tortminder – Page 43 – Pat’s Answers Blog

The Agenda-Part 4

All while the media continues the fairy tale that we much surrender our liberties for security.

One of the architects of our republic, Benjamin Franklin is known for, among other things, the following quote; “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Reposted from February 19, 2018

There has been a long-term agenda to change these United States from the conception birthed by our Founding Fathers to something where the power elite control the “Great Unwashed” through the cooperation and demands of the rank and file sheep of the flock. Some parts of the agenda span only a few years while others take over a century to unfold. You might call it a “ten-point program”, a “new world order” or “hope and change”. Over the next two weeks the plan will be presented in no particular order.

The Plan01

The Plan – Part Four: Bring National Security to the forefront of public consciousness.

On September 11, 2001 America was fundamentally changed with the attack on the World Trade Center in New York. Our way of life, our fundamental relationship with our government and, in many ways, our way of looking at the freedoms and liberties we took for granted fell like the facades of the Twin Towers.

We were angry and confused and frightened. Many of our fellow citizens demanded that the government “DO SOMETHING”… and, most unfortunately, it did. FEMA morphed from a civilian defense agency to the “Reich-like” stepchild called the Department of Homeland Security. The politicians on both sides of the aisle, realizing they couldn’t look smart so they should at least look busy followed the old Groucho Marx quote that said:“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
Their misdiagnosis gave birth to the oxymoronic “Patriot Act” and somewhat later to the “FISA court”.

USA PATRIOT Act is the bill they passed allegedly strengthened civil liberties. In reality, it fails to make any meaningful improvements to the provisions that violate citizen’s basic rights.

The PATRIOT Act only benefits Wall Street, the banks, large corporations and the U.S. Government, not mainstream America. The Patriot Act broadly expands law enforcement’s surveillance and investigative powers and represents one of the most significant threats to civil liberties and privacy in U.S. history.

The original Patriot Act was passed into law on October 24, 2001 by the Congress of the United States, just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with few Congressman even reading it and virtually no debate. The Act threatens your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and even worse the power to break your door down at your home at any time of the day or night and conduct unconstitutional searches and seizures or, if your lucky and are not home, they can search your home or business in secret without telling you for weeks, months, if ever.

The law dramatically expands the ability of states and the Federal Government to conduct surveillance of American citizens. The Government can monitor an individual’s web surfing records, use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals “proximate” to the primary person being tapped, access Internet Service Provider records, and monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.

PATRIOT is not limited to terrorism. The Government can add samples to DNA databases for individuals convicted of “any crime of violence.” Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) and all of this and more requires no court order. Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on and monitoring any computer user’s searches, e-mails and in fact record every stroke on any computer.

As we have seen in part due to the release of information provided by the House Committee on Intelligence, foreign and domestic intelligence agencies can more easily spy on Americans.

Powers under the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was just recently reauthorized, have been broadened to allow for increased surveillance opportunities. FISA standards are lower than the constitutional standard applied by the courts in regular investigations. PATRIOT partially repeals legislation enacted in the 1970s that prohibited pervasive surveillance of American.

If this seems as though it should be illegal, guess what? It is!

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says: “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.”

Seems pretty clear, But the argument has been repeatedly made that steps, sometimes Draconian steps must be taken to insure the safety of the public.

The Washington Post, (the Old Gray Lady of Watergate fame), puts it this way: it is perfectly fine to “give up liberty” for security: Discomfort with the government’s capacity, technical or legal, to collect and retain massive amounts of personal information is understandable. But the 2008 FISA amendments sought a compromise between two essential goals: preserving American liberty and robustly defending Americans’ lives and property. We favored the law and believe that it should be extended.

That’s ridiculous. Almost no one seems to understand what’s actually in the FISA Amendments Act, in part because there’s a secret interpretation of it that only the government knows.

This means that many, many people, including those in Congress, are clearly misrepresenting what’s in the law. The fact that the NSA refuses to say how often it has used this secret interpretation to spy on Americans should be a pretty big warning sign — especially as politicians who are either clueless or ignorant claim that it can’t be used to spy on Americans.

The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata), was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would probably hesitate to convict them of their crimes. However, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded.

Today, with the “Patriot Act” and the “FISA courts” it seems as though the system has been turned on its’ head to protect the socially and politically prominent people while oppressing Jane and Joe Sixpack.

