The Obama Administration is Vociferously Anti-Science – Tea Party Nation

Posted by Seton Motley

We conservatives are incessantly assailed by the Left as “anti-science.” That we stand athwart scientific and technological advancement – yelling “Stop!” But time and again, it is Leftists that make decisions that fly in the face of actual, readily obvious science. And the Barack Obama Administration is rife with just these sorts of Luddites.

Mathematics is a science – so Leftists oppose it. Math dictates that when you make it more expensive for businesses to hire people – businesses will hire less people. Thus the minimum wage is anti-science. Uber-Left California Governor Jerry Brown admitted “Economically, minimum wages may not make sense” – before raising his state’s anyway. President Obama unilaterally raised the minimum wage for government contractors.

The science on global warming – oops, I mean climate change – is far from “settled.” Former high-ranking Obama Administration official Dr. Steven Koonin wrote “The idea that ‘Climate science is settled’ runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.”

The climate science evidence we do have is mounting – and it’s against the Leftist alarmists. Who have already woefully missed decades-worth of predictions. Who claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant – when it is what everything plant on the planet inhales. Leftists claim that carbon dioxide raises global temperatures – all the while China and India’s CO2 outputs have exponentially exploded, while global temperatures have flatlined for now-going-on eighteen years.

Meanwhile, multiple alleged science institutions have been caught actively attacking science to protect the Left’s climate change myth. Amongst these anti-science scammers are United-Nations-touchstone East Anglia University and our own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

The Left’s anti-science-ness is so deep – and yet so superficial – President Obama tried to dodge culpability for his ongoing, terrible jobs record by blaming ATM machines.

This Administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is just another anti-science Leftist entity. Time and again the FCC’s three Democrat Commissioners (one of whom also serves as Chairman) have voted for ridiculously anti-science unilateral power grabs. Particularly in their sites – the World Wide Web.

The Internet has become a free speech-free market Xanadu – and it has done so virtually government-free. Arguably no endeavor in human history has grown so huge, so fast – in large part because it has been virtually government-free.

If ever there was an “If it ain’t broke – don’t fix it” entity – the Web is it. This FCC has made it their mission to ignore Reality, mathematics, economics, technology and many other wings of science – and pretend what ain’t broke needs a whole lot of government fixing.

Beginning with their “reclassification” power grab. Where the FCC’s Democrats decided to go back in time eighty years and bizarrely superimpose 1934 landline telephone law – on to the Internet.

Basic science says “The Internet network is dramatically different and exponentially more complex than a telephone network.” Basic science says “Law written sixty years before the advent of the Internet – doesn’t really work on the Internet.” But these things matter not to the Luddites. This power grab had to happen – to set the table for a whole host of subsequent anti-science attacks.

Also currently under consideration – the “set-top-box” grab. Where the FCC’s Democrats will force cable television providers to crack open their own complex digital networks – and completely reconfigure them each and every time an outside company wants to offer a new set-top-box.

Basic science says “Reconfiguring these networks is a huge, very expensive undertaking. Forcing providers to do so time and again will dramatically increase the prices consumers pay for these services.” FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said he’s received e-mails from customers urging him to help lower their cable bills – and this bill-exploding proposal is his response.

Basic science says “The use of set-top-boxes is declining – as the use of applications (apps) is rising.” Thanks to technology and its advancement, every day your TV is becoming more like your smart phone – with rafts of apps, one for each individualized service. Rendering the set-top-box the soon-to-be-dinosaur of content delivery. And the backwards-looking, anti-science FCC is myopically fixating on the fossils.

Meanwhile, since about 2000 local governments have wasted hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars trying to be Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Wasted – because government has been abjectly awful at it. So awful – that twenty states passed laws prohibiting or limiting their down-ballot governments from wasting even more coin thereon.

The Obama Administration – undaunted by math and history – dumped $7.2 billion more into government broadband in the 2009 “Stimulus.” Which shockingly created even more of the exact same failures. Making those twenty states look a whole lot smarter than the Feds.

Who’s even more steadfastly impervious to facts than the Obama Administration? The Administration’s FCC. Which just last year ignored all of these failures at all levels of government – and overturned the sensible state laws prohibiting these failures.

We could go on, and on, and….

Of course these myriad Administration officials aren’t dim – they’re ideological zealots. For them – it’s government uber alles. And being pro-government means just about always being anti-science.

Because far too often science demands less government. And this Administration won’t stand for that.

This first appeared in Townhall and Red State.

Deep-Sixing Another Useful Climate Myth – David Legates

By now, virtually everyone has heard that “97% of scientists agree:  Climate change is real, manmade and dangerous.” Even if you weren’t one of his 31 million followers who received this tweet from President Obama, you most assuredly have seen it repeated everywhere as scientific fact.

The correct representation is “yes,” “some,” and “no.” Yes, climate change is real. There has never been a period in Earth’s history when the climate has not changed somewhere, in one way or another. 

People can and do have some influence on our climate. For example, downtown areas are warmer than the surrounding countryside, and large-scale human development can affect air and moisture flow. But humans are by no means the only source of climate change. The Pleistocene ice ages, Little Ice Age and monster hurricanes throughout history underscore our trivial influence compared to natural forces.

As for climate change being dangerous, this is pure hype based on little fact. Mile-high rivers of ice burying half of North America and Europe were disastrous for everything in their path, as they would be today. Likewise for the plummeting global temperatures that accompanied them. An era of more frequent and intense hurricanes would also be calamitous; but actual weather records do not show this.

