Archive for May, 2013

The First Amendment under Assault

Tuesday, May 14th, 2013

Don’t for a moment think this was an accident lapse in judgement. It’s right there in Saul Alinski’s playbook, #13:

Washington (CNN) – Officials at the Internal Revenue Service knew in June 2011 that their agents were targeting conservative groups for additional scrutiny on tax documents, an inspector general report to be released this week is expected to say, according to a congressional source familiar with the inquiry.

Further, an early timeline of events compiled by the inspector general and obtained by CNN indicates the agency’s practice of singling out conservative groups began as early as March 2010, and in July of that year, unidentified managers within the agency “requested its specialists to be on the lookout for tea party applications.” In August, specialists were warned to be on the lookout for “various local organizations in the tea party movement” applying for tax-exempt status. The specific criteria would change several times over the next two years, according to a portion of the report.

Let’s recall what was happening back in March, 2010. Like this:

This was Nancy Pelosi with her gavel marching with her minions to pass the Health Care Act, on a Sunday no less, March 21, 2010. This is the march that members of Congress reported they were spit on and racial epithets were hurled. The TEA Party bristled with indignation. The planned to have these people removed from Congress. They would organize. They demanded repeal.

A week later, after passage of this monstrosity (“We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in the bill.”), the Hutaree militia in Michigan was arrested by the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

The Hutaree Militia was a group who could have had their own reality TV show like The Duck Dynasty if it hadn’t been for a current Supreme Court Justice. Two weeks before they were arrested in late March (28-30) of 2010 on charges of seditious conspiracy, they were out in the woods helping local law enforcement look for a lost child.

Two years (to the day) after their arrests came the ruling which I wrote about:

In a sharp rebuke, a federal judge today acquitted seven members of a Lenawee County militia group of plotting to overthrow the U.S. government with weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said federal prosecutors failed in five weeks of trial to prove that the Hutaree had a specific plan to kill a police officer and attack law enforcement personnel.

That’s gunna leave a welt.

From the Order:

Stone, Sr:

Josh Stone:

Tina Stone:

David Stone, Jr.

Michael Meeks:

Now Sickles:

Piatek:

I will update this entry as time provides, but suffice it to say this was all about the Health Care debate. These arrests happened one week after the House passed ObamaCare and certain representatives claimed to have been spit on during their march through the TEA party opposing the passage.

Don’t ever forget Elena Kagan was the Solicitor General at the time, when these people were granted bond by this judge. She have to approve the appeal of the bond. She kept these people in jail for political purposes. [emphasis added]

The prosecutor was asked about the acquittal, which at the time I also wrote about:

In her first remarks since the case was gutted, U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade said she wouldn’t have handled the case differently and “strongly” disagrees with the judge’s interpretation of federal conspiracy law.

She can disagree all she wants, and she certainly has the right to do so, but that’s not the scary part. The scary part is she hasn’t learned anything from this defeat.

Militia members are finding that resuming their lives isn’t easy. Despite his acquittal, Michael Meeks of Manchester, Mich., said he can’t open a bank account yet because the bank told him he’s still on a terror watch list.

Completely exonerated and he can’t even get a bank account.

Told of the troubles, McQuade didn’t seem moved.

It’s the consequences of their actions,” the prosecutor told the AP.

This is how vindictive these people are. Elena Kagan, then the Solicitor General refused these people bond, knowing this case was either flimsy at best or political at worst. Either way she should be impeached for this behavior.

Now the IRS has admitted to breaking the law to prevent TEA Party activists from gaining a tax exempt status. What should the “consequences of their actions” be?

I’m thinking “seditious conspiracy” fits here.

Additional reading for those interested.

Let’s not forget, the AP wiretap by the DOJ.

I’m with the Revolutionary!

Friday, May 3rd, 2013

Yes, kiddies, I’m siding with the Revolutionary despite this report:

 

Florida House and Senate budget leaders have awarded Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw $1 million for a new violence prevention unit aimed at preventing tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., from occurring on his turf.

His turf, mind you…

“We want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government, hates the mayor and he’s gonna shoot him,” Bradshaw said. “What does it hurt to have somebody knock on a door and ask, ‘Hey, is everything OK?’ ”

Well for starters, you would have to knock on that door armed. And what would you do if no one answered the door? Go back and get a warrant, or just kick the door down with your jackboot? A armed resident could require  as many SWAT members as were necessary for the Normandy Invasion.

Hating your government shouldn’t create an Oxbow incident. It’s not as if this sheriff holds an Orb and sepulchre. Obviously, this sheriff needs some horse cents- because silence is golden. Or in this case that would be GoldenCents.

 

Bring it on, Biden

Thursday, May 2nd, 2013
Moron

A Heartbeat Away

Vice president Joe Biden opened his ignorant pie-hole again.

According to The Weekly Standard:

“By the way, there should be two senators from the state of D.C.,” he said to hoots and hollers.

Two new U.S. senators from Washington, D.C. would almost surely be Democrats. In the last presidential election, President Obama picked up 91.4 percent of the vote in Washington, D.C.; Mitt Romney picked up only 7.1 percent.

Aside from the obvious problems with superceding the 23rd Amendment of The Constitution which would have to be done with another Amendment, there is this:

Article I

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;

One would think those states that ceded land to the federal government would have a claim to it in the event a new state was envisioned. Which would create conflict with Article IV:

Section 3

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

But be that as it may, there is a more prescient problem for Uncle Joe. Which parts of the Code of Federal Regulations and the U.S. Code would have to be repealed or superceded so that the new state could promulgate its new laws? You see, the District of Columbia city council can’t pass anything without specific authorization of Congress, who hold the purses strings. Generally, Congress let’s the city pass ordinances. But Congress holds ultimate authority. For centuries, Congress has been publishing D.C. municipal law in the Federal Register as Acts of Congress. So, specifically, which laws are “Municipal” in scope, and which are Federal?

For instance, Title 26 of the United States Code has never been enacted into positive law. Is that because it is “Municipal” in scope, similar to a city ordinance? Can you imagine that title being repealed so the new state could promulgate law? That would mean it was municipal all along.

You’ll have to repeal all the municipal laws to create the new state law. All of them. Like Obama, I’m all ears, Uncle Joe.