Category Archives: Politics

IPhoneConservative teaches Poe’s Law

Posted on by

Untitled-1
A YouTube video was published on May 20, 2015 by IPhoneConservative which will probably go viral without the warning he or she attaches.

For those that understand “Poe’s Law” no further disclaimer is required. For those that don’t………I suggest you look it up.

WikiPedia calls Poe’s Law a “literary adage” and attributes it to a post by Nathan Poe in a 2005 debate on a Christian forum concerning creation v. evolution.

POE’S LAW:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly [sic] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won’t mistake for the genuine article. Source

The idea is that one should mark their statements on the Internet because one cannot see the body language or hear the inflections in the voice of the individual to tell if it is real or sarcasm. This does not apply to writing such as the Right Wing Extremism memorandum.

He was attacking the intelligence of Christians.

IPhoneConservative admitted in one of the comments:

Folks…….this a spoof. It was never intended to be taken as a legitimate news report. Obviously two things are at play here. One, I did the job too well. Two, we have come to the stage in the Obama presidency where quite literally……….anything is possible.

Anything indeed. Just after the initial “election” of Barrack Obama, I received a series of interesting phone calls which I reported on. The most interesting was the audio I was able to obtain.

I do not have statistics on how many people actually fell into the scam. I do not know how many people actually believed that Obama was going to pay for their mortgage, car, gas or Obamaphone.

SEE ALSO:
Conservapedia

Governor Ducey vetoes justice of peace residency bill

Posted on by

williams-justice-courtPHOENIX — On Tuesday, Governor Doug Ducey vetoed H.B. 2592 which would have required a candidate for Justice of the Peace to be a resident of the precinct they are to represent at the time they file papers and would have to have been a resident for one-year at the time of the general election date.

The exception would have been a justice of the peace who had been appointed. A.R.S. § 16-230 allows the governor to fill vacancies in the Justice of the Peace office with a person of the same party.

The Governor stated in his veto letter:

I do not believe it is appropriate to create a separate residency standard for one specific elected office.

The Governor also vetoed S.B. 1171 concerning filing of late campaign reports. The bill would have required that the specific amount of daily late penalties and how and when daily late penalties start and stop accruing be added to notices sent to campaigns who file late campaign reports.

Governor Ducey said in his veto letter that this matter could be handled administratively in the office of the Secretary of State.

According to current law, all penalties for late filing must be paid prior to filing the late report.

Blue Water Navy act will expand presumption of exposure to Agent Orange

Posted on by

Photo americanorange.com

Photo americanorange.com

WASHINGTON — The bipartisan Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2015, H.R. 969, would include the territorial seas of the Republic of Vietnam for the purpose of presuming exposure to “certain herbicide agents” while serving in Vietnam.

The bill, with 209 cosponsors, has not moved from the the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs since March 6. The list of cosponsors is apparently growing.

The bill is intended to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify presumptions relating to the exposure of certain veterans who served in the vicinity of the Republic of Vietnam, and for other purposes.

300agent-orangeAccording to the Vets 101 web site, the presumption of exposure to certain environmental hazards may make a veteran entitled to certain VA disability compensation and more VA health care services. The Department of Veterans Affairs recognizes several diseases which have been linked to the use of the chemical known as Agent Orange.

Agent Orange was a chemical defoliant used indiscriminately in Vietnam. At the time it was believed to be safe. An Army medic who served in Vietnam told me that they had to wear wet weather gear when the chemical was sprayed in his area of operations.

Navy personnel could have been exposed when loading and unloading the chemical on transport ships.

More information on Agent Orange: History Channel.

SACO Act to terminate federal employees who give false testimony

Posted on by

112_rp_al_5_brooks_moWASHINGTON — It seems that Eric Holder may leave a legacy in Washington after all. In honor of his testimony and the testimony of the likes of Lois Lerner, Representative Mo Brooks [R-AL-5] has submitted H.R. 1535. It is referred to as the Safeguarding America’s Congressional Oversight Act or the SACO Act and the purpose of the act is to terminate any Federal employee who refuses to answer questions or gives false testimony in a congressional hearing.

Apparently perjury and contempt of Congress is insufficient.

The legislation, if passed, would allow Congress to terminate a federal employee if three-fourths of the congressional body receiving the testimony finds that they received false testimony from the witness.

