Say goodbye to the First Amendment.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is as dead as the Dodo Bird. It happened while you were sleeping America. Donald Sterling is a uber rich old white guy, who said some stuff that was, frankly, ugly and repugnant. Once upon a time in America, when we still had, not only a First Amendment, but a populace who understood what it meant, their was a saying. Thou I may disagree with what you say, I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it. Like the First Amendment, that sentiment is likewise as dead as the Dodo Bird. Killed by the Marxist concept of politically correct speech.


NBA imposes lifetime ban on Sterling, $2.5 million fine

What are the wages of racism in the NBA, at least when it can’t be overlooked? TMZ heard it would be an indefinite suspension and a big fine, but the league had a tougher punishment in mind:

NBA commissioner Adam Silver has banned Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling for life for making racist remarks to his girlfriend on tape.

He also fined him $2.5 million, and encouraged the NBA Board of Governors to vote to terminate Sterling’s ownership — forcing him to sell the team.

All over something that he said in private. this is as unconstitutional and unAmerican as it is possible to get. Am I defending Sterling? Yes and No. No I absolutely am not defending his racists comments, they are utterly repugnant. But he absolutely does have the Constitutional Right to be as big a Racist as he wants to be. Well, let me correct that, IF the United States Constitution were even remotely still the Law of the Land, then he would have that Right. Sadly though, anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention knows that the United States Constitution is no longer in effect or even worth the paper it’s printed on.

Justices split on whether police can search cellphones during arrests

WASHINGTON — Confronting a right-to-privacy question in the new world of smartphones, the Supreme Court justices sounded closely split Tuesday on whether police officers should be free to search through the phone of any person who is arrested.

Justice Elena Kagan, the newest and youngest member of the high court, urged her colleagues to insist on protecting privacy.

“People carry their entire lives on their cellphone,” she said during the argument involving a San Diego case. If there are no limits, a police officer could stop a motorist for not having seat belt buckled and download a huge amount of information, looking for some evidence of wrongdoing, she warned.

Such a search could include “every single email, all their bank records, all their medical records,” she said, as well as GPS data that would show everywhere they had traveled recently.

But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. pressed the opposite view. Police who make an arrest have always been permitted to check a wallet, a billfold or a purse, and that might include personal photos.

“What’s the difference if the photos are in a billfold or on smartphone?” he asked. The smartphone may include more, but “I don’t see there’s much difference,” he said.

Several justices said they faced a stark choice: either permit officers to search phones at the scene of every arrest, or require them to always obtain a search warrant from a magistrate before looking inside a phone, laptop computer or other digital device.

It was not clear during two hours of argument where the majority would line up.

In the case, a police officers stopped a car driven by David Riley because its license tag had expired. After discovering that Riley’s driver’s license was invalid, the officer found guns in the car. He then examined Riley’s smartphone and found evidence that the man was part of a gang that had carried out a drive-by shooting.

Riley was convicted of attempted murder and gang involvement, and the California courts upheld his conviction. The Supreme Court is considering whether the search of his smartphone violated the 4th Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches.

Stanford law professor Jeffrey Fisher, representing Riley, urged the justices to require officers to obtain a search warrant before examining a smartphone.

But California Solicitor General Edward DuMont said the justices should uphold the authority of police officers to check smartphones when they make an arrest.

Officers will not check phones when someone is stopped for a minor offense, like a seat belt violation, he said. If police make an arrest for a serious crime, they should be allowed check for evidence, including what is contained in the phone, he said.

While the Fourth Amendment could not possibly be more clear on this issue, the fsct is simply that the Fourth Amendment simply no longer exists and hasn’t for a very long time. It intrudes on the Governments ability to force citizens to comply with their will, you see.

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

It takes either a complete and total moron or an individual willfully intent on violating the Fourth Amendment not to recognize what is being said here. How in this modern technological day and age, a cell phone or laptop can not be seen as falling under the Fourth Amendments “Paper’s or Effects” protection?

The Answer is quiet simple, the United States Constitution keeps getting in the way of the Federal Government dictating every single aspect of American’s lives, so the Federal Government keep abrogating it. Obamacare proved that the First Amendment’s clause protecting the Free exercise of Religion no longer applies, This recent dust up over a private conversation of Donald Sterling proves that the or abridging the freedom of speech clause is also no longer in effect. The SCOTUS dithering whether to admit in public that the Fourth Amendment no longer hold any force.

