Legislator calls on feds to give up land ownership


Loss of new post alerts

By now most of you should have noticed you no longer are receiving New Article Alerts every day. This is no fault of mine, but due to a new format on my Mail Chimp account which has a fault they will not fix and I believe it is to force a higher cost to their customers. For a service company to deny help to their clients is inexcusable and I am trying to find a solution through other bulk emailers.

Possibly my web site hosting company will either allow me to mail new post notices through them or arrange for me to send them through Constant Contact at no charge. But only I am interested in getting it done in a hurry!

In the mean time I have managed to compile a list of most of your addresses but some appear to be unrecoverable, so please bare with me until I get this fixed. In the mean time if you will just click on these two links you will see a new post on each site every day as that function is still working but the send button is absent on the Mail Chimp Site. How ever they continue to send me a test notice and the articles continue to show up every day. The only difference is you are not receiving a NEW POST NOTICE.

For A Nation Beguiled.com go to http://anationbeguiled.com

For A Nation Beguiled.WordPress.com go to https://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com/


No constitutional right to ‘grazing, mineral development, agriculture,

forests, or even national parks’

Grand Staircase territory

image: http://mobile.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//feed.png


Bob Unruh
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

If President Trump wants to be known as a president seeking the restoration of the U.S. Constitution, one of his goals should be to turn federal lands – the millions of acres run by the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service and National Park Service – over to the states.

It’s because the Constitution doesn’t allow for federal ownership of land unless it’s for certain limited purposes, argues a former California lawmaker.

Steve Baldwin served in the California Assembly from 1994 to 2000 and was minority whip during that time. He’s argued in a new report in the American Spectator that two recent cases highlight the problem with the federal government owning vast acreages.

And he says the solution is in the Constitution.

“Most Americans have no clue what our founders said about federal land management. The Constitution’s Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2) gave Congress the power to dispose of property, but does not mention a power to acquire property. However, under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18), the federal government was given the power to acquire land but only for the purpose of carrying out its enumerated powers. This would include parcels for military uses, post offices, etc.

“Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the power to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes such as grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or even national parks. This was wisely left up to the prerogative of the states and the people.”

He noted the issue has arisen before.

Sen. Tom Coburn has come up with the answer to a Washington bureaucracy that doesn’t seem to care about the Constitution, or American people: An Article V convention, which he describes in “Smashing the DC Monopoly: Using Article V to Restore Freedom and Stop Runaway Government.”

“Most Americans have forgotten this, but the shady tactics of federal land management agencies were a big issue in Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign. At the time, the movement of those fighting such abuses was called the ‘Sagebrush Rebellion,’ and this issue propelled tens of thousands of voters to support Reagan’s candidacy. To be honest, though, Reagan was unable to carry out any substantial reforms regarding federal land ownership.

“If Trump wants to go down in history as a president who restored the federal government to its proper limited role, then he should revitalize this forgotten section of the U.S. Constitution and transfer all non-enumerated federal land back to the states. Such action will allow states to control their own destinies, create better managed parks and preserves, and create tens of thousands of new jobs by energizing natural resource industries such as oil, natural gas, mining, and timber.

“This is a perfect issue for him. Be bold, Mr. President, and just do it.”

The two issues that came up recently, he explained, were Trump’s decision to reduce the size of federal land grabs under Bill Clinton and the fight over the Bundy Ranch grazing rights.

“Both events illustrate how the federal government has used its massive land holdings to control the lives of Americans,” he said.

At this point, the federal bureaucracy has acquired some 640 million acres of the nation, about one-third.

“The majority of land in Nevada, Alaska, Utah, Oregon and Idaho is owned by the feds. In Arizona, California, Wyoming, New Mexico and Colorado, federal ownership exceeds a third. Indeed, if all 11 Western states were combined into one territory, the feds would own nearly 50 percent of it,” he wrote.

The Utah land fight saw Trump knock down the size of the lands demanded under Clinton and Barack Obama from 3.2 million acres to about 1.2 million.

“Not surprisingly, the left went ballistic, but the truth is Trump is the one acting in accord with the Constitution and in the best interest of the people of Utah, and even the environment,” he pointed out.

“Both of these land grabs were initiated with little or no input from Utah’s civic, political, and business leaders. And, of course, as with most Democrat ‘environmental’ initiatives, cronyism and corruption are evident. For example, Bill Clinton’s Utah land grab — the ‘Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument’ — placed off-limits all energy development, including the world’s largest known deposit of clean burning coal. Not coincidentally, this proviso also quietly benefited the owners of the world’s second-largest deposit of clean burning coal: the Lippo group, owned by the Indonesia-based Riady family and, of course, large donors to the Clinton Foundation (and huge Clinton donors going back decades).”

In the Bundy case, in which a federal judge recently dismissed counts and ordered the government not to file more charges because of massive prosecutorial misconduct in the first case, the Bureau of Land Management launched a police-state action against the ranching family over payment of grazing rights fees.

The family argued the land belonged to the state and the feds had no right to charge fees.

Baldwin’s report explained how former BLM Special Agent and whistleblower Larry Wooten pulled back the curtain on the government’s nefarious activities.

