Number 344

(Thomas) Jefferson understood that allowing Congress to levy taxes for any purpose would essentially be a grant of a “distinct and independent power to do any act [Congress] pleased.” Such a grant of power “would reduce the [Constitution] to a single phrase, that of instituting a congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would also be a power to do whatever evil they pleased.”

Mongolia: A Huntress With A Golden Eagle

eagle

More.

A Harbinger Of Catastrophe

An insane tactic is foiled by ghosts from the nineteenth centuryIt’s beyond bizarre: a Nevada rancher has a long-standing financial dispute with a federal agency, and for some incredible reason, the government stages a literal military invasion of his property. The federal force is then driven away by cowboys on horseback.

 

How could this happen?

To be sure, informed speculation is available, but the rational observer remains incredulous. (Note: the claim about the solar energy farm promoted by Senator Reid’s son is probably not true. Whether you believe it seems to depend on your political orientation. In any event, Reid will come under pressure to prove he has no links to impropriety.)

Why in the world did the federal government deploy soldier-cops, snipers, attack dogs, and tasers when a lien against the rancher’s real property would have sufficed? The implications of that idiotic show of force, and of the response to it, are extraordinarily disturbing.

The primary factsThe rancher is almost certainly wrong about the ethical and legal facts of the case. A wise federal administration would not, however, rub his nose in his error, because it would not want to appear predatory and dictatorial. Nevada Senator Harry Reid — who, though sly, is neither nice nor wise — is scolding the cowboys, saying, “It isn’t over”, which is more or less what you would expect from an Obamite. Yes, unfortunately he’s right — this is not only not over, it’s virtually certain to get a great deal worse. That’s because the federal government has a provocative mindset.

That mindset charts a collision course in troubled waters. To understand the gravity of the situation, recall that there is a rising level of concern about Obama’s very “progressive” stand on the private ownership of rifles and other firearms.

An increasing number of “wingnuts” believe firearms confiscation is planned and will be imposed by some mix of federal and local law enforcement. If this absurd display of utterly unnecessary force in Nevada — over unpaid bills! — tells the nation’s firearms owners anything, it is that arms confiscation would involve serious risks. The militarization of police across the nation comes immediately to mind; that process is already a genuine worry for the thoughtful citizen (see Number 332 of this newsletter for a review of an important book, Rodney Balko’s The Rise Of The Warrior Cop). Obamites might be blundering toward a hellish conflagration.

Obama told us he means to impose order and controlThese concerns are not new, and they are not baseless paranoia. Time and again, The New Terrapin Gazette has reminded you of Obama’s campaign promise, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve our national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta have a national civilian security force that’s just as strong, just as powerful, just as well-funded.” (It’s quoted here, and The One can be seen on video delivering the astounding threat-cum-promise here).

Yes, he meant it; it was not an impulsive throw-away remark, but a part of a written speech. He does view the public as a genuine danger to the government.

That raises the possibility that the government’s military approach to a financial dispute was deliberately provocative — that it was bait for the militias. Now perhaps Obamites believe they can whine that rifles in the hands of “wingnuts” threaten the domestic tranquility. Never mind that it’s not at all true; the Obama-friendly media are warming to the lie. (New York city is joining the lunatic parade. First watchthis, and then read the depressing update.)

A threshold has been crossedThe government wants you to think it backed down this time out of a concern for life. As true as that might be, the significant fact is that there were too many cameras present. When the government resorts to lethal force to collect unpaid bills, it would prefer to do so without being recorded on video.

As volunteers arrived to stare down the federal Bureau of Land Management and the heavily-armed police, a fundamental truth became visible. It is this: if, as a significant number of US citizens believe, the government will be coming to take away the citizens’ means of self-defense, there will be bloodshed.

In any attempt to disarm the populace, local police forces will not hesitate to shoot first, and on minimal provocation. Because all they know is trouble, cops tend to dislike and distrust the public. They fear ordinary people who have firearms. The only real question is whether the all-volunteer military will fire on the citizenry.