Take a good hard look around you folks. Meh… Never mind, you’ve already drunk the Marxist kool-aid, like the fools at Jonestown who drank Jim Jones cyanide laced Kool-aid, you’re already dead and don’t even know it. So what if Sterling is fined 2.5 million dollars and banned for life from Basketball, he deserves it for being a racist. I mean, right?

First they came for the TEA Party, and I did not speak out– Because I was not TEA Party.

Then they came for the Racists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Racist.

Then they came for the Conservatives, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Conservative.

Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

Advertisements

What we have become.


America has sunk to such lows that our Founding Fathers would be starting another Revolutionary war were they here to see it. One of the most vile and pernicious transgressions against the American people has been in place now for so long that nearly all Americans are unable to even see it. It’s called “Property Taxes”. this perversion is leveled against property owners, not merely at the time of sale, like most other taxes, but every year on the exact same piece of property. In short, it renders the purchaser of property to the position of renting that property from the State Government. It does this through the mechanism whereby if you fail to pay said property tax, the State Government seizes your property and sells it to someone else, regardless of whether you have fully paid for that property or not.

OK to sell widow’s home over $6 bill, judge rules

BEAVER, Pa. (AP) – A widow was given ample notice before her $280,000 house was sold at a tax auction three years ago over $6.30 in unpaid interest, a Pennsylvania judge has ruled.

The decision last week turned down Eileen Battisti’s request to reverse the September 2011 sale of her home outside Aliquippa in western Pennsylvania.

“I paid everything, and didn’t know about the $6.30,” Battisti said. “For the house to be sold just because of $6.30 is crazy.”

Battisti, who still lives in the house, said Monday that she plans to appeal to Commonwealth Court. That court earlier ordered an evidentiary hearing, which led to last week’s ruling.

Beaver County Common Pleas Judge Gus Kwidis wrote that the county tax claim bureau complied with notification requirements in state law before the auction. She had previously owed other taxes, but at the time of the sale she owed just $235, including other interest and fees.

“There is no doubt that (she) had actual receipt of the notification of the tax upset sale on July 7, 2011, and Aug. 16, 2011,” the judge wrote. “Moreover, on Aug. 12, 2011, a notice of sale was sent by first class mail and was not returned.”

The property sold for about $116,000, and most of that money will be paid to Battisti if further appeals are unsuccessful. An attorney for the purchaser did not return a phone message on Monday.

Joe Askar, Beaver County’s chief solicitor, said the judge got the decision right, based on the law.

“The county never wants to see anybody lose their home, but at the same time the tax sale law, the tax real estate law, doesn’t give a whole lot of room for error, either,” Askar said.

This story illustrates the reality of life here in America. The truth is very simple, your government see’s you, and everything you think you own, as their property, fit to be disposed of as they see fit, should you fail to obey them. The BLM was willing to shoot Cliven Bundy so that Harry Reid could steal land that the Bundy family had been grazing their cattle on for over 140 years. Pennsylvania is more than happy to throw Eileen Battisti out of her home, that her husband fully paid for, over a $6.30 tax on that property.

Sorry folks, this really is the reality that you live in, to the self anointed aristocratic political class, you really are serfs, no better than slaves.

The greatest trick the Devil ever did, was to make people think he didn’t exist.


The greatest evil to ever befall the human race, has been the political ideology of Marxism. Anyone who advocates for, or is even sympathetic to Marxism or any of it’s derivatives should be lined up against a wall and shot. In the last 100 years, Marxism has been responsible for the deaths of over a billion human beings. By far, the vast majority of those people were totally innocent victims of the foundational ideology of Marxism, that the End justifies the means.

Around the world, wherever Marxism has gained a political advantage, death has followed in numbers that are utterly incomprehensible to the human mind. 30 million under Stalin, 100 million under Mao, millions more under Pol Pot. Half a billion under the Chinese 1 child law. Wherever you look, Marxism has been responsible for death on a scale that is beyond comprehension.

Yet somehow, even though these numbers are public record, Marxism still has it’s utterly insane advocates. Utterly insane because when ever you point out this inconvenient truth to them, their response is always the same. That wasn’t true Marxism, or that was only because the right people didn’t implement it. The truth however is, that it was in fact true Marxism, and it was implemented by the right people.

Marxism is about lying, deceiving and killing in order for those at the top of the Marxist power scheme to gained absolute power. To those with no morals or ethics it is the perfect vehicle to power and wealth, to those with little intellectual prowess it is a great equalizer that allows them to covet their neighbors property.

As we approach the 100th anniversary of Russian revolution, the insanity that is Marxism has found itself a new apostle.