All while the media continues the fairy tale that we much surrender our liberties for security.

One of the architects of our republic, Benjamin Franklin is known for, among other things, the following quote; “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Many would look to the government to shepherd us to safety while law enforcement, acting like the sheepdogs protect us from the wolves. We would do well to remember that the sheepdog works for the shepherd, not the sheep and the shepherd is only keeping the sheep until they can either be sheared or slaughtered.

sheep to the slaughter

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

The Agenda-Part 3

Most important, the Supreme Court decided that prisoners cannot have their citizenship stripped as a punishment for a crime. As Justice Earl Warren wrote in the 1958 case Trop v. Dulles: “Citizenship is not a right that expires upon misbehavior.”

Repost from February 16, 2018

The Plan01

The Plan – Part 3: Expand the voter base and agenda support by granting voting rights to prison inmates, illegal aliens and select US Territories like Puerto Rico. Shape the narrative as a civil rights issue. Label those who protest as RACIST or ISOLATIONIST or INTOLERANT. Paint those who do not fall in line with the “new” agenda as “Rednecks” or “Nazis” or “Reactionaries”, or “Segregationists”.

California Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB 60 in 2013, making California the 10th state to allow driver licenses for people in the country illegally. The STATED goal was to increase public safety and reduce penalties for undocumented immigrants who drive. As of late 2017 the State of California has issued over 900,000 such licenses to illegals.

In 2015, Brown signed the New Motor Voter law. By April, it will automatically register DMV customers to vote when they renew or obtain a driver’s license or fill out change of address forms, unless the customer opts-out.

Jessica Gonzalez, spokeswoman with the California DMV, said; “…we have programming measures in place to prevent that from occurring.” State officials said safeguards are already in place to prevent state DMV workers from typing in any voter information for AB 60 license holders. The state allows unauthorized immigrants to obtain a driver’s license, but supposedly excludes that group from the automatic voter registration.

The United States sends election monitors around the world to help discourage fraudulent balloting. But, here at home, it has largely turned a blind eye to the possibility that fraudulent voting by noncitizens could influence the outcome of an election. Our voter registration system is susceptible to abuse by noncitizens.

In addition, noncitizens and illegal aliens are counted when apportioning congressional districts and when allocating state electors under the Electoral College. This means noncitizens play a role in determining how many congressional representatives a state has and exert an indirect influence on presidential elections. This means that areas with large numbers of illegal alien residents gain additional representatives in Congress.

On April 22, 2016 Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe issued a sweeping executive order that changed the lives of 200,000 ex-felons in Virginia, instantly restoring their right to vote. This order leaves only Kentucky, Florida and Iowa with blanket lifetime disenfranchisement policies for ex-felons.

In recent years, the Supreme Court and Congress have affirmed a variety of constitutional rights for prisoners. They have rights of religious freedom under a 2000 federal law. Prisoners also retain some First Amendment free speech rights to hold and express political opinions. Most important, the Supreme Court decided that prisoners cannot have their citizenship stripped as a punishment for a crime. As Justice Earl Warren wrote in the 1958 case Trop v. Dulles: “Citizenship is not a right that expires upon misbehavior.”

Following that chain of logic to it’s conclusion, if “CITIZENSHIP” is not a right that expires on misbehavior, (commission of a crime), then logically there is an argument that “Non-Citizenship” should not be a bar to voting.

Looking at the way things seem to be progressing, it looks as though this part of the plan is well underway.

An old, (C) 1620 British March pretty well sums up this situation:

Listen to me and you shall hear, news hath not been this thousand year:
Since Herod, Caesar, and many more, you never heard the like before.
Holy-dayes are despis’d, new fashions are devis’d.
–The World Turned Upside-down

World turned upside down

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

The Agenda-Part 2

Reposted from February 15, 2018

Part Two: Consolidate all media assets behind core concepts stressing a new internationalism.

Like all “watchdogs”, the media are expected to bark, but when its many voices is owned by a small number of corporate masters, concerns about the validity of its’ barking arises.

Originally, the Internet was the champion of free thinkers, embraced as a liberating force from corporate owned media. But over a short time online news sites joined radio, television, newspapers and magazines as properties of the small handful of media conglomerates.

