Representative Issa:
VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Posts Tagged ‘Arizona’
Paul Gosar speaks about Fast and Furious
Thursday, October 13th, 2011Arizona – Paul Shanklin
Wednesday, October 5th, 2011Constitution Day in Williams
Monday, September 19th, 2011
Constitution Day Fireworks!
There were fireworks on September 17th over the City of Williams in Arizona. In July, the fireworks are usually cancelled on Independence Day because of the dryness of the season and illegal dictates of the unconstitutional “National Forest Service.” It was good to see a thirty-minute display on the day that we celebrate the ratification of the “Law of the Land.”
On this occasion, we note that it is the law of the land and any laws that conflict with it are called “Unconstitutional” and do not have to be obeyed. After all, in Massachusetts, Federalist letters signed by Cassius (attributed to James Sullivan) expressed the opinion that:
You certainly cannot harbour an idea so derogatory to reason and the nature of things, as that men, who, for eight years, have fought and struggled, to obtain and secure to you freedom and independence, should now be engaged in a design to subvert your liberties and reduce you to a state of servitude. Reason revolts at the thought, … and none but the infamous incendiary, or the unprincipled monster, would insinuate a thing so vile.
Continue reading “Constitution Day in Williams” »
Possibly related articles:
Gosar Calls For Audit of The Federal Reserve
Wednesday, August 10th, 2011Ron Paul Say Americans “Deserve Some Answers”
Jeff Flake is also a co-sponsor–obviously trying to gain TEA party votes after voting for homosexuals in the military. David Schweikert is also a co-sponsor.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Paul Gosar (AZ-01) announced that he is co-sponsoring H.R. 459, the “Audit the Fed” bill primarily sponsored by Congressman Ron Paul. The bill, if enacted into law, would require a thorough audit of Federal Reserve Board operations and make public information that is currently not released.
Congressman Gosar said, “the Federal Reserve Board plays a key role in our current monetary policy. Its operations and decision making should be transparent to the American people, whose lives are impacted by the Fed. I am proud to stand by Ron Paul in his efforts to shed light on this important institution. We cannot make improvements to the system if we do not have all available information about that system.”
Congressman Ron Paul stated, “The Federal Reserve has overseen a 98% drop in the value of the dollar since its inception in 1913. The American people deserve some answers regarding their currency and the activities of the Fed. I am glad that my colleague, Congressman Gosar is standing up for transparency and accountability of the Fed and demanding a full audit.”
The Federal Reserve System was created in 1913 and operates as the central banking system of the United States. It assists with the nation’s monetary policy, supervises and regulates banking institutions, and provides financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions. Currently, the public does not have the right to inspect or review most Fed activities.
Possibly related articles:
For The Last Time, Congressman Gosar Is NOT A Tea Party Republican.
Wednesday, August 10th, 2011By Elisha Dorfsmith
CD-1 candidate Wenona Benally Baldenegro has recently focused a lot of time and energy accusing Congressman Paul Gosar of being an extreme tea party Republican. The Huffington Post even covered her campaign with an article titled Arizona’s New Democrats: Wenona’s Bid Inspires Bipartisan Campaign Against Radical Tea Party Rep. Gosar.
Interesting campaign strategy but there’s a huge problem with the premise. Congressman Gosar is anything but a tea party Republican. Yes, he was endorsed by Sarah Palin and yes, he was elected largely due to tea party support but that is where his tea party credibility ends.
Having been very involved with the tea party during the 2010 election, I know firsthand that many in the tea party gave Gosar their complete support based solely on his opposition to the national healthcare bill (and the fact that he waved a pocket Constitution around and promised to consult it before every vote). Few bothered to check any further. If they would have, they would have realized that Gosar is your average status quo Republican who will vote party over principle every single chance he gets. It also would have been clear that Gosar has zero respect for the Constitution, individual rights and personal freedom (perfect example: Gosar was part of a movement a decade ago that tried to force fluoride on the residents of Flagstaff ).
Gosar’s recent vote to raise the debt ceiling along with his votes to extend the “Patriot Act” fly in the face of his supposed tea party principles. These votes (and others) have led to tea party members abandoning the Gosar ship in droves.
Read more at the Flagstaff Liberty Blog
Possibly related articles:
Police abuse in Ohio
Thursday, July 21st, 2011Generally speaking, you probably won’t see this in Arizona except, perhaps, for Phoenix and Tuscon. This “officer” has violated several rights including “judging” that a “citizen” should not judge on the scene. The officer, also, did not advise the person of his rights.