Piketty’s new gilded age which isn’t

Progressive hearts are all aflutter this week, riding high on the continued coverage of Thomas Piketty and his new book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” which continues to fly off the virtual shelves at Amazon. To say that Piketty’s basic premise is flawed is probably too much of a compliment. Ed already looked at one of the fundamental assertions last week – that median household income had only risen 3.2% over the past three decades – and found it to be off by a factor of ten.

But there are other, deeper problems with the Piketty model. One of them is the idea that capitalism itself is flawed at its foundation, leading to some new gilded age where a handful of families always gather in and hoard the wealth for generations, leaving others to starve in the cold. Unfortunately, even people like David Brooks have bought into the concept without examining it fully.

Politically, the global wealth tax is utopian, as even Piketty understands. If the left takes it up, they are marching onto a bridge to nowhere. But, in the current mania, it is being embraced.

This is a moment when progressives have found their worldview and their agenda. This move opens up a huge opportunity for the rest of us in the center and on the right. First, acknowledge that the concentration of wealth is a concern with a beefed up inheritance tax.

We should have seen this one coming from day one. The claims regarding the horrors of income inequality had to lead to a call for a not only renewed, but expanded death tax. This, in addition to steep income taxes which Brooks claims Piketty does not support, but in fact, are part and parcel of his plan.

Mr. Piketty urges an 80% tax rate on incomes starting at “$500,000 or $1 million.” This is not to raise money for education or to increase unemployment benefits. Quite the contrary, he does not expect such a tax to bring in much revenue, because its purpose is simply “to put an end to such incomes.” It will also be necessary to impose a 50%-60% tax rate on incomes as low as $200,000 to develop “the meager US social state.” There must be an annual wealth tax as high as 10% on the largest fortunes and a one-time assessment as high as 20% on much lower levels of existing wealth. He breezily assures us that none of this would reduce economic growth, productivity, entrepreneurship or innovation.

Fortunately, Dr. Joyner takes a look at several studies of the Piketty manifesto and finds that the aforementioned allegation of the new gilded age is also a non-starter. He looks at the work done by Heidi Moore, who claims that these rich capitalist families have already long since hogged up all the wealth and nobody can ever catch up.

Except, as even Krugman readily points out, none of this is true! Indeed, most of the super wealthy class in America at least are in the finance sector. Whatever other criticisms might be made of that group, that they inherited their riches is not among them.

The discussion that Piketty and others have made possible, and that Krugman and others have helped popularize, is worth having. But it’s likely to be steered in the direction of the stupid by the likes of The Guardian. That’s a pity.

Thomas Piketty, who as I said at the very beginning of this article, should be lined up against a wall and shot for the good of humanity, is enjoying considerable favor with the batshit insane Fifth Column Treasonous Media. He has put a fresh new Disney World face on an evil that is like a mental cancer. Mr Piketty is not only advocating for a political and economic ideology that does not work, but that is completely incapable of working regardless of who is in charge.

Over the decades, every tenant of the Marxist theory has been proven to be false, not just once, but dozens of times. Which is why Mr Piketty has to repaint it in a brand new coat of blood, err paint, so that ignorant individuals can be deceived by it all over again. The question has been asked time and time again, would it be moral to go back in times and kill Adolph Hitler before he became the Dictator of Nazi Germany, knowing that doing so would prevent World War II? the vast majority would say, yes, absolutely.

The historical record for what happens when Marxists gain power makes Hitler’s little experiment with Genocide against the Jewish people look like a couple of kindergarten kids throwing crayons at each other. So yes, people like Thomas Piketty are not only evil, they are among the most insidiousy evil creatures to walk the face of the earth. They look and sound like normal human beings, but they preach an evil so foul and disgusting that it cannot even be comprehended.

The serial killer Ted Bundy was reputed to be an extremely charming, witty and likeable guy, that is how he was able to murder so many women. But he, like Marxism and anyone who advocates it, was actually a cold blooded sociopath for whom everyone around him was merely an object to be used to fulfill his desires, want’s and needs. To the Marxist, everyone around them is just a means to an end, like Ted Bundy’s victims they were not worthy of living one second longer than they were useful to Mr Bundy, and as history has proven beyond any possible shadow of doubt, likewise to the Marxist.

Lining up, anyone who advocates or is sympathetic to Marxism, against the wall and shooting them, could and in the most morally and ethical sense of the concept, be likened to the surgical removal of a cancerous mass. No person in their right mind would hesitate for even a second to surgically remove a cancerous mass, if doing so would save or prolong their life. Anyone who advocates for or is sympathetic to Marxism should be automatically recognized as a homicidal sociopath, whose continued presence in society can only result in society as a whole becoming sick.