Wooten wrote, “the investigation revealed a widespread pattern of bad judgment, lack of discipline, incredible bias, unprofessionalism and misconduct, as well as likely policy, ethical, and legal violations among senior and supervisory staff at the BLM’s office of Law Enforcement and Security.”

For example, Wooten explained, the BLM posted photos of the Bundy family with x’s on their faces “as if they were to be eliminated.”

His report includes statements attributed to officials such as “Go out there and kick Cliven Bundy in the mouth (or teeth) and take his cattle.”

Other comments by the government included, “rednecks,” “retards” and “douche bags,” the report said.

Baldwin explained that there certainly were nefarious components to the Bundy ranch fight.

“Reports … indicated that former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had teamed up with Chinese billionaire Wang Yusuo in an effort to create a massive 9,000-acre solar energy farm on the same federal land apparently used by Bundy to graze cattle. And Yusuo’s company, the ENN Group, contributed over $40,000 to Reid over the course of three election cycles. One BLM document makes clear that Bundy’s cattle grazing negatively impacted potential solar farm development on this land,” he explained.

When that plan fell apart, Reid began working on another project “which, again, targets the area Bundy’s cattle grazes on.”

According to Courtwatcherblog, “Harry Reid’s interests are clear. He doesn’t care about public lands, but what he stands to profit off of their sale, no matter if it’s sold to China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, or even South Africa… the facts show Harry Reid’s interests in the Bundy men being in jail, make it a lot easier to grab their land…”

Baldwin said returning land to the states would restore the constitutional standard, and would energize the economies of many states.

Baldwin explains that it was during federal convention debates in 1787 that Elbridge Gerry, later vice president, issued a warning. He said federal ownership of land “might be made use of to enslave any particular state by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the state into an undue obedience.”




The Digital Revolution along with nuclear weapons and artificial intelligence are examples of technology that can result in human extermination. The reports below from the London Telegraph illustrate how technology has become the Black Plague of today.

 Note: The solar storm of  of 1859 named the “Carrington Event”  only affected   the telegraph  system. Imagine what would happen if such a solar blast occurred today. — RH   

The truth about Hard Sun’s solar apocalypse: just how scared should we be? 

By Tristram Fane Saunders 

You might not have noticed it, but two years ago an event took place which might just have brought about the collapse of modern civilization.
In July 2012, an enormous flare burst from the far side of the sun. Had it happened just one week earlier, it would have been pointing directly towards the Earth, causing the worst geomagnetic storm in over 400 years.
As Reuters reported at the time, the resulting magnetic disruption could have “fried the world’s electricity grids and left hundreds of millions of customers without power for months or even years”.
Next time, we might not be so lucky. A new BBC series, Hard Sun, imagines a similar solar phenomenon. Two London coppers (played by Jim Sturgess and Agyness Deyn) stumble across a USB drive containing a secret digital dossier, counting down towards an “extinction level event” in five years time.
In early episodes, there is some doubt about the cause – “Did it refer to a meteor, or a comet?” one character asks – but it doesn’t take Scotland Yard’s finest to figure out the truth: the drama begins with the sight of giant flares leaping from the surface of the sun.

“This isn’t science fiction. This is the real world,” the show’s writer Neil Cross has said. But how plausible is it? Should we be concerned? And for those of us who dozed off in science at school, what exactly is a geomagnetic storm anyway?
“The surface of the Sun is an incredibly dynamic place,” says astrophysicist Dr Katie Mack. In an active phase, it can release bursts of plasma and radiation into space. If directed towards the earth, these eruptions (known as Coronal Mass Ejections, or CMEs), can disrupt the Earth’s magnetic fields in what we call a geomagnetic storm. It’s a CME that we see in the opening moments of Hard Sun’s first episode.
“It can be hugely disruptive if it’s very strong,” Dr Mack explains. “Sudden variations in the electromagnetic field can cause sparks to pass between electronic components, shorting out circuits. The biggest dangers would be to satellites (including the GPS system) and to the power grid on Earth.”
The closest we have come to this kind of storm was the Carrington Event of 1859, named after the British astronomer Richard Carrington, who discovered a link between the “two patches of intensely bright and white light” he noticed erupting from sunspots just before the event, and the strange phenomena that followed. During this major geomagnetic storm, the Northern Lights were visible as far south as Honolulu, while eerie illuminations made the night almost as bright as the day.

One contemporary newspaper quoted a woman from Sullivan’s Island, South Carolina, who was dazzled by what she saw. “The whole island was illuminated,” she said. “The sea reflected the phenomenon, and no one could look at it without thinking of the passage in the Bible which says, ‘the sea was turned to blood.’ The shells on the beach, reflecting light, resembled coals of fire.”
For anyone working on the fledgling electrical telegraph system, the effects were far stranger. Sparks leapt from the machines, shocking the operators and setting fire to highly flammable telegraph paper. The surge of energy running through the wires was strong enough to melt the instruments’ platinum contacts.
While many telegraph communications stopped dead, a few operators in Boston found that their transmitters still worked even with the batteries unplugged, and that they were able to send telegraph messages using only the current from the aurora.
Today, with electricity and satellite communications playing an essential part in our daily lives, the effects would be far more serious.
A CME of that kind would not only knock out power generators, but also telecommunication towers. With no radio or TV news, and mobile phone networks dead, the sudden and unexplained black-out could easily lead to a mass panic and rioting. Worse still would be the potential failure of the all-important electric cooling systems at nuclear power plants; the result could be a disaster on the scale of the 2012 Fukushima incident.

