They Chose... Poorly

Most folks remember the scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the ancient knight guarding the Holy Grail for centuries; but which cup was the real Holy Grail and which were imposters? 

Donovan, the character representing NAZI domination, drank from an ornate golden chalice thinking he’d receive extraordinary powers reserved from on high only to find he’d taken destruction upon himself. 

“He chose…poorly”, the wise Templar Knight remarked.

A strange thought to ramble through my mind as I prepare for our next Independence Day, wouldn’t you say? 

I find little if anything to raise my spirits regarding America’s path, at least as they pertain to the future of our once great republic.  Feelings of dread and foreboding place dark shadows on our future as I consider the path we’re now on, a path which leads toward totalitarian captivity rather than individual liberty.

“In the year 1831 Alexis de Tocqueville, the famous French historian, came to our country at the request of the French government to study our penal institutions. He also made a close study of our political and social institutions. In less than ten years, de Tocqueville had become world-famous, as the result of the four-volume work that he wrote, entitled Democracy in America. Here is his own stirring explanation of the greatness of America:” 

“I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

But we are still free to choose our path, are we not?  The ability to decide to obey the commandments of the Lord or to follow the great deceiver; isn’t that the ultimate test?  We can abide by the Plan of Happiness or follow our carnal desires; after all, the natural man is and always has been at odds with God.

In the Book of Mormon we are told of a promise, a promise which applied to the early inhabitants of this land as well as in our day.

“Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.”

When I contemplate the course America is on this particular scripture haunts my mind.  An unsettling thought as we prepare to celebrate Independence Day and what our founding documents had to say regarding our reasons for separation.

Consider the list of acts which brought about separation from King George, those listed within the text of the Declaration of Independence, are we not making a similar list of offenses our government has inflicted upon We The People in our day, acts which would lend a reasonable person to believe his/her government is not acting in his/her best interests?  

He (King George) has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. 

How many Executive Orders have been used to bypass Congress in order to bring about Obama’s imposed agenda?  How many Czars have been put in place, Czars who don’t require approval by the Senate?   What about using the EPA or Homeland Security to impose Obama’s agenda rather than requiring Congress to pass laws intended to bring about such change?

He (King George) has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

It wouldn’t be much of a step to compare Arizona’s attempts to enforce illegal immigration laws and have the federal government stepping in to block enforcement of those laws.  The same could be said for states which passed laws requiring proper photo ID in order to vote or voter mandates regarding same sex marriage; or am I mistaken?

He (King George) has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

Should I mention Supreme Court Justice John Roberts may have been bullied into compliance in order to push Obamacare through?  That could never happen here in America; that’s pure speculation according to the AP article. 

If Texas is an example of the road America has chosen, and Texas is one of the more conservative states, then America is if deep trouble.  A story by Natalie DiBlasio and Steph Solis posted on USA Today pointed to a filibuster which disrupted an attempt to scale back the war on our unborn.  The proposed legislation which was thwarted would have required better management of facilities and safety measures at abortion clinics. 

“Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis became an overnight social media star Tuesday as people on the Internet tuned into her all-day filibuster of an abortion bill in Austin.”

{…}

.
“Actor Henry Winkler tweeted at @WendyDavisTexas, telling her, “You stand for all of us who believe woman are in charge of their own bodies and destinies.” President Obama tweeted, “Something special is happening in Austin tonight.”…”’ (emphasis added)

Our nation is sharply divided on what constitutes a living being, an individual worthy of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as scrawled on a piece of parchment so many years ago.   Our president stands with those in favor of late term abortions.  Shouldn’t we stand up for the rights of the unborn, those who lack the ability to defend their own rights?

It’s a federal crime to destroy the egg of a Bald Eagle; but not that of a human being; doesn’t that point to a serious problem in priorities?  

