Harry Reid Skates…Again

Like the FBI’s refusal to charge Hillary Clinton with violating federal law, the Federal Election Commission has decided not punish Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid for violating election laws – all because it isn’t worth the money. At issue was a fundraising memo Reid’s team did for 2014 Nevada lieutenant gubernatorial candidate Lucy Flores, who lost in a landslide.

The most powerful politician in the state delivered only 62 donations to Flores. And that lack of effectiveness is the reason for no FEC action. The agency voted 4-0 against pursuing action after FEC lawyers wrote a four-page memo that said Reid’s fundraising committee admitted to failing to comply with an election law requirement, but that it wasn’t worth the time or money to prosecute.

In the fundraising email, Reid didn’t include the required disclaimer that only federally compliant donations could be made.

“The Reid Committee admits that the email, which was meant to facilitate low dollar contributions, did not inform recipients that Reid was soliciting only federally compliant funds,” said the FEC memo.

“It appears that the original solicitation, which did not inform recipients that Reid was only asking for contributions that complied with the Act, violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(B).” the memo continues. “However, the contributions resulting from Reid’s solicitation email appear to have been modest, and the Reid Committee attempted to remedy the violation by sending a follow-up email explaining that all contributions had to comply with the Act’s limitations and source prohibitions. Thus, in furtherance of the Commission’s priorities, relative to other matters pending on the Enforcement docket, and in light of the corrective actions taken by the Reid Committee and the modest amount in violation, the Office of General Counsel believes that the Commission should exercise its prosecutorial discretion and dismiss the violations as to Reid and his committee.”

We are a doomed nation when the rule of law can so easily be swept aside.

All Hail, Queen Hillary as History Repeats

Soon, we shall see the coronation of Queen Hillary. With the recent release of the Democratic National Committee emails by Wikileaks, showing that the DNC favored Clinton over Bernie Sanders, it is easy to see that her rise to the status of nomination is the product of a rigged and corrupt system.

Further advancing the future outcome is the open knowledge that the Republican National Committee is doing its best to deconstruct its GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump. The greater the RNC damage the Trump’s campaign the greater the support for Clinton’s campaign.

Also creating an advancement for Clinton is the use (or perhaps the misuse) of the so-called ‘Third party.’ This comes from a historical perspective that shows that the third party candidate drains votes from one party, thus allowing for another party to gain the needed votes to secure the office.

On February 20, 1992, Ross Perot appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live and announced his intention to run as an independent if his supporters could get his name on the ballot in all fifty states, which they did. In the 1992 election, he received 18.9-percent of the popular vote while Bill Clinton received 43-percent against George H.W. Bush’s 37.5-percent.

Arguably, had Perot not drawn 27-percent of the vote from conservatives and 53-percent coming from moderates, it is suggested that Bush would have been reelected by four to five-percent margin over Clinton. Unfortunately I fall within the 27-percent that tossed a ballot away on a candidate that had not chance at winning.

Since there are no ‘true’ third party challengers to Clinton and at least two against Trump, simple math dictates the projected winner. And if history is any indication – I see the same thing happening again.

Thus we shall be witness to not only Hillary’s ascension to the crown, the shattering of the so-called ‘glass ceiling,’ but also the shredding of Constitutional law as she selects the next supreme Court judges, who’ll rule the bench for the next forty years or more, and continued liberty damaging policies laid out before her predecessors.

Not All Oaths Have Meaning

Originally, billed as the GOP-elite’s best idea to stop Donald Trump from being nominated, worrying he’d take his supporters and run as an independent, harming GOP efforts to win against Hillary Clinton. Nothing like a plan back-firing on its planners; I mean it isn’t all that shock that it failed, given that all the Progressive minds that supported this stupid idea.

After all, it is a ‘means nothing’ kind of oath:

“I [name] affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for president of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is. I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.”

Now, here’s an oath that means something:

“I, [name] do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the Officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God!”

And it has no expiration date.

The Mockery of Justice

For years I’ve watched this nation implode on itself with its Godless rulers and abject distain for the rule of law, denying the U.S Constitution, and denying it to be an extension of the Ten Commandments. The decision by the FBI to rewrite law through the executive branch – to violate the precepts of the Constitution even further is literally in keeping with the false teaching that there is a ‘separation’ between God, God’s law and the state.

In March 2015, it became publicly known that Hillary Clinton, during her tenure as United States Secretary of State, had exclusively used her family’s private email server for official communications, rather than official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. Those official communications included thousands of emails that were marked classified.