A report published in 2013, following the previous year’s major CME, warned that “our society would still be picking up the pieces.” One of the report’s authors, Dr Daniel Baker of Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, has suggested that it could take up to 10 years to fully recover from such an incident.
To make matters worse, in real life – unlike in Hard Sun – we wouldn’t have five years to prepare for it. At best, our advance notice would be closer to a single day. “We get 19 hours or more for a coronal mass ejection, but we don’t know whether or not it will hit Earth, or what the conditions may be,” Plasma physicist Dr Melanie Windridge told the Mail in November. “Fifteen minutes warning is all we have to tell us about the specific conditions of what will hit us and how problematic it could be.”

The chance of another enormous solar flare erupting in the next decade has been estimated at just one in eight. Of course, the chance of it being directed at Earth is much smaller, and there are steps we can take to prepare for such an event. In the US, the Department of Energy is working on a “strategic transformer reserve” – a system for providing power stations with back-up transformers to quickly replace any that might be knocked out by a geomagnetic storm.
Other possible safety measures include using capacitor banks to absorb excess energy, or constructing Faraday cages around irreplaceable pieces of equipment to block out electro-magnetic radiation. Even so, safeguarding the entire grid in this way could cost up to $30 billion.
But without these safeguards, would we really be looking at the kind of catastrophe imagined in Hard Sun? In the BBC One series, when detectives Renko and Hicks access the secret USB drive, a number of frightening and unintentionally ridiculous phrases flash up on screen: “magnetic disruption”; “homicide rates”; “body bag demand” (is the bag shortage itself really that much of a concern?); and more seriously, “crop failure”.

This nightmarish scenario, Dr Mack tells me, is a bit far-fetched. “I really doubt it could harm surface agriculture,” she says. “For something like that, you’d need something strong enough to seriously damage the magnetic field or atmosphere, and I don’t see how a CME from the Sun could be that powerful. It would be a short-term disruption and would mess with electromagnetic fields for a bit but it wouldn’t strip the Earth’s protection completely. Screwing with the power grid could harm a heck of a lot of things, but the CME itself isn’t going to kill all our plants.”
So, it’s not the end of the world after all? “We’re not doomed,” Dr Mack tells me, patiently. “There are procedures in place to try to shore up the power grid. Losing GPS and other satellite communications (and possibly cell phone communication) would be a huge mess but we’d recover.”
But what about all those BBC One viewers who have been left cowering behind the sofa? “We’re still learning a lot about the Sun. For example, the upcoming Parker Solar Probe will get up close and personal with the solar corona, hopefully solving some of the abiding mysteries and helping us make better predictions,” says Dr Mack. “If you’re worried, encourage more investment in space science!”

Note: If any other machine in history had been as unreliable as digital technology no one would have given it houseroom. It is only because we have allowed ourselves to become  dangerously dependent on the technology that it is tolerated. — RH 

Meltdown bug: Microsoft halts security updates after PC owners report ‘blue screen of death’

 Margi Murphy
9 JANUARY 2018 • 2:40PM

Microsoft was forced to abruptly suspend security fixes for Meltdown and Spectre flaws over fears they might render millions of devices nothing more than expensive bricks.
Customers who have received the latest security update claimed they were met with “blue screen errors”, the so-called “blue screen of death”, or frozen screens on Windows 10, Windows 8.1 and Windows 7, Microsoft said in a blog post.
The technology company is working to send updates to billions of devices running Windows operating systems and are currently vulnerable to hacking thanks to a hardware flaw.
Last week it emerged that the security hole, which has existed in Intel, AMD and ARM chips for up to twenty years, could be leaking confidential information including passwords, files and photos from a range of devices including iPhones, iPads, Android smartphones and PCs. Apple and Google are also sending out security updates to affected products.
But in the latest twist for the Meltdown debacle, Microsoft’s hopes that remote software updates would solve the problem has been thwarted, as devices running AMD chips are not reacting as expected. Customers have also reported issues loading the start menu or task bar after installing the updates. 

“To prevent AMD customers from getting into an unbootable state, Microsoft will temporarily pause sending the following Windows operating system updates to devices with impacted AMD processors at this time,” a Microsoft spokesman said in a statement.

The microchip bugs, which affect almost every computer processor in the world, were disclosed in an article by the Register.  However, Intel had been made aware of the flaws – named Meltdown and Spectre – in June 2017 by Google researchers.
Since the announcement, it was feared that opportunistic criminals would seize the chance to exploit this flaw to steal passwords for online services, or personal and confidential files. Companies are working around the clock to create a software “workaround” to patch the holes. The alternative – something which was quickly rejected by technology companies – would be to recall millions of pieces of hardware.
Intel’s chief executive broke his silence on the matter on Monday evening during his keynote speech at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, claiming that 90 per cent of devices should be secured “within a week”.
Computing giant IBM also appeared to fall victim to the bug this week, with workers reportedly being told to stop updating their systems as new security fixes were playing havoc with antivirus protection already put in place.
Millions of computers using Intel chips prone to hacking – and fix ‘slows machines by 30 per cent.’