For Arizona citizens, non-felons are allowed to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona without a permit. YOU MUST, however, INFORM AN OFFICER IF HE STOPS YOU THAT YOU ARE CARRYING. He may HOLD THE WEAPON FOR THE DURATION OF THE STOP. Most police and sheriff’s deputies in Arizona will allow you the time to tell them.
I don’t know about Ohio, but it doesn’t seem legal to threaten to “execute” a citizen. Obviously innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law) means nothing in Canton.
There is little argument that the job is dangerous especially at night. When the police, however, who are supposed to be in control get out of hand, we have a problem.
One thing I might point out to victims of these crimes is to shut up. The only thing that you should say after being handcuffed is “I want to see a lawyer.”
Possibly related articles:
Leave Page alone.
Monday, July 18th, 2011Seems that the idea of Vice Mayor John Kocjan to change the name of Page, Arizona to something to do with Lake Powell died as quickly as I hope his political career does.
He is quoted in the Arizona Daily Sun as saying, “People ask me where I’m from and I tell them, ‘Page.’ They say, ‘Where?’ I’ll say, ‘Lake Powell,’ and they’ll say, ‘I know where that is’.”
I was born in Page while my father built that lake. We don’t need to change for every Californian that does not know the geography of Arizona. Why don’t you all just go back to California and stay there.
Possibly related articles:
The Real problem with the GunWalking scandal
Friday, July 8th, 2011In an article entitled “GunWalker” at the III Percent Patriots blog, Kerodin III wrote an article beginning with, “Most of you know I rarely comment of GunWalker because I consider it a useless Sparklie.”
In the article, he writes, “Consider: Every ATF Agent who let guns walk, who let Americans purchase firearms without interference, whether they knew it or not, were following 2A.” His article contends that those who are beating the drum against the ATF are actually working against the Second Amendment.
Allow me to start by pointing out a few things. Kerodin III is probably not his real name. Liberals like to cry See! He didn’t even use his real name! I only point this out because it shows their ignorance to their own history. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist used pseudonyms when arguing whether or not the Constitution should even be adopted. Kerodin III is simply following his founding father’s example and using a pseudonym does not distract one iota from his opinion. In addition, I understand the principle of the “3-percenters,” and respect their opinions.
In this case, however, I must respectfully disagree with this writer.
We must understand what the “GunWalking” scandal is really all about. We first heard about it when we heard how Arizona gun dealers were delivering fully-automatic weapons by the truckloads to the drug cartel in Mexico City. Or so the Obama administration would have you believe. Now we learn the truth. Gun dealers in Arizona were told to sell the weapons to known illegal buyers by the ATF. Those same gun dealers were vilified by that very agency. To this day the Mexican government and lame stream media perpetrates this farce every time a bust is made.
Continue reading “The Real problem with the GunWalking scandal” »
Possibly related articles:
FBI, DEA linked to weapons sales to drug cartel
Friday, July 8th, 2011By Los Angeles Times
Thursday, July 7, 2011
WASHINGTON — The embattled head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has told congressional investigators that some Mexican drug cartel figures targeted by his agency in a gun-trafficking investigation were paid informants for the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration.
Kenneth E. Melson, the ATF’s acting director, has been under pressure to resign after the agency allowed guns to be purchased in the United States in hopes they would be traced to cartel leaders. Under the gun-trafficking operation known as Fast and Furious, the ATF lost track of the guns, and many were found at the scene of crimes in Mexico, as well as two that were recovered near Nogales, Ariz., where a Border Patrol agent was killed.
In two days of meetings with congressional investigators over the weekend, Melson said the FBI and DEA kept the ATF “in the dark” about their relationships with the cartel informants. If ATF agents had known of the relationships, the agency might have ended the investigation much earlier, he said.
Read more: at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Possibly related articles:
Mexican lawmakers want to extradite U.S. officials over ‘Operation Fast and Furious’ scandal
Thursday, July 7th, 2011Yet they still come out and cite the “gun dealers” in Arizona who “sold” these weapons across the border. Bunch of hypocrites!
Guns sold to drug cartel by YOUR government.
Obama has said neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder had approved the operation and that “appropriate actions” would be taken after the investigation is complete.
Mexican lawmakers said Tuesday they want the U.S. officials who authorized a botched campaign to dismantle illicit firearms trafficking routes to face trial in Mexico.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) “Operation Fast and Furious” sold thousands of assault rifles and revolvers to traffickers suspected of being linked to Mexican drug cartels.
