The Police State Strikes Again
Mar 13, 2013 Political
A woman in New Jersey was at a meeting to protest her property tax assessment which was done by a contracted agency. She expressed her displeasure (and quoted the Constitution) because her home was assessed without anyone ever entering it to appraise it.
She was told to sit down and shut up and listen. Then, employees of the assessment company escorted her out of the building. An earlier report indicated he made a threat about her assessment being even higher (a threat to screw her over by increasing her assessment because she protested).
The county assessor called the police and said she threatened to bring a gun back to the meeting, a claim she denies. Someone gave the police her car tag number and she was tracked down and arrested for making a terroristic threat (a BS charge) and was told she had to surrender her firearms of her bail would be set too high for her to pay.
The police took her two handguns for “safe keeping” which likely means she will never see them again.
This is how the tyrannical police state is unfolding. The state makes a claim and the citizen is arrested. Were any of the people at the meeting interviewed to check the veracity of the claim? Did the police find out if she ever said she would bring a gun back?
She claims that she never said the word gun and never made any threats. She claims that the assessor and the worker for the company were the ones acting out.
If this woman is telling the truth, and there is no reason right now to believe she is not, then her rights have been trampled on. This is how tyranny works. Make an example out of someone and others will fall in line. It matters not how this ends up because the others at the meeting got the message as intended.
I hope that she is exonerated and gets her firearms back.
But, if the police investigate and find that the assessor and the assessment worker were the ones acting out will THEY be arrested and charged with making terroristic threats? The guy who threatened that her tax assessment would be higher should be at the top of the list.
If the assessor is found to have acted inappropriately then she should be fired.
Perhaps the homeowner will have grounds for a lawsuit that will bankrupt the township and the company that employs the assessor.
How long before the actions of the tyrannical government lead to an uprising? I think this is what government wants but I also think it is a dangerous path to take.
I hope it never comes to this but we need to pray for the best and expect the worst.
Especially with tyranny at all levels of government.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: assessment, lies, new jersey, police state, Second Amendment, taxes, tyranny
Blind Allegiance Means Taken For Granted
Mar 12, 2013 Political
I do not agree with the Congressional Black Caucus on most issues and I actually see no need for a black caucus but one exists and it appears that its sole function is to address the unique needs of the black community.
What unique needs? When one removes the descriptive terms from in front we are left with the word American. We are all Americans and have similar needs. We have a need for limited government that provides a safe environment where we can pursue our dreams and employ our talents. We want our children to receive a good education that prepares them for their futures. We want the ability to work and earn our own money and the freedom to spend it as we see fit.
Unfortunately, the black community has a unique set of needs because it has allowed itself to become slaves to the Democrat Party. The black community allowed racists like LBJ to put policies into place that made generations of blacks dependent on government so that as years have passed the black vote is a guarantee for Democrats. This was Johnson’s plan all along. He basically said that if he could get blacks (he used a racial term) on government programs then Democrats would have voters for years to come.
This has happened as generations of blacks have been bought off with government programs designed to keep them in poverty and keep them voting Democrat. About 95% of blacks vote Democrat so the voting block is considered a lock. Democrats do not have to spend time wooing blacks. When elections draw near the Democrats remind black voters of all the stuff they have been given, how Democrats take care of them, how Republicans are racists, and if they want to keep their programs they need to keep voting for the Democrats.
This has worked for a long time as evidenced by the huge percentage of blacks who vote for Democrats. Democrats are so sure of the black vote they care little if their actions offend black voters.
Back to the CBC. The CBC was upset with Obama in his first term because the Caucus felt he did not address things like the high unemployment rate among blacks and that he did nothing to address the unique needs of the black community. BUT, they endorsed and voted for him. Partly because he is black but mostly because he has a D after his name. The fact that he was ineffective did not keep them from voting for the plantation master.
It is obvious that blacks are enslaved by the Democrat Party. Any person of color who decides not to follow the Democrats is subject to a figurative public lynching by the Democrats. They become Uncle Toms and house Negroes (not my words, the words of Democrats of all colors). Look at how Alan West and Condi Rice have been treated.
If the CBC had the same list of grievances against a Republican president as they do against Obama they would not endorse that president (they would never endorse a Republican anyway) and would do everything they could to defeat that person in the next election.
The CBC doubled down on Obama because he is a Democrat.
The CBC is upset with the new cabinet selections Obama has made because they are all white folks. They had the same concerns in his first term and were very upset at his selection of a Hispanic instead of a black for a position. Why would Obama do this?
Perhaps he is paying off political debt. Perhaps he is selecting the people he thinks are the best for the job. Perhaps he is trying to do to Hispanics what LBJ did to the blacks. Perhaps he is a racist. Who knows?
The reality is that George Bush selected two black folks as Secretary of State and achieved two firsts. First black and then first black woman.
Obama has no such record and his lack of diversity is not sitting well with the CBC and its constituents.
This is what happens when a group votes in lockstep and holds a huge allegiance to one party. The vote is taken for granted because Democrats know that no matter what they do they will still get well north of 90% of the black vote. Democrats have made racist remarks, have shunned blacks and have ignored them and they still vote Democrat.
