Category: Regulations

Posted on

Does Size Matter?

“From the moment of conception, the unborn has a human nature. That he cannot yet speak, reason, or perform personal acts means only that he cannot yet function to the degree we can, not that he lacks the essential nature that makes those functions possible in the first place.” 

— Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life

Information about Planned Parenthood’s business model is landing fast and furious. The Center for Medical Progress, has released multiple exposés that deserve some thoughtful attention.

Consider the implications of the above quote regarding our innate humanness and the implications that this has for cherishing human life – regardless of race, nationality, skin color, size, capacity, or eye-color. His statement draws on obvious, self-evident, and common-sense truths that shatter the pro-choice/pro-abortion rhetoric.

In essence, there is no moral dividing line between a fetus and a new-born. Certainly, there are developmental differences, but those are differences of degree, not kind. In the same way, a grade-school boy is different from a college athlete only in respect to growth and development but not in any other meaningful way.

The logic for this view of human-life is known as the SLED Defense for Life. SLED represents an acronym for four logical arguments based upon Size, Level of development, Environment and Degree of dependency.

Here’s a summary –
Size

Does size matter in our moral assessment of human beings? Are larger people more valuable than smaller people? Since men are usually larger than women are women less valuable?

Obviously not.

What about embryos? They are smaller than newborns and newborns smaller than adults, but does that matter?

Men, teens, girls, or babies are not granted their inherent, self-evident, unalienable rights based on our consideration of their size or potential.

Actually, we should all be thankful that people are not graded for size, shape or color like Grade AA poultry eggs. Our internal moral compass informs us rightly that size doesn’t equal value.

Level of development

Does level of development matter in assessing our stature as humans?
Embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. Yet,  a two-year old is also less developed than a full grown man or woman. Is this where the pro-choice movement wants our nation to stand?

Are we willing to say that athletes have more worth or value than those who are less developed. Do bodybuilders have more worth than those who are handicapped or have not yet reached their full developmental potential?

Maybe it’s not just physical. Maybe this category should include mental capacity, also. For instance, embryos have no sense of self awareness. Would that make a difference? Does a six-day old baby have self-awareness?   What about those who lack the immediate capacity for performing normal mental functions, as do the comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.

Environment

Your location has no bearing on your humanness. Whether you are in the local elementary school or the county jail your value as a human being is not weighed differently. The same holds true for you while in bed verses your stature at the office. You may look more frumpy in one place over the other, but your stature as a human does not change.

If this is true, how can someone claim that there is a significant difference between the nature of the “unborn” and the “born?”  The ultimate nature of this being is still that of a human.

Degree of Dependency

Diane and I have a new granddaughter. Her name is Adelay Joy. She is about 6 weeks old and weighs in near 10 pounds. But, her size and weight are irrelevant, watching her is the thing that is really inspiring.

There are so many beautiful things, so many simple things, about her life. Her utter dependence on her Mom and Dad, even though she was born in a different state, to a different birth-mother and birth-father. It is incredible to realize that this little girl has not yet grown into a full, trusting awareness of her parents.

Instead, she is simply helpless and entirely dependent. There is no difference between this baby and the “fetus” that she was a mere 3 months ago. She was, and still is, completely dependent on someone else to provide for her life and sustenance.

Then, there is the sheer wonder of design. The whole gamut is quite intricate. From suckling, cooing, stretching, blinking, yawning, and kicking you can see all of her motor skills developing with artistic grandeur through her own cute and unrefined ways.

Humans differ immensely with respect to gifts, talents, preferences, and accomplishments. Yet, they all share in equal value as part of humanity. Humans are valuable because we are created in God’s image, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

Our nations founders clearly echoed these sentiments in our Declaration of Independence:

“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.”

No human being, regardless of size, level of development, race, gender, or place of residence, should be excluded from the moral community of human persons. In other words, the pro-life view of humanity is inclusive, indeed wide open, to all, especially those that are small, vulnerable and defenseless.

Photos courtesy of: http://heatherwagnerphotography.com/blog/

Updated from original article on Roe v. Wade…

Posted on

Power and Privilege

Executive Focus

President Obama has both eyes focused on completing his “fundamental transformation” of America. As a statist, he believes in the power and authority of the government to regulate and control every aspect of our lives.

Even Alexander Hamilton, an ardent proponent of federal control, recognized the pitfalls of power concentrated  in government.

 “The instruments by which it must act are either the authority of the laws or force. If the first be destroyed, the last must be substituted; and where this becomes the ordinary instrument of government, there is an end to liberty!

Hamilton continues by describing the exact events that we are witnessing in today’s Washington, D.C. He writes, “Those, therefore, who preach doctrines, or set examples which undermine or subvert the authority of the laws, lead us from freedom to slavery.”  This should remind you of the President’s efforts for executive amnesty, the EPA’s waters of the US or the administration’s purposeful destruction of America’s coal industry.

Unfortunately, only a handful of our so-called “representatives” in Congress are showing even a smidgen of the courage needed to withstand this statist onslaught.