It would be far more deadly to implement restrictive energy policies that condemn billions to continued life without affordable electricity – or to lower living standards in developed countries – in a vain attempt to control the world’s climate. In much of Europe, electricity prices have risen 50% or more over the past decade, leaving many unable to afford proper wintertime heat, and causing thousands to die.

 

Moreover, consensus and votes have no place in science. History is littered with theories that were long denied by “consensus” science and politics: plate tectonics, germ theory of disease, a geocentric universe. They all underscore how wrong consensus can be.

Science is driven by facts, evidence and observations – not by consensus, especially when it is asserted by deceitful or tyrannical advocates. As Einstein said, “A single experiment can prove me wrong.”

During this election season, Americans are buffeted by polls suggesting which candidate might become each party’s nominee or win the general election. Obviously, only the November “poll” counts.

Similarly, several “polls” have attempted to quantify the supposed climate change consensus, often by using simplistic bait-and-switch tactics. “Do you believe in climate change?” they may ask.

Answering yes, as I would, places you in the President’s 97% consensus and, by illogical extension, implies you agree it is caused by humans and will be dangerous. Of course, that serves their political goal of gaining more control over energy use.

The 97% statistic has specific origins. Naomi Oreskes is a Harvard professor and author of Merchants of Doubt, which claims those who disagree with the supposed consensus are paid by Big Oil to obscure the truth. In 2004, she claimed to have examined the abstracts of 928 scientific papers and found a 100% consensus with the claim that the “Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities.”

Of course, this is probably true, as it is unlikely that any competent scientist would say humans have no impact on climate. However, she then played the bait-and-switch game to perfection – asserting that this meant “most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

However, one dissenter is enough to discredit the entire study, and what journalist would believe any claim of 100% agreement? In addition, anecdotal evidence suggested that 97% was a better figure. So 97% it was.

Then in 2010, William Anderegg and colleagues concluded that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support … [the view that] … anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth’s average global temperature” over a recent but unspecified time period. (Emphasis in original.)

To make this extreme assertion, Anderegg et al. compiled a database of 908 climate researchers who published frequently on climate topics, and identified those who had “signed statements strongly dissenting from the views” of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The 97–98% figure is achieved by counting those who had not signed such statements.

Silence, in Anderegg’s view, meant those scientists agreed with the extreme view that most warming was due to humans. However, nothing in their papers suggests that all those researchers believed humans had caused most of the planetary warming, or that it was dangerous.

The most recent 97% claim was posited by John Cook and colleagues in 2013. They evaluated abstracts from nearly 12,000 articles published over a 21-year period and sorted them into seven categories, ranging from “explicit, quantified endorsement” to “explicit, quantified rejection” of their alleged consensus: that recent warming was caused by human activity, not by natural variability. They concluded that “97.1% endorsed the consensus position.”

However, two-thirds of all those abstracts took no position on anthropogenic climate change. Of the remaining abstracts (not the papers or scientists), Cook and colleagues asserted that 97.1% endorsed their hypothesis that humans are the sole cause of recent global warming.

Again, the bait-and-switch was on full display. Any assertion that humans play a role was interpreted as meaning humans are the sole cause. But many of those scientists subsequently said publicly that Cook and colleagues had misclassified their papers – and Cook never tried to assess whether any of the scientists who wrote the papers actually thought the observed climate changes were dangerous.

My own colleagues and I did investigate their analysis more closely. We found that only 41 abstracts of the 11,944 papers Cook and colleagues reviewed – a whopping 0.3% – actually endorsed their supposed consensus. It turns out they had decided that any paper which did not provide anexplicit, quantified rejection of their supposed consensus was in agreement with the consensus. Moreover, this decision was based solely on Cook and colleagues’ interpretation of just the abstracts, and not the articles themselves.  In other words, the entire exercise was a clever sleight-of-hand trick.

What is the real figure? We may never know. Scientists who disagree with the supposed consensus – that climate change is manmade and dangerous – find themselves under constant attack.

Harassment by Greenpeace and other environmental pressure groups, the media, federal and state government officials, and even universities toward their employees (myself included) makes it difficult for many scientists to express honest opinions. Recent reports about Senator Whitehouse and Attorney-General Lynch using RICO laws to intimidate climate “deniers” further obscure meaningful discussion. 

Numerous government employees have told me privately that they do not agree with the supposed consensus position – but cannot speak out for fear of losing their jobs. And just last week, a George Mason University survey found that nearly one-third of American Meteorological Society members were willing to admit that at least half of the climate change we have seen can be attributed to natural variability.

Climate change alarmism has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year industry – which guarantees it is far safer and more fashionable to pretend a 97% consensus exists, than to embrace honesty and have one’s global warming or renewable energy funding go dry.

The real danger is not climate change – it is energy policies imposed in the name of climate change. It’s time to consider something else Einstein said: “The important thing is not to stop questioning.”

icyalgore

Extortion 17 Family Members Claim NSA is Surveilling Them and They Still Can’t get Information from DC – Freedom Outpost

By

Tim Brown

 

Charlie and Mary Strange, parents of fallen Navy SEAL Michael Strange who died aboard Extortion 17 in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011, was recently interviewed with updates on the investigation into the downed chopper.

While Mrs. Strange called Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and Special Operations & Low Intensity Conflict for the US Department of Defense Garry Reid a liar for his false testimony during the Extortion 17 congressional hearings, Mr. Strange pointed out that Reed never read the documents pertaining to Extortion 17 and, of course, Reed was not even the guy in charge when Extortion 17 went down.