On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey said his agency had concluded its investigation stating that although Clinton was “extremely careless” in her “handling of very sensitive, highly classified information”, he would recommend to the Justice Department that “no charges are appropriate in this case. The following day, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed that the investigation into Clinton’s use of private email servers while secretary of state was closed without criminal charges.

By not recommending charges be laid against Clinton for violating federal law as she kept a secreted private server on which she did ‘official government business,’ flies in the face of every law abiding citizen of this nation. Instead of following the ‘rule of law,’ they decided to exonerate her actions through so-called ‘lack of intent.’

Intent is defined as, “the thing that you plan to do or achieve: an aim or purpose…” However, she set the server up intentionally, she intentionally used it to communicate government business, and she intentionally kept its use a secret. Both Comey and Lynch’s action in this matter have made a mockery of justice.

Without the rule of law there is no hope for this nation to survive as a Constitutional Republic.

‘Best Practices’ and ‘Collaboration’

A confidential Department of Justice (DOJ) memo, released February 5, 2013, says the federal government can kill an American citizen if it’s believed they are a “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S. The 16-page memo provides new details about the legal reasoning behind strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens including Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were both U.S. citizens and never indicted or charged with any crimes.

The memo, filled with words like ‘best practices,’ and collaboration,’ also eliminates the barriers of “geographic limitations,” and asserts the ability to “follow” the target to “a new nation.” That leaves the entire world as the battlefield, including the United States.

Couple this to the fact that the Department of Homeland Security laid the foundation on April 7, 2009 on whom it considers a terrorist. These so-called “terrorists’ include anyone who is concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms and veterans.

Even more nefarious is the ‘Strong Cities Network,’ which was introduced by the DOJ on September 28, 2015 in a press release, that also uses ‘best practices,’ and collaboration,’ the federal government has joined with a U.N. supported international law enforcement coalition for the claimed purpose of “strengthen[ing] community resilience against violent extremism.” Essentially, the ‘Strong Cities Network’ has the potential to grow into something complete with laws that are both foreign and adverse to the U.S. Constitution.

Now add to the mix the July 1, 2016 Executive Order, titled, “Executive Order — United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures to Address Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of Force.” And while the title seems innocuous, the language of the order is broad and vague, though it too uses ‘best practices,’ and collaboration,’ freely.

But what is most striking is that this order makes no distinction between military operations “against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities,” and U.S. soil. The circle fully closes once the memo of February 2013 is taken into consideration; leading to the fact that all one has to do to wind-up dead is threaten “the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense…”

The Fourth Amendment Survives Another Attack

A federal judge has thrown out evidence obtained illegally through the use of a device known as a “Stingray,” “Hailstorm,’ or “Triggerfish.” The device acts by tricking cell phones in a certain range to show their location; it does this by acting as a cell phone tower.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley ruled Tuesday that defendant Raymond Lambis’ rights were violated when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration used it without a warrant to find his apartment, writing, “Absent a search warrant, the government may not turn a citizen’s cell phone into a tracking device.”

“Here, the use of the cell-site simulator to obtain more precise information about the target phone’s location was not contemplated by the original warrant application,” the judge added. “If the Government had wished to use a cell-site simulator, it could have obtained a warrant.”

Under the Fourth Amendment, prosecutors must show probable cause to a judge to support specific things and persons to be searched that will show evidence of a crime. In the 1928 case of Olmstead vs. the U.S., Justice Louis Brandeis issued a warning about advances in technology, and how they would be used by the government to violate our right of privacy:

“The progress of science in furnishing the Government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wiretapping. Ways may someday be developed by which the Government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home…”

The Democratic Party’s 2016 Political Platform is Set

The Democratic National Committee has written its most Progressive policy agenda in modern history. Their platform includes language on breaking up “too-big-to fail” banks and reinstating a new version of the Glass-Steagall Act, which requires commercial banking and securities activities be separated.

They’re also calling for abolishing the death penalty; and fighting for a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizen’s United case, which barred the government from restricting political spending by nonprofit corporations. It also calls for the creation of a $15 per hour minimum wage, a price on carbon emissions and the complete decriminalization of marijuana.

The document also encourages the use of body cameras, the end of racial profiling, and requires the Department of Justice to investigate all questionable or suspicious police-involved shootings. What it doesn’t include is language that opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership or any other global initiative.

States Wrongly Sue Federal Government over Bathroom Ruling

Ten states have sued the federal government over rules requiring public schools to allow transgender students to use restrooms conforming to their gender identity, joining a dozen other states in the latest fight over LGBTQ rights. This is such a stupid move as the states already have supremacy over the federal government and  do not have to ‘ask permission’ to ignore this ruling.