A partial answer to that question is available: in the Nevada confrontation, the federal forces deployed hidden snipers. Those people are intensively indoctrinated to obey, and will unhesitatingly kill whatever targets they are assigned.

The most significant aspect of the confrontation is symbolicThe Nevada fuss is not important as a dispute over rules of land use; it is critical because it has evoked a monumentally iconic image. That is the sight of armed cowboys riding out grimly to battle the bad guys.

It’s a scene out of a classic Western film. Today’s cowboys are carrying flags, which is new — but, like the fabled heroes of over a century ago, the men are walking their horses slowly, unafraid, daring the rascals to shoot. Each man knows he may have moments to live, yet he demonstrates only the resolve of the warrior.

The federal cops are seen literally hiding behind their vehicles, and then backing away. They play the coward’s role perfectly.

No person reared in the USA can fail to recognize the symbolism, and most of those folks will resonate to it.

For another view, see this discussion.

PredictionsIf Obama were a mediocre president, he would furiously fire everyone involved in this debacle, and apologize to the rancher. He will be angry, but with the wrong people, and he will fire no one.

Due entirely to the stupidity of bureaucrats who seem to view life as if it were a video game, the militia has the best possible recruiting film. There is also an infuriating story to tell (do click and read).

 

In sum, cretins in the federal government have allowed the militias to appear as a dignified self-defense force that will stand up to thugs who abuse the people.

Whether Obama and his familiars have the intelligence to recognize the overwhelming power of the Nevada images is a matter for speculation, but one thing seems clear: should the government engage these modern minutemen, it will know only defeat. If it slaughters the militias, it will lose the war and be remembered as a mass murderer. If it backs down again, it could even be abandoned by a terrified Congress.

Of course the militias will grow in size and capability. They are arming themselves and preparing an intimidating defense.

The federal blunder means everyone, even die-hard Obamites, should know by now that door-to-door firearms confiscation is wildly impractical.

The reflexive response of the autocratic administration will be a new bureaucratic regulatory push to hinder firearms ownership. Depending on the timing of the effort, it could have an impact on the coming Congressional elections.

Taxation in the USA

The (probably deliberate) failure of Obamacare has eclipsed the need to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and reform taxation. The best proposal this newsletter is aware of is the revenue-neutral “Fair Tax“. That’s a bad name for it — too Obamoid — but never mind, because it is an excellent plan. Unfortunately it presents the newcomer with a rather complex puzzle; one has to do a bit of digging to understand why it’s good, and that it will work. Its main benefit is that it would be a tremendous stimulus to the economy. Do inform yourself if you live in or pay income tax in the USA!

Cancer Researchers’ Ethics And Credibility

Here’s yet another premature release of information that will lead desperate people to believe that the cure for all cancers has been found. Not only that, some folks will conclude that the authorities are deliberately dragging their feet. Read the linked report.

No one not directly involved in this research needs to know anything about it. Keeping it quiet is the most humane and practical way to proceed, but “cancer cure found?” stories make money. Time and again, false hopes are created, only to be dashed. The entire subject of cancer research should be voluntarily embargoed by the media until each new treatment is cleared by the FDA for use by the medical profession. That it won’t happen tells you a lot about the press.

How many times have you been told that cancer is not a disease, but a large number of distinct diseases that must therefore be researched and treated separately? Well, the prospective cure linked above comes with the claim that this firmly-established fact is untrue.

This much seems certain: if you ask the experts whether their current understandings are correct, they will assure you that they have the facts right. Your memory might tell you that’s what they said before they changed the facts.

The pattern is appalling: raising baseless hopes, presenting the “truth” and then sweeping it aside — cancer researchers have blundered repeatedly. The ethics of their information policies are unscientific and shockingly insensitive. The current situation is inhumane, unreliable, corrosive of the public’s confidence, and indifferent to the anguish of patients. Reform is long overdue.

