:: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 ::
Justice Stevens's Liberty-Destroying Amendments
Posted by Edward Cline at 9:52 PM
liberal/left is forever releasing trial balloons to see who shoots at them and
who doesn’t. The multiple interviews of retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul
Stevens upon publication of his new book, Six
Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, on April 22nd,
represent one such balloon. I have not yet read the book, but have ordered it
and will review it in a future column. But the lubricious reception of
Stevens's book and the unrestrained fawning over him by the press is such that I
can't hold my tongue. So these remarks will focus on the interviews, and not
the book per se.
book would not be reviewed, nor Stevens even interviewed, but for the liberty-destroying
amendments he proposes be made to the Constitution. Liberal
"journalists" across the spectrum sidled up to the buffet and feasted
on helpings of the retired liberal, pro-government power justice's fare of
senile lunacy, washed down with large draughts of Happy Juice.
the interviewers treated Stevens as a kind of judicial "guru" whose
"wisdom" must be shown deference and couldn't be challenged or
questioned without committing a heinous faux
pas. They asked him leading questions to prompt the answers they wanted to
hear from Stevens. For example, in the video on the NRO
site, George Stephanopoulos asks Stevens about the five words Stevens would
add to the "amended" Second Amendment: "…the right of the people
to keep and bear arms [when serving in
the militia] shall not be infringed."
"militia" meaning the National Guard or virtually any federal SWAT or
armed enforcement entity. It means that the government would have a monopoly on
that take away any limits what a legislature could do to the rights of gun
Stevens: "I think that's
probably right." [Still of rows of hand guns] "I think that's what
should be the rule, that it should be legislatures rather than judges who draw
the line on what is permissible…." (Italics mine)
Stephanopoulos: "Do you
think that….clearly…that was what was intended?"
Stevens: "I do think that
was what was originally intended, because there was a fear among the original
framers that the federal government would be so strong that they might destroy
the state militias. The amendment would merely prevent arguments being made that Congress doesn’t have the power to do
what is in the best public interest." [More "scary" images
of weapons; Italics mine]
Stephanopoulos: "But to be
clear, if Congress passed a national ban on individual gun ownership, that
would be constitutional under your amendment?"
Stevens: "I think that's
an argument that questions Congress's power to enforce gun-control? Stow it.
Stevens's amendment forbids you to make it. Are you against the "public
interest," or what, you unpatriotic American!
amendment makes no sense at all. The right to bear arms as a private citizen either is or isn't "infringed." If it
is infringed upon, then the only time
you can exercise your "right" is when you're working for the government
enforcing the government's will at gunpoint (lawfully or unlawfully). Then,
when the task is completed, you would hand the weapon you used back to the
armorer. You may "bear" the arms, but not own it.
it isn't infringed upon, then you may
own and "bear arms," certainly without leave of the authorities, and without
having to serve in any government policing or military force. Period.
Stevens's secret, unspoken thought at that point: Thank you, Mr. Stephanopoulos, for putting those words in my mouth. I
couldn't have said it better myself. What an instance of evasion by Stevens!
What an example of prompting by Stephanopoulos! But this is his usual interrogative
habit: acting like a theatrical prompter
cueing Stevens on the right lines.
the Framers' time, state militias were drawn from a population of armed
citizens. Stevens can't have been ignorant of this fact. What the Framers had
in mind when including that amendment was not only the ability of states to
protect their sovereignty from federal power, but also the ability of private
citizens to protect themselves from federal power, as well. The Framers were
thinking in fundamentals.
course, long ago the states surrendered their sovereignty by becoming addicted –
sometimes at extortionate gunpoint, but too often not – to federal largesse various
forms drawn from a national taxpayer population. States have become submissive and
dependent satrapies of the central federal government.
Former Supreme Court justice John
Paul Stevens wants to reduce gun violence, abolish the death penalty, restrict
political campaign spending, limit states' independence and make Congress more
competitive and less combative. His solution: Amend the Constitution….