The termination can occur if the witness refuses to answer a question at a congressional hearing after being granted immunity. The bill also allows termination if the witness does not “…answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to his or her official duties,…”

Today is POW remembrance day

Posted on by

OPINION
pow-mia-banner-2ARIZONA — In accordance with Arizona Revised Statute 1-307, today is Prisoners of war remembrance day.

Subsection B. of the law requires:

The governor shall make proclamation of prisoners of war remembrance day to commemorate the sacrifices of men and women who suffered captivity in foreign lands while in the service of our country. The governor shall recommend that teachers and students of the schools of this state observe this day with appropriate exercises and shall encourage citizens to contemplate the plight of Americans who have been held captive of an enemy nation.

We searched the official web site of the Governor of the Great State of Arizona and his Facebook page. We found no proclamation nor any information on “…the plight of Americans who have been held captive of an enemy nation.”

Looking over the web site of the Arizona Legislature, we found that Senator Lesko handed out 60 dictionaries, but no word on Prisoners of War.

This is an absolute disgrace. Thus, it falls on us to tell you the plight of POWs.

Vietnam POWs cheer as their flight takes off from Hanoi.

Vietnam POWs cheer as their flight takes off from Hanoi.

First we honor those faithfully served our nation during a most difficult time in their lives. We pray for your continued health.

The most disgraceful treatment of returning prisoners of war by the United States government has to be the treatment of those returning from the Vietnam war. Many do not know, nor seem to care, that those veterans are denied access to the records of their own debriefing. They are still held classified after 40-years!

You would think that former POW John McCain would be on the front lines defending the rights of other POWs in this matter. Unfortunately this is not the case. He is one of the loudest voices in keeping these records secret and withheld from the patriots who served their country when future presidents and actors ran to foreign lands.

It is still the wee-hours of the morn. Perhaps statements are forthcoming. If they are, we hope that they will include remonstrances to the national government to allow Vietnam POWs access to their records.

Keeping our Promises to Veterans Act of 2015 moves to Subcommittee on Health

Posted on by

300tom-emmerWASHINGTON — The Keeping our Promises to Veterans Act of 2015, H.R. 1532, was introduced by Tom Emmer [R-MN-6] on March 23 and has moved through the House Committee on Veteran’s Affairs to the Subcommittee on Health yesterday. The bill would expand the ability of veterans to get access under the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act passed last year.

The Veterans Access Act (38 U.S.C. 1701, PDF) allows veterans to seek outside VA assistance if they live a certain distance from a VA facility. The act did not account for those who might not have or have difficulty in transportation.

This brief bill would reduce the 40-mile radius requirement to 20-miles and require access to the closest medical facility that could treat the need of the veteran. The bill reduces the wait time goal from 30-days to 15. It also requires VA to set up prompt payment system to non-VA facilities which provide care to veterans.

H.R. 1603 submitted by Andy Barr [R-KY-6] would improve treatment for victims of military sexual assault under the Veterans Access Act.

Another bill in Congress, H.R. 1302 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that VA Form 9 appeals are resolved within one year of submission. The bill was introduced by Ohio Representative Robert Latta [R-OH-5].

Representative Ron Kind [D-WI-3] has submitted H.R. 1628, the Veterans Pain Management Improvement Act which would require VA facilities to set up a Pain Management Board for veteran victims of chronic pain whether out- or in-patient.

The board would provide treatment recommendations for patients with complex clinical pain who are being treated at a medical facility of the Department located in the Veterans Integrated Service Network covered by the Board.

The membership in the board would require a certan number of medical pain specialists, clinical patients or the family members of clinical patients.

Doctor refusing to treat child of gay couple not Biblical

Posted on by

6764771_GDETROIT — According to a report by FOX Dertroit, a Dr. Vesna Roi apparently “prayed” and decided that she could not act as the pediatrician for the baby of a lesbian couple in Detroit in February.

Apparently, when the gay couple arrived at the pediatrician’s office, they claim:

“The first thing Dr. Karam said was ‘I’ll be your doctor, I’ll be seeing you today because Dr. Roi decided this morning that she prayed on it and she won’t be able to care for Bay,” Jami said.

This is an example of someone who has not studied their Bible. The question here is who is the sinner?