For example, this summer Obama added more abuses under the Antiquities Act of 1906. The Antiquities Act was designed to allow U.S. presidents a swift method for protecting, “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest” on federal lands.

Obama has single-handedly designated over 260 million acres of land under his warped interpretation of what should be “preserved.”  The federal government exercises jurisdictional responsibility for roughly 635-640 million acres, or 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States and over 54% of the 12 western states. This means Obama has moved nearly one-third of that total acreage into this unique “wilderness” category. No drilling, no mining, no harvesting, no grazing, no fossil hunting or swimming with the kids without the appropriate paperwork from your federal overlords.

The amount of land moved by these Antiquities abuses is nearly four times the size of the sate of Oregon.  It should be obvious that this federal land-grab effort will not serve the public good and is an ideological bent that will ultimately destroy, not preserve our land.

The executive office should be stopped by one of the other co-equal authorities at the federal level, namely, Congress. Yet, if history is our guide, the judiciary will support these schemes and Congress will fund them.

Legislative Focus

It appears Congress is too busy looking for campaign contributions, quick legislative fixes that solve nothing, and finding enough money to fund all of the initiatives in the president’s budget. This Republican controlled Congress is complicit in funding unconstitutional executive policies, such as, Obamacare, Amnesty, the FCC and it’s takeover of the Internet, EPA’s destructive programs, the renegade operatives in the IRS, NSA, BOR, and the list goes on. Based on their voting records, it also appears that most members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, don’t care about the Constitution’s original intentions.

Founders’ Focus

Our Nation’s primary founding document, The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America, identifies the reason that governments exist. The reason is simple. Governments are formed among men for the sole purpose of securing the unalienable Rights of everyone. These Rights are granted to man by his Creator, not government. These rights are obvious, self evident and identified as “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

The next sentence in the Declaration of Independence identifies two other Rights which are seldom referenced.

  • “the Right of the People to alter or abolish” any government which fails in its effort to secure these first rights.
  • the Right “to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”

Notice, this power doesn’t belong to the President. It does not belong to the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches of government. It belongs to “the people” and we have these rights because God gave this authority to you and I.

President Obama doe not have the right to fundamentally transform the United States. Neither does Congress, nor does the Supreme Court.

These “rights” belong to the American people. We must not allow Congress to destroy our God-given Rights.

House of Representatives’ Focus

If the Republican controlled House disagrees with the absurd monument designations of federal land for historical purposes (Executive), or the EPA’s burdensome Power Plan (Legislative), or the recent Same-Sex Marriage fiasco (Judicial), why is the House funding the President’s artful designs for accomplishing these “fundamental transformations?”

The answer is as plain as the growth of the federal budget. They have become enamored with their own power and privilege. Alexis de Tocqueville described this destructive tendency in the mid-1830’s:

“[T]he sovereign power extends its arms over the entire society;
it covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated, minute, and uniform rules,
which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls
cannot break through to go beyond the crowd;
it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them;
it rarely forces action, but it constantly opposes your acting;
it does not destroy, it prevents birth;
it does not tyrannize, it hinders, it represses, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and
finally it reduces each nation to being nothing more than
a flock of timid and industrious animals,
of which the government is the shepherd.“

Baa, Baa, Baaa

A Better Focus

Give your support to candidates who believe in open, accountable and limited government, the Constitution and the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty and prosperity of all Americans – The House Freedom Caucus

See how your legislators rank in FreedomWorks Senate Scorecard, FreedomWorks House Scorecard; the New American Index; the Conservative Review; or Heritage Action’s Scorecard.

Posted on

Judicial “Putsch”

It turns out the Supreme Court has two buckets for holding ideas. One bucket holds the ideas they like and the other the things they don’t like. However, the two buckets aren’t labeled ‘Likes’ and ‘Dis-likes.’ Oddly enough, one bucket is labeled ‘Constitutional’ and the other is labeled ‘Unconstitutional.’

Can you guess which bucket carries which label?

In our nation’s past, the Supreme Court relied on evidence, facts and relevant testimony to determine how any piece of legislation might appropriately fit within its constitutional boundaries.

In the Federalist No. 45, James Madison wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed constitution of the federal government, are few and defined.”

The next sentence follows, “Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.” He then adds, “The powers reserved to the several states, will extend to all the objects, which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”

Well, the Constitution hasn’t changed.

In fact, since the Bill of Rights can be rightfully considered part of the original Constitution there have only been 15 additional changes or Amendments.  There is no constitutional authority for the the federal government to intervene in the natural, universal and historic definition of marriage.

The Supreme Court came to a wrong opinion with regard to the constitutional facts of the case. The Constitution specifically leaves the ordinary affairs, concerns for life, liberty, and property to the people and their own desires for local governance.

If the Supreme Court can ignore facts and written history can you and I follow their example?  What will happen to our Constitutional rights? Can they also be ignored?