Some Links Related To “Climate Change”

Fear-mongering, alarmism, and reality. Recommended.

The IPCC explains it all to you: great sacrifices must be made, so they will be imposed by decree — in spite of the fact that for over seventeen years, the earth has not warmed.

Here’s a book review that will be carefully avoided by those who have the greatest need to read it and the book it reviews. Yes, it’s about the Gore-Hansen Cult.

Related news flash: G-H cultists lie, and justify it! — What? You say you knew that? Oh. Never mind.

You might enjoy a rather technical lecture that clarifies without confounding. Recommended.

The last word from the warmers. You will love this, so don’t skip it!

Links

This is how the Feds deal with the Tea Party.

Barack Obama, liar.

Vaguely related: Obama exceeds his constitutional authority, and Congress is powerless to correct the outrageous misbehavior. Listen to what Turley says.

One of this newsletter’s favorite authors discusses “social justice” in a brief video. He’s correct, but: first, he does not call it what it is, namely, trendy partisan jargon used by fascists as a kind of shibboleth. Second, he does not note that Obama is an advocate of “fairness” as the basis for taxation, which means The One wants to use tax policy punitively; that’s an example of “social justice”. Like “civil society”, “social justice” is essentially junk verbiage, ambiguous and corrosive of reason.

More on US “control” of the internet.

The IRS and the Tea Party, continued: Lerner talks to Holder’s people about nailing the noisy, irritating “wingnuts”. No Obamite sees anything wrong with this; by the same token, no self-respecting “wingnuts” would cut ACORN any slack. When Lerner apologized, she was just embarrassed at being caught out; there was no genuine contrition, because she knew the Tea Partiers would hammer her comrades if they could. That’s an excellent reason, as Obamites see it, to keep “wingnuts” from getting into positions of power. (No one should get too dramatically indignant about any of this, lest he be nominated for a Tony.) And the cure? Restrict the power of the government, limit what the office-holders can do, force them to work in a transparent environment, and cultivate a free press.

This is what happens when a nation loses pride and confidence.

You have not heard about this because it is so devastatingly embarrassing. It reflects on all of science. and all of science knows that.

Barack Obama, liar (second instance).

The War on Drugs long ago became a cause of police corruption in the USA. Consider an example from 2011.

Note to the superannuated yuppie who’s remodeling the loft across the way: suspend your mindless trendiness long enough to admit that you suspected this all along.

Censorship: as American as arsenic.

What a nice man Eric Holder is — how diplomatic, cooperative, responsive. “You don’t wanna go there, Buddy.” Watch and grasp the significance. This is a man who knows he can do anything, and still be shielded by The One. This is not civilized governance….

Related: Holder will go down in history. And the sooner he sinks, the better.

What in the world is “collective speech”? This nonsense term seems to be important to an associate justice of the US federal supreme court. That’s appalling.

This is just the beginning. Hopenchange!

Related: loss of respect for both the man and his office seems increasingly likely.

Slavery shames more than one nation. In Thailand, one can purchase a baby from its parents, and the police protect “tea houses” where slaves are available for sexual purposes; then there’s exploitation of illegal immigrants. None of these abuses can survive in a nation that is properly policed.

Oh, good: a video that’s just the the sort of thing the NTG staff appreciates. What? You think it’s pointless? Gosh, English is a fascinating language!

Dallas (that’s in the US state of Texas) police tell citizens not to make videos of officers performing their duties in public. The citizens of the city should be grateful for the tip, for they have just been advised that having a video camera handy could be of great benefit to good governance.

Women are grossly and unfairly underpaid: they do the same work as men, yet earn 77% of a man’s pay. How can we deal with this grotesque inequity? That’s easy: begin with a crystal-clear explanation of the problem, and take the facts seriously. Highly recommended.

US feminists are not about to ponder their tacit complicity with some of the worst people in the world. Solidarity forever!

Posted in Uncategorized
test