John Adams (upon moving into the White House), “I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.”  John must be spinning in his grave watching the antics of Obama.  Actually, I was looking for a completely different John Adams quote when I fell upon that last one; here’s the one that originally came to mind:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” 

You might want to consider how to celebrate Independence Day next Thursday as it might be our last as a constitutional republic.  Thinking back to the Indiana Jones movie and the Templar Knight, what he would say about our choices?  We already know the answer.  

“They chose… poorly”.

.

Climate alarmism’s 10,000 commandments

       

EPA fiats threaten American lives, livelihoods, living standards and life spans

By Paul Driessen

The United States will “do more,” before it’s “too late” to prevent “dangerous” global warming, President Obama told Berliners last week. If Congress won’t act, he will, by regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, increasing subsidies and reduce environmental overview for wind and solar projects on federal lands, and issuing other rules that will adversely affect economic growth and job creation. 

Indeed, his Environmental Protection Agency is already devising new rules that will sharply curtail carbon dioxide emissions, by regulating thousands of facilities that use hydrocarbon energy – and thus ultimately almost everything Americans make, grow, ship, eat and do. 

However, the manmade global warming “disasters” exist only in computer models and assertions by scientists who are addicted to billions in government Climate Armageddon grants. Moreover, the “preventative measures” are far worse than the disasters EPA claims to be preventing. 

Even the most diehard alarmists have finally recognized that average global temperatures have hardly budged since 1997, even as atmospheric levels of plant-fertilizing CO₂ climbed steadily. For many areas, the past winter was among the coldest in decades; the USA and Britain just recorded one their coldest springs on record; and satellite data show that Earth has actually cooled slightly since 2002. 

The frequency and severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts are no different from observed trends and cycles over the last century. 2012 set records for the fewest strong tornadoes since 1954 and the number of years with no category 3 or higher hurricane making US landfall. (The vicious tornadoes of recent weeks underscore how quickly the weather can swing back to normal patterns.) Arctic sea ice is within a few percentage points of “normal” levels for the past fifty years, and the rate of sea level rise is not accelerating. 

These facts completely contradict computer model predictions and alarmist claims. Moreover, as Climategate and numerous studies have shown, the “science” behind EPA’s ruling that carbon dioxide “endangers” human health and welfare is conjectural, manufactured, manipulated and even fraudulent. 

EPA is supposed to protect our environment, health and welfare. Instead, it “safeguards” us from exaggerated or illusory risks – by issuing mountains of costly, intrusive regulations that endanger our health, wellbeing and wildlife far more than any reasonably foreseeable effects from climate change. 

This accumulation of anti-hydrocarbon restrictions and penalties is putting EPA in control of nearly every aspect of our lives. Fuel, compliance and business costs will soar. Companies will be forced to outsource work to other countries, reduce work forces, shift people to part-time status, or close their doors. 

Poor and minority families will be unable to heat and cool their homes properly, pay their rent or mortgage, buy clothing and medicine, take vacations, pay their bills, give to charity, and save for college and retirement. 

With twelve million Americans already out of work, and another eight million working multiple lower-paying, part-time jobs, EPA’s global warming and 1,920 other rules over the past four years translate into unprecedented sleep deprivation, lower economic and educational status, and soaring anxiety and stress. That will mean greater risk of strokes and heart attacks; higher incidences of depression, alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse; more suicides; and declining overall life expectancy. 

EPA’s new 54.5 mpg fuel efficiency standards will force more people into smaller, lighter, less safe cars – causing thousands of needless additional serious injuries and deaths every year – in the name of preventing illusory climate and oil and gas depletion crises.

Federal regulators use the same phony climate change and energy depletion arguments to justify letting wind turbine operators slaughter millions of birds and bats every year – including bald and golden eagles, hawks, condors and whooping cranes. They continue to promote and subsidize $50-per-gallon biofuels, to replace oil and natural gas that the world still has in abundance – thanks to new exploration, drilling and production technologies. This focus on biofuels also means more rainforests and other wildlife habitats are being cut down in the name of “renewable” energy. 