The operation’s goal was to unearth and dismantle illicit firearms trafficking routes between the U.S. and Mexico by tracking the weapons, but officials poorly monitored their movement and the majority of the weapons went missing.
Possibly related articles:
Day 21: The Tenth Amendment
Monday, July 4th, 2011The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
As unusual, the government only pulls out quotes by the Supreme Court and Federalist Papers that they like. For example, they love decisions such as that given by Roosevelt aide, Justice Harlan Stone in the 1941 decision of United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100
“Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth Amendment which provides: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people’. The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.”
In 1824, Justice John Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden explained in excruciating detail what the Interstate Commerce Clause, for example, meant. And what the Tenth Amendment meant.
“This principle, which distinguishes the national from the State governments, is derived from the nature of the constitution itself, as being a delegation of power, and not a restriction of power previously possessed; and from the express stipulation in the 10th amendment, that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ The national constitution must, therefore, be construed strictly, as regards the powers expressly granted, and the objects to which those powers are to be applied. As it is a grant of power in derogation of State sovereignty, every portion of power, not granted, must remain in the State Legislature.”
He went on to explain that the States did not give up any powers except those which the federal government needed to prevent jealousies and petty rivalries.
His honor, Justice Stone, must have been absent when his law school studied Hamilton’s Federalist 17 in which he writes,
“It will always be far more easy for the State governments to encroach upon the national authorities than for the national government to encroach upon the State authorities. The proof of this proposition turns upon the greater degree of influence which the State governments if they administer their affairs with uprightness and prudence, will generally possess over the people…
“…Upon the same principle that a man is more attached to his family than to his neighborhood, to his neighborhood than to the community at large, the people of each State would be apt to feel a stronger bias towards their local governments than towards the government of the Union; unless the force of that principle should be destroyed by a much better administration of the latter.”
Justice Marshall pointed out in Paragraph 138 of his decision that Judge Tucker erred in the latest edition of Blackstone that commerce is not a concurrent power held by the federal and State Government.
“And he repeats the doctrine, on the very untenable ground, that the regulation of commerce is not susceptible of a concurrent exercise: a doctrine which a review of State laws will show to be contrary to fact and experience. The opposite doctrine is strongly supported by Kent, Ch. J. in Livingston v. Van Ingen, as the only safe and practicable rule of conduct, and the true constitutional rule, arising from the federal system. And it is the only safe and practicable rule; it is one which the extent of our territory would indicate, even if the government were despotic…There must be, even in respect to foreign commerce, local interests and details, which cannot well be presented to the view of Congress, and can be, at least, better provided for by the State Legislatures, emanating from the very people to whom they relate. This must have been perceived by the framers of the constitution, and they must have felt the difficulty of designating the limits of what ought to be permitted to State authority. They did not, therefore, attempt the limitation, except in some plain cases, which they marked by restrictions and prohibitions; but they guarded against any practical abuse of the permission, by securing to Congress the paramount and controlling power over the whole matter. This view of the subject is exceedingly strengthened, when we contemplate the probable future increase and extent of this confederacy. The thirteen original States were a band of brothers, who suffered, fought, bled, and triumphed together; they might, perhaps, have safely confided each his separate interest to the general will; but if ever the day should come, when representatives from beyond the Rocky Mountains shall sit in this capitol; if ever a numerous and inland delegation shall wield the exclusive power of making regulations for our foreign commerce, without community of interest or knowledge of our local circumstances, the Union will not stand; it cannot stand; it cannot be the ordinance of God or nature, that it should stand.”
As you read the lengthy decision—which might take three or four reads to fully comprehend—you find that he points out that the States are in full capacity to regulate what comes into and is exported from those States. From the above quote I derive that even includes what comes from other countries. I do not have the space in the scope of this article to explain, but if you read the decision aside the Constitution and Federalist papers cited, you get a sense that the powers of the federal government extend ONLY to those ENUMERATED duties outlined in the Constitution of the United States. The power to regulate trade was limited to the powers concerning trade and commerce in the Constitution. In other words, the federal government only had a standing to regulate the method of transportation and duties so that one State could not tax another unequally and cause retaliatory duties. The States had full control to import and export what they wished among the several States.
I do not ask you to believe me. Simply look at the decisions yourself.
Let us examine a few of the founding father’s words through the Federalist Papers.
We heard from Hamilton. Now James Madison, the father of the Constitution, writes in Federalist 45,
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.”
He repeats a theme from an earlier Federalist Paper No. 5
“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former.”