"It's certainly not easy to
get the Constitution amended, and perhaps that's one flaw in the Constitution
that I don't mention in the book," he said during a wide-ranging interview
with USA TODAY in his chambers at the court. Noting his book's half dozen
proposed amendments, he mused, "Maybe I should have had seven."
seventh amendment to allow easier gutting of the Constitution? Why not? What
Stevens proposes would be a step in the right direction. I mean, the left direction.
Though Stevens proposes precise
language for each proposed amendment, he admits the process is extremely
difficult. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress or state legislatures
to propose an amendment and three-fourths of the legislatures to approve it.
The last amendment, blocking Congress from changing its members' salaries
between elections, passed in 1992.
Among the amendments Stevens
•Changing the Second Amendment to
make clear that only a state's militia, not its citizens, has a constitutional
right to bear arms.
•Changing the Eighth Amendment's
prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" by specifically
including the death penalty.
•Removing from First Amendment
protection any "reasonable limits" on campaign spending enacted by
Congress or the states.
•Requiring that congressional and
state legislative districts be "compact and composed of contiguous
territory" to stop both parties from carving out safe seats.
•Eliminating states' sovereign
immunity from liability for violating the Constitution or an act of Congress,
which he calls a "manifest injustice."
•Allowing Congress to require
states to perform federal duties in emergencies, in order to reduce "the
risk of a national catastrophe."
prompted Stevens to write Six Amendments?
It was the December 2012 school
shootings in Newtown, Conn., that focused Stevens' [sic] attention on a rule that prevents Congress from requiring
states to perform federal duties. The rule had led to holes in a federal
database of gun purchases.
"It's called the
anti-commandeering rule, which turned out to be the first chapter of a book
that kind of grew like Topsy," Stevens said. "I thought that maybe
the only way to get rid of the rule is to have a constitutional amendment, and
then it occurred to me ... that there really are other provisions of the
Constitution that should be looked at more closely."
concludes his article with a friendly warning:
Among the issues to watch for, [Stevens]
said, are a constitutional right to same-sex marriage ("Sooner or later,
they'll have to address the question"), gun control (Scalia's 2008 opinion
protecting handguns in the home won't be the final word), and government
surveillance programs, which Stevens
defends as constitutional. [Italics mine]
long as the government doesn't watch Muslims. In Stevens's mind, anything may be made constitutional – as
long as it has nothing to do with individual rights, the sanctity of property,
and an individual owning his own life, and not the state.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Another controversy you’re
jumping right into is campaign finance. You believe Congress should be able to
put limits on the amount of money candidates spend on their campaigns…
FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Yes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: … and that the Supreme Court has
made mistakes in several decisions, allowing corporations, labor unions to
advocate and spend money on candidates. Considering all the court has done,
Justice Stevens, to open the door for huge money to pour into American
politics, including the recent McCutcheon
decision, what effect does all this have on American politics?
Judy Woodruff counts to three, and says quietly,
"You're on!" Stevens answers:
FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Well, I don’t think it’s a
healthy effect. And I think it’s a change from what the people who direct —
framed our basic government envisioned. For the — as the chief justice said, I
think, in the first sentence of his opinion in the McCutcheon case the other
day, there is nothing more important than participation in electing our
But the law that developed in
that case and in a number of other cases involved not electing the
representatives of the people who voted for them, but electing representatives
of — in other jurisdictions where the financing is used. In other words, that
was a case that involved the right of the — of an individual to spend as much
of its money as he wanted to elect representatives of other people. He didn’t
use any of that money to elect his own representatives.
that one would not be allowed to donate money to the candidate or advocate of
one's choice, except in amounts predetermined by the government or the Federal
Election Commission. However, as an outraged Fred Wertheimer notes in his SCOTUS
With its Citizens
United and McCutcheon decisions, the Supreme Court has turned
our representative system of government into a sandbox for America’s
billionaires and millionaires to play in.