In raw numbers, 80 percent of the top 20 online news sites are owned by the 100 largest media companies. Time Warner owns two of the most visited sites: CNN.com and AOL News, while Gannett, which is the twelfth largest media company, owns USAToday.com along with many local online newspapers.

Fake news was not a term many people used two ago, but it is now it is seen as one of the greatest threats to truthful information. Governments and powerful individual elites have used information/propaganda as a weapon for millennia, to boost their support and quash dissidence.

Misinformation, spin, lies and deceit have of course been around forever. But what has been uncovered was a unique marriage between social media algorithms, advertising systems, political operatives prepared to make stuff up to cripple their opponents and freelancers looking to earn some easy, if nefarious cash.

It’s not only the under-educated and gullible that are victims of the targeted media propaganda. Highly-educated people are often duped by lies as well – and can often be more stubborn when presented with information that challenges their views. This is exactly what the purveyors of societal control are counting on.

“Google, Facebook and other media platforms have said that they are going to be hiring a lot of people to review content and enforce their terms of service and keep fake and illegal stuff off their platforms. Sounds good… until you ask the question who will review the reviewers?

Ill-informed legislators will overreach and do more harm that the problem they are trying to fix, with legislation. The “Ministry of Information” does have a certain ring to it.

Propaganda can have the full weight and power of the state behind it. But more commonly, it’s a public relations challenge rearing its ugly head during a political campaign, a corporate battle or even by a non-profit is trying to manipulate an issue.

It’s hard to fight fire with fire, especially when you can’t use the same evil manipulations and lies that the other side is employing. You might feel like David in a fight against Goliath because propaganda is a tool of those in the power elite both in and out of government.

The best tactic is to establish your own channels of communication, especially since the other side dominates or controls the mainstream media.

Social media, blogs, and e-mail can let you communicate directly to the people, and that’s vital in a fight against propaganda. Flood the Internet at every opportunity. Get your own message out there. You’ll get people talking if you can accomplish this in a witty or clever way that they’ll remember. And as anyone involved in marketing knows, word of mouth is good.

The Founding Fathers ultimately prevailed through pamphleteers like Thomas Paine and others who got the truth out.

“The TRUTH is rarely pure and seldom simple”

–Oscar Wilde

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

(2018) Uriel Press

Shun The frumious Bandersnatch!

The control freaks in the US government have been trying for years to pass a National ID card law and it has been successfully resisted every time. This time, however, it appears that the Republicans—who used to be vocally opposed to such measures—are now fully onboard likely because of the bill’s anti-immigration language.

Bandersnatch

There has been much talk over the last several years of RFID chips becoming more mainstream in our society. However, many Americans have expressed concern over such a device and its intrusive qualities, but that has not stopped the government from pushing forward with their goals to chip Americans. Many religious people in the country have pushed back against such a device stating that these dangerous chips could be the “mark of the beast” that’s prophetically discussed in the last book of the Bible, and it appears that day has come.

Earlier this month, Rep. Bob Goodlatte [R-VA-6] introduced H.R.4760 – Securing America’s Future Act of 2018, a sweeping bill that entails everything from Education and the Workforce to Homeland Security to the military. Also, tucked away in this 400-page behemoth of a bill are the details of a new biometric National ID card that could soon be required for everyone.

Not surprisingly, there is almost no media coverage on this legislation.
H.R. 4760 establishes a mandatory National Identification system that requires all Americans to carry a government-approved ID containing “biometric features.” Without this card, according to the legislation, you will not be able to work in this country.

The legislation was drafted under the auspices of providing a legislative solution for the current beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

However, as Ron Paul points out, “this bill would give DACA recipients a 3-year renewable legal status while forcing a biometric National ID card on virtually everyone else.”

“That’s right — the statists want to control you,” said Paul.

Naturally, this bill is wholeheartedly supported by the anti-immigration sect and has gained 70 co-sponsors already in only a few days. As with most police state-promoting legislation, fear of illegal immigration is being pushed to garner such support. However, as Ron Paul points out, the bill won’t just target illegals—it targets everyone—and it will use your most private information to track you.
“Under the statists’ National ID scheme, you’d be forced to carry around your National ID card, tied to this massive database, chockfull of biometric identifiers like fingerprints and retina scans,” Paul noted. “Without this ID, you won’t be able to legally hold a job — or likely even open a bank account or even board a plane!”
Paul said there is a very good chance this bill will become law as the support for it seems overwhelming. He laid out three key factors that are detrimental to the freedom of all Americans.