EPA and President Obama never consider any of this, in calculating the supposed “benefits” of their onerous regulations. They refuse to recognize that their hysterical claims of climate cataclysms are increasingly indefensible. They ignore the damage that their heavy-handed rules impose on our health, welfare and environmental quality. 

EPA finds, punishes and even targets anyone who violates any of its ten thousand commandments, even inadvertently. The agency’s climate change actions, however, are not inadvertent. They are deliberate, and their effects are harmful and far reaching. They will affect every American and 100% of our economy.  

And yet, these increasingly powerful bureaucrats – who seek and acquire ever more control over our lives – remain faceless, nameless, unelected and unaccountable. They operate largely behind closed doors, issuing regulations and arranging sweetheart “sue and settle” legal actions with radical environmentalist groups, to advance ideological agendas, without regard for their impacts on our lives, livelihoods, living standards, health, welfare and environment. 

They know that, for them, there is rarely any real transparency, accountability or consequences – even for gross stupidity, major screw-ups, flagrant abuses or deliberate harm. 

We need to save our environment from environmentalists and EPA – and safeguard our liberties, living standards and lives against the arrogance of too-powerful politicians and bureaucrats. How we achieve this, while protecting our lives and environment from real risks, is one of the greatest challenges we face.

________________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

 

© Paul Driessen * June 20, 2013

Published in the Washington Times, Monday, June 24, 2013

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/24/climate-alarmisms-10000-commandments/

Greedy Africans are starving our cars

US politicians and bureaucrats have less compassion and common sense than average Londoner 

By Paul Driessen 

“You’ve heard of Live Aid? Well, this is Drive Aid,” an ardent young man says, as he approaches London pedestrians. “Greedy people in developing nations are eating huge amounts of food that could easily be turned into biofuel to power our cars. African acreage the size of Belgium is being used for food, and we’re saying it should go to cars here in the UK. Can we have your support?” 

Londoners reacted with disbelief and outrage, the ActionAid UK video shows, and refused to sign his mock petition. The amusing stunt drove home a vital point: Biofuel programs are turning food into fuel, converting cropland into fuel production sites, and disrupting food supplies for hungry people worldwide. The misguided programs are having serious environmental consequences, as well. 

Why, then, can’t politicians, bureaucrats and environmentalists display the common sense exhibited by London’s citizenry? Why did President Obama tell Africans (many of whom are malnourished) in July 2009 that they should refrain from using “dirty” fossil fuels and use their “bountiful” biofuel and other renewable energy resources, instead? When will Congress pull the plug on Renewable Fuel Standards? 

Ethanol and other biofuels might have made some sense when Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and established mandates (or “standards”) requiring that refiners and consumer purchase large quantities of ethanol and other biofuels. Back then, despite growing evidence to the contrary, many people thought we were running out of oil and gas, and believed manmade global warming threatened the planet. But this is not 2005. Those rationales are no longer persuasive. 

The hydraulic fracturing revolution has obliterated the Club of Rome “peak oil” notion that we are rapidly exhausting the world’s petroleum. Climategate and other IPCC scandals demonstrated that the “science” behind climate cataclysm claims is conjectural, manipulated and even fraudulent. And actual observations of temperatures, storms, droughts, sea levels and Arctic ice have refused to cooperate with computer models and Hansen-Gore-EPA-IPCC disaster scenarios. 

In fact, biofuels and Renewable Fuel Standards cannot be justified on any grounds.

The United States is using 40 million acres of cropland (Iowa plus New Jersey) and 45% of its corn crop to produce 14 billion gallons of ethanol annually. This amount of corn could feed some 570 million people, out of the 1.2 billion who still struggle to survive on $1.25 per day. 