Mr. Strange also showed pictures from an extensive file of pictures and documents, which was the basis for Don Brown’s excellent work Call Sign Extortion 17: The Shoot-Down of SEAL Team Six in which he lays out the documents that the government mistakenly provided to the families.

Strange has always claimed that the men aboard the helicopter were never “burned beyond recognition,” as they were told by the DC government. The excuse for cremating many of the fallen was that they had already been burned so badly. However, Strange has claimed that he obtained a copy of Michael’s autopsy report and photographs of his body that showed no signs of fire damage.

“There’s nothing wrong with the body except for his ankle, but they claimed everybody was burned beyond recognition, yet there he was lying there whole and intact,” Strange said previously. “His hair and arms weren’t burned, and there was no sign of smoke in his lungs. When I called the command up and asked them about this they seem shocked that I had the photo. They told me ‘we’ll get back to you,’ but they never did.”

Strange says this will come out in a future documentary. Though he did not name the documentary, I would suspect that it is Fallen Angel: Cover-up of Shoot-down of SEAL Team Six, which is being produced by Tom Trento of The United West and narrated by author Don Brown. Strange and his wife, along with Billy and Karen Vaughn were interviewed for the documentary last year.

The entire mission was to target a man named Qari Tahir. However, the Stranges made mention of the fact that SEALs they spoke to said that Tahir was not even a high valued target. Yet, the US government sent in 76 Rangers and SEALS on the evening of August 6, 2011 to grab Tahir. Does that make any sense to anyone? It does if you consider there is a traitor in the White House and that this might be a payback for the alleged killing of Osama bin Laden. Keep in mind that SEAL Team Six are the very men outed by this administration by Vice President Joe Biden and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as the ones who took out bin Laden.

The Stranges, as well as other family members of the men killed aboard Extortion 17, believe it was an inside job and a complete setup.

Because of the Strange’s pursuit of what took place on August 6, they have lost many friends and family over the issue. However, a bombshell was dropped that the Stranges believe the National Security Agency has been stalking them and monitoring where they go and what they say. I can’t say I’m surprised by that since the release of information by Edward Snowden.

Mr. and Mrs. Strange did not go into detail about the NSA surveillance, but it was clear that both they and their phones have been monitored. Perhaps this will come out in more detail in the upcoming documentary that is set for release on the fifth anniversary of the downing of Extortion 17.

Surrendering to ISIS is the Only Way to Defeat It » Politichicks.com – Daniel Greenfield:

If you’re keeping score, freeing Islamic terrorists from Gitmo does not play into the hands of ISIS. Neither does bringing Syrians, many of whom sympathize with Islamic terrorists, into our country. And aiding the Muslim Brotherhood parent organization of ISIS does not play into the Islamic group’s hands.

However if you use the words “Islamic terrorism” or even milder derivatives such as “radical Islamic terrorism”, you are playing into the hands of ISIS. If you call for closer law enforcement scrutiny of Muslim areas before they turn into Molenbeek style no-go zones or suggest ending the stream of new immigrant recruits to ISIS in San Bernardino, Paris or Brussels, you are also playing into the hands of ISIS.

And if you carpet bomb ISIS, destroy its headquarters and training camps, you’re just playing into its hands. According to Obama and his experts, who have wrecked the Middle East, what ISIS fears most is that we’ll ignore it and let it go about its business. And what it wants most is for us to utterly destroy it. Or as Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau said, “If you kill your enemies, they win.”

But maybe if you surrender to them, then you win.

Tens of thousands of Muslim refugees make us safer. But using the words “Muslim terrorism” endangers us. The more Muslims we bring to America, the faster we’ll beat ISIS. As long as we don’t call it the Islamic State or ISIS or ISIL, but follow Secretary of State John Kerry’s lead in calling it Daesh.

Because terrorism has no religion. Even when it’s shouting, “Allahu Akbar”.

Obama initially tried to defeat ISIS by ignoring it. This cunning approach allowed ISIS to seize large chunks of Iraq and Syria. He tried calling ISIS a J.V. team in line with his claim that, “We defeat them in part by saying you are not strong, you are weak”. Unimpressed, ISIS seized Mosul. It was still attached to the old-fashioned way of proving it was strong by actually winning land and wars.

Europe and the United States decided to prove that we were not at war with Islam by taking in as many Muslims as we could. Instead of leading to less terrorism, taking in more Muslims led to more terrorism.

Every single counterintuitive strategy for defeating Islamic terrorism has been tried. And it has failed. Overthrowing “dictators” turned entire countries into terrorist training camps. Bringing Islamists to power in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia led directly to attacks on American diplomatic facilities. The Muslim Brotherhood showed no gratitude to its State Department allies. Instead its militias and forces either aided the attackers or stood by and watched while taking bets on the outcome.

Islamic terrorism has followed an intuitive pattern of cause and effect. There’s a reason that the counterintuitive strategies for fighting Islamic terrorism by not fighting Islamic terrorism don’t work. They make no sense. Instead they all depend on convincing Muslims, from the local Imam to Jihadist organizations, to aid us instead of attack us by showing what nice people we are. Meanwhile they also insist that we can’t use the words “Islamic terrorism” because Muslims are ticking time bombs who will join Al Qaeda and ISIS the moment we associate terrorism with the I-word.

There are contradictions there that you can drive a tank through.