1. Allow federal bureaucrats to include biometric identification information on the card, potentially including fingerprints, retinal scans, or scans of veins on the back of hands, which could easily be used as a tracking device;

2. Be required for all U.S. workers, regardless of place of birth, making it illegal for anyone to hold a job in the United States who doesn’t obtain an ID card;

3. Require all employers to purchase an “ID scanner” to verify the ID cards with the federal government. Every time any citizen applies for a job, the government would know — and you can bet its only a matter of time until “ID scans” will be required to make even routine purchases, as well.

The control freaks in the US government have been trying for years to pass a National ID card law and it has been successfully resisted every time. This time, however, it appears that the Republicans—who used to be vocally opposed to such measures—are now fully onboard likely because of the bill’s anti-immigration language. As Paul points out:

For years now, statists in BOTH parties have been fighting to RAM their radical National ID-database scheme into law.
In fact, this scheme was a key portion of the infamous failed “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bills BOTH parties tried to ram through during the Obama administration.

Now, using the momentum behind Trump’s tough talk on immigration and border security, I’m afraid the statists believe the best way to finally enact their National ID scheme is by promoting their bill on Capitol Hill as a “DACA fix” while they sell it to the GOP base as a border “security” measure.
Of course, that’s nothing more than a buzzword meant to trick Americans from all over the country into thinking that Congress is going to seal our southern border.
But in reality, it means something far different.

The “security” members of BOTH parties in the U.S. House want doesn’t target any U.S. border. Instead, it’s meant to create an all-out police state within them.
The truth is, this is exactly the type of battle that often decides whether a country remains free or continues sliding toward tyranny.

Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” That quote often comes up in the context of new technology and concerns about government surveillance.

“And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name.” -Revelation 13:17

US RFID Card

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

The Agenda-Part 1

So looser morals, tolerance of slackers, and weaker judgment became central to the progressive’s lesson plan. In 1899, moral relativism and “diversity” debuted in American education and, as you are most surely aware, continues to clone itself in our educational system to this very day.

Repost from February 14, 2018

Point #1 Education: Deemphasize the individual. Through repetition from the earliest opportunity reinforce the “concepts of; “dependence on the State”; “The Collective Good” and “Social Justice”

Vladimir Lenin said; “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

In “Mein Kampf” Adolph Hitler wrote; “whoever has the youth has the future”.

Since history, (at least accurate history), is seldom, if ever taught in today’s hallowed halls of education, most will not know the genesis of why Johnny can’t read, accurately make change for a dollar or control his emotional outbursts without being stuffed with psychotropic pharmaceuticals.

In 1899, Vermonter John Dewey unveiled his vision for remaking American education — a vision swallowed whole by “progressive” educators.

Dewey envisioned a society that assures “the full growth of all [of its] individuals,” a society in which “individualism and socialism” become one.”

The notion that society must guarantee everyone’s welfare would be pursued by Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter, George W. Bush, and Obama. But the fact that a collective can never be an individual eludes hopelessly theoretical progressives.

Dewey told parents that only a “radical change in education” could fix their children’s immodesty, irreverence, and disobedience. The likelihood that children just like 1899’s troublemakers caused trouble in every generation throughout Homo sapiens’ existence escaped Dewey. More amazingly, to address immodesty, irreverence, and disobedience, Dewey prescribed not structure, but squishy weirdness: “We must recognize our compensations — the increase in toleration, in breadth of social judgments, the larger acquaintance with human nature, the sharpened alertness in reading signs of character and interpreting social situations, greater accuracy of adaptation to differing personalities, contact with greater commercial activities.”

Recommended reading for the kids today includes Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and leftist Rinku Sen’s Stir It Up. Brainwash a child in militant anti-Americanism, and he or she will not have the capacity for critical thinking.

The sheep will follow the shepherd… all the way to the slaughterhouse floor.

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

School shootings and the Progressive agenda

Why are we not teaching our kids to value life, and that it’s not replaceable? They need to know that there is no reset button in the real world.

school violence

Once more, shots ring out in a school. Teachers and students are maimed and killed and the hue and cry from the usual crowd goes up calling for “common sense” gun control.