This corn-centric agriculture is displacing wheat and other crops, dramatically increasing grain and food prices, and keeping land under cultivation that would otherwise be returned to wildlife habitat. It requires millions of pounds of insecticides, billions of pounds of fertilizer, vast amounts of petroleum-based energy, and billions of gallons of water – to produce a fuel that gets one-third less mileage per gallon than gasoline and achieves no overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Ethanol mandates have caused US corn prices to rocket from $1.96 per average bushel in 2005 to as much as $7.50 in autumn 2012 and $6.68 in June 2013. Corn growers and ethanol makers get rich. However, soaring corn prices mean beef, pork, poultry, egg and fish producers pay more for corn-based feed; grocery manufacturers pay more for corn, meat, fish and corn syrup; families pay more for everything on their dinner table; and starving Africans go hungry because aid agencies cannot buy as much food.

By 2022, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (amending the 2005 law) requires 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol and 21 billion gallons of cellulosic and other non-corn-based biofuels. That will monumentally worsen all these problems.

Equally insane, the Environmental Protection Agency’s draft rule for 2013 required that refiners purchase 14 million gallons of cellulosic biofuels. There’s a teensy problem: the fuel doesn’t exist. 

A mere 4,900 gallons were produced in March, and zero the other months. So companies are forced to buy fantasy fuel, fined big bucks if they do not, and punished if they get conned into buying fraudulent “renewable fuel credits” from “socially responsible” companies like Clean Green Fuel, Absolute Fuels and Green Diesel. 

Ethanol collects water, which can result in engine stalls. It corrodes plastic, rubber and soft metal parts. Pre-2001 car engines, parts and systems may not be able to handle E15 fuel blends (15% ethanol, 85% gasoline), adversely affecting engine, fuel pump and sensor durability. Older cars, motorcycles and boats fueled with E15 could conk out in dangerously inopportune places; at the very least they could require costly engine repairs. Lawn mowers and other gasoline-powered equipment are equally susceptible. 

On a global scale, the biofuels frenzy is diverting millions of acres of farmland from food crops, converting millions of acres of rainforest and other wildlife habitat into farmland, and employing billions of gallons of water, to produce corn, jatropha, palm oil and other crops for use in producing politically correct biodiesel and other biofuels. 

To top off this seemingly inexhaustible list of policy idiocies, all this ethanol and other biofuel could easily be replaced with newly abundant oil and gas supplies. Amazing new seismic, deepwater, deep drilling, hydraulic fracturing and other technologies have led to discoveries of huge new reserves of oil and natural gas – and enabled companies to extract far more petroleum from reservoirs once thought to have been depleted. 

That means we can now get vastly more energy from far less land; with far fewer impacts on environmental quality, biodiversity and endangered species; and with none of the nasty effects on food supplies, food prices and world hunger that biofuel lunacy entails. 

We could do that – if radical greens in the Obama Administration, United Nations and eco pressure groups would end their ideological opposition to leasing, drilling, fracking, Outer Continental Shelf and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge development, Canadian oil sands, the Keystone pipeline and countless other projects. We could do so, if they would stop behaving like environmentalist Bull Connors, arrogantly blocking the doors to human and civil rights progress.

This colossal global biofuels industry exists only because resource depletion and climate Armageddon ideologies do not die easily – and because politicians lavish government mandates and billions of dollars in taxpayer and consumer subsidies on firms that have persuasive lobbyists and reliable track records for channeling millions of those dollars back to the politicians who keep the racket going. 

The ActionAid UK video has lent some good British gallows humor to a serious issue. As another well-known Brit might say, it is time rein in a global SPECTRE that has wreaked too much human and environmental havoc. 

To get that long overdue effort underway, Congress needs to amend the 2005 Energy Policy Act, eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standards and end the taxpayer subsidies. 

A few thousand farmers and ethanol makers will undoubtedly feel some pain. A few hundred politicians will have less money in their reelection coffers. However, countless wild creatures will breathe much easier in their newly safe natural habitats – and millions of families will enjoy a new birth of freedom, a new wave of economic opportunity, and welcome relief from hunger and malnutrition.