The Court’s decisions have
empowered a new class of American political oligarchs and have come at the
enormous expense of the voices and interests of more than 300 million
Cloaked in jurisprudence, the
five Justices who make up a majority on the Supreme Court are imposing their
ideology and politics on the country. In the process, they are issuing radical,
not conservative, opinions.
that opinions at odds with the reigning leftist ideology are to be feared;
left-wing billionaires would be free to dominate the "sandbox" with
impunity, as Barack Obama's donors and backers did in 2008 and 2012. That would
be all right with Wertheimer – and Justice Stevens.
turns to gun control and flashes Stevens her cue cards:
JUDY WOODRUFF: The last area that I want to ask
you about is what this country should do about guns. You would change the
wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution to say the right of people
to bear arms to own a gun should apply only when serving in the militia. Is it
your ultimate hope that there would be no right to own a gun for self-defense?
FMR. JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Well, it would be my ultimate
hope that legislatures would decide the issues, and not be hampered by
constitutional restrictions, because, clearly, legislators are in a much better
position than judges are to decide what could be permissible in different
And the effect of the Second
Amendment as it is now construed is to make federal judges the final arbiters
of gun policy, which is quite, quite wrong, I think, and quite contrary to what
the framers intended when they drafted the Second Amendment, to protect states
from the danger that a strong federal armed force would have been able [sic] to the states of their own
The occasion for our talk was
Justice Stevens’s new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the
Constitution.” One of those amendments would address Citizens United, which he
wrote was “a giant step in the wrong direction.”….
He talked about what he called a
telling flaw in the opening sentence of last month’s big campaign finance
ruling. He filled in some new details about the behind-the-scenes maneuvering
that led to the
Citizens United decision. And he called for a constitutional amendment to
address what he said was the grave threat to American democracy caused by the
torrent of money in politics.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
started his controlling opinion with a characteristically crisp and stirring
opening sentence: “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right
to participate in electing our political leaders.”
But that was misleading, Justice
Stevens said. “The first sentence here,” he said, “is not really about what the
case is about.”
what was it about, if not the right of citizens to participle in elections,
regardless of their tax brackets? Well, it was about something else, about not allowing rich
donors dominate and elections. Rich donors, of course, meaning rich
"conservatives" like the Koch Brothers supporting candidates who
oppose big government. Rich donors and
manipulators like George Soros should be exempt from campaign contribution laws
and the number of candidates they can support in political action committees
(PACs), under the table, and across state lines.
The new amendment would override
the First Amendment and allow Congress and the states to impose “reasonable
limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their
supporters, may spend in election campaigns.”
I asked whether the amendment
would allow the government to prohibit newspapers from spending money to
publish editorials endorsing candidates. He stared at the text of his proposed
amendment for a little while. “The ‘reasonable’ would apply there,” he said,
“or might well be construed to apply there.”
Or perhaps not. His tentative
answer called to mind an exchange at the
first Citizens United argument, when a government lawyer told the court
that Congress could in theory ban books urging the election of political
Justice Stevens said he would not
go that far. “Perhaps you could put a limit on the times of publication or
something,” he said. “You certainly couldn’t totally prohibit writing a book.”
why not? I'm sure a justice with Stevens's intellectual acumen could knock together
an argument for prohibiting the publication of books critical of candidates and
their agendas during an election cycle. That, of course, would be censorship.
New York Times would howl like a stuck pig were it prohibited from
editorializing about its favorite candidates. Political non-profits, and
competing newspapers of the "conservative" bent, however, must gag themselves
in a censorial "fairness doctrine," or else feel the weight of the
FEC and the IRS.
to worry. Stevens is a little foggy on how he'd construe "reasonable."