Does this mean restraints on Congressional action no longer apply?  The preamble to the Bill of Rights explains the States’ desire to prevent misconstruction or abuse of federal powers with further restrictive clauses such as:

  • “Congress shall make no law…” (1st Amendment),
  • “This right shall not be infringed” (2nd Amendment),
  • or, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” (4th Amendment)

Can Congress, like the Supreme Court and President, ignore these clear restrictions?

The precedent has been set but not by this Court alone:

  1. Under the guise of economic stability the Federal Reserve has created trillions from thin air;

  2. using security as their shield, Congress routinely searches all of our personal effects, without warrant;

  3. hiding behind the facade of compassion the President modifies immigration policy using his cell phone;

  4. and, the Supreme Court has used equality to execute their ruse.

 

What opinions will the Court foist upon us next week?  Maybe, 2 + 2 = 5.

Convincing the Court they got their summation problem wrong might be harder than you think. Especially if the facts, theories and principles of mathematics are left out of the discussion.  If we disagree with the Court, it is only because we have a different view of the real world.  After all, in a 1992 abortion case Justice Kennedy’s opinion included, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Was their ruling simply one of life’s mysteries?

Justice Scalia, in his dissenting view notes, the people have been robbed, “of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

Like Scalia, I too am astounded by, “the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”  In his closing, Scalia lets his arrow fly straight at the heart of the matter,

“The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop- philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”

America needs help from more people like you and I. People who believe in self-governance, freedom and liberty within our Constitutionally ordered government.

By Liberty, I do not mean a state of licentiousness, where our culture subverts order and  breeds a defiance of rules.  I mean, rather, a well ordered government which is limited by a set of specifically enumerated powers.

The Bill of Rights was a beautiful extension of the Constitution where the founders admitted the possibility of government growth and usurpation. These restraints were designed to protect men’s rights from the designs of those who are “more remarkable for their ambition and cunning, than their patriotism.”

*   putsch : noun
1. a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed.

Posted on

Secrecy Breeds Corruption and Tyranny – Part I

Secrecy breeds corruption and tyranny, while openness and transparency breed Liberty. Especially in matters of governance.

Which would you prefer?

This is a simple question because it is a very straight-forward idea.

Give yourself this test:

Do you want Secrecy or Transparency, when…

  1. Reviewing car repair options with your mechanic?
  2. Discussing possible treatment options for cancer?
  3. Going over your taxes with your accountant?
  4. Buying a new home, car, laptop, loaf of bread or pound of beef?

 

Obviously, each of us values openness and transparency. Why then, is the American public so complacent about the secrecy imposed by the President, House and Senate when they are attempting to legislate far-reaching and corporately focused global trade agreements?

Americans have been purposefully kept in the dark regarding the multi-faceted impacts of the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP, Trade Deal).  The myriad of agreements falling under the TPP will impact all of the above mentioned items. Not only your purchases of bread, beer, and beef but also your car, cancer treatment options and the price of your mechanic.

The US House and Senate are complicit with the Obama Administration in these “routine” machinations of darkness at the federal level.

Last week, the US House passed (H.R. 644) the ‘Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015’’ as an amendment to a bill known and entitled – ‘’An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend and expand the charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory.’’

Does this make sense? Let me try to summarize: The House passed an IRS bill about charitable tax deductions which magically gets an entirely new (236 page) amendment that is a separate Act of Congress.

Is this open, honest and forthright?

We have sent these men and women to Congress to protect our Liberties and America’s sovereignty above all else. Have they abandoned their oath of office and responsibility?  Be assured Congress is trampling our future.

With regard to the details of  TPP, there is actually little to no information available.  Julian Assange, founder and publisher of WikiLeaks, is trying to get the information discovered and published. He wants to raise $100,000 (through crowdsourcing) as a reward to anyone who reveals the entire TPP text (all twenty-nine chapters). Today, WikiLeaks has only five chapters online.

(Note: Don’t be afraid to read these documents. They are available online. Your web-browser may issue a “security warning” which will make you feel like you are doing something “unsafe” but this is part of the lie that liars tell.  The TPP information that is available will not destroy your laptop or shatter world peace. Instead, it may help stop the White House along with the cowards in Congress.)

We have heard this Administration brag that it is, “the most transparent and ethical administration in history,” then why the secrecy?    House Republicans are no better. Remember, in 2011, their own pledge was to “restore trust” by giving all Representatives and citizens at least three days to read bills before any votes would be taken.

In reality, transparency is not their goal, power is.

Openness and transparency are abhorrent to tyrants. Their power and corruption grows more readily under the cover of darkness and misinformation.  This is why, if you have written or called your Congressman asking for details about the TPP, the answer was cloaked in obscurity.

The Patriot Post reveals the depth of secrecy:

“[It’s] So secret that, even if you’re a member of Congress and want information, you have two choices: You can attend a classified briefing that requires you to leave your staff members and cell phone at the door, or you can amble down to the basement of Capitol Visitor Center for a read. Again, one’s cellphone must be surrendered. And only one section at a time is provided, with someone watching over you as you read. If you take any notes they must be surrendered prior to leaving. After you leave, you are forbidden to discuss any aspects of the bill in public.