What is most unfortunate is that “1984” has morphed from a novel into a “how-to” manual by TPTB. And schools have morphed from educational institutions into indoctrination centers and, in too many instances, soft targets and killing fields.

We hear more and more talk about heeding the “red flags” shown by those rampaging, hurting and killing. “More gun control”, they cry. “Better mental health programs”, they demand.

In truth, the red flags are the result of a well-planned and well-executed agenda that started with John Dewey, (whose legacy is Columbia college), over 100 years ago. These events are the logical result of that agenda.

Of course there are some good teachers in the public schools. I would wager that there are likely some in every school, but its a lottery and a stacked deck. The Federal government use to fund a minuscule part of the local school district’s budget and the local school board use to make virtually every decision respecting who, what, and how the children of the district would be educated. Now the Federal government has the public schools by the short hairs because they now fund so much that the threat of withholding funds or the threat of enforcing the expansive non-discrimination laws of this nation often controls what is taught or what bathroom can be used by whom.

Additionally, the teachers unions of this nation have an inordinate amount of influence in our public schools. The NEA and the AFT are the biggest unions and they are strictly socialist, leftist in their agendas that they consistently and persistently and prove it by their massive support of liberal Democrat politicians who become the union’s representatives bought and paid for by the union’s money.

Moreover, the continuing influence of Thomas Dewey and his Teacher’s College, Columbia have completely coopted the public education system of this country for decades. Dewey was “Humanist of the Year” so named by the American Humanist Association and his entire educational philosophy was formed to reshape American education into the leftist cabal it has become. Common Core is only the most recent iteration of Dewey’s agenda.

Children who come from homes where traditional values are taught are considered at a disadvantage and need to be re-educated to dismiss those traditional (read racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.) values and be taught to formulate their own values (heavily influenced by their liberal teachers following a “progressive” curriculum.)

Is it too late? Possibly, but it could be that the only salvation is either private schools or home schooling.

Why are we not teaching our kids to value life, and that it’s not replaceable? They need to know that there is no reset button in the real world.

I understand that it is difficult to afford to pay for your child’s education twice (once with your public school tax dollars and again with tuition or home schooling expenses), but its a matter of priorities. Tell me what will make a bigger impact on your children’s lives besides how they are raised and educated? How important is it to have a child who really knows how to think for himself or herself? To have a child that comes from a world view that honors traditional values and beliefs? Parents need to ensure that their children grow up with their heads on straight.

If this doesn’t increasingly happen, expect to see more and more of the Antifa, BLM, Occupy foolishness happening and perhaps even your own children becoming one of these thugs. … or worse, one of the shooters.

Dewey-Communist manifesto

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

Prayer for 5-19-2018

Prayer

Psalm 35: 1-2

Lord, oppose those who oppose me;
fight against those who fight against me.
Grasp your shield and protective gear,
and rise to my defense.

Flaming Sword001

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

Wars and rumors of… police actions

What politicians apparently are concerned about is giving the president a blank check for war and spineless submission to the special interest lobbies. And, or course, more spending.

US declares WW II

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, in the following wording:
“[The Congress shall have Power…] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

Here we seem to have just one more instance of clear language of the constitution being noteworthy in the absence of practice. In truth, the congress has yielded this constitutional power to an imperial executive.

The congress issued a declaration of war on Japan on December 8, 1941. But since then, Congress has rarely used its constitutional power to formally issue a war declaration.
Congress approved a resolution declaring war with Japan on that fateful day, as the Senate unanimously voted for the resolution, 82-0. The House passed the resolution by a 388 to 1 vote, with Jeannette Rankin, a pacifist, opposing the move.

“Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States,” the resolution read.

Since then, the United States has only issued five other war declarations: against Germany and Italy (on December 11, 1941) and against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania (on June 4, 1942).

And in total, war declarations were declared by Congress in the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II.

The United States military involvement in Korea came as part of a United Nations effort, while the escalation of the Vietnam War followed a joint resolution passed by Congress as requested by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.

Since Vietnam, United States military actions have taken place as part of United Nations’ actions, in the context of joint congressional resolutions, or within the confines of the War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Act) that was passed in 1973, over the objections (and veto) of President Richard Nixon.