Note: The occasion of the publication of Stevens's book is about as trial
balloon as you can get. After all, Stevens, now 94, still had enough energy to
fit in numerous interviews with sympathetic, bedazzled journalists in the space
of two days, doubtless with the cooperation of his publisher.
the near future, I will take out my bow and arrow, and, emulating Katniss
Everdeen (a mnemonic device for "Can't Miss Ever, Dear"?) of The Hunger Games movies, and puncture of
few of the trial balloons in Stevens's book.
0 Comments ::
:: Sunday, April 20, 2014 ::
Cliven Bundy's Justifiable Defiance: Part II
Posted by Edward Cline at 6:20 PM
the end of Part
One of this column, I asked: Was the law on the government's side and
not on Cliven Bundy's? What kind of law is it? And how is it being enforced
throughout the country?
Immediately after what many
considered a victory against a tyrannical federal agency, a number of leftist
voices – most notably, Sen. Harry Reid – indicated the action against this
family will continue. In response, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman sent a
letter to Barack Obama, Department of the Interior Sec. Sally Jewell, and BLM
Director Neil Kornze, laying out his position that any such action by the
agency would violate the U.S. Constitution….
He cited the limited powers granted to the federal government, noting the
bureau has no “right to assume preemptory police powers, that role being
reserved to the States,” and explained “many federal laws require the federal
government to seek assistance from local law enforcement whenever the use of
force may become necessary.”
The letter included a section of
the U.S. Code — 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C — stating exactly that
point. [Emphasis Stockman's]
“When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing
Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he
shall offer a contract
to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their
respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance
upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”
The local law enforcement authority in this instance is the Sheriff of Clark
County, Nevada, Douglas C. Gillespie, who, apparently intimidated by the BLM
(Bureau of Land Management) as the protesters were not, refused to intervene
and demand that the illegal BLM vigilantes leave.
Gillespie, however, conspicuously
took a back seat to BLM forces during the standoff.
“Indeed,” Stockman wrote, “the
exact type of crisis that the federal government has provoked at the Bundy
ranch is the very type of incident that Congress knew could be avoided by relying
on local law enforcement officials.”
The stated purpose of the
correspondence is for the Obama administration “to bring the BLM into
compliance with 43 U.S.C. Section 1733.”
if we know anything about President Obama, isn't going to happen. An abuse of
federal powers is, by his authoritarian lights, an exercise of executive
privilege or an action that transcends Constitutional authority.
John Fund, formerly of the
Wall Street Journal, penned an interesting April 18th piece on the
growth of government SWAT teams, "The
United States of SWAT? Military-Style Units from Government Agencies are
Wreaking Havoc on Non-Violent Citizens" for National Review Online.
Regardless of how people feel
about Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s standoff with the federal Bureau of Land
Management over his cattle’s grazing rights, a lot of Americans were surprised
to see TV images of an armed-to-the-teeth paramilitary wing of the BLM deployed
around Bundy’s ranch.
They shouldn’t have been. Dozens
of federal agencies now have Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams to
further an expanding definition of their missions. It’s not controversial that
the Secret Service and the Bureau of Prisons have them. But what about the
Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley
Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? All of these have their own SWAT units
and are part of a worrying trend towards the militarization of federal agencies
— not to mention local police forces.
The proliferation of paramilitary
federal SWAT teams inevitably brings abuses that have nothing to do with either
drugs or terrorism. Many of the raids they conduct are against harmless, often
innocent, Americans who typically are accused of non-violent civil or
Christopher Agee's point, Fund noted:
Brian Walsh, a senior legal
analyst with the Heritage Foundation, says
it is inexplicable why so many federal agencies need to be battle-ready:
“If these agencies occasionally have a legitimate need for force to execute a
warrant, they should be required to call a real law-enforcement agency, one
that has a better sense of perspective. The FBI, for example, can draw upon its
vast experience to determine whether there is an actual need for a dozen SWAT
Since 9/11, the feds have issued
a plethora of homeland-security grants that encourage local police departments
to buy surplus military hardware and form their own SWAT units. By 2005, at
least 80 percent of towns with a population between 25,000 and 50,000 people
had their own SWAT team. The number of raids conducted by local police SWAT
teams has gone from 3,000 a year in the 1980s to over 50,000 a year today.