“On the other hand, here’s a list of 605 “cleared” corporate insiders who have been granted access for some period of the nearly 10 years of negotiations on this pact that have been taking place. Insiders who represent pharmaceutical companies, Hollywood studios, Wall Street, car and oil companies, and other corporate interests.”

All this time you and I have been thinking of trade in terms of commodities like barley, beef and bananas or ,manufactured products like cell phones, cars and cameras.

The truth is these agreements are designed to harvest the rewards of American prosperity to further socialist economic pursuits. (See more in Part II)

Our founders had a different idea. They believed in limited government. Their focus was on lowering the burdensome nature of taxes while allowing citizens the liberty of engaging in free, open and prosperous markets. They believed in private enterprise from families like yours and mine. They lived and died fully invested in the defense of their grand experiment.

Good decision making is based upon an accurate assessment of the best available knowledge. This is a simple concept and it is easy to demand from Congress. The more we know and understand, the better our odds of making good choices.

We do this in our private affairs daily using every opportunity to negotiate the best deal. We use store coupons, attend Fabulous Friday sales, and return soda cans for nickels.  When it comes to public affairs we need to exercise the same diligence. The destruction of our national sovereignty and economic prowess is of greater importance.

“[I]f you are negligent or inattentive, the ambitious and despotic will entrap you in their toils, and bind you with the cord of power from which you, and your posterity, may never be freed.”   – Cato I, New York Journal,  September 27, 1787

Posted on

Secrecy Breeds Corruption and Tyranny – Part II

As I mentioned in Part I,  the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP, Trade Deal) is a secretly engineered scheme that unashamedly supports centrally planned economies.

In this article, I have pulled an excerpt from the TPP which I will use to illustrate this globalist agenda. This portion highlights healthcare where pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers and public health entities will be jockeying for positions at the public trough.

Given the poor performance and rising costs of Obamacare, what will happen when Congress allows the President (via the TPP) to wedge his insatiable bureaucrats deeper into your wallets and future health decisions.

The following excerpt from the TPP showcases the socialistic tenor of the entire agreement. I chose this example to emphasize 1) a subtle call for universal amnesty, and 2) global pharmaceutical insiders don’t like the notion of transparency. (Neither does President Obama .  Below is an excerpt from Chapter 10, regarding pharmaceutical products and medical devices. (All annotations, mine)

The first bullet (#1 in red) is the nail in the coffin for opposition to universal amnesty. It paints a false picture of your individual health as a public good that is government’s a-priori commitment. The phrase, “for their nationals including citizens and the public” translates into “everyone, regardless.”  You and I, as citizens, are included but also included are illegal aliens, undocumented workers, and everybody else. In other words, everyone by “treaty” will gain access to entitlements at the public trough.

The second bullet (#2 in red) highlights the recommended striking of the word “transparent.” This is because some numbers (xx) of participants oppose that concept in favor of the idea of impartiality.  Meaning, in effect, they won’t be judgmental, but they want to remain secret!

The third bullet (#3 in red) is a strategically placed “or by” clause which digs a hole large enough to swallow the American Dream. The two ideas presented on either side of this “or by” clause are entirely incongruent. These ideas don’t even belong in the same class.

The first concept represents the American ideal – the notion of competitive markets. The second is a statist, collectivist, or socialist ideal – the desire for centralized control and management.  The language which says, “or by adopting or maintaining procedures that appropriately value” simply means that, “price controls are fine, as long as government maintains them.”

This ought to tell you what the Republicans in the House and Senate think of free-markets.

Apparently, neither House is worried about defending your rights to Life, Liberty and Property as Constitutional intentions mandate. They are more interested in catering to large-scale moneyed interests while placating the public with empty noise about helping Americans get “jobs.”

The two major political parties have fallen victim to a devastating worldview – Statism – the belief that only through government force and coercion can society function properly. They have come to believe that if they can get control of the steering wheel, gas pedal and radio buttons on the federal machinery the US will prosper.

Our founders had a different idea. They believed in limited government. Their focus was on lowering the burdensome nature of taxes while allowing citizens the liberty of engaging in free, open and prosperous markets. They believed in private enterprise from families like yours and mine. They were fully invested in defending their grand experiment with their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

Good decision making is based upon an accurate assessment of available knowledge. This is a simple concept and it is easy to demand from Congress.

The more we know and understand, the better our odds of making good choices. This happens when we purchase our cars, homes and daily bread.  In fact, “full disclosure” laws exist to help people become informed citizens so that they can participate in the marketplace. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was designed to allow citizens to participate in self-governance and to keep government in check. Yet, the Obama administration has set the record for censoring government files by denying access to nearly 50,000 requested documents.

Take pride in self-governance. Demand openness and full disclosure from the men and women who are serving on our behalf.

We must not allow this federally sponsored takeover of America’s open markets and prosperous industry under the cheap excuse that nations must compromise their traditions, principles and heritage in order to work together.