Ghosts of Benghazi; Or What difference does it make.


The 9/11/2012 attack on the US Embassy consular building in Benghazi Libya is once again meandering it’s way through the news. All of the same questions are being asked, and no surprise here, the same basic conclusions reached right here on this blog, are now being reached by many others who have looked carefully at the evidence.

File this under: “I Told you So” (The Kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens)

Back on April 30th I related a rumor to you about what supposedly really happened to Ambassador Christopher Stevens during the assault on the Consult in Benghazi. Most of you no doubt filed it away with a chuckle under super crazy tin-foil hat conspiracy theories. Here is what I told you back then.

Why we should hang the Fifth Column Treasonous Media talking heads.

Not only did Barack Insane Obama refuse to send Ambassador Stevens any help, their is considerable evidence to suggest that he actively prevented any help being sent. Moreover their is even rumor to the effect that that hep was specifically denied because the Whitehouse under Barack Insane Obama’s direct orders were engaging in a covert operation that was suppose to result in the kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens and 15 or 20 of his staff who were to be held as hostages so that the Obamanation Administration would have political cover for releasing Blink Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman to Egypt.

Moreover, their is even the suggestion that Ambassador Steven was intended to be killed at some point during that exchange because Ambassador Stevens was cooperating with known Al Qaeda terrorists in a trade of small arms and ammunition in exchange for a significant number of shoulder fired surface to air missiles that had been stolen from the US during the fall of Qaddafi’s Libya.

But, just as has been done in the past, so shall it be done again as this tempest in a teapot simmers down.


A burial shroud for Benghazi…

The Fifth column Treasonous Media is at it again, and sadly most conservatives who saw the 60 Minutes special on Benghazi are falling for it. Let me make something perfectly clear to everyone, the 60 Minute Special on Benghazi is not an expose designed to enlighten anyone nor to bring pressure on the Obamanation Administration. It amounts to nothing less than lime being thrown on a corpse to keep it from stinking, a burial shroud to inform everyone who see’s it, that this story is now officially dead.

The Mainstream media is and always has been fully aware of what happened and why in Benghazi. Their failure to cover the story more aggressively, to relentlessly demand the kinds of answers that was the hallmark of their coverage of the Nixon Watergate scandal, is because, like the Obama administration, they know such activity on their part would be profoundly damaging to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Damaging enough to result in Barack Obama being impeached and land Hillary Clinton in a Federal Prison. The Mainstream Media is no longer about faithfully keeping the American People informed about what is really transpiring around them, not it is now nothing more than a propaganda organization where Marxist/Socialist ideology trumps all, and protecting America’s first Marxist President is the only thing that matters.

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’ and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.

‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..

‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’

The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

‘We don’t claim to have all the answers here,’ said Roger Aronoff, whose center-right group Accuracy in Media sponsored the group and its work.

‘We hope you will, please, pursue this,’ he told reporters. ‘Check it out. Challenge us.’
Retired Admiral Chuck Kubic said the White House refused to let the Pentagon pursue a peaceful exit for Muammar Gaddafi: ‘We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize, but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours’
+7

Retired Admiral Chuck Kubic said the White House refused to let the Pentagon pursue a peaceful exit for Muammar Gaddafi: ‘We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize, but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours’

The commission and AIM filed 85 document requests under the Freedom Of Information Act, hitting the Department of Defense, State Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency with demand after demand.

But most of its information has come from insiders with deep knowledge of the flow of weapons in Libya and elsewhere in the African Maghreb.

Admiral James ‘Ace’ Lyons told the group that he believes the raid on the Benghazi compound was intended as a kidnapping exercise, aimed at snatching U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and demanding a prisoner swap for the ‘blind sheikh’ Omar Abdel-Rahman.

Abdel-Rahman is serving a life sentence in federal prison for planning the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center garage in New York City. He also masterminded a plan, later foiled, to blow up the United Nations, both the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington Bridge and a federal building where the FBI had a base of operations.

A senior FBI source, Lyons said Tuesday, ‘told me that was the plan.’

The attack, history shows, grew in intensity and resulted in the deaths of Stevens and three other U.S. personnel.

Lyons also said U.S. claims that it lacked the resources to mount a counterattack in time to save lives is false.

‘I’m going to tell you that’s not true,’ he said. ‘We had a 130-man unit of forces at Sigonella [AFB in Italy]. They were ready to go.’

‘The flight time from Sigonella to Benghazi is roughly an hour.’