History is on Obama’s side because history is on the Democrat’s side. That history is a blind allegiance of blacks.
Blind allegiance leads to being ignored. If the CBC and the black community wants respect and wants its voices heard then it needs to start being informed when it votes. It needs to vote against those who have been in power for decades and who have ignored them for decades. If the black community voted out these people in mass and showed that it is capable of independent thinking and will hold politicians accountable then they would be paid more attention.
Until that time they will always be second class citizens to the Democrats, the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and racism.
Come on over to the Republicans side. Come share your conservative values among our party and see what it is like to be welcomed with open arms. Come to where you will be treated like individuals and not a reliable voting block. Come to where you can grow and prosper.
Or stay in the plantation and wait for scraps from the master’s table.
No matter what Democrats tell you, the choice is yours.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: cabinet, congressional black caucus, Democrats, diverity, lies, Obama, Republicans
Sweet! Judge Invalidates Bloomberg Soda Ban
Mar 11, 2013 Political
It came down to the wire. Tomorrow many businesses in New York City would have been required to stop selling large sized sugary drinks under rules from Nanny Bloomberg. A judge invalidated the law. It appears as if there is no problem with banning sugar but the implementation and penalties were all over the place.
In any event, the ban is not in place as of right now. This is a good thing and the only thing that would make it better would be for a judge to rule that it is none of government’s business what size sugary drink one consumes.
Bloomberg believes it is government’s business and that it has the right to tell a free people what and how much (of a legal substance) they may consume. This is an overreach because it is none of government’s business.
Of course, when people decide that government is responsible for health care then government can make the claim it can regulate what you do if it affects your health.
Free people can eat and drink what they want. If they get sick or die then that is on them. If insurance is a problem then charge them more for coverage if they are unhealthy. But they need to make sure that they are charging more for people who are higher risk and not just because they consume things that government or insurance companies do not like. There are plenty of healthy and active people who eat and drink what they want.
As an aside, ever notice government does not crack down on the size of containers that alcohol comes in? Perhaps it is because most of the politicians are boozers. No matter how you look at it a bunch of quart bottles of beer are much more harmful than the same amount of soda.
Back on point. Bloomberg has been running roughshod over New York for a while now and the sheeple there seem to bend over and take it without much of a fight.
Sure, some businesses found ways around the ban (like having customers add their own sugar to large coffees, etc) but that does not solve the problem of government overreach. Certainly government would eventually pass laws to address those methods of skirting the law…
Many other businesses spent quite a bit of money getting rid of stock that would be unlawful and in buying new glasses that met the new standard.
Those businesses should now sue the city for the costs they incurred because of the nanny state overreach.
Bloomberg is an idiot who needs to mind his own business. Free people can take their own decisions. We do not need morons in government telling us how to live our lives.
New York made a big mistake electing this buffoon. They made a bigger mistake by taking his abuse with little fight.
Give them an inch and they will take a mile and Bloomberg has taken many miles…
Funny, Bloomberg says it is not a ban but portion control. New York had a portion control with term limits on mayors. Bloomberg did not like that so he had it changed so he could run again. The portion controls put in place by the people were not to his liking but then again, he is a liberal elitist…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: bloomberg, freedom, invalidated, lies, New York, soda ban, sugary drinks
2014 Out With The Old, In With The New
Mar 7, 2013 Political
Yesterday Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) engaged in an old fashioned filibuster where he spoke for over 13 hours. His filibuster was in opposition to Barack Obama’s pick to head the CIA and the regime’s stance on using drones to kill Americans on American soil (the filibuster was to hold up the process until he got answers). The regime refuses to state whether or not it feels it has the right to conduct such strikes and Paul wants answers. Given the recent reports about the issue and the regime’s evasive words on the subject, it is a reasonable thing to ask about. People do not have to agree with Paul but he followed Senate procedures and did everything in accordance with the rules of the Senate.
While Rand Paul and some of the new and young Senators were involved in the filibuster the old guard of the Republican Party was at a restaurant dining with Barack Obama.
Yes, while Paul was working to get an answer involving a Constitutional issue the old RINOs were out eating dinner with the guy who is the subject of the debate.
Today Lindsey Graham and John McCain ridiculed Paul and claimed he broke the rules of the Senate. They said his assertions were ridiculous because no one has ever been killed on American soil from a drone. The old guys were upset that Paul would even ask if the government (it just happens to be under Obama right now) would murder Americans without due process. C’mon, we wouldn’t do that and it is ridiculous to even bring it up. Our government would never kill someone before they had their day in court.
The people from Waco and Ruby Ridge were not available to comment on this issue.
It is refreshing to see a politician stand up for what is right. It is refreshing to see someone who believes the Constitution means something and is willing to fight to ensure it is followed.
It is also refreshing to see the young members stand up and bring some freshness to the stale old Senate that is full of old lifers who are more interested in living like royalty than doing the jobs for which they were elected.