Posted on

Oregon’s Gun Grabbers Strain Reality

Oregon’s Gun Grabbers Strain Reality

The most insidious part of  Oregon’s SB 941 is that it is designed to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Illegal or criminal gun transfers and/or purchases are not happening amongst law-abiding citizens. This is disingenuous and farcical at best and down right evil at its worst.

Call or write these folks to tell them “NO on SB 941”

“NO on SB 941”

Rep Paul Evans 503-986-1420 [email protected]
Rep Brent Barton 503-986-1440 [email protected]
Rep Deborah Boone 503-986-1432 [email protected]
Rep Brian Clem 503-986-1421 [email protected]
Rep Betty Komp 503-986-1422 [email protected]
Rep Caddy McKeown 503-986-1409 [email protected]

In the “Screwtape Letters,” C.S. Lewis has Uncle Screwtape say,

“I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of ‘Admin’ …  The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labor camps.  But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.”

Oregon’s Democratic-led legislature appears to be made of the same sort of quiet men and women. Those, who have the same white collars and skirts, who have smooth-shaven body parts (based on their gender preference) and who will not need to raise their voices, while they take away our liberties.

Crossing the Lines throughout History

Matt Bracken warns us with his recent article at Western Rifle Shooters:

Q_openI am telling you now that disastrous unintended consequences will happen if Congress passes new laws banning presently legal firearms. To make it very easy to remember, and in the spirit of our beloved Department of Homeland Security’s old color-coded security threat levels, let me spell out three lines of demarcation.

The Yellow Line:

The yellow warning line will be crossed with national gun registration laws, including laws forbidding private gun sales without government permission. When that law passes, millions of Americans will feel that they have been pushed directly to the edge of the abyss above the mass graves of history. Defenders of the Second Amendment know what happened in Turkey, the USSR, Germany, China, and other nations that fell under totalitarian rule: in every case a necessary preliminary step on the road to genocide was national gun registration, followed by confiscation. The Jewish survivors of the Nazi Holocaust say, “Never again!” And so do we.

The Red Line:

The red line will be crossed with the passage of laws mandating that currently owned weapons, ammunition magazines, and ammunition quantities above a certain number must be turned in to authorities or destroyed, and thereafter their simple possession will be a felony. At that point, the nation will be on a hair trigger, with a thousand flaring matches nearing a thousand primed cannon fuses aimed directly at the next Fort Sumter.

The Dead Line:

The next line requires a bit of history to explain. In some primitive Civil War POW camps, where lack of funding or logistical constraints did not allow the construction of proper fences, a knee-high continuous railing of wooden slats encircled the prison grounds. Guards with rifles were positioned at the corners and in crude towers. If a prisoner so much as stepped over the narrow plank, he was shot dead without warning, obviating the need for a real fence to contain him. Hence the term “dead line.” Cross the line and people die, right now.

And this is what liberal utopians must understand: after passing the yellow line with national gun registration and transfer requirements, and the red line by making possession of currently legal firearms felonious, the dead line will be breached with the first SWAT raids upon citizens suspected of owning legal firearms made illegal by the new gun control laws. People will die resisting confiscation, in large numbers.

Confiscation crosses the dead line, make no mistake about it.

So this essay is really for you, Mr. Security Agent, because it won’t be elite Manhattan or Malibu liberals or Ivy League professors or politicians or columnists who will be ordered to strap on the sweat-stained body armor and enforce the new gun control laws at gunpoint. No, that grim task will fall to you.

But as long as you are an honorable agent of the people while an employee of the government, and as long as you honor your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, then you will encounter no problems at all with gun owners. Why? Because you will refuse to take part in gun confiscation raids. Period. End of sentence, end of paragraph.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the leading American law enforcement agency, at least in terms of its long history and high prestige. Dear Mr. Security Agent, please consider that F.B.I. also stands for Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity. Soon, your fidelity to your solemnly sworn oath may be severely tested. It will take a lot of bravery to make your personal integrity a higher calling than following illegitimate orders, simply to maintain your steady paycheck and benefits.

On the other hand, if you no longer resemble the upstanding and honorable federal agents I have known in the past, if that whole oath-to-the-Constitution shtick was a big fat joke to you and you would accept a transfer to the old Soviet KGB or East German Stasi for a ten percent pay raise…then we are definitely going to have a problem. So that oath you swore really matters, one way or the other, and so does your personal sense of honor.

Dear Mr. Security Agent, let me spell it out. If you find yourself in the sub-basement of an annex to a secret intelligence center on the far end of town, waterboarding citizens into revealing the locations of suspected “illegal caches” of firearms, ammunition or ammunition magazines that were legally owned in 2012, then know this one simple fact: tens of millions of Americans will most surely consider you a betrayer of your sworn oath and a traitor to your country.

And so, if you find yourself silently dismounting a covert SWAT vehicle at zero-dark-thirty, dressed all in body armor, counting down to the time-coordinated explosion of battering rams and flash-bang grenades, on a raid against a sleeping household intended to result in the confiscation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition magazines that were legal to own in 2012, millions of Americans who also swore an oath to defend the Constitution will consider you their domestic enemy, and they will resist you with force of arms. Just as the soldiers of King George were resisted on another notable gun confiscation raid on April 19, 1775. It used to be called “The Shot Heard ’Round the World.”

