Harry Reid (D-NV) – Meets the Resistance – BLM (Bureau of Land Management) vs. The Ranchers - Ranchers 1 – Federal Government – 0

Although news reports of the standoff at the Nevada ranch, owned by one Clive Bundy, vary, yet suggest that Bundy “won” the range war with the Federal Rangers (i.e. Bureau of Land Management). ABC News. The snapshot: Bundy’s family had been don that ranch for generation – the Federal government stepped in when a certain tortuous was found to be in danger of extinction. However, once the government had the land, that managing the land with the tortoise, suggested there was no way to handle them, and abruptly killed the tortoises. That should have been the end of it, as the BLM no longer had an excuse to hold these lands as Federal. Bundy refused to pay grazing fees in this instance, yet continues to pay Nevada and County taxes. It was odd that given the fact that there was no longer any need for the Federal Government to be on the land extracting grazing fees from Bundy as well as the other ranchers, yet they continued to persist.

Then a story broke, and make front page of the Drudge Report News Aggregator. This after there was a standoff of sorts between 200 federal bureau of land management employees (note: NOAA is also armed to the teeth, among other Federal Agencies that have no need of firearms.) and thousands of militia and ranchers who came to Bundy’s defense under a States’ rights banner (10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution – the pesky document that keeps getting in the way of the current Federal Administration.

The story, complete with emails implicating Harry Reid, broke on infowars, three hours later the Feds were pulling back. Call it coincidence, or call it covering the butt of Harry Reid – who apparently, in collusion with the Chinese Government was helping to “grab lands” in order to build some green energy ventured. Who was to benefit from this land grab? Harry’s son. – Reed the full text here at infowars, including emails.

So it’s no surprise that the MSM, including Fox News, neglected to take the bigger story (Reid, breaking all sorts of rules, ethical and criminal), and bury it.

Also of no surprise is that, in order to shut this down quickly – the rancher’s cows were returned and all was going back to business as usual, charges dropped except – now the Feds, who are greedy, and figure it’s no longer front page news, (as in ABC, CBS, and the like) are going back after Bundy again – (see Infowars)

Herein lays the problem, there are multiple other land grabs taking place by the federal government across the nation – and there is a rising sentiment among those identified as Militia (or right-wing) consisting of ranchers, farmers, former military, that the Government has no right to trample on the properties of regular Jo Citizen – it is after all, in the Constitution.

One might suggest should another of these incidences occur, those groups – From Massachusetts to California, will mobilize and the result may end up proving somewhat difficult to control.

Perhaps, though, the larger story is why there is not one bit of suggestion that Senator Reid should be investigated? Those that love power, no matter which side of the aisle, apparently intends to keep it. What better way than to ignore any criminal act, and let sleeping dogs lay.

The Supreme’s and Same-Sex Marriage Ruling – Apprehensive – Across Ideological Lines - Individual State’s Most Likely Focus of Eventual Ruling.

Despite the protests (both pro and con) at the Court, the justices may end up taking this Religious Issue back to the States

As the Supreme Court is weighing the options as to the arguments for and against the Defense of Marriage Act it is apparent that the Justices are somewhat uncomfortable with a federal ruling, rather, it is apparent they are looking at “Gay Marriage” as a larger issue, one which, they do not feel comfortable making a ruling that would give a federal status, one way or the other – and most likely will turn it back to the states. (CS Monitor) In some instances the Gay Marriage decisions is being compared to Roe vs. Wade, a decision which even Justice Ginsburg had doubts. It should have been left to the states, although she approved of the choice, the ruling in Roe vs. Wade, was considered “bad law”. The court at the time, 1973, had more information on abortion and the states, than it now does with Gay Marriage.(ABA Journal)

Justice Alito suggested that the concept was newer than the internet or cell phones. In listening to the arguments, and the subsequent questions by the Justices it became clear that they all were uncomfortable with ruling on this subject. For current orals arguments, go to www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguements See Hollingsworth v. Perry

Although no one knows what the outcome maybe, given the Justices and their individual ideological stands, the fact that they are approaching the issue as if it were a hot potato, suggests it will be pushed back to the states - where it belongs, along with the Roe Vs. Wade Decision and any decision that should be outside of the Federal venue.

In this opinion, the concept of “marriage” is the issue, whereby, it has religious connotations. Therefore as marriage is considered now a contract in legal terms, one might be tempted to push all marriage contracts into partnership contracts, which would solve everything – this would separate the Church from the State. As of now, with the religious connotations attached, the states and the High Court must be aware of those consequences. The crux of the matter lays in the name – not so much the benefits et al, that could be realized by all parties, if marriage were renamed a partnership - separated from the religious connotation. Those that wanted their marriage to be consecrated by a church, would have the full benefits to do so, and those who’s partnerships fell outside most religious boundaries, would still have the benefits of a partnership – thus killing the game of political football that is constantly in play.