For example, when President Obama approved the use of military force in Libya in 2011, it was the 132nd time that a President acted under the conditions of the War Powers Resolution since 1973.

The Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, authorizes the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons”— in other words, al Qaeda and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

On Oct. 11, 2002, Congress passed a second AUMF giving the president authority to “to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

Currently, however, the U.S. has military personnel deployed and equipped for combat in at least 19 countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Kenya, Niger, Cameroon, Uganda, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Cuba, and Kosovo.

In October, three U.S. soldiers were killed in an apparent ambush in Niger. And the U.S. military has recently stepped up operations in both Yemen and Somalia.

PLAW-107publ40

On April 20, 2018 Sen. Rand Paul sent a letter to his colleagues entitled : The New AUMF Codifies ‘Forever War’

April 18, 2018

Dear Colleague:
For some time now, Congress has abdicated its authority to declare war. The status quo is that we are at war anywhere and anytime the President says so.
So, Congress’s new solution is not to reassert Congressional prerogative but to codify the status quo.

It is clear upon reading that the Kaine/Corker AUMF gives nearly unlimited power to this or any President to be at war anywhere, anytime and against anyone, with minimal justification and no prior specific authority.

This is not an AUMF, it is a complete rewriting of power of the executive and constitutional separation of powers.

The new Kaine/Corker AUMF declares war on:
1. The Taliban
2. Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula
3. ISIS anywhere
4. Al-Shabaab in Somalia and elsewhere
5. Al-Qaeda in Syria
6. Al-Nusra in Syria
7. The Haqqani Network in Pakistan and Afghanistan
8. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in Niger, Mali, Algeria, Libya, and Nigeria
9. AND ASSOCIATED FORCES (as defined by the President) throughout the globe.
Previous AUMF have never codified associated forces. The Kaine/Corker AUMF not only codifies associated forces, but by conservative estimates declares war on over 20 nations with forces “associated” with either Al-Qaeda or ISIS.

Should Congress declare war or not declare war? Absolutely. Should we be having this debate? Absolutely.

It is indisputably clear that the authority exercised under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2001 (P.L. 107-40) has become too broad and requires updating, but this Kaine/Corker AUMF is simply not the answer. Simply put, the Kaine/Corker AUMF provides an even more expansive war-making authority to the Executive Branch than the status quo.

The founders recognized that the Executive Branch is most prone to war, thus they placed the power to declare war with the legislature “with studied care.” Yet the Kaine/Corker AUMF would completely abdicate Congress’ power to declare war under Article I of the Constitution.

To be clear, handing war-making power to the Executive Branch is not an exercise of Congress’ power, it is the abandonment of that power.

Arguably, the Kaine/Corker AUMF delegates the Constitutionally explicit power of war declaration to the Executive branch and is therefore unconstitutional.

Expansion of authority as it pertains to groups:
The Kaine/Corker AUMF grants new, unchecked powers to the President in determining what groups qualify for the use of force. This includes the language in Section 3 and Section 5 expanding authority to “associated forces,” which would be the first time that this ambiguous phrase has been codified into law under an AUMF.

Expansion of authority as it pertains to States:
Perhaps more troubling is the level of authority granted to the Executive as it applies to authorizing military action against other nations. The Kaine/Corker AUMF conveys authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and Libya, though the bill’s passive inclusion of these countries as outside the definition of a “new foreign country” leaves room for more mission creep in each country. While the 2001 AUMF grants authority to fight those behind the 9/11 attacks wherever they may be, and the 2002 AUMF grants authorization against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Congress should debate military action in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the remaining four countries on an individual basis.

Limitless potential for war by the Executive:
If the Kaine/Corker AUMF is passed, then Congress will have chosen to make itself irrelevant. This legislation grants the executive the power to use military force against any group or country it chooses, so long as they report it to Congress within 48 hours.
While this shares similarities with the War Powers Resolution, use of force in that instance is constrained by a national emergency, or Congressional authorization. This broad bill would allow the Executive unlimited latitude in determining war and leave Congress debating such an action after forces have been committed into action.

Importantly, even if Congress were to pass a Joint Resolution to reverse an expansion of war-making authority by the President, the President could then veto that resolution. All war making power will henceforth emanate from the President and require no affirmative action of Congress.