You may consider the sentiments expressed above to be absurd, hyperbolic, dangerous, ridiculous, or simply wrong-headed. But please understand that tens of millions of Americans feel this way to their cores, and they will not be disarmed without a fight. Well-meaning but naive liberals should understand the certain-to-follow consequences of new gun control laws intended to disarm their fellow citizens in the name of “public safety.” LEOs and FLEAs should understand the dire consequences of participating in gun confiscation raids, in direct violation of their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

The unintended consequences of this misguided utopian fool’s crusade to ban guns would include a second civil war as agonizingly painful as the first one, if not more so, since there would be no front lines and no safe areas for anybody, anywhere. Every sane American wants to prevent such a calamitous outcome as a “dirty civil war” on United States soil.

But know this: those tens of millions will never be quietly disarmed and then later forced at government gunpoint Q_closeonto history’s next boxcars. If boxcars and detention camps are to be in America’s future, then you, Mr. Security Agent, will have to disarm them the hard way first. Not Piers Morgan, not Michael Moore, not Rosie O’Donnell, not Dianne Feinstein, not Chuck Schumer.

Original Post by: Matt Bracken was born and raised in Baltimore, and graduated from the University of Virginia and Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL Training in 1979.

 

Posted on

Consensus is Not Truth

The Consensus Agenda

Today’s regulatory enterprise is following the same pattern as Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman during the American Civil War.  Sherman’s strategy was to gather livestock and crop production data from the Federal Census of 1860 to effectively lead his troops through areas where his army could do the most damage. Today, the EPA, USFS, USGS, NOAA, BOR, FWS, BLM and IRS are following the same pattern.

They are amassing enormous volumes of data which enables them to push their agenda driven preferences onto the American scene. The problem isn’t the data collection per se. The problem is the agenda driven data interpretation which happens in the secret recesses of their bureaucracies.

The data being stockpiled and the interpretations being propagated are uniquely prejudiced. Isolated results are paired with faulty scientific modeling and rigged with invalid assumptions which has led to the advancement of consensus as truth.

There only problem is consensus is not truth – Truth is truth.

Truth is Truth

Truth matches the real world. It is the way things are apart from man’s temporal interpretations.

Apples fall and sincere or empathetic wishing cannot make them stay aloft. Gravity is gravity, even while we sleep. Additionally, anyone can tinker, experiment or investigate this universal truth because 1) the mathematics and modeling provides a good representation of the world as we know it, 2) it has great explanatory power and 3) it has great predictive power.

If this sounds reasonable to you then, you are not part of the consensus movement. However, the EPA is vigorously using your own tax dollars to attract adherents to their world-view.  They are trying to recruit you and your kids.

Industry and special interest lobbying groups are regularly appointed to positions on the EPA’s Science Advisory Board. This policy of encouraging, or ignoring, biased judgments and conflicts-of-interest presents a hazard to the public-good and threatens the integrity of the entire federal bureaucracy.

Whether these tendencies lead only to ideological advances or monetary gains for the participants is irrelevant; it is the process which is corrupt.  Data does not arrive into the scientific endeavor with a toe-tag which provides the explanation. The interpretive activity must originate within the confines of the laboratory and it requires as much data scrubbing as possible to limit exposure to corruption.

The EPA’s agenda-driven regulations place an undue burden on vast swaths of American industry. In turn,  industry-wide compliance issues become even more ominous as the science behind the enacted policy remains secretive. During both terms of the Obama Administration there have been routine denials under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for underlying documentation.

The EPA has purposefully avoided publishing scientific studies, policy discussions and regulatory options. This ultimately harms every state, industry or business entity which is striving to achieve palatable economic and environmental results.  This week,

Q_openThe House of Representatives passed a bill intended to require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to disclose the scientific research it uses to justify changes in its regulatory policies.

The bill passed Wednesday on a mostly partisan 241-175 vote, with its Republican supporters claiming the measure as the first step toward a win for transparency between the EPA and the American people. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said the legislation will prevent the EPA from using “secret science” to underpin controversial rules changes.

“Right now, the EPA is trying to impose harmful regulations based on scientific studies that Q_closeno one can check — not the public, not independent scientists, not even the United States Congress,” McCarthy said. “It’s called ‘secret science’ and it’s wrong.”

President Obama has vowed to veto this legislation.

President Obama and the elites guiding these policy initiatives in Washington have cut loose from the underlying ideas embedded in our nation’s founding.  The most notable cast-off is the belief in an underlying moral order. As this foundational truth is abandoned any policy can be re-formulated to achieve any specific agenda driven preference. The result is a pragmatic approach to problem solving  which promotes irrational consensus simply to avoid “letting any crises go to waste.”

Solution – Limits on Federal Over-reach

Any and all necessary environmental controls should be developed and owned by the 50 free and independent sates. For illustration, the health and future of Klamath Basin Watershed, where I live, should not be determined by legislators from rural Kansas, Gulf-coast Florida, or any of the other 50 states. At most this should be a compact between two states – California and Oregon.  The policy controls belong in the hands of local citizens not the denizens of power in Washington, DC, or Omaha, NB.