The first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote in Federalist 5
“Different commercial concerns must create different interests, and of course different degrees of political attachment to and connection with different foreign nations,” he writes. “Hence it might and probably would happen that the foreign nation with whom the southern confederacy might be at war would be the one with whom the northern confederacy would be the most desirous of preserving peace and friendship. An alliance so contrary to their immediate interest would not therefore be easy to form, nor, if formed, would it be observed and fulfilled with perfect good faith.”
Thus the federal government was essentially to prevent one State from trading with a foreign nation hostile to another State. His example can be construed as almost prophetic in nature, don’t you think? Since we allowed both sides of our Civil War to be financed by England’s bankers. This tradition continued after Lincoln’s death because of his distrust of the “national bank.”
In Federalist 17 we read,
“Commerce, finance, negotiation, and war seem to comprehend all the objects which have charms for minds governed by that passion; and all the powers necessary to those objects ought, in the first instance, to be lodged in the national depository. The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction. It is therefore improbable that there should exist a disposition in the federal councils to usurp the powers with which they are connected; because the attempt to exercise those powers would be as troublesome as it would be nugatory; and the possession of them, for that reason, would contribute nothing to the dignity, to the importance, or to the splendor of the national government.”
Another interesting hint in how the founding fathers felt about the powers granted to the States is a simple matter of grammar. They chose to use a capitol letter when referring to “State” while reserving lower case for “national” or “federal” government.
For your “safety” and “security,” I should point out that these men are probably on the “no-fly” list
An examination of the very words of this Amendment might be in order.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
Those enumerated in Article I., Section 8 and Section 9 in particular.
nor prohibited by it to the States,
Generally found in Section 9 of the first article
are reserved to the States respectively,
Yes we can!
or to the people.
This raises some interesting questions. Since Congress gave up its DUTY to coin money and regulate the value thereof, does that not mean that it is no longer an enumerated power? Therefore the States, or the people, should be able to run their own State banks with their own currency.
Since they have not fulfilled their duty to protect the borders, the States have the RIGHT to do so.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.—Article IV., Section. 4.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.—Article I., Section 10, Clause 3
It is very clear that States’ rights were critical to the success of the Republic for which we are (we are NOT a demonocracy!)
Possibly related articles:
Day 20: The Ninth Amendment
Sunday, July 3rd, 2011The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Of all of the Bill of Rights, these twenty-one words are probably the most important to an understanding of the intent of the founding fathers in writing the Constitution. Go ahead and read it again. It is not written in the love language of lawyers or is some foreign tongue.
Many of the delegates to the Constitution felt that the document did not use strong enough words to ensure the rights of the people. So they added amendments outlining those rights.
Two notable people had an objection to these amendments. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Their impression was that the rights enumerated were expressed clearly in other documentation and inherent in the American culture. No one would be foolish enough to actually try to take those rights away because the People would not stand for it and revolt again.
The other argument was that if you enumerated certain rights, the government would simply trample on the other known natural rights that people had. Future governments might, I don’t know, use something like the “Interstate Commerce Clause” to trample on the enumerated rights. There had to be some way that they could ensure the “safety” of the People.
This was it.
If they only added this Amendment, it would have been understood that all of the other Bill of Rights existed. It says that just because the Constitution enumerated certain rights to the people, that is not all the natural rights that they possess.
Could any of those rights ever be taken away? In the Government Class Book, Andrew Yong explains. In Chapter VI.—entitled Qualifications of Electors; or, by whom Political Power is exercised in the States of this Union—Sec. 7 he writes:
It is provided also in state constitutions, that electors committing infamous crimes are disfranchised. Franchise is a right or privilege enjoyed by the citizens of a state. Hence the right of voting at elections is called the elective franchise; and an elector, when deprived of this privilege, is disfranchised. An infamous crime is one which is punishable by imprisonment in a state prison. Men guilty of high crimes are deemed unfit to be intrusted with so important a duty as that of electing the persons who are to make and execute the laws of the state. It is provided, however, that if such persons are pardoned before the expiration of the term for which they were sentenced to be imprisoned, their forfeited rights are restored.
Thus, in ONLY ONE specific area could your rights be violated and that is the voting for elected offices, unless you were pardoned before serving your full time.
The government, today, has extended this to taking away all of your rights including the right to bear arms. This has lead to resentment which turns into more violence and black marketing of banned materials for those persons. After all, as a Christian nation, once the person has “served his debt to society,” are we not supposed to be forgiving? Many of these people might have actually learned a lesson and might want to commit to being a “good” citizen. Until they get stepped on after their release and cannot find a meaningful job or protect their family from harm. Is it any wonder that we have a revolving door prison system?