_____________

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Precautionary double standards

Wind turbines kill birds and harm people. Why doesn’t the “precautionary principle” apply? 

By Rich Kozlovich

Jessica Marszelek, federal politics reporter for Australia’s News Limited Network, recently posted an article titled, “Australia: Wind power 'terrorising' rural communities.” Some 150 people turned up for a three-hour rally at Canberra’s Parliament House, she reported, to express their concern about the health effects of wind turbines. 

The residents from small towns around the country complain that the giant turbines cause “a constant rumbling and pulsing in their heads and a feeling of oppressive anxiety,” she noted. “Everyday farmers” are upset over growing numbers of turbines in their communities.  

“Retired Naval electronics engineering officer and beef farmer” David Mortimer receives Aus$12,000 a year to allow these avian Cuisinarts on his land, and 17 more are planned. However, Mr. Mortimer says he now “suffers night-time panic attacks, acute anxiety, heart palpitations, tinnitus, earaches, headaches and angina-like pains, and his wife has dizzy spells.” 

Doctors can’t find anything wrong, but the problems continue, and he claims that he gets “this sensation of absolute acute anxiety, and it feels like someone is pushing an x-ray blanket over me and weighting me down into the chair and I can’t get out. We’ve got this constant turmoil, constant pulsing in our head, constant rumbling,” he continues, and is afraid the added windmills will kill him and his wife. 

Clean Energy Council Policy Director Russell Marsh dismissed the claims, saying no international research has confirmed the health impacts attributed to wind power. One rally attendee said there is “not enough research into the effects of wind energy.” 

I don’t know whether more research needs to be done – though the dearth of such studies seems unjustifiable – or if these monsters of the skyline really are causing any or all of the health problems these people are suffering. However, there is a monumental lack of consistency in all of this. 

These are essentially the same kinds of complaints, comments and anecdotal evidence that the green movement repeatedly raises over just about every chemical on the market, and every drilling, pipeline and other hydrocarbon development proposal they dislike. These are the same speculative, anecdotal arguments that prompted governments all over the world to pass anti-chemical regulations such as the European Union’s costly, burdensome and complex regulatory system known as REACH. 

In the USA, REACH has inspired the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 ( SCA), which is intended to replace the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), supposedly to “modernize” the country’s chemical laws. In promoting the bill, the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) said it would impose “a mandate on companies to confirm safety before chemicals reach the market.”

In short, he wanted to impose the Precautionary Principle (PP), which asserts two precepts. 

First, all products must be proven totally safe under all circumstances before they can be used – which is physically and scientifically impossible (and the greens know it). It’s like demanding that spouses prove they aren’t cheating on their mates; it can’t be done. Second, even if there is no scientific evidence of harm, everyone should assume there is harm and forbid the sale and use of – well, just about everything.

As one observer noted, with the Precautionary Principle, “no evidence is needed that something is harmful or even could be harmful.” In many cases, no amount of scientific evidence is ever enough to counter the argument that a refinery, pipeline, nuclear power plant or other technology  is “not proven safe” beyond all doubt – even if it is “astronomically unlikely” that a particular harm would occur. 

“The Precautionary Principle insists that no new technology should be permitted until it can be shown that it will pose no threat to human health or the environment,” environmental analyst Paul Driessen adds, “even if there is no evidence that cause-and-effect dangers actually exist.” This too is impossible. 

The PP “focuses on the risks of using chemicals and technologies – but never on the risks of not using them,” Driessen notes. “It highlights risks that a technology might cause, but ignores the risks that the technology would reduce or prevent.”  

This brings me to the thrust of my concern. Why aren’t these assertions of adverse health effects from wind turbines – especially from citizens who are receiving royalties for having turbines on their property – just as important as wildly speculative claims by green activists regarding insecticides and other chemicals?  Why isn’t the Precautionary Principle being applied in this case?