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

The group has called for a Select Congressional Committee to investigate the Benghazi episode. A total of 189 House members have signed on to a bill that would create the committee, which would be bipartisan and have sweeping powers to subpoena the executive branch.

House Speaker John Boehner, Lopez said Tuesday, ‘he blocked it. One has to wonder if he and Congress have had some sort of briefing on what happened.’

Had the Mainstream Media any creditability what-so-ever left, it would be them, and not a British tabloid running this story, but, the American Mainstream Media has already chosen their side, it is not the side of the American people, for all practical purposes, they are repeating what are perhaps the most offensive and noxious words ever made on the subject of the attack on Benghazi, “At this point, what difference does it make?

The thrill of tyranny.


Lois Lerner may be gone, but her legacy looms large in the minds of Marxist tyrants pretending to be Democrats.

IRS revokes conservative group’s tax-exempt status over anti-Clinton statements

The Internal Revenue Servicehas revoked the tax-exempt status of a conservative charity for making statements critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Kerry, according to a USA Today report.

The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, based in Manassas, Va., “has shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications,” according to a written determination released Friday by the IRS.

The IRS said the center acted as an “action organization” by publishing alerts on its website for columns written by its president, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

The IRS pointed out a column that appeared to be published by Townhall on April 2, 2004, in which Mr. Aldrich wrote, “if John Kerry promises otherwise ill-informed swing-voters lower gas prices at the pump, more than a few greedy, registered ignoramuses will follow him anywhere,” the Free Beacon reported.

Another article cited by the IRS was a 2005 piece titled “Stop Hillary Now!,” which rallied “Clinton haters” to inform voters of Hillary Clinton’s “atrocious conduct,” USA Today reported.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said in an interview with The Washington Post last week that the IRS and Treasury Department are likely to rewrite controversial draft guidelines to better define “candidate-related political activities.”

“My bottom line is that it’s in everyone’s interest to have clarification,” he said. “My position since I started more than four months ago is that we ought to have clarity, and that any rule that comes out ought to be fair and easy to administer.”

Conservatives have argued that the proposals are just another way for the Obama administration to target right-leaning groups.

A Fox News poll published last week revealed that 49 percent of American voters believe the IRS intentionally targeted conservative organizations.

What is important to note here, is that at this particular point in time, neither John F’ing Kerry nor Hillary Clinton are declared candidates for anything. Thus rending the IRS act’s preemptive at best, and an illegal suppression of free speech at the barest of minimums. In short, this action by the IRS is nothing less than a expansion of the tyrannical overreach of the federal government that the Obamanation Administration has nurtured. Just as with the recent case witnessed in Nevada at the Bundy Ranch, these actions fly in the face of every word written by America’s Founding Fathers, not only in the Constitution itself, but in every one of their written documents in which they went to excruciatingly pains to make their position crystal clear on.

Oh, and just in case anyone thinks that the dust up in Nevada is a one off exception to the rule event for the BLM, think again.

BLM Eyes 90,000 Acres of Texas Land

After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.

Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas.

“In Texas,” Miller says, “the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit. The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.”

Miller referred to a 1986 case where the BLM attempted to seize some of Henderson’s land. Henderson sued the BLM and lost 140 acres that had been in his family for generations. Now the BLM is looking at using the prior case as a precedent to claim an additional 90,000 acres.

Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) represents the ranchers in this region of north Texas. According to Thornberry’s legislative analysts, the issue of the ownership of this land dates back to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. When the BLM made the claim on Henderson’s land, their position was that Texas never had the authority to deed the land to private parties and therefore it would fall under federal control.

In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to settle the boundary dispute in Oklahoma v. Texas and declared the boundary to be defined by wooden stakes set on the river bank. That boundary apparently lasted no longer than anyone could expect wooden stakes to last in the shifting sands of a meandering river. In 2000, Texas and Oklahoma’s legislatures agreed to a “Red River Boundary Compact” which defined the border between the states as the southern vegetation line. However, Congress must ratify agreements of this kind between the states according to Article 1, Section 10 (Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution. Congressman Thornberry introduced House Joint Resolution 72 during the 106th Congress to codify the compact into U.S. Law.

The matter became somewhat of a national question drawing the attention of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, “The U.S. Supreme Court has tried twice to settle this dispute, which at one point brought the governor of Oklahoma to the border in a tank…However, true to the slogan ‘One Riot, One Ranger,’ the good governor of Oklahoma and his tank was held off by a lone Texas Ranger on his horse.”

Tanks aside, the Texas Farm Bureau has produced a video that explains the problems left open by the current border definition from north Texas ranchers’ perspectives. This issue reportedly centers on Oklahoma’s definitions on the various forms of movement with the river.