whether they are actual federal SWAT teams, or local police hybrids, they are
being used more and more to enforce law in a familiar totalitarian manner:
Once SWAT teams are created, they
will be used. Nationwide, they are used for standoffs, often serious ones, with
bad guys. But at other times they’ve been used for crimes that hardly warrant
military-style raids. Examples include angry dogs, domestic disputes, and
misdemeanor marijuana possession.
cites the Heritage Foundation which regards as "inexplicable" the
question of why so many federal agencies need to be battle-ready. Brian
Walsh of that organization noted, among other frightening things:
In yet another Orwellian
development, the Education Department IG provides an anonymous tip line
encouraging Americans to inform on each other. This is reminiscent of the Obama
White House asking Americans in 2010 to report on friends and neighbors who
said anything "fishy" about Obamacare in private conversations.
The Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center says that it trains agents for "over 80 federal
agencies." These include the Secret Service, Bureau of Prisons, and
similar agencies that one would expect.
But the list includes dozens of
federal agencies with no business training and fielding armed officers. Who
wants early-morning armed break-ins by the Department of Agriculture, Railroad
Retirement Board, Bureau of Land Management, Tennessee Valley Authority, Office
of Personnel Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
is "inexplicable" only if one doesn’t acknowledge the expansion of
federal powers which dovetails into virtually every nook and cranny of American
the federal government any legal right to "own" or control this much land,
and to claim that the states have no say in the matter? No. But, the feds just
take it anyway. This is the behavior of tyranny in the name of the "public
interest." The indefatigable "Hilda," mentioned in Part I, consulted
US Law site, and found this information about Nevada. She wrote:
The State of Nevada has a legal
claim to the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada's
"(a) In the case of the State of Alabama, a renunciation of any claim to
unappropriated lands similar to that contained in the ordinance adopted by the
Nevada constitutional convention was held by the Supreme Court of the United
States to be void and inoperative because it denied to Alabama an equal footing
with the original states in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845);
(b) The State of Texas, when admitted to the Union in 1845, retained ownership
of all unappropriated land within its borders, setting a further precedent
which inured to the benefit of all states admitted later on an equal footing ;
(c) The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted into the Constitution of the
United States by the reference of Article VI to prior engagements of the
Confederation, first proclaimed the equal footing doctrine, and the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which the territory including Nevada was acquired from
Mexico and which is the supreme law of the land by virtue of Article VI,
affirms it expressly as to the new states to be organized therein."
federal government's claim to the state's land is as fanciful as people
believing that Area 51 is where the government hides evidence of alien
spaceships. It's a kind of "urban legend." Furthermore, the
Constitution specifically states, in Section
3, Clause 1:
New States may be admitted by the
Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within
the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of
two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures
of the States concerned was well as of the Congress.
has been ignored by the federal government, and to the detriment of not only
the states, but of all Americans. The federal government has, for all practical
purposes, erected its own states within and at the junctures of states,
governed by federal laws enforced by the BLM, the National Park Service, the
EPA, and myriad other federal agencies. For the history of this incremental,
unconstitutional land-grab, see the history of specifically the BLM here.
Review Online (NRO) is regarded as the chief herald and articulator of
conservative causes and viewpoints. Yet its writers can't make up their minds
about Cliven Bundy and the whole BLM issue. Their timidity is conspicuous, but
also not a little snarky. Kevin D. Williamson, in his April 15th
Case for a Little Sedition," remarked:
…There are of course questions of
prudence and proportion to be answered here, and though I note that he uses the
very strong phrase “lawless government,” I sympathize with Mr. Lowry’s desire
that both sides should follow the law….