John McCain needs to be in a retirement home yelling at the television and Lindsey Graham needs to be in the private sector as an ambulance chasing lawyer filing frivolous lawsuits to make ends meet.
And there are plenty of others in both parties who need to be out on the street.
You are correct Senators; our government has not used drones to kill Americans on American soil. You can think it is ridiculous to even think our government would do such a thing.
Not long ago people scoffed at those who said government would try to infringe on the Second Amendment. Ban guns? No way! Confiscate firearms, they would never try that.
And yet they are working on just that.
It is time to primary these clowns and get candidates who will stand for the Constitution and not for their personal agendas.
2014 is coming and we need to throw out the old and bring in the new…
Sources:
Washington Times
American Spectator
Reason.com
Gateway Pundit
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: constitution, establishment politicians, john mccain, lies, lindsey graham, old guard, rand paul, self serving
Did Democrats Overplay Tax Hand?
Mar 4, 2013 Political
In 2011 Barack Obama came up with the idea of the sequester. The plan was to force Congress to come up with a financial plan or each side’s top programs would get cuts. The idea was that Republicans would not want to see cuts to Defense and Democrats would not want to see cuts to social programs and other non defense agencies so they would all come together, sing Kumbaya and come up with a plan.
The election fell in between and Obama and his Democrats could not address the issue because they wanted tax increases that they could not tout if they wanted to keep their positions. Obama wanted to win a second term so he could not talk about his radical plans or he would lose.
Republicans felt sure that Romney would win and they would take the Senate so they could undo the damage caused by years of stupidity from both sides.
Romney did not win and the time for the sequestration cuts was rapidly approaching. Both sides worked against each other in an effort to fix the mess they created. At the last minute a deal was struck that increased taxes immediately for high income earners and pushed the sequestration cuts off until March First. John Boehner took heat for allowing the tax increases and he should but looking at it now his move might have been a good one.
If sequestration had taken place at the beginning of the year then ALL of the Bush era tax cuts would have gone away. This means there would be tax increases on everyone. Yes, even though Democrats have been screaming that the Bush tax cuts were for the rich they were forced to admit that everyone would be affected if the tax cuts went away.
The reality that the tax increase would hit the middle class and that Republicans would be blamed forced Boehner and Republicans to allow taxes to increase on about 2% of wage earners. At the same time, the deal made the Bush tax cuts for the other 98% permanent. This means that a tax increase on the middle class cannot be held over the heads of the Republicans. They are now in a stronger position to bargain because only a direct act to raise taxes on the middle class can make that happen. No matter what happens, inactivity or allowing the sequester to proceed will not cause taxes on the middle class to go up.
Sure, hundreds of thousands of the middle class will be affected by the sequester but that is by design. The White House came up with sequester and the cuts associated and the White House is ensuring that those cuts directly harm people so that those people will get upset with Republicans and hold them accountable. The Democrats need people to be miserable or they will realize that government is too big and cuts are not a bad thing.
This is why the cuts are taking place in a fashion that will cause direct harm to people and programs that directly involve people.
There is a lot that can be cut that would not harm people but that would not accomplish what Democrats want, direct dependence on government.
In any event, the average person will feel little affect from the cuts. Many federal employees will as will those who depend on services like meals on wheels. But, for the most part, the average person will notice little disruption in their lives.
Other than, of course, the disruption that has been with us since Obama first took office.
Democrats got their tax increase and were to bargain in good faith for spending cuts. They did not (which is not a surprise). Now they are screaming for more tax increases on the wealthy. They talk about closing loopholes (government speak for parts of the tax code people use to pay less in taxes, parts that Congress put there in the first place) and increasing rates on an even larger pool of wealthy taxpayers but refuse to discuss cutting. They want tax increases NOW and cuts sometime in the future.
Republicans are having none of that and are, so far, standing firm on their stance that there will be no more revenue (government speak for taxes). The Republicans do not have to worry now about an automatic tax increase on the middle class because the Bush cuts were made permanent so they have the upper hand.
Democrats might have overplayed their hand because they thought once Republicans allowed a tax increase in December they set a precedent and would cave again.
It is possible that Boehner gave his party a stronger position by allowing a tax increase on the top 2%. Democrats cannot hold that ax over the heads of the Republicans and must now gin up anger within the base in order to get things done.
So far the public has not been in much of an uproar and it looks like Democrats are scratching and clawing in order to get tax increases.
The sequester will begin to hit harder in the next few weeks and then we hit the end of the last continuing resolution. Boehner and his party might be in the driver’s seat because he took the wild card, tax cuts on the middle class, away from the Democrats.
It is time for Boehner to step up and rule with an iron fist. It is time for tax reform and spending cuts. He has the weapons at his disposal.
Because no matter what, Obama will ultimately be held responsible for any disaster that takes place in the coming months.
His stenographers in the media will try to deflect the blame but many Americans are paying attention each day (though we will never be rid of the low information voters).
Democrats toasted the tax increase while bringing in the New Year but they might have given away their bargaining chips in the process.
Related:
Politico
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: boehner, lies, middle class, Obama, sequester, tax cuts, tax increases