Dear Government, It’s None Of Your Damn Business
Apr 28, 2016 Commentary, General
The US Constitution is clear about the Census. It States:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. ~ US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2
Representation and taxation (the taxation part was changed by Amendment) are based on respective NUMBERS. Therefore an enumeration (read counting) will take place within 3 years and then every ten years thereafter. In plain language, they will count how many people there are every ten years. Therefore, the only Constitutional duty people have is to answer how many people there are every ten years. As citizens we have a duty to answer that question.
We are under no obligation to answer any other question.
Many scholars as well as the courts have upheld that Congress has the authority to ask any question it wants. They base this on the phrase; “in such a manner as they shall by law direct”. We are told “they” refers to Congress and that Congress can do whatever it wants because it says “in such manner…”
Hold on though, what “they” may decide is HOW to count people. The “by law” statement merely says Congress may count the population in any manner it shall direct by law. This means it could make a law that people have to show up at a census station, or be counted by door knockers or do it online. But the only thing it may direct by law is the manner in which people are counted. They can change the law every ten years about how the information is obtained but not WHAT information is obtained, contrary to popular opinion.
To the scholars and judges the phrase reads we will take a census of the people every ten years and Congress can ask whatever else it wants by passing a law. This is not what was intended and it is not what the Constitution states.
But Congress has been encroaching on our liberties for a long time. They ask a lot of questions they have no real need to know. The other reality is the government, at one level or another, has all the answers to the questions. They know what color you are based on a birth certificate. They know how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have based on building permits and floor plans. They know all about your property because they TAX you on it. They know how many cars you have because they are registered.
You see, the government has all this information scattered all over. There is no need and no authority for the government to ask all these other questions.
But they do and the law is clear that one can be fined for not answering the questions (and you have to be truthful). My answer to the other questions was “this is already on file with the government”. I answered the question and it was truthful.
I realize that some have pointed out that the first census asked questions about race and how many free people there were (particularly males) and use it as proof that Congress can ask what it wants. Keep in mind that the Constitution only allotted representation (and taxed) based on certain segments of the population (free persons excluding Indians not taxed) and fractions of others (non free people) so asking questions about free and slave as well as color made sense in order to follow the allotment scheme in the Constitution. By the way, the necessary and proper clause does not give Congress unlimited powers. It merely means, in this case, Congress can enact whatever law is necessary to count the number of people in the country IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION.
[note]There are several definitions of census one indicating counting people and collecting information about them. Since the Constitution states the purpose is to enumerate (or count) the population then the definition; ” a usually complete enumeration of a population; specifically: a periodic governmental enumeration of population” is the appropriate one. Webster[/note]
There is no real need to know one’s color in this day and age.
Why is all this important? A number of liberal lawmakers are urging the Census Bureau to DEMAND more information from people about their gender identity. DEMAND? Who the hell is the government to demand this information? And what business is it of theirs?
The claim is it will help them craft laws to improve the lives of gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual people (those with gender identity disorders).
The government should not be crafting laws designed to affect one segment of the population. It is unnecessary to state that these folks have some kind of protection or are special. Laws should apply to every person equally.
No matter, the government does not belong asking these kinds of questions or any others beyond how many people live in a home. The goal is to count the number of people so representation in Congress can be determined. That is all they should be doing.
Congress asks questions under the threat of a penalty in order to coerce people into providing information that is none of the government’s business.
What harm could that do?
Well, what if the questions are; do you have any firearms in your home? If so, how many? Are you here illegally? Did you file your taxes? Are you a child molester? If so, have you registered with the sex offender registry?
It seems to me government could use the census to have a gun registry by asking questions and requiring people to answer them under penalty of law. It could find illegals or child predators or use the information in any number of ways to encroach on the privacy and freedom of the people.
Remember folks, you have a right not to answer anything. You have a Constitutional duty to answer how many and they can make a law compelling you to do that but beyond that you have no obligation to answer. You have the right not to provide anything, the right to remain silent.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: census, gender identity disorder, law, usurpation
Is Trump Inciting The Violence?
Mar 21, 2016 2016 Election, Commentary
There has been a lot of violence lately at political events featuring Donald Trump. I know a few of his supporters have responded to thugs disrupting things with violence and Trump has said he does not condone such actions (attacking those who have not gotten physical).
The reality though is that most of the violence at these events (or in the surrounding area) is being carried out by people who do not support Trump. These are Clinton and Sanders supporters who are showing up at Trump events and causing mayhem. These people are being sent to the events by the Clinton and Sanders people as well as by former Nazi worker George Soros.
I know that the media, the Democrats and some Republicans are blaming Trump for the violence but if he were the one initiating it then wouldn’t it be taking place at the Sanders and Clinton campaign events? Why would Trump supporters be creating violence at his events (with the exceptions of those who responded to thugs) when they support the guy?
No, it is being done by people who do not support him and it is being orchestrated by the left who then blames it on Trump.