Software giants Microsoft and Amazon scramble to issue fix for Intel flaw, sacrificing computer performance in the meantime 

 Margi Murphy
3 JANUARY 2018 • 11:45AM

Millions of computers using Intel chips are prone to hacking because of a flaw that went unnoticed for a decade, it has emerged.
Software giants are currently working on a fix for the flaw but industry experts have warned it could potentially slow down all devices running the chips by up to 30 per cent.
The flaw could allow hackers a “persistent and undetectable backdoor into someone’s computer”, Mike Godfrey, cyber expert at Insinia Security told the Telegraph.
The flaw grants access to a computer’s kernel, which runs and stores every function on the device, and means an outsider could potentially bypass antivirus or firewall security software without the owner knowing. It could allow malicious software to steal passwords and sensitive files or crystallographic keys, necessary for keeping us safe online.
The National Cyber Security Centre, an arm of GCHQ issued a statement on Wednesday afternoon advising individuals to install updates when they became available.  

“We are aware of reports about a potential flaw affecting some computer processors,” a spokesman said.
“At this stage there is no evidence of any malicious exploitation and patches are being produced for the major platforms.”
Intel chips appear in almost all personal computers and other technology. Financial institutions and businesses with large IT infrastructure may have been compromised for several years, Godfrey added. Train systems and autonomous cars also use the chips.   

Intel has reportedly warned software vendors including Microsoft, Amazon and Apple, who are believed to be creating a workaround to fix the flaw. But this fix could make computers 30 per cent slower, according to technology website The Register.
Matthew Hickey, security expert and co-founder at My Hacker House said: “The real problem is for companies trying to support customers on their servers. Hypothetically, if a company once had capacity to support 100,000 users, that number may drop to 70,000.
“It could have real cost implications for businesses that have been using or intend to use cloud technology and Intel servers.”  

The bug has been known by security workers for some time, but is not due to be publicly disclosed until software giants like Amazon and Microsoft have issued a patch, so that the details cannot be exploited by criminals. Fixes are expected to be released in the next week.
Intel itself is unable to fix the flaw, so guarding against it requires a software update that will slow computers by between 5 per cent and 30 per cent, or to fix the processors completely.
Hundreds of millions of devices could be affected, including those still on the production lines.
Mr Hickey added: “The real problems are for companies who are trying to get the best performance out of servers to support so many users. They may find that they had the capacity to support 100,000 users on their software, but that number could drop to 70,000. It could have real cost implications for business.”

It is unclear whether anyone has been hacked thanks to this flaw, but penetration tester at Insinia Security, Matthew Carr, told the Telegraph that it was not inconceivable that a vulnerability that has existed for ten years had already been exploited by nation states, criminal gangs or expert level hackers.
Chip rival AMD shares soared 7.2 per cent after the disclosure on Wednesday, while Intel dropped to a low of 3.8 per cent.
Intel have yet to comment on the matter. Microsoft had nothing to share and Google, Amazon and Apple are yet to comment.





Consider the exploding star of Social Security, one of the largest and most important pension programs in the world.

Literally tens of millions of people depend on it.

The Social Security Administration itself reports that 62% of recipients rely on the program for at least HALF of their income.

And further research by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) shows that, without Social Security, 22.1 million Americans would fall below the poverty line.

Needless to say, major cuts to the program would have nuclear effects.

And yet, year after year, the Social Security Board of Trustees publishes an annual report that describes the program’s terminal financial challenges in excruciating detail.

They mince no words in plainly stating that Social Security pays out far too much money, and takes in far too little.

According to the 2017 Trustees report, “Trust Fund reserves become depleted in 2035.”

They’re practically giving us a date that we can circle on a calendar and mark “End of Social Security.”

The Trustees go on to lightly propose solutions, including an “immediate and permanent reduction” in benefits to all current and future Social Security recipients.”

And in case you’re wondering who these whack-job Trustees are, they include the Treasury Secretary of the United States, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Labor.

These aren’t just random people.

We’re talking about politicians at the highest levels of government who are telling us that Social Security is running out of money… and calling for an immediate and permanent cut in benefits.

Given the tens of millions of people who depend on the program, the consequences of either scenario would be catastrophic.

Sadly, this is not a new problem. The Trustees have been screaming for years that Social Security’s finances are unsustainable.

Yet year after year, the problem was ignored… which brings the end-game one year closer, and the ultimate solution that much more painful.

That’s what makes Social Security a gigantic supernova.

The star exploded years ago. But it will take until 2035 for everyone to realize it… though frankly it could be sooner than that.

People are living longer than ever before– the average life expectancy in the US is a full EIGHTEEN YEARS longer than it was when Social Security was conceived back in the 1930s.