It also goes without saying that once our forces are committed it is exceedingly difficult to remove them. This is why the Constitution is clear that authorization for such action comes from Congress before any war begins. Under the Kaine/Corker AUMF, though, congressional oversight is limited to a reactive posture, as the President is allowed to declare any additional groups “associated,” meaning military force would then be authorized, so long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours of doing so. Congress would then have to remove said group via joint resolution.

No sunset provision and quadrennial review:
Instead of a sunset provision which would allow war powers to expire without Presidential approval, this Kaine/Corker AUMF can only be nullified with Presidential approval or a veto proof vote.

If this bill becomes law, the authority for the executive branch to make war as it chooses will continue indefinitely, barring a complete repeal at a later date.
The Kaine/Corker AUMF essentially codifies “forever war,” as the Executive Branch would be able to unilaterally attack any nation or group it saw fit. Once again, this is the inverse of how the process is laid out in the Constitution. The only recourse Congress would have in these instances is to pass a joint resolution within the first 60 days of a conflict-a resolution subject to a veto by the President. If not then, Congress would have a chance to review the larger authorities once every four years, at which time the President could also propose revisions to his own AUMF.

In closing, the Kaine/Corker AUMF flips responsibility for declaring war from Congress to the President. Congress is constitutionally responsible for authorizing war and should not be relegated to a review panel that conducts after-the-fact examinations of the wars of the Executive Branch.

Sincerely,
Rand Paul, MD
United States Senator

It also seems unlikely that an official state of war could be declared in the near future, due to the legal differences between a “state of war” and an “authorization to use military force.”

As the Congessional research Svc- AUMF history RL31133 explains, a formal war declaration triggers a large number of domestic statutes, like the ones that took place during World War II.

“A declaration of war automatically brings into effect a number of statutes that confer special powers on the President and the Executive Branch, especially about measures that have domestic effect,” it says.

These include granting the President the direct power take over businesses and transportation systems as part of the war effort; the ability to detain foreign nationals; the power to conduct spying without any warrants domestically; and the power to use natural resources on public lands.

“An authorization for the use of force does not automatically trigger any of these standby statutory authorities. Some of them can come into effect if a state of war in fact comes into being after an authorization for the use of force is enacted; and the great majority of them, including many of the most sweeping ones, can be activated if the President chooses to issue a proclamation of a national emergency,” says the Congressional Research Service.

“But an authorization for the use of force, in itself and in contrast to a declaration of war, does not trigger any of these standby authorities.”

What politicians apparently are concerned about is giving the president a blank check for war and spineless submission to the special interest lobbies. And, or course, more spending.

So, yes, let’s keep spending that $32,000,000 an HOUR for the total cost of our wars since 2011.

That giant sucking sound you hear is America’s great promise going down the drain. The swamp critters we voted in finally managed to “git ‘er dunnnn.”

Git er dunnn

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

We Are Controlled By Horses Asses

The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That’s an exceedingly odd number.

repost from September 22, 2017

2 horses asses

A history lesson for people who think that history doesn’t matter:

What’s the big deal about railroad tracks?

The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That’s an exceedingly odd number.

Why was that gauge used?
Well, because that’s the way they built them in England, and English engineers designed the first US railroads.

Why did the English build them like that?
Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the wagon tramways, and that’s the gauge they used.

So, why did ‘they’ use that gauge then?
Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they had used for building wagons, which used that same wheel spacing.

Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing?
Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break more often on some of the old, long distance roads in England . You see, that’s the spacing of the wheel ruts.

So who built those old rutted roads?
Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (including England ) for their legions. Those roads have been used ever since.

And what about the ruts in the roads?
Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match or run the risk of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome , they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. Therefore the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Bureaucracies live forever.

So the next time you are handed a specification/procedure/process and wonder ‘What horse’s ass came up with this?’, you may be exactly right. Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses. (Two horses’ asses.)
Now, the twist to the story:

When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah . The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses’ behinds.

So, a major Space Shuttle design feature, of what is arguably the world’s most advanced transportation system, was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse’s ass. And you thought being a horse’s ass wasn’t important? Ancient horse’s asses control almost everything and….

CURRENT Horses Asses are controlling everything else.