The counterintuitive strategy assumes that Islamic terrorism will only exist if we use the I-word, that totalitarian Jihadist movements want democracy and that our best allies for fighting Islamic terrorism are people from the same places where Islamic terrorism is a runaway success. And that we should duplicate the demographics of the countries where Islamic terrorism thrives in order to defeat it.

The West’s counterterrorism strategy makes less sense than the ravings of most mental patients. The only thing more insane than the counterintuitive strategy for defeating Islamic terrorism is the insistence that the intuitive strategy of keeping terrorists out and killing them is what terrorists want.

If you believe the experts, then Islamic terrorists want us to stop them from entering Europe, America, Canada and Australia. They crave having their terrorists profiled by law enforcement on the way to their latest attack. And they wish we would just carpet bomb them as hard as we can right now.

When ISIS shoots up Paris or Brussels, it’s not really trying to kill infidels for Allah. Instead it’s setting a cunning trap for us. If we react by ending the flow of migrants and preventing the next attack, ISIS wins. If we police Muslim no-go zones, then ISIS also wins. If we deport potential terrorists, ISIS still wins.

But if we let ISIS carry out another successful attack, then ISIS loses. And we win. What do we win?

It depends. A concert hall full of corpses. Marathon runners with severed limbs. Families fleeing the airport through a haze of smoke. Only by letting ISIS kill us, do we have any hope of beating ISIS.

Politicians and experts claim that ISIS is insane. It’s not insane. It’s evil. Its goals are clear and comprehensible. The objectives of the Islamic State are easy to intuitively grasp. Our leaders and experts are the ones who are out of their minds. They may or may not be evil, but they are utterly insane. And they have projected their madness on Islamic terrorists who are downright rational compared to them.

Unlike our leaders, Islamic terrorists don’t confuse victory and defeat. They aren’t afraid that they’ll win. They don’t want us to kill them or deport them. They don’t care whether we call them ISIS or Daesh. They don’t derive their Islamic legitimacy from John Kerry or a State Department Twitter account. They get it from the Koran and the entire rotting corpus of Islamic law that they seek to impose on the world.

Our leaders are the ones who are afraid of winning. They distrust the morality of armed force and borders. They disguise that distrust behind convoluted arguments and counterintuitive rationales. Entire intellectual systems are constructed to explain why defeating ISIS is exactly what ISIS wants.

After the San Bernardino shootings, Obama insisted that, “Our success won’t depend on tough talk or abandoning our values… That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for.” But ISIS does not care whether Obama talks tough, even if it’s only his version of tough talk in which he puffs out his chest and says things like, ”You are not strong, you are weak.” It is not interested in Obama’s “right side of history” distortion of American values either.

ISIS is not trying to be counterintuitive. It’s fighting to win. And our leaders are fighting as hard as they can to lose.

The counterintuitive strategy is not meant to fight terror, but to convince the populace that winning is actually losing and losing is actually winning. The worse we lose, the better our plan is working. And when we have completely lost everything then we’ll have the terrorists right where we want them.

Just ask the dead of Brussels, Paris, New York and a hundred other places.

This isn’t a plan to win. It’s a plan to confuse the issue while losing. It’s a plan to convince everyone that what looks like appeasement, defeatism, surrender and collaboration with the enemy is really a brilliant counterintuitive plan that is the only possible path to a lasting victory over Islamic terrorism.

But intuitive beats counterintuitive. Winning intuitively beats losing counterintuitively. Counterintuitively dead terrorists multiply, but intuitively they stay dead. Counterintuitively, not discussing the problem is the best way to solve it. Intuitively, you solve a problem by facing it. Counterintuitively, collaborating with the enemy is patriotism. Intuitively, it’s treason.

Nevada Assemblywoman: If You Were at Bundy Ranch and Had a Gun, Nevada Prosecutors are Looking to Arrest You within the Next Few Days – Freedom Outpost

Posted by Tim Brown

In an exclusive interview with Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore on Friday, she told Oathkeepers News Media Director Jason Van Tatenhove that Nevada prosecutors mentioned the fact that there was another round of “mass” arrests of American patriots who showed up in Bunkerville, Nevada at the Bundy Ranch siege in 2014 with a gun.

“The Nevada prosecutor that was in Oregon last week, told an Oregon attorney today, Friday March 18 through the upcoming Tuesday, they will be doing another ‘mass’ amounts of arrests of anyone that was in Bunkerville with a firearm in 2014,” she the Nevada Assemblywoman.

Pick up the video around the 9:00 mark for Fiore’s comments on this issue and take time to educate yourself with the entire video on the updates she brings as she has really represented her people there in Nevada like no one I’ve ever seen do.

Fiore added that she had received a call from someone that had been in Bunkerville with a gun, and according to her, “the FBI stalked him for I guess a few weeks, stalked his house, his 12-year-old daughter was home, pulled up right behind him, and he was polite and he invited them in.”

“He was cautious,” Fiore added. “But I advise everyone… if the FBI or the police want to question you, absolutely not without your attorney.”

That is wise advice and also a right you have under the US Constitution, which states in part in the Fifth Amendment, “No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” 

Of course, many people want to be friendly, but they are naïve to the workings of how manipulative certain people in authority positions may behave. I’m not saying all of them do, but the fact of the matter is your silence is a right that is protected under the Constitution and you do not have to comply with questioning in such a manner as it could be used against you in a court of law.

Fiore echoes this sentiment. “We don’t have a problem with law enforcement, but their intention is to entrap, and their intention is not pure. So I would highly suggest that no one speak with the FBI or the police without your attorney because they do not have good intentions at the moment.”