We absolutely know these monsters are killing at least 573,000 birds every year, including some 83,000 eagles, hawks and other raptors – in clear violation of US laws. Other estimates put the toll at closer to 13,000,000 birds and bats annually. Why are the “precautionary” activists stone-cold silent about that? 

Larry Katzenstein, in his chapter in the book Silent Spring at 50, credits Rachel Carson’s work as the inspiration for the so-called “principle.” The PP can certainly be traced to Europe, where it was first brought up in the context of the 1969 Swedish Environmental Protection Act. That’s probably why the “principle” is so deeply entrenched in the EU, compared to the rest of the world, and was included in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty.  

As Katzenstein points out, “In the united States Silent Spring’s popularity spurred enactment of key federal laws that embody aspects of precaution regulation: the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; the Safer Drinking Water Act, Environmental Pesticides Control Act, Toxic Substances Control Act and Endangered Species Act.” The PP may be a European creation, but “it was inspired by Silent Spring, as was REACH.”

Rachel Carson’s real legacy, the Precautionary Principle, has become a potent weapon for anti-technology activists. The problem with regard to consistency get larger as we come to realize that whatever they support is permitted; whatever they oppose violates the precautionary principle. They support windmills; therefore there is no violation. They oppose fracking; therefore it violates the principle.
.

Moreover, as Driessen has observed, eco-activists “never use the precautionary dictum to control regulatory excess, by insisting that regulators refrain from implementing new regulations, policies or energy programs, until they can prove their proposed actions will not harm people, wildlife or the environment.” In the view of activists and regulators, regulations exist to delay, block or destroy things they oppose. The fact that regulatory actions may well cause prolonged energy deprivation, poverty, unemployment, disease, malnutrition or premature death is irrelevant to them. 

 

Returning to where we started: Why do “eco-minded” activists, regulators and politicians fail to use the Precautionary Principle to assess the harmful effects of wind turbines on birds and bats, and thus on insects and other pests that these creatures control? Why do they fail to consider the impacts that constant subsonic noise and vibrations from wind turbines have on human health and welfare?  Because these are deliberate oversights!

The hard reality is that the green movement does not care about facts, wildlife or humans – and logical consistency is totally alien to them. Advancing environmentalism as the secular religion of urban atheists is all that matters. Green elites “know” what is best for all of humanity. The Precautionary Principle is merely another weapon to promote junk science and Hard Green ideologies, in order to destroy every advancement mankind has made over the last 100 years – advancements that have given us better, longer, healthier lives than at any other time in history – and to keep others from enjoying those blessings. 

We need to understand that and stop pandering to these misfits. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

_______________

Rich Kozlovich is the owner of Pest Management, Incorporated and is active in local and state pest control associations. He also publishes Paradigms and Demographics, an online pro-humanity blogspot.

Chaos vs the Rule of Law

Observing the state of our nation is becoming painful to the point of sickening as chaos replaces our constitutional rule of law.  Is it any wonder some folks are having difficulty determining right from wrong?

Take for example the case of Edward Snowden; is he a traitor or an American patriot, it all depends on which degree of chaos vs the rule of law you happen to ascribe to.

“Snowden is behind one of the biggest intelligence leaks in American history. The former Booz Allen Hamilton contractor who worked at the National Security Agency, hopped a flight to Asia on May 20 and has remained on the lam ever since.”

When the government violates the rule of law nothing seems to matter; but if an individual points out the absurdity of it all, that person somehow is a threat to our national well being.  

Conservatives in general, anti-abortion groups, constitutionalists or those who have Tea Party leanings are labeled rightwing extremists or home grown terrorist candidates, persons of interest that the government believes need to be carefully tracked.  However; others who align with known terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are welcomed with open arms, even brought into our country with favored status.