I might point out, as well, that if people can’t vote, there is a very valid question as to whether they can be forced to pay taxes of any sort. Remember James Otis wrote about taxation without representation?
There is a very specific reason that this amendment is glossed over, at best, in public school—if taught at all. Let’s look at it in other terms.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage the right to smoke marijuana retained by the people. That is correct. Drug laws are illegal.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage the right to drive a car retained by the people.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage the right to choose a health care plan that I want or have none at all retained by the people.
You can fill in your own blank.
Are there limitations? Yes. Your rights end where mine begin, and vice-versa. The rights boil down to personal responsibility, which is not taught in public schools anymore. Now they are taught that the government issues your rights and responsibilities.
For example, you do not have the right to drive while impaired in any way with the chance of killing myself and my family. Thus, driving while drunk. Driving after you have taken legal medication which might impair you, or forgetting to take medication which prevents you from being impaired. Driving a vehicle with questionable brakes or tires that you know are worn to the point that they might burst at any moment.
You cannot dump oil and trash in a creek that runs from your property through mine. You cannot dump oil and antifreeze on the ground which might seep in and poison the water supply.
Can you drive an old V-8 that pollutes the air? Perhaps in cities, such as Phoenix which naturally traps pollutants within the confines of the city that might be a consideration. In the open rural areas, however, the pollutants dissipate in the atmosphere and no one has proven that it causes the earth to warm up. Oh, I’m sorry. The thing today is change the climate. Can you tax people to limit their use of autos? I take the Ninth. No. That infringes on their rights and only hurts the poor, anyway.
The point is that the Ninth Amendment tells us that the founding fathers knew that specific, and potentially hazardous, powers were being given to the State and Federal governments. This was meant as a way of saying, we know that and you governments have personal responsibilities. This Constitution is granted as providing a government to protect the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity. Not to suppress them in any way.
The question, of course, keeps cropping up. Since the government has ignored many of their “personal responsibilities”—i.e. the coining of money, protecting the borders, guaranteeing a “Republican form of government”—does that not revert to the People under the Ninth and the States under the Tenth?
Possibly related articles:
Remember on Independence Day.
Saturday, July 2nd, 2011
Never forget.
Take a moment to consider our veterans who have continued the struggle to maintain our freedoms and those serving the same purpose now in our armed forces.
And never forget those who have yet to return and may never come home.
Possibly related articles:
Day 19: The Eighth Amendment
Saturday, July 2nd, 2011Day 18: The Seventh Amendment
Friday, July 1st, 2011In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
We point out, here, that suits at common law when the value exceeds twenty dollars shall be tried by jury. Whether it be a person suing a person or the State suing a person to impose fines. It did not say “twenty dollars based on the value of a dollar.”
Jury duty is rarely explained properly. I have found that juries have been composed of six- or twelve-jurors of your peers. A woman cannot, technically, be on my jury because she does not see the world, or the Constitution, as I do—in many cases. A Democrat cannot try a Republican, theoretically. Of course, we are jumping hoops, here, for fun.
The fact remains, though, that jury nullification has been given a bad name, but is an important part of our jurisprudence. It is the main block that citizens have to bad government. That is why trial by jury was to be preserved. Even if a person has “broken the law,” one juror can vote not guilty simply because he does not think the law is Constitutional. We expect that jurors will use common sense. If a man is clearly guilty of violating the rights of a five-year old girl through sexual abuse, he must be found guilty. Other wise, you risk the safety of other five-year old girls.
However, if you have a man on trial for an Internet site derogatory to John McCain, he should be congratulated rather than punished. McCain and Feingold came up with the legislation preventing “character ads” within ninety-days of an election, for example. You might believe that is the best time to run them. So you can say not guilty to someone accused of just such an offense.
In Arizona, you have the right to defend yourself, but the various county attorneys will drag you into court anyway. They don’t have to pay for it, after all. If people keep voting not guilty—and voting those county attorneys out of office—the law may remain on the books, but they will discontinue trying to enforce it because they cannot get a guilty verdict. Again, if it is an obvious case of murder, you should vote your conscience. You will be responsible if that person murders again.
And finally, the double-jeopardy clause. As we have seen, you may be found innocent in one court, only to face another. They may try you until the “get you” or have exhausted all recourse. Again, the government does not pay for it. You do.
Loading ...