The thing that conservatives seek
to conserve is the American order, which (1) insists that we are to be governed
by laws rather than by men and (2) was born in a violent revolution. Russell
Kirk described the conservative ideal as “ordered liberty,” and that is indeed
what we must aim for — keeping in mind that it is order that serves liberty,
not the other way around….
By some estimates, superfluous
federal holdings amount to trillions of dollars in value. Surely not every inch
of that 87 percent of Nevada under the absentee-landlordship of the federal
government is critical to the national interest. Perhaps Mr. Bundy would like
to buy some land where he can graze his cattle.
Williamson's tone that is repulsive, not the content on his article. Why do so
many "conservatives" try to sound like Jon Stewart or David
Charles C.W. Cooke, in his April 15th NRO article, "The
Problem with Cliven Bundy," worries that Bundy's actions may cause
…Bundy’s story is that of a
family that has raised cattle in the West since before the automobile was
invented being turned into a grotesque social experiment. Nevertheless, as one
of the better of those statesmen once said, this is a nation with a “government
of laws and not of men” — and not the other way around — and it seems to me
that this principle should not be considered null and void because one of those
men happens to have an agreeable tale, a photogenic complaint, and a romantic
That there is a point beyond
which the state may not advance without expecting legitimate pushback is
acknowledged by even the most committed of the state’s enablers. Indeed, this
principle is baked into America’s instruction manual — albeit with a caveat.
“Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive,” the Declaration reads,
“it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government.” But it also chides the hotheaded among us, inviting us to
remember that “prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established
should not be changed for light and transient Causes.” As far as we know, Bundy
is not set on starting a revolution.
When can one refuse to obey the
law without expecting to bring the whole thing down? Certainly such instances
exist: I daresay that I would not stand idly by quoting John Adams if a state
reintroduced slavery or herded a religious group into ovens or even indulged in
wholesale gun confiscation. But Bundy’s case is not remotely approaching these
thresholds. Are we to presume that if the government is destroying one’s
livelihood or breaking one’s ties with the past, one can revolt? If so, one
suspects that half the country would march on Washington, with scimitars drawn,
and that West Virginia would invade the Environmental Protection Agency.
As government expands and civil
society retreats, bad laws pile atop bad laws, and the cause for dissent is
magnified and deepened. Cliven Bundy has been dealt a raw hand by a system that
is deaf to his grievances and ham-fisted in its response. But this is a
republic, dammit — and those who hope to keep it cannot pick and choose the
provisions with which they are willing to deign to comply.
don’t know, Mr. Cook. Is this still a "republic," or is it a
"democracy" governed by Marxists, Progressives, and vacillating
conservatives afraid of their own shadows? I would say the latter. When is it
morally proper to refuse to comply with the bullying commands of a rampaging Goliath?
Who gave the federal government aegis over so much land and so many industries,
such as the energy or power industry? Perhaps it was some ambiguously worded or
sloppily interpreted clauses in the Constitution. Chief Justice John Roberts
was not the first to quibble over "definitions" and
U.S. Sen. Harry Reid on
Tuesday called for the closure of a coal-fired power plant outside Las
Vegas, saying he expects opposition from NV Energy Inc. but the
facility is antiquated and a health risk to American Indians who live
nearby. "There is no clean coal," the Senate Democratic leader
declared after meeting with several members of the Moapa Band of Paiutes who
live near the Reid Gardner station and a handful of representatives
of the Sierra Club and Nevada Conservation League who want the plant to
"We have to stop further
degradation of the land and air as a result of burning coal," Reid said.
"The solution is to close the plant. We want the boilers shut off."
A Republican Party spokesman,
Darren Littell, accused Reid of wanting to throw 150 people out of work in a
state where unemployment tops 12 percent.
wants the boilers shut off. Of course, his concerns about the Paiutes and the
environment had nothing to do with his wanting to convert BLM land into solar,
wind, and geothermal power sources. If you believe that, you believe in the
Moon People. See James Simpson's, April 16th WND article,
Behind Bundy Showdown." However, Reid got his way.