Yes, I know Trump has made statements about punching back and attacking those who attack but his statements are no worse than those made by one Barack Obama when he was running for the presidency. You remember, the statements the media thought were cute and that he was praised for by his supporters.
The people responsible for what is going on are those who are committing the violence and those who are sending them to do so.
Those people are domestic terrorists and should be locked up for their crimes.
If people want to assemble and protest in peace they are free to do so but their right to do just that ends when they infringe on the rights of others and when they break the law.
It is time to clamp down on these terrorists and make them pay for their crimes and that includes the terrorists directing them to commit violence in the first place.
Time to make Soros pay to clean up the mess he paid to happen and then throw him in jail where he belongs.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Trump, The Worm In The Apple
Feb 20, 2016 2016 Election, Commentary
The terrorists who murdered people in San Bernardino before they were shot to death by law enforcement left behind an Apple iPhone and the FBI can’t crack into it. It seems the encryption in place will not allow the FBI tech folks access to the phone. The FBI wants Apple to access the device.
Apple claims it cannot do so unless it creates some kind of back door access that would affect all other iPhones. It seems Apple really did a bang up job of securing their phones after a lot of public outcry about privacy and the assistance given by the government to many tech companies.
[note]Apple made a point when it launched its new security to tell us they could not access an individual’s phone. At that time government protested and is evidently using this phone to make its case.[/note]
The issue here is a big picture issue. Apple says it can’t access the phone without building a means that would allow access to all phones. This, of course, is what the FBI (read government) wants. The government does not like the idea that it can’t access your stuff. I know there will be promises that this is just one phone and they would never use the technology to access other phones but they lie. We have seen far too many instances of surveillance overreach by the government. Stingray is one little thing they have developed and overused even allowing local police to use it provided they keep it secret.
Government will always abuse any tool or power it gets. They always justify it (or should I say rationalize it) by saying they are trying to keep us safe or that it is for the greater good but the reality is they want power and control and the San Bernardino terrorist attack provided the catalyst for the FBI to gain access.
Look, there might be important things on the phone that would help round up other terrorists but that alone is not a reason to develop something that would allow access to millions of phones that belong to people who have done nothing wrong. If accessing this phone at the expensive of others is deemed acceptable then what will stop them when the argument is eavesdropping on all of us is OK because they might find a few bad guys while doing it?
Donald Trump threw his hat into the fray over the phone by declaring Apple should do what the FBI wants and people should boycott Apple until they acquiesce. When asked by commentators at Fox about how the back door could be used to access even his phone the Donald said if it meant more security he was OK with it. Security was more important than liberty, in the mind of the Donald.
Donald, a Founding Father of this nation had something to say about people like you:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~ Ben Franklin
The quote may well have dealt with security and taxes during the French-Indian War but the words are well adapted to our civil liberty. If you Donald are willing to give up your liberty (as you stated when you said it was Ok for the government to have access to your phone, and by extension all of ours) because it was for security then you really deserve neither.
The ends do not justify the means in this case and if Trump thinks they do then he might as well be quoting Rules for Radicals.
There are plenty of tech experts in this country and no doubt a number of them have the ability to hack into that particular phone. If the FBI wants to pay one such person (one has already offered to do it for free) then that is up to them.
To leave all of us vulnerable to unwanted and unconstitutional violations of our privacy because of one phone that belonged to a terrorist is not a tradeoff worth considering.
Maybe, just maybe, if you believe in liberty you should consider boycotting Trump instead of Apple…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Did FBI Murder LaVoy Finicum?
Jan 28, 2016 Commentary
For nearly a month a group of people describing themselves as militia have been occupying a federal wildlife refuge in protest of the federal government’s intrusion. The feds have obtained a lot of land in violation of the US Constitution and they have been putting ranchers out of business and obtaining their land along the way.
We can debate the tactics of the people and the sanity of this mission some other time. What is not open to debate is their adherence to non violence. They stated they would not shoot first but that they would not tolerate federal agents pointing guns at them. Their position was likely exploited and allowed the FBI to kill LaVoy Finicum. Many claim that Finicum did not shoot (in fact it has been reported that the only three shots came from law enforcement) and that he had his hands up when he approached the police.
I was obviously not there but if he intended to shoot someone I am sure he would have gotten a few rounds off and possibly harmed one of the LEOs before he was shot. He was not a threat to anyone’s life so why was lethal force used?
These officers had many more people, pepper spray and tazers. They did not have to shoot this guy, at least based on what we know at this time.
You can bet that no officer will face any discipline or investigation for this shooting, a shooting that looks like cold blooded murder.
Even if Finicum was charging at the police he did less to them than Michael Brown did (he assaulted an officer and then charged him and tried to take his gun) so why are there no protests? Why are there no hands up don’t shoot rallies and why are there no people telling us that cowboy lives matter?