All this does is feed into the federal elitist’s belief that they have supremacy over all the 50 states, which is contradictory to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Where Sci-Fi and Reality Meet

My first thought: “Are you shitting me?!”

Dallas Police sent in a robot with an explosive attached to it to put an end to a stand-off between officers and a cop-killing sniper. The suspect remained holed up inside a parking garage for several hours before police “blast[ed] him out.”

“We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was,” Mayor Mike Rawlings said, “Other options would have exposed our officers in grave danger.”

This establishes a very dangerous precedent and it’s a guarantee that it’ll be modeled by other law enforcement agencies; including those within our federal government. We have slipped further into the dystopian future that science fiction authors once used to write about.

I mean what’s next? Armed drones patrolling our streets from above?

The Fourth Amendment Be Damned

The Hawthorne, California police weren’t happy that a man driving through a ‘sobriety checkpoint,’ on Sunday had rolled his window only three-quarters of the way down as he handed them his driver’s license. Nope, they wanted to show him who is in charge and demanded he roll it all the way down.

When the driver refused a California Highway Patrol officer called over a Hawthorne Police Lieutenant, who then accused the driver of not complying with “the rules of the checkpoint.” After ‘failing to comply’ for nearly 45 minutes, law enforcement officers ordered a tow truck driver to the car while the occupants remained inside.

Eventually, the driver, who showed no signs of impairment, ended his protest under arrest. The U.S. supreme Court ruled in 1990 that DUI checkpoints do not violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

King George III would be so proud…

Compromising Our Liberties Away

One day after Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson claimed he had no knowledge of his agency’s scrubbing of intelligence deemed offensive to Muslims, House Republican leaders introduced a bill that would force the DHS to recognize the source of terrorist activity, name the threat directly and take action against it. House Speaker Paul Ryan said the bill would be on the House floor next week.

The new bill was introduced by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and includes language from a bill from House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul that would require DHS to create an assistant secretary position to fight radical Islamic terrorism in the U.S. It also includes a proposal from Congressman Ted Poe that would revoke U.S. passports from members or supporters of a designated foreign terrorist organization.

In a compromise with Democrats who are pushing for tougher gun measures, the bill also includes language from Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn that would allow the attorney general to delay the transfer of guns to people who are suspected terrorists. If it passes, this means the federal government would have three days to ‘make the case’ that a gun purchase should be delayed ‘without due-process.’

While he was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the Penn family, Benjamin Franklin’s 1755 quote, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” fits the coming situation to a tee.

Why We Celebrate Independence Day When We Do

Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia proposed a three-step process of declaring independence and creating a confederation of States on June 7, 1776. By July 2, the Lee Resolution was brought to the Continental Congress, which established:

  1. Resolved, That these united Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.
  2. That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.
  3. That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

It was debated, voted on, and ratified into law.

Our States’ independence from Great Britain was not an act by a bunch of White, elite, rich men. It was a legally binding congressional act:

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare…”

The following day, John Adams wrote his wife Abigail:

“The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.”

The Declaration of Independence was published and publicly read on July 4, 1776, proclaiming what had taken place only two days before. It is because the date ‘July 4’ was on the handwritten document that we came to associate the date with our State’s independence.

It wasn’t until 1870 that Congress first declared July 4 to be a national holiday as part of a bill to officially recognize several holidays, including Christmas. Further legislation about national holidays, including July 4, was passed in 1939 and 1941.

Because ‘Nationalism’ has long been considered a ‘dirty’ word, we are in very real danger of having our history either totally rewritten or completely denied.

California’s ‘King of Gun Control’ Strikes Again

Jus’ in time for your Independence Day weekend, California Governor Jerry Brown scribbled his signature onto six more gun-control measures making them law, while vetoing five others.

One of the new laws includes ammunition purchasers undergo a background check and registered to a statewide database. He also signed into law banning the sale of semiautomatic rifles equipped with ‘bullet buttons’ allowing the ammunition magazines to be easily detached and replaced, a ban on possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets and the loaning of guns to non-family members of guns without a background check.

He also vetoed five other measures, including an expansion of the use of restraining orders to take guns from people deemed to be dangerous. He also nixed a bill that clarified that theft of a firearm is grand theft and is punishable as a felony, another that would have required those who make guns at home to register get a state-registered serial number so the weapons could be tracked, the requirement that stolen or lost guns to be reported within five days and one limiting Californians to buying only one rifle or shotgun per month.

And like a good little Progressive, the ‘Moonbeam’ signed the gun bills ahead of a European vacation and will be out of the country through August 1.