This means that Social Security will have to pay out more money to more recipients for much longer than they’ve ever had to pay before.

This will be an enormous cost to the program.

Simultaneously, despite all the celebration of the low unemployment rate in the US, the Labor Force Participation Rate is still near a multi-decade low.

This means that there are fewer people in the work force who are actually paying in to the Social Security System.

According to its own projections, Social Security requires 3 employed workers to support one retiree.

And they watch this worker-to-beneficiary ratio very closely.

In 2010 it dipped below 3 for the first time, and in 2013 hit 2.8. The Trustees’ projections show it will continue to fall, to as low as 2.2.

So if you look at the big picture, a growing number of beneficiaries is being supported by a declining number of workers.

This isn’t rocket science– it’s pretty obvious what’s going to happen.

Yet the collective response is to simply ignore the problem… or outright refuse to believe it, as if this is some crazy conspiracy theory.

This isn’t a theory.

It’s simple arithmetic based on government data, backed by the same conclusions reached by the Treasury Secretary of the United States.


Now, the bad news is that none of us can actually fix Social Security.

And we sure as heck can’t convince someone to prepare for a problem that they refuse to acknowledge.

But we can easily do something about it ourselves.

After all, this is one of those MAJOR problems we’ve been talking about– and one that can easily be avoided.

The good news is that many of the solutions haven’t changed with the new tax law.

You can still establish, for example, certain self-directed IRA structures or a solo 401(k).

These structures not only dramatically increase your contribution limits (to more than $50,000 annually), but also vastly expand the universe of investment options– real estate, cryptocurrency, private equity, etc.

So ultimately you could save more, and earn more, for your retirement.

The Social Security star has already exploded. But it will take the light another 15+ years to reach us.

That’s plenty of time to prepare for anyone with the right education and the will to act.

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act


Olddogs Comments!

The corporate United States Government has stolen Billions of dollars by selling our trade name and also false life insurance claims, so how about you high flying researchers finding a way for us peons to claim a refund on their illegal profiteering, and we can then process our documents to reclaim our trade names. As it stands now people who want to be free civilians instead of corporate citizens will lose our social security.

What Do They Want In The End?




Read More Articles by Lee Duigon

What would America be like, if the Far Left got everything they say they want?

Thanks to America’s bloated, over-funded “higher education” system, we are able to get a few glimpses into that chamber of horrors. As a class, America’s college professors are all on board the wacko express. They try hard to “teach” their students to be as out-to-lunch as they are.

As part of a recent “Social Justice Lecture Series”—students got extra credit for sitting through these sessions—a Diablo Valley College political science professor exhorted students to “violate the laws” and “abolish white democracy”. Your tuition dollars at work!

According to the prof, “We exist in a white supremacist, patriarchal, hetero-normative, capitalist system,” and it’s just got to be fundamentally transformed into… well, what?

There must be several dozen genuine white supremacists in America, who never had it so good. Not so long ago, they were a handful of ineffectual nobodies. Now they’re the boogie man. Our colleges have painted them out to be several hundred times more important than they are.

Okay, Far Left America won’t have any role for white people anymore. Except maybe to keep on paying taxes and cheerfully taking the blame for anything that’s wrong in anybody elses life.

Gotta get rid of that patriarchy, too—whatever it is. The only thing worse than a man is a white man.

But that hetero-normativity stuff, that’s infinitely worse! The only thing worse than a white man is a non-gay white man. I’m not sure what the leftids want to do about hetero-normativity. Make homosexuality compulsory? Bob Hope was only joking, when he mentioned it some fifty years ago. But the Left is not known for its sense of humor.

And of course capitalism has got to go. It causes Income Inequality. It causes Global Warming. It causes people to have jobs they don’t like—something that never happens under communism. That it also provides thousands of brainless university professors with a damned nice living doesn’t seem to inspire any gratitude.

“Democracy” will be out, too. White people ruined it. Maybe they could set up a really inclusive form of democracy that excludes white people. That might work.

To bring about these utopian conditions, says the prof, college students have to get into the habit of violating the law. A few killjoys have pointed out that the professor never said which laws ought to be violated. Did he leave that out simply because his whole schtick is half-baked, muddle-headed, and incoherent? Or did he mean to suggest that all laws should be violated? Because he refuses to be interviewed, it’s hard to guess what he really meant. Possibly he doesn’t know.

Still, a society with no written laws ought to appeal to leftids. If you don’t have a criminal code on the books where anyone can read it, then any act, or any failure to act, is potentially a crime and may be punished as such. This is great for keeping the deplorables in line. If you never know when they’re going to drag you off to jail for something you never knew was against the law, or for not doing something that they say you should have done—hey, it worked for the Soviet Union, didn’t it? They just love to hear someone crying “What did I do? What did I do?” as he’s being propped up for the firing squad or sentenced to a stint of Sensitivity Training. It’s what made Mao Tse-tung’s Red Guards tick.

So violate all the laws until there is no law except for whatever the Party says happens to be the law on any given day. Keep everybody guessing.

It would be interesting to ask the parents of these students what they think they’re getting for their money. We could also ask whether this kind of “education” does our country any good; but I think we already know the answer.