Is is really any wonder, with the Federal government consistently acting with such a blatant disregard for the United States constitution, that so many American’s are getting fed up? And then, to add insult to injury, we have a Senate Majority Leader calling those who object to the Federal governments illegal and unconstitutional action “Domestic Terrorists”?

‘I blame both sides,’ Oklahoma militia members join fight against feds

OKLAHOMA CITY – A land dispute in Nevada between rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government began decades ago.

The Bureau of Land Management says Bundy was allowing his cattle to graze illegally which triggered a round-up of about 400 head of cattle last week.

Bundy claims his family’s cattle have grazed on the land since 1870 without interference from the government.

However, the Bureau of Land Management says Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees since 1993.

Over time, officials say those fees have amounted to more than $1 million.

As authorities herded the cattle, a standoff was sparked with members of the militia.

Organizers with the Oklahoma Militia say they have members in Nevada who claim Bundy’s cattle were unlawfully herded by the bureau.

The Oklahoma Militia says it is made up of nearly 50,000 volunteers.

Members say they are taking Bundy’s side and fear this practice could spread to the Sooner State.

Scott Shaw said, “Evidently in America we don’t actually own the property anymore if you ever did.”

Shaw says Oklahoma Militia members are ready to take up arms against the federal government if needed.

He said, “It’s up to the feds. The ball’s in their court! You can do this legally or if you want to try to do a land grab violently, you can do that. We’re going to resist you!”

Shaw says the militia has not had to defend Oklahoma from the government yet but members are becoming concerned.

Shaw said, “Just look around the country, they are doing it everywhere. If they can do it in Nevada, they can do it in Colorado, Texas. I mean, what’s to stop them from coming to Oklahoma? The only thing to stop them is ‘We the People’.”

However, not everyone agrees.

Sen. Jim Inhofe said, “You’ve got a bunch of people there trying to take the law into their own hands and they shouldn’t be doing that. And the Bureau of Land Management is not government-owned, it’s publicly owned. There’s a big difference there. I blame both sides.”

I should like to point out the blatantly and painfully obvious to Scott Shaw, the moment any State enacts a property tax, it has illegally seized all privately held property in that state, since the penalty for failure to pay a property tax is seized and forced sale of the property in question the act of enacting a property tax instantly transforms the property owner into a tenant leasing or renting the property from the State.

As to Sen. Jim Inhofe’s bullshit, it is really no surprise to see a member of America’s self anointed Aristocracy aligning himself with the Federal governments Brown shirts against the average American citizen, while simultaneously berating American’s for being offended by the acts of a tyrannical government that has long since lost it’s moral or legal authority to govern.

That Congress can and does pass legislation that violates the United States Constitution and then uses the judicial branches and various Law Enforcement Agencies to apply it’s monopoly on violence to enforce those Unconstitutional laws is nothing new. Slavery was after all once legal as were all of the Jim Crow and Blue Laws.

What is relatively new, is the American People standing up and saying, NO, you have gone too far.

Viewing the world through Stupid glasses.


It’s pretty much a given that if you are a politician, that you are psychopath/sociopath.


Are Politicians Psychopaths?

It’s no secret that politicians can be driven by outsized egos. I mean, who among us really thinks he or she deserves a seat in Congress — or a desk in the Oval Office?

But can egotism alone explain why so many elected officials seem to get caught telling lies, having affairs, committing financial improprieties or engaging in other scandalous behavior? Not everyone is convinced that it can, and some in the blogosphere have gone so far as to wonder if bad-boy (and bad girl) politicians are actually psychopaths. And a recent article in The Atlantic asks of these pundits:

Could they be right? If these pundits mean that the targeted office-seekers are evil or “crazy,” probably not. But if they are pointing out that politicians and psychopaths share certain characteristics, they could be on to something.

Just what does it mean to be a psychopath? Turns out psychopathy isn’t a formal psychiatric diagnosis but a term first popularized by Medical College of Georgia psychiatrist Hervey Cleckley in his 1941 classic The Mask Of Sanity. Psychopaths seem superficially normal but tend to be cold-hearted, lacking in empathy, egocentric, manipulative, irresponsible, and antisocial. Or, as a 2007 Scientific American article put it:

Superficially charming, psychopaths tend to make a good first impression on others and often strike observers as remarkably normal. Yet they are self-centered, dishonest and undependable, and at times they engage in irresponsible behavior for no apparent reason other than the sheer fun of it… Psychopaths routinely offer excuses for their reckless and often outrageous actions, placing blame on others instead.