So, how many people are we talking about in this latest round of arrests? According to Van Tatenhove, “There were hundreds, if not thousands of people there.”

Fiore confirmed that there were over 2,000 people at Bundy Ranch at one time.

However, when are the American people going to stop buying the lies of the state-controlled media and begin to look past the propaganda and see the truth and the violation of the Constitution by the DC government and the Bureau of Land Management? When are they going to see how this is trickling down from DC to the governors, sheriffs and even to local prosecutors? When are their eyes going to be opened and their strength renewed and deal with the criminals in their governments? Will it take a mass round up of arrests based on unlawful, trumped up charges, or will the people wait until it’s too late and they are the ones being arrested and hauled off to jail, and the propaganda machine rolls right over them defining them as terrorists and criminal?

This is nothing but the heavy hand of government attempting to silence dissent, undermine the First Amendment and the rights of the people to peacefully protest (yes, even with guns on their sides or in their hands… after all, the government had trained snipers lining them up in their sights!), and basically attempt to control the people from speaking out through fear tactics. We cannot let this stand!

Patriots, be vigilant and ready!

Finally, for anyone who was at Bundy Ranch and is targeted by these lawless thugs, several top lawyers are providing pro-bono representation for you. All you need to do is download this form and fill it out.

The States Created the Federal Government – Not the Other Way Around – Freedom Outpost

The States Created the Federal Government – Not the Other Way Around

Center for Self Governance (CSG) Administrative Team

For some time now, many have voiced the notion that federal law always trumps state law. According to the 9th and 10th Amendments, this is false.

Numerous federal agencies have imposed unconstitutional regulations, which carry the same impact and consequence as law. Many of these regulations limit our liberty and literally choke the life out of America’s small businesses.

As Article VI, clause 2, states, “This constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made IN PURSUANCE thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.” Additionally, according to Article I § 1, only Congress can make law. Therefore, many executive orders, judicial opinions, and federal regulations not enacted by Congress or made IN PURSUANCE of the Constitution are not legitimate law.

The “Father of the Constitution” James Madison described the doctrine of “anti-commandeering” in Federalist #46. “Anti-commandeering” simply means the federal government cannot force state or local governments to act against their will. States are responsible to maintain their sovereignty in order to keep our Republican form of government, guaranteed in Article IV, § 4.

Mike Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center points to the following four Supreme Court decisions from 1842 to 2012 which firmly established Madison’s “anti-commandeering” doctrine:

PRIGG v. PENNSYLVANIA (1842) Justice Joseph Story wrote the majority opinion concerning the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. He said that the federal government cannot coerce the states to enforce federal law.

Story wrote, “The fundamental principle applicable to all cases of this sort, would seem to be, that where the end is required, the means are given; and where the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is contemplated to exist on the part of the functionaries to whom it is entrusted. The clause is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of any state. It does not point out any state functionaries, or any state action to carry its provisions into effect. The states cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them; and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation, to insist that the states are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the national government, nowhere delegated or entrusted to them by the Constitution.”

NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES (1992) Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority on the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendment Act of 1985. The law violated the SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE of New York because “ [it] offers the States a ‘choice’ between the two unconstitutionally coercive alternatives–either accepting ownership of waste or ANTI-COMMANDEERING DOCTRINE regulating according to Congress’ instructions–the provision lies outside Congress’ enumerated powers and is inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.”

Justice O’Connor continued, “As an initial matter, Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program…While Congress has substantial powers to govern the Nation directly, including in areas of intimate concern to the States, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.”

PRINTZ v. UNITED STATES (1997) The Brady Gun Bill required that county law enforcement officers administer part of the background check, thus providing local enforcement of a federal program.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority opinion, “…it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme…We held in New York [v. United States] that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of DUAL SOVEREIGNTY.”

INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS (2012) The federal government attempted to force states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for their Medicaid programs.

Justice John Roberts held that punishing states by coercing them to participate in a federal program violates the separation of powers. Roberts wrote, “The legitimacy of Congress’s exercise of the spending power thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract’. Respecting this limitation is critical to ensuring that Spending Clause legislation does not undermine the status of the STATES AS INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNS in our federal system. That system rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that ‘freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.’ For this reason, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions. Otherwise the TWO-GOVERNMENT SYSTEM established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.”

The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This amendment appears to be simple enough. If the short list of less than 20 “powers” is not specifically listed in Article 1, § 8 as a federally delegated responsibility, then the individual States or the people reserve that authority. Is healthcare on the list? Business? Jobs? Wages? Education? Marriage? Abortion?

The States and the people created the federal government and determined its responsibilities – not the other way around. Constitutionally, States do not need permission from the federal government to take action. State legislatures must pro-actively enforce State sovereignty on behalf of the people they represent.

Our Constitution guarantees to all Americans in every state a Republican, representative form of government with separation of powers in order to maintain dual sovereignty. This foundational principle of liberty is unique to America’s form of government and is essential to our freedom.

*Article by Michael Moon and Karen Lees

Where’s All the Global Warming? | The Common Constitutionalist – Let The Truth Be Known

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

I don’t normally like to bash others just because they have a different point of view. However, regarding this topic, I take pleasure in verbally beating up on those members of the Church of Perpetual Heat; the man-made Global Warming nuts.

 

We in realville, as Rush calls it, realize that a cold winter does not equal a global cooling trend, but neither does a hot summer prove global warming.

 

Yet that is exactly what we hear from the so-called warming experts whenever the temperature drifts above 100°F. When the temperature dips, the same fools either ignore it or call it climate change.