Obama was on Brown’s side as was the majority of the liberal establishment. The very people who think Brown was executed think Finicum got what he deserved.
Did he? There is no way to convince me he could not have been taken alive. A trigger happy LEO murdered him.
The government can kill without consequence. We see it each and every day.
I do not know what the response to this will be but if this man was walking with his hands up and was unarmed and they shot him then the reaction should make Ferguson look like Disneyland.
Perhaps people should burn places to the ground and engage in huge riots that destroy millions of dollars in property. I mean, that is what happened in Ferguson and Baltimore and the subjects of those outbursts were in the wrong. If they murdered this guy (and it sure looks that way) then it might just be time to raise hell. There is no honor in the FBI and there is no honor in any police agency that violates its oath.
Perhaps this will spiral out of control or perhaps it will be forgotten in the next news cycle.
In any event, if you ever have to deal with the FBI or other law enforcement agencies just keep in mind they will murder you. Do what you have to to stay alive keeping in mind surrendering or complying is no guarantee you will remain alive.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Obama And Selective Law Enforcement
Dec 1, 2015 Commentary, Immigration, Political, Terrorism
Barack Obama is hell bent on bringing hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees to the United States. Republicans are not keen on the idea and Republican governors have stated they will not accept the refugees. Obama, in turn, claimed that these Republicans were afraid of women and children. He further stated that states do not have the legal authority to refuse refugees and those that do refuse will be subject to enforcement action.
[note]I have seen the lines of refugees and most are NOT women and children. Most of them appear to be young men in good shape. They appear to be in good enough shape to stay home and fight the battle. In any event, as Obama told us about fearing women and children a woman suicide bomber blew herself up and the internet displayed pictures of children holding up severed heads. Then again, this is the same Obama who said ISIS was contained a few hours before it terrorized Paris.[/note]
Obama means (at least this is what I gather) enforcement action with regard to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). It seems that this office provides money to states that take in refugees. That should be no surprise since the federal government confiscates our money and then uses it to coerce states to do what big government wants it to do. Unfortunately too many states are eager to get the money so they play along.
Obama also made it clear that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin with regard to federal financial assistance (according to the linked article).
A few things here. Muslim and Islam are not races so that is a nonstarter. As far as national origin that might apply but these folks are not citizens and are not entitled to most federal programs. The ORR evidently has program money for these things and this is the money I think they are threatening to withhold.
I like the way ORR discusses the money as if it is theirs to give. It came from THE PEOPLE and it belongs to the people. Regardless, states are free to reject anyone they do not want and if that means the federal government cuts off money then so be it. The people already on those programs will suffer. Let’s face it, the everyday Joe citizen is not getting that money. The people getting it will stop getting it. Good. Perhaps it is time they earned money on their own and stopped getting it from the rest of us. Perhaps it is time for those states to refuse to collect money and send it to the feds. Just collect it and put it in escrow until the feds change the way things are done or better yet, spend it on the programs themselves and cut the feds out altogether.
[note]Here is an idea. Every person who thinks the Syrian refugees should come here MUST take a family in and support them. They must provide all their support including health care, food, and education, all of it. If it is such a worthy cause they should step up and help. After all, that is what they want all of us to do with our tax dollars. So make them do it.[/note]
This is a little more sinister than it appears. Notice how Obama is telling these Governors that they have no legal right to refuse refugees. He is citing the law (or his interpretation of it) and he is putting his foot down. All well and good because we want an Executive that follows the law.
But, when was the last time you heard Obama call out Governors (or other leaders like mayors) who allow sanctuary cities? It is against the law to have them. Their existence is a violation of our immigration laws and those involved are aiding criminals who are here illegally. Did anyone ever hear Obama tell these politicians they could not have sanctuary cities and if they did they would lose federal funding?
NO!
The reason is that law is one Obama likes. He selectively follows the laws. The ones he ;likes he enforces and the ones he does not like he does not enforce. Remember, this guy has a pen and a phone and he will bypass Congress to get things his way. He exceeds his authority to get what he wants (and Congress does not have the testicular fortitude to stop him).
It is bad that our petulant leader disobeys laws and selectively enforces them. It is equally as bad that he cares not about our safety and is trying to force states to take in potentially dangerous people.
If these people come here it will only be a matter of time before they plan and conduct a coordinated attack.
[note]They are not all bad Big Dog. Estimates say only 10% of them are radicalized. OK, how about I put 10 M&Ms in a bowl. Nine of them are regular candy and one is a poison that will kill you instantly. Will you select one to eat? Only 10% is dangerous…[/note]
If it happens after Obama leaves office his successor will get the blame. Unless of course his successor is a Democrat in which case the left will blame George W. Bush.
When (not if, but when) the attacks occur Obama should be held accountable as should anyone who worked to bring the terror here.
When that happens all hell will break loose and all the money the ORR has will not stop the administration of justice…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Obama, refugees, state's rights, terrorists