle the problems that were occurring, but he chose to lie to the community about the extent of this problem to give him the ability to march into your residence (good bye 4th amendment!!!!) if they see a medicinal plant somewhere on your property.
Do you support this lost of rights because of a lie, and could you support a liar in the next election? That's the question I want an answer to.
Posted by: Gerry Fedor | 26 February 2013 at 10:02 PM
Hi Walt, Gerry is right. The 10 plant count never was (it was 6 mature or 12 immature plant). Now plant counts have been replaced with square foot restrictions. These restrictions range from zero square feet in residential areas to 1000 square feet on parcels over 20 acres in AG zoned area. This area includes the space between the plants - not just the vegetative area. Cannabis needs a lot of space for air circulation otherwise it tends to mold easily.
As long as there is Prohibition, the price of marijuana will attract unscrupulous people. However, there are ample laws to address this activity already. It is not legal under any scenario. The obvious solution is to regulate the industry like any other to give patients an alternative to buying marijuana on the streets.
As for the idiot that offered marijuana to a twelve year old, if he is found guilty, I believe he should be punished to the full extent of the law (and then some).
Posted by: Patricia Smith | 27 February 2013 at 02:57 PM