“In her statement Wednesday (April 15, 2009), Ms. Napolitano defended the report, which says “rightwing extremism” may include groups opposed to abortion and immigration, as merely one among several threat assessments.”  

On the other hand and in more recent news…wait as lungs discharge a sigh of disbelief, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is the target of a law suit from her very own Ice employees for her directive NOT to enforce immigration laws.

“The lawsuit’s plaintiffs include ICE Agents Union President Chris Crane who contends DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and ICE Director John Morton’s issuance of the Prosecutorial Discretion Memorandum, that prevents agents and employees from fulfilling their sworn oath to uphold the law and defend the US Constitution.”  

Napolitano is simply following the bidding of president (little p) Obama as he continues to snub his nose at a Congress which specifically rejected Obama’s Dream Act; an act which instead of being passed into law via constitutionally accepted means has now been signed into law via “prosecutorial discretion”. 

This isn’t exactly the same as an executive order which acts as if it were law; however, any directive which originates from the White House down the chain of command has, in effect, the same result even if SnopesDotCom would prefer to split hairs on the issue.

“The Obama administration announced that it would suspend deportation proceedings against many illegal immigrants who pose no threat to national security or public safety.

The policy is expected to help thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as young children, graduated from high school and want to go to college or serve in the armed forces.

White House and immigration officials said they would exercise “prosecutorial discretion” to focus enforcement efforts on cases involving criminals and people who have flagrantly violated immigration laws…”

If young illegal aliens like the ones Obama wants to grant immunity to really wanted to be assimilated into our culture, to become United States citizens then why did the Hispanic students at Montebello High School take down the American Flag in protest only to hoist the Mexican Flag above it?  This comes across as an act of defiance as opposed to young people expressing gratitude for having enjoyed the blessings of liberty.  You could say these young people just spit in the face of every American, something listed as criminal assault in most places.

If you haven’t figured it out “prosecutorial discretion” means these folks have no intention of enforcing the law equally, which if I’m not mistaken is their sworn duty.  They can pick and choose which laws they wish to uphold or who to enforce them against; not exactly the rule of law which permits citizens to understand where they stand in relationship to others.

This ties in with another example of Obama’s use of “prosecutorial discretion”, the release of thousands of illegal aliens who were already in custody awaiting deportation back in February of this year.  Originally we were told these folks were no threat to our safety, minor traffic violators who happened to be here illegally; however, later reports would tend to contest these claims.  Many of these illegal aliens were in fact hardened criminals.”

“An internal document obtained by the House Judiciary Committee shows that Administration officials at ICE prepared cold calculations to release thousands of criminal aliens onto the streets and did not demonstrate any consideration of the impact this decision would have on the safety of Americans,” committee chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., announced.”

{…}

The New York Times profiled a “low risk” detainee released by ICE. The detainee was taken into custody “when it was discovered that he had violated probation for a conviction in 2005 of simple assault, simple battery and child abuse, charges that sprung from a domestic dispute with his wife at the time.” NRO’s Jim Geraghty asked, “If convictions for ‘simple assault, simple battery and child abuse’ make you ‘low-risk,’ what do you have to do for Janet Napolitano to consider you ‘high-risk’?”’  

The short list of anomalies shown here are small yet glaring examples of life here in these United States, a nation defined by the rule of law, or at least it was at one time.

The recent avalanche of felonies committed by government officials, some would prefer to call them scandals... the recent avalanche of crimes committed by high level administrators directly tied to the Obama administration would tend to give the world the impression that America is in total chaos.   

 

To get your blood boiling I’ll include links to other anomalies which tend to support the idea that the Obama administration has used agencies of the government in ways never intended or condoned by the rule of law.

Debra Heine posted an article, ‘Rampant Injustice’: The IRS And DOJ Raid Small Businesses With Paramilitary Gestapo Style Tactics.  A detailed account of how the government sent 40 to 50 armed agents to lock down a business, intimidate the owners and employees, haul away boxes of files all under threat of imminent physical assault, having firearms aimed in their faces.  The open ended warrant failed to meet up with judicial standards, no charges were ever filed and yet many of the documents seized have yet to be returned.  