I have discussed these and other topics throughout the week on my blog, http://leeduigon.com . Stop in and visit. A single click will take you there.

© 2018 Lee Duigon – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Lee Duigon: leeduigon@verizon.net

Lee Duigon, a contributing editor with the Chalcedon Foundation, is a former newspaper reporter and editor, small businessman, teacher, and horror novelist. He has been married to his wife, Patricia, for 34 years. See his new fantasy/adventure novels, Bell Mountain and The Cellar Beneath the Cellar, available on http://www.amazon.com Website: LeeDuigon.com E-Mail: leeduigon@verizon.net

Olddogs Comments!

Sarcasm Extraordinaire!

Good Job Lee!

Convention of States Projects Simulated Convention A Dog And Pony Show



Read More Articles by Publius Huldah

Foundational Knowledge

Our Constitution delegates only a handful of powers to the federal government.  But 100 years ago, we started electing Progressives (Fabian socialists) to State and federal office.  With the enthusiastic approval of the American People, the Progressives set up the socialist regulatory welfare governments (state and federal) we now have.  It’s unconstitutional; but Americans didn’t care because they were being taken care of by the governments, and their children were getting “free” public school educations.

So for the past 100 years, the federal and state governments and the American People have ignored our Constitution.

Now that our socialist system is collapsing, along comes the “Convention of States” Project (COS), blames all our problems on the federal government, and claims we can fix the federal government’s violations of our Constitution by amending the Constitution.[1]

And they say amendments which will “rein in the abuse of power by the federal government” when it “violate[s] its constitutional limitations”,[2] can be obtained only at a convention called by Congress pursuant to Article V of our Constitution.

Article V provides that if two thirds of the States apply for it, Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution.[3] 3 However, Delegates would have the right, as recognized in the 2nd paragraph of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off the Constitution we have and write a new Constitution which creates a new government.  This has happened before!

Our first Constitution was the Articles of Confederation.  It had defects, so on February 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention to be held in Philadelphia “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.  But instead of proposing amendments, the Delegates wrote a new Constitution, with an easier mode of ratification, [4] which created a new government.  In Federalist   No. 40 (15th para), James Madison invoked the Delegates’ right to abolish our form of government, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, to justify ignoring their instructions and drafting a new Constitution which created a new government.

So!  Ever since the federal convention of 1787, it has been known that any convention called to address our Constitution under Article V provides the opportunity to impose a new Constitution. [5] That’s why the enemies of our Constitution periodically push for an Article V convention.[6]

In response to the current push, constitutionalists are warning Americans that if Congress calls an Article V convention, a new constitution with a new mode of ratification is likely to be imposed – probably a new constitution which moves us into the North American Union.

COS’s “simulated” Article V convention

So during September 2016, COS held an “invitation only” “simulated convention” in Williamsburg, Virginia  attended by State Legislators handpicked by COS,[7] to show us that Delegates to a real Article V convention called by Congress will do nothing more than propose amendments.

And lo!  At the “simulated convention”, all the handpicked invitees did was propose six amendments to our Constitution – they didn’t “run away” and propose a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification!

COS would like us to believe that their “simulated convention” proves that a real Article V convention called by Congress also won’t run away when, in fact, it proves nothing except that handpicked COS invitees fall in line with the COS agenda.

Now let’s look at the proposed amendments:  COS posted them HERE; an archived copy is HERE.

COS’s six amendments

Like Newspeak in George Orwell’s “1984”, the amendments would do the opposite of what COS claims.

Fiscal Restraints Proposal 1”:

“SECTION 1. The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress, and only for a period not to exceed one year.

SECTION 2. No state or any subdivision thereof shall be compelled or coerced by Congress or the President to appropriate money.

So!  Congress can’t increase the debt unless they decide to increase the debt.  Wow. This is “fiscal restraints”?

If you read through the Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to the federal government, you will get a list of the objects on which Congress is authorized to spend money.

The reason we have a huge debt is because for 100 years, Congress has been spending on objects which aren’t on the list of delegated powers.  The States go along with it because they get federal funds for implementing unconstitutional federal programs in their States.  31.9% of the States’ annual revenues is from federal funds.  All this federal money is borrowed and added to the public debt!

To say that State Legislators display hypocrisy when they decry “out of control federal spending” when they have their hand out for all the federal money they can get, is an understatement. The amendment authorizes such spending to continue for as long as Congress continues to approve increases in the debt!  The amendment legalizes – makes constitutional – all such spending and debt increases!

Section 2 gives us nothing.  Our existing Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to require States or local governments to spend money.

Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 1:

“SECTION 1. The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states shall be limited to the regulation of the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods, articles or persons. Congress may not regulate activity solely because it affects commerce among the several states.  [boldface added]

SECTION 2. The power of Congress to make all laws that are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States. [boldface added]

SECTION 3. The Legislatures of the States shall have standing to file any claim alleging violation of this article.  Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit standing that may otherwise exist for a person.