Our US Congress’ lack of adherence to the US Constitution and its limits on Federal power has enabled the EPA to continue in its bureaucratic overreach. Unfortunately, state governments obediently follow along in the hopes of receiving federal subsidies, grants, exemptions, or other regulatory niceties.

The EPA’s power-grab is gaining momentum under the current administration while Congress appears powerless in its demands for accountability. The statists in Washington are more than happy to shield the EPA’s agenda behind a mask of impunity among the elites in Washington.

It is time for us, as individuals to demand accountability from our representatives in Congress.  Americans must be willing to fight for the preservation of our constitutionally federated republican form of government where free-markets and environmental stewardship flourish under the twin-pillars of individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Posted on

Last Night’s Pizza-box and your 2nd Amendment Rights

Over-Stepping the Boundary Line

The anti-Federalists recognized the dangers of arbitrary,  capricious or whimsical actions by a nation’s ruling class. The anti-Federalists also understood that it didn’t matter if the ruling class was comprised of an individual like our US President, or a monarch like King George III. They knew danger could also arise from oligarchies, or democracies when  government oversteps it’s boundaries.

Over-stepping occurs constantly because of Republican traitors and Democratic idealists. The Democrats love big government and they are simply following their natural ideological bent.

Republican platforms at the national, state and county levels all oppose big government (cf., Ending Groundhog Republicanism). Although Republican statists claim they are against big government they rarely vote against big government. It turns out to be a convenient campaign ploy to retain votes from their conservative base.

The Republican elites in Washington, DC know all too well how to use their positions to threaten industries, extort corporate contributions, or legislate market disruptions that bring rewards to certain beneficiaries.

My words here are well chosen. You may think of treason as “acting to overthrow one’s government.” There is another definition which I intend. It is, “the betrayal of a trust or confidence, or a breach of faith.”

You and I have been betrayed

The Republican ruling class has placed their bets on a house of cards. They have wagered our children’s futures for their rewards today. They have immunity from ObamaCare. Do you? They hinder your job prospects while opening the field for themselves and their friends. They create factions among us and set contradictory and unattainable priorities.  This not only confuses citizens, it confuses markets.

Businesses need accurate information for making sound and efficient use of their resources. Are production capacities at optimal levels? Should the product mix be modified to take advantage of changing circumstances, supplies, or increases in market demand? No business can make an informed decision when the market is distorted by government intervention. There are false incentives, unwarranted subsidies, cheap money and limited access to natural resources. Each of which negatively and artificially impacts business decisions.

These contradictory and unattainable priorities confuse and hobble working people in our communities. Their unattainable priorities  are really false promises. Pennsylvania’s anti-federalist delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1776 recognized this. They identified the political maneuvering behind these false claims which were, “exciting [the Federalists] hopes of greater advantages from the expected plan than even the best government on earth could produce….”

anti-Federalist Proposals

The anti-federalists also documented their dissent for the proposed Constitution because it did not include a provision for the right to bear arms.  Their desire was to include wording which would guarantee no future jurisdictions could subvert this natural right for personal and family defense.

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.”

In particular, notice the phrase “and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them”.

You and I have been told the 2nd Amendment covers this and protects our right to bear arms.  You may even believe that it’s language is complete. You may be of the opinion that the phrase in our 2nd amendment which reads “shall not be infringed” is as good as gold.

Yet, our 2nd Amendment right is the right most often infringed. Our Democratic led Oregon state legislature is intent on infringing this right daily during the current legislative session.

Additionally, Constitutional Amendments can be repealed. The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

What defense is there for stopping devious, disingenuous  or corrupt men after they gain office?

First, arm yourselves with facts.

Did your Republican representative vote for the $1.1 trillion CR/Omnibus budget? This improvident legislation fully funded Pres. Obama’s scheme to “fundamentally transform America.” Obama received his needed wink and nod from two weak-kneed RINO’s,  Speaker Boehner and Rep. Walden. Those two RINO votes made the difference as it passed 214 to 212 on its initial journey through the House.

The only legislative restraint on Obama’s takeover of one-sixth of the US economy (healthcare), his executive amnesty plans and the EPA’s unprecedented assault against America’s natural resource sector was funding. Not any longer – the House fully funded all of Obama’s initiatives.

Our Turn Now

Use your knowledge and power in your local elections. Your proximity gives you more power in the local arena. Use it or lose it – vote for Liberty.  Elect conservative men and women to your County Commissioner positions. Encourage your County Commissioners to support the 2nd Amendment by passing legislation prohibiting the funding of activities which violate your inherent rights.

Elect true conservatives at every level of local government (even the County Dog Catcher if that position is an elected office.)

Elect true conservatives in all State and National races, whether House or Senate.

If your representative violated your trust, just throw ‘em out,  along with last night’s pizza-box.