It is perfectly Constitutional and legitimate to refuse service to homosexual couples for a Christian. To not participate in so-called “marriage” ceremonies between such couples by providing photographic, bakery, flowers and other such services and the use of true Christian property is perfectly in compliance with the First Amendment. It should be noted that it does not matter if man calls this “marriage.” It is not. Only God sanctifies marriage and he has clearly defined the conditions.

The child of a homosexual couple is another matter entirely. Would you refuse to treat the baby of a couple who engages in identity theft? Would you, as a doctor, refuse to treat the brother, sister, mother or father of a homosexual couple? Yes, it is exactly the same thing.

Some point to Deuteronomy 5:9 which reads:

You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

You see, they say. God punishes the generations of sinners.

The observant of you may notice the comma at the end of this making it clause taken out of a greater thought. It continues in Deuteronomy 5:10:

And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

God is not the author of confusion. The second clause means that if a child of a sinner turns to God, he—or she—will certainly be accepted. A child can break the curse of the parents. Indeed, even the parents can be saved should they chose to be.

There have been instances of children brought up in the home of a homosexual couple rejecting their “parents” lifestyle, in fact.

This is expressed in Ezekiel 18:20:

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Dr. Roi might well believe that she is following the dictates of God, but I believe it not to be so. The Bible is as clear on this matter as it is on the sin of homosexuality. Particularly with children who have not reached the age of discernment.

Gosar submits bill for cull hunt of bison at Grand Canyon

Posted on by

(Because of the deadline for this article, the office of Representative Gosar could not be reached for comment)

White Bison at Bearizona Wildlife Park.

White Bison at Bearizona Wildlife Park.

WASHINGTON — In 1906, Charles “Buffalo” Jones brought bison to northern Arizona in an unsuccessful attempt to breed them with cattle. The descendants of these bison have been managed since 1950 by the state of Arizona in the House Rock Wildlife Area (HRWA) on the Kaibab National Forest, through an inter-agency agreement with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In 1990 the 1990 the bison started moving to the top of the Kaibab Plateau and into the Grand Canyon National Park.

The Grand Canyon National Park began a request for input on a Bison Management Plan that ended in June of 2014. The effort was an attempt to balance their mission to secure natural vegetation, archeological sites and water resources while maintaining the bison as wildlife.

On March 18, Paul Gosar [R-AZ-4] submitted H.R. 1443 (S. 782 in the Senate by McCain) to permit a cull hunt for Bison at the Grand Canyon National Park.

The bill calls for the Secretary of the Interior to publish a management plan for Bison no later than 180 days after H.R. 1443 is enacted. The plan would be to reduce, through humane lethal culling by skilled public volunteers and other non-lethal means the population of Bison in the park.

Skilled public volunteers are defines as those with a valid hunting license issued by the State of Arizona and other qualifications the Secretary may require after consulting with the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Kirby Shedlowski, Acting Public Affairs Officer at Grand Canyon National Park, said, “In order have allowed cull, there’s usually a very large management planning process.”

She said, “There has never been a cull hunt for bison at the Grand Canyon. There has been a cull on the forest. On the Kaibab Forest on the north side.”

Kirby said she was not sure of cull hunts for Bison in other parks, such as Yellowstone. “There are different culling hunts in different parks for different animals. Rocky Mountain did it for elk. Rock Creek Park has done it for white-tail deer. Getteysburg has done it for white-tail deer. But, as far as Bison go—I’m not sure. But Grand Canyon National Park has never had a cull for Bison.”

House Democrats revive armor piercing bullet ban

Posted on by

m855ammoAR15WASHINGTON — The Bloomers are at it again. After the failed attempt by the BATFE to unconstitutionally outlaw ammunition, the Representative of New York have taken up the gauntlet. Representative Eliot L. Engel (D-NY-16) submitted H.R.1358—the Armor-Piercing Bullets Act of 2015.

This bill would actually increase the types of ammunition considered “armor-piercing” and include shotgun “slugs.” The kicker in the bill is that it would change 921(a)(17) of title 18 to allow:

“…the Attorney General may treat a projectile as not primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes if substantial evidence exists that the projectile is not primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes”

Who determines what is intended for “sporting purposes” is the Attorney General.