On Slavery and Government

For humans of all ethnicities in American society, “groupthink” is a common malady. History is too often twisted to fit the versions and agendas of contemporary interest groups.

political freedom-no coercion

Critics on Twitter have unleashed hell on Kanye West for his decision to publicly say that maintaining a slave mentality is a choice.
The backlash he’s getting is just another example of what happens when a prominent black figure articulates a thought that clashes with the majority. And like many others before him, West is being tagged with the “Uncle Tom” label because he’s choosing to think for himself, rather than follow the crowd. That’s right – despite popular opinion, African Americans are hardwired to support the same causes, believe in the same God, and vote for the same politicians. It’s called “groupthink.”

For humans of all ethnicities in American society, “groupthink” is a common malady. History is too often twisted to fit the versions and agendas of contemporary interest groups. Black Americans are just one of the groups whose history has been filtered through the distorted lens of how they were treated in the past by subsections of societies in which they lived.

One of the common ways to skew vision from fact is with ideological buzz words where achievements are described as advantages or privileges and differences in outcomes are claimed as proof rather than observation. Hard work and sacrifice is then categorized as ethnic favor, (or disfavor). The very concept of achievement is a threat to the common belief overcoming adversity is even more of a threat. Both must be twisted verbally into privileges and advantages to “justify” the “groupthink”.

On the other hand, the failure of a group is often transformed into a denial of “access” or “opportunity”. Any adverse information on these groups must be transformed into “stereotypes” or “myths” to protect the accepted script from any facts contrary to it.

“Prejudice” is another word that has been so distorted beyond any recognition in order to perpetuate the accepted script. It has been twisted to mean ANY adverse opinion about a minority groups actions or behaviors cannot have any factual basis but MUST be explained by prejudgement devoid of any basis except ethnicity.

Preoccupation with the evils of “society” distorts history and passes over the many improvements that took decades, (if not generations), of effort. That is simply because to acknowledge the improvements and achievements implies that there was something that needed to improve; that not all their problems were due to “stereotypes” or the “perceptions” of “entitled” or “privileged” majorities.

Clinging to a counterproductive “culture” in the name of group pride and resisting changes by labeling them as “self-hate” are a failure strategy of no benefit to the affected group.

It is, however, a great boon to those who would benefit from the continued victimization of that group perpetuated by those in power. To quote a bit of dialogue from the 1976 movie “All the President’s Men”; “Follow the money.”

Who benefits from the various governmental programs that do little except redistribute wealth from one group to another. Look to those who demagogue for the purpose of perpetuating the victimhood of any particular group. In the final analysis, it comes down to power; who lacks it and who has it. And, unfortunately, we as a society have been conditioned, in many cases, to believe that the answer lies in government.

I often think government started out as the local Mafia, terrorizing the countryside, a dozen on horseback approaching a lone farmer toiling in his fields. They ride fast from all sides, telling him at the tip of a sword, the horrors just over the hill and they “need” half his crops + his eldest boy. If the boy comes back alive, he’s maimed and the asset of the son becomes a liability for the life of the old couple. This is bad enough but then the next season comes and the process repeats. The farmer and his dozen children on the edge of starvation struggle as government grows stronger, always warning about the evil raiders over the hill.

Government today remains the evil raiders, convincing the populous they alone offer indispensable “protection” from evil raiders from a distant land. Of course, the evil raiders from the distant land tell their people the same thing about us.

Real government need not be more than city elders meeting at the city gate dispensing justice to petty criminals and settling civil disputes. Bureaucracy? Arrrgh! Prison Industrial Complex? Arrrgh! Career politicians? Arrrgh! Intermediaries to the city elders (attorney’s)? Arrrgh! Parasites, all of them. What would we do without these over five million parasites in government, living at triple the national wage plus generous benefits?

We would, in my opinion, be much better off.

My internet, computer, car, house, electricity and appliances, phone, TV, food: all created by the free market, not coercive government agents.

Surely, the government builds the roads but half of everyone’s wealth is too high a price to pay by a long shot.

Then we have “public servants” sniveling, with arrogant condescension proclaiming that they have the power to tell us what to do and how to live and we ought to be grateful for all they do for us.

They even protect us from ourselves!

What a racket!

Jackson-Sharpton

Follow me on “Twitter” @OzarkAuthor