Kevin A. Lehmann posted an eye opener, Supreme Court Justice-Elena Kagan-is Pro Sharia Law!  “Just when you thought all the talk about Barack Obama usurping the Constitution to bring the United States into compliance with the UN and the Sharia-dominated New International Order was little more than right-wing conspiratorial propaganda—Think Again! The “Appointed One,” in cunning Islamic style, is covering all the bases by laying the foundation, including placing an ally in the United States Supreme Court!”

Catch me when I fall; but how can anyone, even those on the radical left rationalize our constitutional form of government embracing Sharia Law?  Then tell me how is it possible for a sitting member of the Supreme Court, an individual sworn to uphold the constitution; how is it this person is permitted to continue in that position?  Words fail to articulate my disgust.  

America is in serious trouble.  All the games, deceptions, smoke and mirror tricks employed will not save us from utter destruction as chaos replaces the rule of law.  May God have mercy on us for having ignored the wisdom and restraints found in our constitution.

Paying for the same property twice

The movie, Patton, was on this morning as I was preparing to leave for a job.  There’s a line where General Patton explains how he doesn’t like to pay for the same property twice, a reference to how many lives it cost the first time and his refusal to retreat only to have to retake the same property in the future.  There’s a lot of wisdom in that statement.

A little later while driving between jobs I called my mother on the phone, wanting to hear about how they did with Broady, their cat.  Broady was supposed to take a trip to the veterinarian this morning, a challenge since Broady doesn’t like being placed in the pet carrier.  Mom had been fretting about how to accomplish that task all week so she placed the pet carrier at the end of the bed with the door open hoping Broady would consider it a natural fixture.

In the wee morning hours Broady had taken up a spot on mom’s bed snuggled up to her legs.  Mom carefully picked up the sleeping cat and eased him into the cat carrier and closed the door; no chasing the frightened cat around the house, job done.

About three in the morning dad woke up to the sound of Broady complaining about being in the cat carrier; you guessed it, dad let him out.  You’d think that after all these years of being married these two would let each other in on the game plan; but that would ruin all the fun.

I’m sure there were some sarcastic jabs thrown out with equally interesting rejoinders; my folks enjoy a good exchange when things are a bit dicey. 

I’m told that dad grabbed Broady by the scruff of his neck, much as a mother cat manages her kittens, and placed him in the cat carrier without any real issues.  The first aid kit was not needed, this time.

Upon reaching the parking lot in front of the veterinarian clinic my folks took advantage of an abandoned grocery shopping cart, placing the cat carrier with an angry Broady within the safe confines of the cart to be easily wheeled the remainder of the way.  Broady weighs in at just under 12 pounds so the shopping cart was a good find.

The check up went well and Broady got a check mark on his card that will last until next year.  My folks can get back to normal, read their books or watch a golf match.

This reminded me of a police incident from many years ago on night shift.  I’d been dispatched along with another one man police unit to a disturbance involving a woman with a knife.   Sure enough when we arrived at the location, a small apartment complex in our beat, there was a young woman, highly excited, holding a butcher knife to her wrist threatening to cut herself up.

We did what we were supposed to do, talk in low unthreatening tones in order to get the woman to take it down a notch.  The moment she relaxed, even for half a moment we both latched onto her and took the butcher knife away. 

That would have been great except…; don’t you just hate it when you see a line like that?

Everything would have been fine except the dunder-headed police officer, the fellow who was supposed to be helping; yea, that guy put the butcher knife down on the counter top right where this crazy woman could simply reach over and grab it.  We had a much harder time finding a ‘window of opportunity’ to disarm her the second time as she was on to our methods. 

That line from Patton has many applications; but in the end, I hate paying for the same property a second time.