H.R. 1358 was submitted on March 13, but the Republicans have not remained silent. On March 16, Representative Patrick McHenry [R-NC-10] has submitted the Ammunition and Firearms Protection Act, H.R.1365. The Republican bill would change Section 921(a)(17) of title 18, to read:

“(D) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), the term ‘armor piercing ammunition’ does not include—
“(i) any M855 (5.56 mm x 45 mm) or SS109 type ammunition; or
“(ii) any ammunition designed, intended, and marketed for use in a rifle.”.

H.R. 1358 is currently in the House Committee on the Judiciary while the Republican bill has moved to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. If co-sponsors are any indication, the ammo ban bill has nine while the Republican bill sports 41.

Representative Michael Honda [D-CA-17] submitted H.R.378 – Responsible Body Armor Possession Act in January. This bill with five co-sponsors has been in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations since February. This euphemistically titled bill actually states that private citizens are not responsible enough to possess body armor.

The problem is that the Second Amendment does not protect hunters and sport shooting. The amendment does not read “A well-regulated hunters, being necessary to the security of a free State…” Hunting and hunters are protected by the Ninth Amendment.

The Second Amendment does not protect “firearms” and ammunition specifically. The Second Amendment provides that,

…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The ban on any arms is technically unconstitutional. According to Federalist Paper No. 29. This was so that local militias could protect the rights of themselves and their communities.

New Mexico legislature passes civil asset forfeiture reforms

Posted on by

nm-sealNEW MEXICO — The unconstitutional procedure of civil forfeiture is being given special attention these days thanks to the Land of Enchantment. The New Mexico legislature passed H.B. 560 to limit civil forfeitures in their State. Governor Susana Martinez, however, has yet to sign it into law. The organization Freedom Works is concerned about the delay.

Recently Eric Holder announced new rules actually restricting civil forfeiture.

According to the End Forfeiture web site, there is a distinct difference between civil and criminal forfeiture.

In a criminal forfeiture, as the name implies, forfeiture of assets occurs when one is convicted of a crime. The action is taken against a person which means the person is given all rights to a criminal trial and a lawyer if one can not be afforded. The burden of evidence is on the government.

In a civil asset forfeiture, “Civil forfeiture cases are in rem proceedings—meaning that they are technically brought against the property itself rather than its owner. This legal fiction means that police and prosecutors can take and sell your cash, cars, homes or other property without having to convict you or even charge you with any wrongdoing. Fighting back means having to pay for a lawyer yourself or go it alone. And instead of the government having to prove your guilt, under civil forfeiture you must prove your innocence. It is an upside-down world that where the government holds all the cards and has the financial incentive to play them to the hilt.”

The classic example used is the IRS. If you deposit $10,000 or more regularly, that is reported to the IRS. If one starts depositing just less than that amount, the IRS assumes that you are guilty of attempting to hide something and acts to seize all of your assets. There may be no criminal charges brought against the person, but the burden of evidence is on the person to to prove their innocence. That may require lawyers fees more than the assets are worth, thus allowing the government to keep the seized assets.

The new rules by Eric Holder would require government authorities to act only on probable cause that the funds were generated by illegal activity or planned to be used in future criminal activity. In addition, if the activity does not prove to rise to the level to bring either civil or criminal trial, the agency must return assets in full.

This is a policy change, however, and can be changed by subsequent nominations to the position of Attorney General. This is just one example of why it is important for the Senate to select wisely. Freedom Works is not impressed with the civil asset forfeiture record of Loretta Lynch.

Action at the national level is not restricted to the office of the Attorney General. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has submitted S. 255 Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act of 2015 or the FAIR Act [H.R. 540 in the House submitted by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI-7)].

The Senate bill would ensure that a person contesting civil forfeiture has legal representation and increase the burden of proof by the federal government to clear and convincing evidence of a criminal activity.

The act of civil access forfeiture violates not only the due process of the Fifth Amendment, but the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and to be secure in their effects.

Civil asset forfeiture is not restricted to federal abuse. State and local law enforcement agencies have been known to seize assets without due process. The Institute for Justice gave Arizona a grade of D in 2010 for the civil forfeiture procedures in the State.

The New Mexico legislation is being hailed as the most sweeping reform of civil asset forfeiture in the history of the practice.

See Also:
1. New Mexico Nixes Civil Asset Forfeiture: Leviathan Can Be Defeated — Forbes
2. Arizona Earns “D” In “Policing for Profit” Report — Institute for Justice