Legislators have officially moved
Nevada out of the coal business. In a vote Monday night, the Assembly approved
a landmark energy shift away from coal-fired power plants like Reid Gardner in
Clark County and mandated investment in renewable energy and natural gas. [Reid
Garner was no relation to Harry Reid]….
While Nevada has long had a
policy to invest in renewable energy, it has never before excluded a fossil
fuel like coal from its energy portfolio. The policy shift comes with
significant political weight behind it: NV Energy, U.S. Sen. Harry Reid,
D-Nev., Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval, the state's major casinos, the
environmental lobby, and major labor unions all support the move.
the meantime, and finally, here is a larger connection between Cliven Bundy,
Harry Reid, and the fact that the federal government has taken over realms over
which it was never intended to reign supreme or have anything to say at all
about. The Wall Street Journal reported on April 18th that "Obama
Extends Review of Pipeline Project":
The Obama administration is
indefinitely extending its review of the Keystone XL pipeline, likely delaying
a decision on the project until after November's U.S. midterm elections.
The State Department, which has
jurisdiction over TransCanada Corp.'s TRP.T-0.33%,
1,700-mile long pipeline project because it crosses the Canadian-U.S. border,
cited as a key reason ongoing litigation over a Nebraska law that allowed the
pipeline's route through the state.
live in a command, by-your-leave economy and political state (that is, a
fascist one), dependent on the whims and fortunes of political parties,
lobbyists, and corrupt politicians.
The pipeline would send more than
700,000 barrels of carbon-heavy oil from Canada's oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries
in the U.S….Business interests contend it will create jobs and offer a safer
alternative than transporting the oil by rail.
The decision could help the Obama
administration sidestep for now a tricky political issue that has divided the
Democratic Party in an election year.
No, the bill doesn’t enforce open
censorship yet, but that’s never how it starts. …[T]he Hate Crime Reporting Act
of 2014 demands the tracking of so-called “hate speech” without any enforcement
Senators Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) were looking for a
way to rile talk radio hosts, their Hate Crimes Reporting Act seems like a good
way to get the job done. With bills in the House and Senate, the
lawmakers would direct the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) to “analyze” media outlets — including radio — to
determine if they’re working to “advocate and encourage” hate crimes.
their bill to this week’s alleged white supremacist shootings in Kansas, Markey
says it is “critical to ensure the internet, television and radio are not
encouraging hate crimes or hate speech.” He brushes aside expected
First Amendment arguments, saying “criminal and hateful activity” isn’t covered
by the Constitution. The bill would look closely at discussions
related to gender, race, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation. [Emphasis Horne's]….It gives the government a new
tool to force an "orthodoxy” on the populace in the name of a recent crime
that had absolutely nothing to do with talk radio.
The next thing you know, the NTIA will have its own SWAT team, ready to raid
Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Michael Savage. And I'm sure there are plenty of armed-to-the-teeth
men who'd like to pat down Megyn Kelly TSA-style for her ill-advised "hate
speech." After all, when she asks so many inconvenient questions of taqiyya-happy Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR,
isn't she encouraging "hate crimes" against Muslims? Isn't reasoned inquiry a form of "criminal
activity"? To Hooper, to Markey, to
Jeffries, yes, it is.
next step, as Horne suggests, is for the government to want to
"track" what's said in print, as well. Any words written and
published in support of Cliven Bundy and critical of the BLM, can be frowned
upon and perceived as encouraging "domestic terrorism" and
"hateful activity." I'm sure Senator Harry Reid will vote in favor of
the Hate Crimes Reporting Act. And then, as the BLM did, he'll want to see vocal
Americans rounded up and corralled in another "First Amendment"
for the slaughter.
3 Comments ::