Hmm. That description could probably describe more than a few politicians — though you and I might not agree on whom to nominate for psychopath status. But before indulging in any armchair analysis, I reached out to Dr. Martha Stout. A clinical psychologist who was long affiliated with Harvard Medical School, she’s the author of The Sociopath Next Door and other popular books on emotional disorders (including a forthcoming text that explores the link between emotional disorders and politics). By the way, Dr. Stout tends to use the term sociopath instead of psychopath, explaining to me that the terms are often used interchangeably by mental health professionals.

Anyway, when I asked Dr. Stout if there’s any truth to the contention that politicians are more likely to be psychopaths, she said in an email that no solid statistics were available to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Yet despite the lack of proof, she gave a surprisingly definitive answer to my question:

Yes, politicians are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths. I think you would find no expert in the field of sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder who would dispute this… That a small minority of human beings literally have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow — but it does explain a great many things, shamelessly deceitful political behavior being one.

At one time, she continued, the terms psychopath and sociopath conjured up image of mass murderers and serial killers. “As it turns out, the majority of sociopaths/psychopaths never kill anyone with their own hands, nor do they end up in prison,” she said. “A smart sociopath can avoid prison and find other, less conspicuous ways to satisfy his or her lust for dominating and controlling others, and what better way than through politics and big business?”

An observation made surprisingly by both sides of the political isle.

These Are the Top 10 Jobs Most Likely to Attract Psychopaths (Should We Be Worried?)

A recent book claims to have pinpointed the top 10 jobs most likely to attract psychopaths — one of which hits particularly close to home for us here at TheBlaze.

As flagged by AOL Jobs last week, psychologist author Kevin Dutton argues in “The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success” that “a number of psychopathic attributes [are] actually more common in business leaders than in so-called disturbed criminals — attributes such as superficial charm, egocentricity, persuasiveness, lack of empathy, independence, and focus.”

Basically, certain fields of work are more likely to attract psychopaths than others.

Here’s the list of jobs with the highest rates of psychopathy:

1. CEO
2. Lawyer
3. Media (Television/Radio)
4. Salesperson
5. Surgeon
6. Journalist
7. Police Officer
8. Clergy person
9. Chef
10. Civil Servant

And the lowest rates of psychopathy:

1. Care Aide
2. Nurse
3. Therapist
4. Craftsperson
5. Beautician/Stylist
6. Charity Worker
7. Teacher
8. Creative Artist
9. Doctor
10. Accountant

Does your field fall into either list? Let us know in the comments.

While both sides of the isle recognize that psychopathic/sociopath behavior is relatively common among politicians, it’s of course always the politicians from the other side who exhibit such behavior. A rather unsurprising fact given that when asked about politicians the vast majority say that most politicians are corrupt, except for their own politician.

Examples of this kind of psychopathic/sociopath behavior literally fill the 24/7/365 television/cable/radio/internet News cycle.

Protip from Reid: Bundy supporters are “domestic terrorists,” y’know

On the 1-10 Harry Reid Scale of Demagoguery, this gets … a seven. Reid’s Kochsteria and his labeling of two men as “un-American” from the floor of the Senate for engaging in the political process in opposition to his own agenda has to get the ten. Abusing the term “terrorist” during a partisan political event has to get a little lower rating, but not by much:

Harry Reid, caught red handed attempting an illegal land grab, retorts by calling those that exposed and resisted him, Domestic Terrorists. Harry Reid is a powerful Senator, and carefully made his libelous accusation from the Senate floor, where he is by law granted immunity from any form of suit or prosecution for making such false and defamatory accusations.

Hillary Clinton is definitely on the Right’s list, right up near the very top of psychopath/sociopath list, and for very good reason. At this point what difference would it make? Yea… four dead, and you refuse to take responsibility for utterly and completely failing in what was absolutely and undeniably your responsibility. Now Hillary is preparing to play the Grandma card in her unending quest to secure her residency at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

GRANDMA HILLARY…

So, where does the viewing the world through stupid glasses come in you ask?