Recommended Books…

Screenshot_2163Screenshot_2167Screenshot_2166Screenshot_2165Screenshot_2164

Posted on

Federal Politics – Deny State Authority

The idea of State Rights has long been neglected by our representatives in Congress and this neglect has allowed the federal government to grow like a malignant tumor. In the anti-Federalist paper, Brutus XII, we read, “that this constitution,… will not be a compact entered into by states,… but an agreement of the people of the United States, as one great body politic,…  The courts therefore will establish it as a rule in explaining… as will best tend to perfect the union or take from the state governments every power of either making or executing laws.”

Brutus’ pamphlet, published on February 07, 1788, was an accurate projection and his fears have become reality in our lifetimes.

Our republican government refers to two things:

  • the origin of the powers of a government (the people), and
  • the manner in which these powers are exercised (via representation).

James Madison said that “we may define a republic to be … a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices…, for a limited period…” This is why we see Greg Walden thrashing so fiercely for the status quo — he enjoys his long tenure in D.C., something our founders would not have imagined.

James Madison also cleared the air with regard to democratic rule, stating, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”  Fisher Ames added, “The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.”

My position on the 17th Amendment

Today, the federal government has gorged itself on power and is wielding that power indiscriminately.  The only solution strong enough comes from the U.S. Constitution. Our founding fathers had a better understanding of natural law than we do, despite our technological modernity.

Our nation’s framers understood and agreed with Lord Acton’s observation that, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Thomas Jefferson noted that good government is properly effected through the dispersion of power not through the concentration of power.

Therefore, the first line of defense for maintaining “free and independent states” comes from the states themselves. Each state has a unique population demographic and natural resources, with differing interests and perspectives regarding program priorities. The federal government should not be entangled in these local interests. In the 2nd District we experience this continually: the Feds have successfully intruded into what should be local resource management affairs. The Federal government can then use the power of the purse (AKA, the printing press) to buy allegiance to their own  bureaucratic and administrative interests.

For the past 100 years we have been slowly losing our rights. We have allowed the federal bureaucracy to discount and absorb our state’s specific interests. As a result, we hardly know how to weigh these issues from our state’s perspective.

My question is, why is returning to state-chosen, state-focused Senators so scary?

  • What is it about the 17th Amendment that makes people think a state-oriented focus would be detrimental to our national well-being?
  • Is it because some states want more federal tax money poured into their unique projects?
  • Is it because your current congressman wants to sponsor corporate crony interests with taxpayer subsidies and loan guarantees?

Over-arching federal control has stolen the dialog and removed our focus from our local community and our local control. Greg Walden likes the status quo. He knows that I, as one man, cannot change the 17th Amendment and that this is a conversation about philosophy and ideas. However, this discussion scares Rep. Walden because it is an argument for state leadership and power instead of an impenetrable regulatory authority housed 3,000 miles away. Your current Representative is afraid to even discuss the potential changes which might diminish his own personal power.

Earlier this year Lawrence W. Reed commented on the progressive nature of the anachronisms that Greg Walden fully endorses:

“Without the 16th and 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve, it’s inconceivable that the federal government could have grown from less than five percent of GDP in 1913 to nearly 25 percent in 2013. Were it not for those three gremlins, how many fewer trillions might our unconscionable national debt be? The toll on our liberties is also incalculable but surely considerable.”

Posted on

Young People Should Care About the BLM and Their Overreach

Walk into any Republican meeting and you see it – folks 50 years and older (like Diane and myself) who are primarily concerned with the future for their children and grandchildren. Unfortunately, many young people (those same kids and grandkids) are too busy, too apathetic or simply don’t see how politics affects them and so they tend not to participate in such events.

I want to challenge young people – even though you may be skiing in Bend or going to college in Ashland, and even if you feel that the issues you hear on the news don’t affect you, they do and they will. I wager that most young people saw Bundy Ranch on the news but didn’t see how a grandfatherly rancher’s fight in Nevada affects them, and so brushed it off.

A few days ago, however, I recorded a podcast in which we discussed the change to the BLM’s mission statement that’s disturbing and chilling. Right on the heels of that recording, I saw in the Bend Bulletin that the BLM is removing more than 500 geocaches from Bend-area wilderness, and then that the National Park Service is restricting personal recording devices. My kids geocache, and hike and fish and bike and love the wonderful playground that Oregon has to offer. But for how long will they be allowed to enjoy so-called public lands?

If you are a young person or have young people in your life – even nieces, nephews and grandkids – it’s up to you to communicate how these changes affect all of us, no matter our age. Young people are looking for work, playing hard on the weekends and typically “too busy” for politics, but they must be warned about what this federal overreach means for their lifestyles. They may not be ranchers or hunters, but they are hikers, bikers, geocachers and campers. They may not have cared when the forest was closed to OHV traffic, but they need to know that’s only the tip of this deadly bureaucratic iceberg.

To the young folks I’ve met on the trail – College Republicans, Campaign for Liberty, Young Americans for Liberty – thank you for helping communicate these concerns as well. You are the future of our Republic, and we are grateful for your passion and energy as we fight this battle.