Section 1: The original intent of the interstate commerce clause (Art. I, §3) is to prohibit the States from imposing tolls & tariffs on merchandize as it is transported through the States for purposes of buying & selling; and to permit the federal government to impose duties on imports & exports, both inland & abroad.[8]

With Roosevelt’s “New Deal”, the federal government began to pervert the original intent so as to exert power over whatever they wanted to regulate.

The amendment legalizes the perversions!  It delegates to the federal government powers it has already usurped to regulate the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods and articles.

Furthermore: the amendment delegates to the federal government a sweeping new power over the movement or transportation of persons across state lines!  It would, e.g., authorize the federal government to prohibit use of privately owned vehicles to cross state lines, and to require prior written permission to cross state lines.  I saw in communist East Europe & the Soviet Union a system where governments control movement of persons.  Will “Papers, please” be heard at checkpoints in America?  This malignant amendment would be constitutional authority to impose such a system here.[9]

Section 2: The federal government has no existing constitutional authority to regulate intra state commerce, so the first clause of this section adds nothing our Constitution doesn’t already prohibit.

But the second clause delegates to the federal government another significant new power over persons: it comes verbatim from Randy Barnett’s so-called “bill of federalism”:[10]

“…Congress shall have power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.”

Why does Barnett, who attended the “simulated convention” as “Committee Advisor”, want the federal government to have this new power?  What’s an “act of war against the United States” – doing what the Bundys and their supporters did?  The amendment delegates to Congress the power to define “acts of war against the United States” – and to re-define it from time to time – to encompass whatever they want!

We need to understand the implications of delegating such power to Congress.  As with “treason” under the Tudors in England, anyone can be accused of “acts of war against the United States”.  Does Randy Barnett, law professor, understand the implications?  James Madison understood them and thus said that “treason” must be defined in the Constitution; [11] obviously, no one of Madison’s caliber was at the “simulated convention”.

Section 3:  Our Framers didn’t advise the States to file lawsuits against the federal government when it violates the Constitution!  Our Framers told the States to nullify such violations.[12]

 “Federal Term Limits & Judicial Jurisdiction Proposal 1”:

“No person shall be elected to more than six full terms in the House of Representatives. No person shall be elected to more than two full terms in the Senate. These limits shall include the time served prior to the enactment of this Article.”

This amendment is a feel-good palliative which caters to Americans’ pervasive desire for a quick “fix” which permits them to avoid dealing with the real causes of their problems.  See Term Limits: A Palliative not a Cure.

Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 2”:

“SECTION 1. The Legislatures of the States shall have authority to abrogate any provision of federal law issued by the Congress, President, or Administrative Agencies of the United States, whether in the form of a statute, decree, order, regulation, rule, opinion, decision, or other form. [boldface added]

SECTION 2. Such abrogation shall be effective when the Legislatures of three-fifths of the States approve a resolution declaring the same provision or provisions of federal law to be abrogated. This abrogation authority may also be applied to provisions of federal law existing at the time this amendment is ratified.

Section 1: Article I, §1, US Constitution, provides that all legislative powers granted by the Constitution shall be vested in Congress.  Only Congress may make laws [and laws are restricted to the powers granted in the Constitution].

Accordingly, executive orders and federal agency rules and orders are not “law”.

The amendment would supersede Art. I, §1.  It would elevate to the status of “federal law” every order or regulation burped out by bureaucrats in the executive branch; every executive order signed by every President; and every order barked out by jack-booted thugs working for federal agencies.  And unless three fifths of States agree that you don’t have to obey – you must obey or bear the consequences of violating what would be – thanks to this amendment – “federal law”.

Section 2: James Madison, Father of our Constitution, showed how individual States or several States could carry out resistance to the federal government’s unconstitutional encroachments.  But the amendment would require 30 States to agree before any one State or person could defend itself!

Fiscal Restraints Proposal 2:

SECTION 1. Congress shall not impose taxes or other exactions upon incomes, gifts, or estates.

SECTION 2. Congress shall not impose or increase any tax, duty, impost or excise without the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately present such to the President. [boldface added]

SECTION 3. This Article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the Sixteenth Article of amendment is repealed.”

This amendment doesn’t impose “fiscal restraints” – it authorizes Congress to impose new and different taxes on us! 

The words in boldface authorize Congress to impose “any tax” if three fifths of both Houses agree.  “Any tax” includes a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT).  Statists love the VAT because it raises a “gusher of revenue for spendthrift governments”.  This is what will replace the income, gift, and estate tax.

Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 3”:

“Whenever one quarter of the members of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate transmits to the President their written declaration of opposition to any proposed or existing federal administrative regulation, in whole or in part, it shall require a majority vote of the House of Representatives and Senate to adopt or affirm that regulation. Upon the transmittal of opposition, if Congress shall fail to vote within 180 days, such regulation shall be vacated. No proposed regulation challenged under the terms of this Article shall go into effect without the approval of Congress. Congressional approval or rejection of a rule or regulation is not subject to Presidential veto under Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.”

As shown in The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster, rulemaking by federal agencies is unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1 of our Constitution.

The proposed amendment would supersede Art. I, §1 and legalize such rulemaking!  And the existing Code of Federal Regulations and the rulemaking process itself – which now violate the Constitution – would be made constitutional!