Anyone who thinks, that anyone willing to pay millions of dollars to get a job that only pays $125,000.00 a year, isn’t a psychopath/sociopath and a career criminal is wearing those stupid glasses. Hillary has been surrounded by scandals, Whitewater, Travelgate, Benghazi and still she presses on finally coming up with the mother of all disgusting campaign slogans… Hillary the Grandmother. Really? That is her big accomplishment that qualifies her for being President of the United States of America? You honestly have to be wearing Stupid Glasses if that appeals to you in any way shape or form. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans are still dean, but to quote Grandma Hillary, what difference at this point do it make? I imagine to Christopher Steven’s is still makes one hell of a big difference, sadly Christopher isn’t able to give his personal opinion on the matter, he is far to busy being DEAD…

America’s self anointed Aristocracy aka the official elected political class are playing games with America’s economy, freedoms, Liberties, and shredding the United States Constitution for their own personal profit. All while 95% of America are busy cleaning their Stupid Glasses so that they can better read and repeat the insane talking point that their side feeds them.

the Democrats claim that the economy is roaring, that it has recovered, that the future has never looked better, then demand that Republicans pass an emergency unemployment extension bill. At the exact same time, Republicans claim that the Democrats have destroyed the economy, that it hasn’t been this bad since the great depression, then turn around and say that if the chronically unemployed would just quit being lazy and stop mooching off the government they could get jobs and everything would be cool because really there is no need to pass a emergency unemployment extension bill.

Again, you absolutely have to be wearing Stupid Glasses not to see what is happening here. Both parties elected officials are destroying the economy for their own personal profit, using the American people as weapons against each other, counting on the pain that they inflict on their constitutes being the catalyst that gives them the upper hand over their political enemies.

Republican Speaker of the House John Boenher is no exception, in fact, he’s “Hell Bent” on passing immigration re3form this year.

Boehner reassures GOP donors: I’m “hellbent” on passing immigration reform this year

A big gamble if true, but not a crazy one. He’s betting that nothing the GOP does, up to and including amnesty, will enrage grassroots conservatives so much that they’re likely to stay home in protest in November because of it. Anger at ObamaCare trumps all. When the dust settles, after a week or two of talk radio calling Boehner a traitor for passing an immigration bill and vowing to go third party, everyone will swallow hard and decide that they have no choice but to vote for the GOP anyway in the name of stopping O-Care. The redder the Senate turns next year, the greater the odds of repeal in 2017. Although if they’d sell you out on immigration, I’m not sure why you’d think they won’t sell you out on that too when the time comes.

You have to have had your stupid glasses super glued to your head to not know how the Republican base is going to react to this. Yes, the Republican Party has no shortage of psychopath/sociopath in it’s leadership.

Harry Reid is a traitor…


With his mouth flapping in the wind like the mainsail on a yacht in a hurricane, Harry Reid who personifies mendacious malfeasant corruption, has accused those individuals, who dared to interrupt his scheme to steal the land that the Bundy Family have been grazing their cattle on for the last 140 years, of being domestic terrorists.

Protip from Reid: Bundy supporters are “domestic terrorists,” y’know

On the 1-10 Harry Reid Scale of Demagoguery, this gets … a seven. Reid’s Kochsteria and his labeling of two men as “un-American” from the floor of the Senate for engaging in the political process in opposition to his own agenda has to get the ten. Abusing the term “terrorist” during a partisan political event has to get a little lower rating, but not by much:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intensified his criticism of armed militia members supporting rancher Cliven Bundy, calling them “domestic terrorists.”

“They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said Thursday at an event hosted by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, according to the newspaper. “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”

Reid specifically criticized Bundy supporters for bringing guns and their children to the ranch to defend him against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BLM officials and contractors started rounding up Bundy’s cattle last week because of his refusal to pay $1 million in grazing fees, but they backed down Saturday due to safety concerns.

It’s possible to have mixed feelings about what happened at the Bundy ranch without calling the support the ranchers received “domestic terrorism.” (John Hinderaker’s analysis lands pretty close to my own reaction.) Primarily, no act of violence took place, although some of the protesters were armed. In the end, this was a non-violent action, although still dangerous for those involved. The BLM stood down in part because of that danger, but also in part because their abuse of authority embarrassed them once it got as much attention as it did.

Why knock down three pegs on the scale? Well, consider it a technicality. The legal definition at the Department of Justice, at least since 1994, has been this:

The unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

That’s why this only gets a seven. One could make the argument that the armed faction at the Bundy ranch was a show of force that coerced the BLM into retreat, and that would meet that definition … in a strictly literal sense. However, the common-sense definition of “domestic terrorism” involves an actual use of violence, and usually against civilian targets (although no one would doubt that the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 was an act of domestic terrorism). In this category, one would first think of the Animal Liberation Front, the SLA, the United Freedom Front, and so on — not an ad hoc demonstration of solidarity for a rancher involved in a legal standoff with the BLM.

It would be nice if someone would point out to Ed Morrissey, who isn’t exactly renowned for his intellectual gravitas, that the 1994 definition of terrorism that he points out, could be applied to the BLM every bit as equally.