Border Wars – Arizona Official Threatens To Cut Los Angeles Utilities over City Boycott - The Road to Anarchy

The Arizona Mexican Border - westcom.org

AnNCB Los Angeles article reports that an Arizona utility commissioner has threatened to shut off 25% of the cities power over their boycott of Arizona. Arizona’s new immigration law (which mirrors the Federal Laws) has the Los Angeles City Council up in arms – they cite the law as possibly discriminatory, although that City and the State of California are subject to the same laws via Federal statutes which are simply not enforced. With Arizona in harm’s way, due to increased violent crime directly linked to the open border and refusal of the Federal government to do its job and enforce and protect national borders, Los Angles and other cities who have issued similar “mandates” to employees to boycott Arizona are, in a word, ridiculous. It would make far more sense, for those who would see risk, to boycott Mexico, as it has erupted in uncontrollable violence, due to drug lords, gangs and random acts of violence which places United States tourists at grave risk. In addition, as Arizona and one suspects other border states, have had this anarchy spill over its borders, every State has the right to protect its citizens, specifically if the politically motivated Federal government refuses to do so.

Desperate entreaties by both Arizona Senators John McCain and Jon Kyle, have gone unheeded by the Administration and Homeland Security Head, Janet Napolitano, has placed a bigger emphasis on troops being sent to control the oil spill in the gulf, as that situation, gone untended for weeks, has taken priority. Calderon, speaking from the White House, gave the usual platitudes regarding Mexico’s partnership to stem the crime along the border, which, to date, has only worsened. The U.S. sends Mexico millions of dollars in aid each year to help with law enforcement; however, it appears not to have helped in the least.

One has to hand it to McCain – in defense of Arizona and in conversation with Napolitano:

"If you'll indulge me, we think we have another crisis on the border," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano at a hearing this week. "I want to know about whether you're going to send the Guard to the border or not."
When she tried to explain other DHS improvements along the border, McCain cut her off.
"People's homes are being violated, and their families can't take kids to the bus stop," the senator fumed. "And you are very familiar with the issue, because you yourself asked for the Guard to go to the border back in 2006."

One also has to hand it to that Arizona Utility Commissioner, who has stood up to the insanity of those that live in isolation of progressive ideology, (and gated communities). One gets the impression, were those city councilors from Boston to LA living on the Arizona border, they’d be singing a different tune. One can hazard to guess that many in that state, fed up with the Federal Government and like minded municipalities, would help that commission flip the switch and send a message to LA.

In all fairness to the present administration, the preceding administrations did nothing but throw money at Mexico in an effort to help them police the border, while doing nothing to actually enforce the current laws and end the nonsense. One must understand there is such a thing as a “Green Card” and other methods to which law-abiding immigrants can get over the border, through a checkpoint. There simply is no excuse, and, as the crisis is coming to a head, it is time to take action and protect those on both sides of the border. With an enforcement of border laws by the Federal government, the human trafficking would be greatly diminished, gangs and drugs as well, giving a bit of peace to all those who are at risk from illegally imported criminal activity.

The fact that Mexico and the United States are separate countries appears to be lost on progressives, and those radicals who believe, wrongly, that certain sections of the U.S. are Mexican territory. There was a war, we won, they lost, case closed. As to the millions here, illegally, regardless of national origin (and that includes Europeans) should be given an opportunity to come forward and apply for a green card, to allow them to work here in the U.S. – or they can claim political asylum, giving up their Mexican, Irish, or what-have-you citizenship. As a fist generation American, with parents that did just that, and legally, it is beyond comprehension how, decade after decade, the disregard to this great nation is apparent, from both sides of the border. Arizona is an example of what is right about this country, and constitutionally, they have taken steps to protect themselves. While Senators McCain and Kyl literally spit into the wind trying to reason with Napolitano, a utility commissioner in Arizona gets it right. Should nothing be done, and the nonsense continue, the potential for real violence exists, by the citizens of the United States, taking measures to protect life and property, in those states most effected by illegal immigrants. It would be far better for this Administration or more likely the next, to lock down, once and for all, all borders, enforce existing laws, before chaos truly erupts. It is a lack of doing nothing, which is fostering any so called “racial” tensions, and that is the biggest crime having been committed.