 

We don’t normally hear from the “true believers”. We hear mostly from those who have and continue to benefit financially from the warming farce and those who just want control.

 

One can’t really blame the ignorant true believer. They have been pummeled, year after year, with the propagandist threats of “change your lifestyle to save the planet and reduce your carbon footprint”.

 

Yet here we are setting negative temperature records across the United States and it’s not even winter.

 

The city of Portland Oregon, with its record-setting cold temperatures, opened warming shelters this past weekend. The director of a local Portland nonprofit said his main job was just to keep people alive.

 

At the same time we in the United States are freezing our backsides off, the UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, is busy trying to shut down coal-fired power plants worldwide.

 

As we know, coal is dirty and icky and pollutes mother Earth. It causes excess greenhouse gases which leads to global warming, don’t you know. Tell that to Portland’s homeless, dying in the streets from exposure.

 

The head of the World Coal Association, Milton Catelin said Figueres is, “ignoring reality. She comes from a perspective where the only challenge in the world today is global warming”.

 

Figueres is a man-made global warming nut, who just happens to come from tropical Costa Rica, where the high temperatures year-round are in the mid-80s and the lows in the high 60s, so naturally she has experienced nothing but warming.

 

A few days ago Rush Limbaugh mentioned a ridiculous article written in 2000 by Charles Onians. It appeared in the UK independent and was entitled: “Snowfalls Are Now Just a Thing of the Past”.

 

He wrote that warming, “is now accepted as reality in the international community”. He claimed that warming manifests itself in warmer winters and hotter summers. Brilliant!

 

The money quote is: “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is”. I guess “the children” didn’t attend any NFL games this past weekend or end up in a multicar pileup due to excessive ice and snow.

 

So here we are, a mere 13 years after Mr. Onians wrote his dimwitted article, and what do we hear?

 

A new cold temperature record has been set in East Antarctica. Although when all there is is ice and snow, how does one tell East Antarctica from West? Just asking.

 

Anyway, the temperature recorded was… are you ready for this?… -135.8°F. What does the U.N. have to say about that, Ms. Figueres?

 

Makes one wonder just how cold it would be without all this man-made global warming?

DC Circuit Court Reverses Decision to Seal Records of Criminal Fast and Furious Operation – Freedom Outpost

The DC Circuit court has reversed a decision that would have kept certain records sealed about Operation Fast and Furious.Holder F&F

Government Watchdog Group Judicial Watch sued the DOJ after Congress found then Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt and after District Judge Amy Jackson ordered the Justice Department to provide certain documents.

The Hill reported:

A federal judge on Tuesday ruled President Obama cannot use executive privilege to keep records on the “Fast and Furious” gun-tracking program from Congress.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered the administration to release documents that it has been attempting to withhold by asserting executive privilege.

The ruling also requires the administration to release to Congress all “segregable portions” of records they are withholding that are considered “attorney-client privileged material, attorney work product, private information, law enforcement sensitive material, or foreign policy sensitive material.”

“The Department itself has already publicly revealed the sum and substance of the very material it is now seeking to withhold. Since any harm that would flow from the disclosures sought here would be merely incremental, the records must be produced,” Jackson wrote, referencing a report from the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General regarding Operation Fast and Furious.

Now, US District Judge Richard Leon, though saying the evidence led him to grant a ruling in the DOJ’s favor, instead reversed the decision on February 12.

According to Courthouse News:

“Judge Jackson’s statement, ‘I don’t want to know,’ clearly bars the parties from divulging the contents of their settlement discussions only to her; a broader bar, if any, would have to be inferred for it is not explicit,” Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote for a three-judge panel.

The statement does not clearly refer to third parties, let alone protect responsive records from a Freedom of Information Act request, the court found.

“The Department offers a good reason Judge Jackson might have wanted to prohibit disclosure to third-parties – because protection from disclosure promotes more open dialogue during settlement – but there is no extrinsic evidence that was what the judge intended; indeed, that concern is nowhere mentioned in the record in this case, and it is equally plausible that Judge Jackson wanted simply to preserve her objectivity in case she ultimately were to preside over a trial,” Ginsburg continued.

On remand, Judge Jackson must clarify what she intended by her statement.

There is no question that the Justice Department and Eric Holder knew exactly what they were doing when they trafficked thousands of weapons into Mexico. That criminal action has cost the lives of hundreds of Mexicans, two US federal agents and no telling how many more that we have yet to discover. Even as recently as January, we discovered that one of the guns from Fast and Furious, a .50-caliber rifle, made its way into the hands of drug kingpin El Chapo Guzman.

We know that there has been at least one drug cartel member that said the Obama administration was using Fast and Furious to supply guns to a Mexican drug cartel against a rival cartel.

The investigation into Fast and Furious has been met with roadblocks by the Obama administration as they are attempting to hide their crimes. Remember, it was Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah who said, “The only people that don’t want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide.” It appears, he still has much to hide!

The EPA Isn’t Handling Its Business – But Insists On Man-Handling Ours – Tea Party Nation

I have a (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) rule for federal government departments, agencies, commissions and boards: Barring a Constitutional amendment, if a bureaucracy was created after 1800 – it shouldn’t exist.

The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution – were by 1800 thoroughly implementing it. If they didn’t yet have the federal government doing something – the federal government wasn’t to be doing it.   So unless a subsequent amendment added an authority to the federal panoply – it’s been an unConstitutional addition.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 – WAY past our sell-by date. Our nation got along just fine for nearly two centuries without this particular federal usurpation. Was the Constitution first amended to give the federal government the authority to override how fifty individual states each respectively decide how to handle environmental issues? Of course not.