Oklahoma House Passes HCR1028 Sovereignty Resolution – Other States Follow

The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, affirms the rights of the State and its respective citizens over the powers of the Federal Government as outlined in that same document. In the past two months, the 10th Amendment has become a rallying point for those states declaring sovereignty as the Federal Government increases its power over the states and its citizens. Oklahoma’s House passed HCR 1028, a Resolution (veto proof) declaring sovereignty, on the 4th of May. The Oklahoma Senate is moving fast, they are taking up the Resolution on on May 11, 2009. Should the Resolution pass the Senate (which appears likely), Oklahoma will be the first state in the Union to officially declare independence from Washington, DC.

Oklahoma is not alone in the desire to distance the State from Federal Powers, the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. According to the 10th Amendment Center blog, other states that have similar resolutions are : South Dakota, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina and North Dakota.

Ben Smith of Politico characterizes the states seeking sovereignty as “Red States”, or those states that have legislatures which are controlled by the Republican Party – a party that has, with the exception of the period 2000-2008, been one which believed in the State autonomy – less Federal government. The call for Sovereignty is a direct result of the actions (primarily fiscal), of the federal government vis a vis budgets and bailouts, which will ultimately adversely affect each State government that participates or receives stimulus funding.

The stimulus, otherwise known as the Great American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is outlined by the administration at Recovery.gov. On the face of it, the bill appears to be a bridge to recovery, but the key is the length of time the bridge will be available: 2 years. States that accept the federal funds, will, in two years, be looking to their respective citizens to kick in the money to keep the jobs and projects solvent – otherwise known as “taxes”. The Federal government, seeking a way to pay for their generosity, will also have no other choice but to also ask for an increase in taxes. Additionally, the acceptance of the Stimulus gives no incentive to those States that are “Blue” (controlled by Democrat Legislators and/or Governor) to tighten their belt – rather, continue to spend, oftentimes in ways which are contrary to the concept of “commons sense”.

Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick, has recently asked for additional funds in order to provide cars for those receiving state assistance. Providing cars in an effort to lift someone out of poverty is one thing, however, Massachusetts goes so far as to foot the bill for the insurance and a subscription to Triple AAA! The blog, Red Tide speaks to the Commonwealth’s taxpayers growing angst against Governor Deval Patrick, and the ever increasing spending and corruption of that administration.

Massachusetts, will in all likelihood, retain its full protection under the Federal Government (given the close association of the Governor and the President Obama), until November of 2010. The likelihood of Deval Patrick being re-elected at this point in time is minimal at best; with members of his own Party considering a run in order to salvage the position. One has to ask, how long will it be before States (either the legislator or the citizens) like the “bluest state” of Massachusetts, also consider a declaration invoking the 10th amendment?

Although it is highly doubtful the legislature of Massachusetts would ever consider such a measure, it is highly conceivable that the people will – voicing their displeasure in the voting booth. The first to take the blame for fiscally incompetent federal policies that certain States embrace, are the respective State Leadership (both on a state and federal level) followed by those at the top of the Federal Heap. Historically speaking, once Jimmy Carter’s stimulus resulted in the phenomena known as the “misery Index”, the bridge to recovery that collapsed was slowly built up by an opposition party, swept into power by those that bore the brunt of the “stimulus” – the actual taxpayer.

Thomas Jefferson (Ironically touted as the man who inspired the Democrat Party): "The Federal is, in truth, our foreign government, which department alone is taken from the sovereignty of the separate States." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert J. Garnett, 1824. ME 16:15 (Source: University of Virginia

Perry (R-TX) backs Texas Sovereignty

Governor Rick Perry held a news conference affirming Texas Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment. A press release is available here at the Governor's Website.

Video Here:



Perhaps with the ever encroaching Federal Government, States Rights, as defined by the Constitution, will cause other States, so inclined, to do the same.

Text of the Resolution: Here:

81R5789 MMS-F

By: Creighton H.C.R. No. 50


CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people";
and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of
federal power as being that specifically granted by the
Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment
means that the federal government was created by the states
specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated
as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal laws are directly in violation of the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of
the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union
of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal
government may not usurp; and
WHEREAS, Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution says,
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government," and the Ninth Amendment states that
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people";
and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New
York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that congress may not
simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the
states; and
WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations
and some now pending from the present administration and from
congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas
hereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise
enumerated and granted to the federal government by the
Constitution of the United States; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federal
government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective
immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these
constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that
directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal
penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation
or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Texas secretary of state forward official
copies of this resolution to the president of the United States, to
the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the
senate of the United States Congress, and to all the members of the
Texas delegation to the congress with the request that this
resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record as a
memorial to the Congress of the United States of America.