Did Congress pretend to be a unilateral, illegal amendment process and pass legislation creating the EPA? Not even: “Pseudo-Republican Richard Nixon created the mess in 1970 in typical DC fashion. He pretended to be (a one-man Constitutional amendment process) – and signed an executive order. The Democrat-controlled Congress then pretended to be (two-thirds of the states) – and ‘ratified’ the EPA with committee hearings.…”

So the entirety of the EPA is Constitutionally illegitimate. It is through this prism that we should examine its actions. Which are unilateral, authoritarian, bullying and amateurish. Time and again they grab more and more power and authority over our lives – all while failing miserably at the things over which they already lord.

The latest example of their awfulness? “An EPA official was caught red-handed with full knowledge of the danger of an environmental spill at Colorado’s Gold King Mine in emails discovered by the Denver Post, but the agency downplayed any knowledge of the hazard to the public. As 3 million gallons of lead, cadmium and other chemicals polluted the Animas River, the EPA pretty well tried to downplay the severity of that, too.”

An EPA screwup of MASSIVE proportions. Followed by an equally huge attempted coverup. And yet literally no one in government was fired for the fiasco. And does their fiasco stop them from abusing a business accused of a MUCH smaller error? Of course not: “On the same day when the Denver Post printed the story above, the Department of Justice announced the latest criminal sentencing in connection with the Elk River spill.

“‘A former owner of Freedom Industries was sentenced today to 30 days in federal prison, six months of supervised release, and a $20,000 fine for environmental crimes connected to the 2014 Elk River chemical spill…. (Dennis P.) Farrell is one of six former officials of Freedom Industries, in addition to Freedom Industries itself as a corporation, to be prosecuted for federal crimes associated with the chemical spill.’

“Was this private company dealt with so harshly because the Elk River spill was larger than the EPA’s Animas River discharge? No: the Elk River spill was only 7,500 gallons, compared with three million gallons the EPA discharged into the Animas River.”

Get that? Six private sector employees and the company itself prosecuted – for spilling 0.0025% of what the EPA spilled. An EPA spill which resulted in zero bureaucrats prosecuted – or even canned.

The EPA can’t handle its business – but it sure as heck wants to man-handle ours.

And, of course, the EPA continues to unilaterally, illegally and omni-directionally expand its authority. But one such additional assault? “You want to kneecap farmers? And make food exorbitantly more expensive? Turn farmers’ water into a weapon against them.

“‘The issue is the EPA’s proposed changes to the Waters of the United States regulation. In March, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed new rules that would expand the agency’s regulatory authority on streams and wetlands that feed into major rivers and lakes….

“‘(T)he rules…(would) allow the government to dictate what farmers can and cannot do with their farmland, which often includes small streams, ponds and marshes.’”

Given all we know – who do you think knows better how to treat and handle farmland? The farmers – who live and earn their living on it? Or faceless bureaucrats far removed from the land – and the consequences of their heinous actions?

If farmers screw up their land – farmers don’t eat. If bureaucrats screw up farmers’ land – farmers don’t eat. And NOTHING happens to the bureaucrats.

Farmers are just like the rest of us. The less government there is – the better things are for them. Less government domestically – like the ridiculous EPA. And less government internationally – like eliminating all government meddling in farm markets.

We the People handle with care. Government man-handles with impunity.

This first appeared in Townhall and Red State.

Superior Court Judges on BLM Occupation in Oregon: “The British Crown has Kidnapped and Press-Ganged American Land Assets… in Criminal Conspiracy & Contempt of Our Constitution” – Freedom Outpost

I have known that the united States Constitution has been undermined for some time, beginning with Abraham Lincoln. I have also know of the incorporation of the united States that is based in London, England. However, now, there are at least two Superior Court Judges, who are also common law judges under the Postmaster General of their respective regions in Alaska and Colorado, are pointing out the actions of the Bureau of Land Management and the actions of criminal politicians in the united States government to undermine the American view of government and law. This is especially enlightening with what has been going on with the Bundys, the Hammonds and the death of LaVoy Finicum.

Judge Anna Maria Riezinger and Judge Bruce Doucette issued a letter in which they exposed the illegal actions of the BLM and the unconstitutionality of what is really taking place in Oregon.

In speaking with Judge Bruce Doucette (Colorado) via telephone, he told me that this is all true and that one could reference Judge Reizinger’s website (Alaska) for more information, as well as his Facebook page.

After verifying the information did come from these judges, I’m providing you with a letter that they jointing issued on January 4, 2016. America, it’s time to wake up! Conservatives and Liberals are not going to save you from this. We, must stand against this tyranny! No presidential candidate, nor any congressman, is talking about this!

The entire idea, according to Judge Bruce Doucette is to undermine the Law of God and Christianity, which our nation was built upon, and establish a Beast, or false god of the State. Read and judge for yourselves… then make your stand!

Issued by Judge Anna Maria Riezinger

January 3, 2016

Although it may come as a surprise to many Americans we have been mischaracterized and misidentified as British Crown Subjects for the better part of a hundred years. This travesty has never been corrected; instead, the British Crown, a commercial investment organization, has kidnapped and press-ganged American land assets into the international jurisdiction of the sea and has pillaged our labor and our resources without mercy in criminal conspiracy and contempt of our Constitution. They have been aided and abetted in this activity by members of the American Bar Association and the Internal Revenue Service acting as licensed privateers.

These vipers nurtured in our bosom pretending to be our “Friends” and our “Allies” and even our “Trustees” have practiced identity theft against the American people, have involved us in their own private bankruptcies as sureties obligated to pay their debts; they have pretended that because of their fraud against us, we have “abandoned” our property including our land patents, our bank accounts, and our organic states. They have usurped against our lawful government, enslaved our people, and acted as criminals in our midst.

The corporations responsible for this behavior are no different and no better than Walmart or Sears or Burger King; they have used names like “Bureau of Land Management” or “United States Department of Agriculture” and so on under color of law.

The “Bureau of Land Management” is not an actual unit of the American government. It is a foreign corporation whose only business here is to provide us with “essential governmental services”.

The land patents to the western states are owed to the States of America and the Indigenous Tribal Governments without exception. The only ownership accruing to the Federal United States dba District of Columbia Municipal Corporation or in other corporate guises is vested entirely in the ten square miles of the District and limited to its Boundary Stones. The only ownership vested in the Federal Government in the western states or anywhere else is a lease interest in facilities that have been provided to expedite their service missions.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) facilities being occupied by American Militiamen were bought and paid for by the people of this country for the use of the BLM with the understanding that the BLM is a unit of the American government and is working in good faith for the people of this nation.

However, according to the public and private records, the BLM is not in fact any part of our lawful government at all and has not been so for decades. It is a privately owned foreign “governmental services corporation” operating under color of law; it has no business interfering in the activities of the ranchers and farmers, occupying government facilities under conditions of fraud, or otherwise presenting false claims of interest, ownership, or authority.

The Hammonds and the Bundy Family are Priority Creditors of all the governmental services corporations which are now or which have operated in this country in the past. They are tax exempt and their “vessels in commerce”— meaning the various trusts and public utilities operated under their NAMES without their knowledge or consent— are all tax-prepaid. They and their countrymen are owed the patent to all land within the geographically defined boundaries of their respective states, free and clear of liens, encumbrances, or other presumptions against their property rights by foreign corporations operating under conditions of self-interested fraud.

BLM employees are here to provide “essential governmental services”. Those services do not include acting as undeclared commercial mercenaries operating under color of law and against the best interests of their employers and benefactors. Any federal employee offering to harm or interfere in the normal occupations of their employers, that is, the people of this country, or to prohibit their employer’s customary use of the land and resources they are heir to is acting as an Outlaw in contempt of the Public Law and the actual Constitution and is subject to arrest under the Bounty Hunter provisions of the United States Statutes-at-Large.

Being employed by BLM like being employed by JC PENNY confers no special authority, grants no immunity, and is not a license to undertake any activity that would otherwise be unlawful—including trespassing on private property, making fraudulent claims, and racketeering under armed force. The rule for federal employees and law enforcement officials including “Federal State” and “Federal County” officials is that if you can’t do it in your private capacity, you can’t do it at all.

Members of the Press Corps are similarly reminded of their responsibility to safeguard public safety and obey the Public Law, including their obligation not to incite, misrepresent, or engage in insurrection against the lawful government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is not a country of the corporation, by the corporation or for the corporation. Anyone needing to be reminded of that fact should question both their education and their sanity.

The highest Law Officer in this country is the County Sheriff who has accepted the public office, received his bond, and taken his Oath. He is enabled to deputize as many men as he needs to enforce the Public Law within the borders of his county and may require the use of any and all equipment and facilities paid for with public funds in pursuit of these ends. He works directly for the people of his county and is accountable only to them.

All federal employees are guests of the people of each county and state. So long as they pursue their lawful duties and do not inappropriately presume upon, threaten, harass, or otherwise offer to harm their hosts, over-reach their lawful jurisdiction, or make false claims against land assets they are owed safe conduct and support. The moment they breach the peace, break the Public Law, offer contempt against the Constitution, engage in operations under color of law—including trespass on private property, cattle rustling, armed racketeering and so on, they are subject to arrest like any common felon.

The people of this country are the employers, benefactors, and Priority Creditors of all federal corporations, all federal employees, all federal contractors, and all federal officials. The people did not grant their hirelings any power to harass them, indebt them, mischaracterize them, change their political status, seize upon their property, defraud them, trespass upon them, or engage in any other criminal activity whatsoever.

It must be squarely recognized that the burning of barns is arson. The theft and removal of livestock is cattle rustling. The bringing of false claims of indebtedness and obligation is fraud. The presentation of weapons, especially tactical weapons, employed in any of these activities is assault and attempted racketeering under force by undeclared private mercenary forces. It is now easy to recognize that these are crimes masquerading as “law enforcement”.

The private in-house laws of corporations must remain in accord with the Public Law or those corporations must be liquidated as crime syndicates and their assets distributed to those they have harmed and to their lawful creditors. This includes the BLM, the UNITED STATES, the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, the STATE OF OREGON, or any other corporation found to be operating in violation of the Public Law and their own charter.

Any questions may be addressed to:
Judge Anna Maria Riezinger
(907) 250-5087
Judge Bruce Doucette
(720) 338-0394

Remember, Ron Paul warned about arming these illegal and unconstitutional agencies in the 1990s! He was right! They are agencies of foreign government.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/02/superior-court-judges-on-blm-occupation-in-oregon-the-british-crown-has-kidnapped-and-press-ganged-american-land-assets-in-criminal-conspiracy-contempt-of-our-constitution/#t7Arb3Fi9bw4MHDp.99

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,664 other followers