The solution to the burden created by unconstitutional federal agencies is to do away with the agencies!  Downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers!


The “simulated convention” was a dog and pony show put on to produce amendments to con us into believing that a real Article V convention called by Congress won’t “run away”.

But it’s impossible to fix federal usurpations of non-delegated powers with amendments, because amendments can’t take away powers the Constitution didn’t delegate in the first place.  Thus, the amendments the hand-picked attendees approved legalize powers already usurped or delegate sweeping new powers to the federal government over States and individual persons!

Statecraft is serious business which requires systematic study to master. The “simulated convention” shows we live in a time of constitutional illiteracy where people of good intent can be misled by persons of “insidious views”.   Heed the words of Daniel Webster in his 4th of July Oration, 1802:

“The politician that undertakes to improve a Constitution with as little thought as a farmer sets about mending his plow, is no master of his trade. If that Constitution be a systematic one, if it be a free one, its parts are so necessarily connected that an alteration in one will work an alteration in all; and this cobbler, however pure and honest his intentions, will, in the end, find that what came to his hands a fair and lovely fabric goes from them a miserable piece of patchwork.”


[1] If your spouse commits adultery, will your marriage be saved if you amend the vows to permit adultery?  When People violate the Ten Commandments, will morality be restored if we amend the Ten Commandments to permit sin?

[2] Michael Farris’ words in “Answering the John Birch Society Questions about Article V” or HERE.

[3] None of the Delegates to the convention of 1787 said the purpose of amendments is to rein in the fed. gov’t when it usurps power. They said the purpose is to fix defects in the Constitution.  See The George Mason Fabrication at subheading 4.

[4] Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation  (AOC) required Amendments to the AOC to be ratified by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States.  But Article VII of the new Constitution (the one we now have) provided that it would be ratified by 9 States.

[5] The enemies of our Constitution knew from day one that they could get rid of our Constitution at an Art. V convention!  Our present Constitution was ratified by the 9th State on June 21, 1788.  In Federalist No. 85 (mid-August 1788), Hamilton addressed the arguments of the anti-federalists who were agitating for another convention in order to get rid of our new Constitution.

On Oct. 27, 1788, anti-federalist Patrick Henry introduced into the Virginia Assembly a Resolution asking Congress to call an Art. V convention.  In Madison’s letter to Randolph of Nov 2, 1788 (pages 294-297), he speaks of Henry’s “enmity” “agst [against] the whole system” [the new Constitution]; and “the destruction of the whole system I take to be still the secret wish of his heart, and the real object of his pursuit.”

[6] New Constitutions are already prepared or being drafted:  e.g., the Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a national referendum (Art. XII, §1).  Globalists [e.g., the Council on Foreign Relations] who want to move us into the North American Union (NAU) need a new Constitution to transform us from a sovereign nation to a member state in the NAU.

[7] COS’s page is archived HERE. See “who attended the simulation” in right column. [Archived list of attendees is HERE or HERE.]

[8] Proof of the original intent of the interstate commerce clause & how it was abused is HERE.

[9] Yet, Legislators from 44 of the States at the “simulated convention” approved this!

[10] See Barnett’s Amendment 2 – Limits of Commerce Power”.  It’s archived HERE.

[11]“Treason” is defined at Art. III, §3.  In Federalist No. 43 (at 3.) Madison warns that the definition must be locked into the Constitution.  Otherwise, malignant people fabricate definitions as needed in order to condemn their enemies.

Compare Art. I, §8, cl. 10 which delegates to Congress the power “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations”.  In Federalist No. 42 (1st & 4th paras), Madison points out that this class of powers is among those which “regulate the intercourse with foreign nations” and so must be handled by the general [fed.] gov’t.  And since everyone’s definition of the terms is different, the fed gov’t should define them.  This class of powers wouldn’t affect private Citizens.  For more on the limited criminal jurisdiction of the fed gov’t over private Citizens, see What Criminal Laws are Congress Authorized To Make?

[12] See Nullification made Easy.  And remember: State officials are required by the Oath at Art. VI to “support” the federal Constitution – not to obey the federal government!

© 2018 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

Publius Huldah is a retired attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She also shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs. E-Mail: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Author Email: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Bundys Freed Extra Extra Hear All About It!



By Anna Von Reitz

It is my understanding that the bad behavior of the FBI and BLM in this matter has finally caught up to them and that the Bundys’ and all those who have likewise been falsely accused and prosecuted and persecuted will now be set free and the record established as a finding in their favor “with prejudice”—-preventing the vermin responsible for this travesty from ever coming back and bringing forward any more complaints.

Thank God. Finally.

And now, I have a few more choice words:

18 U.S. Code Subsection 2333– Civil Remedies

(a) Action and Jurisdiction—

Any national of the United States injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of international terrorism, or his or her estate, survivors, or heirs, may sue therefore in any appropriate district court of the United States and shall recover threefold damages he or she sustains and the cost of the suit, including attorney’s fees.

Hear that, Guys?  3X plus court costs. Guaranteed.

And since the Municipal United States is a foreign government and the FBI and BLM are both foreign corporations acting outside their jurisdiction to wreck havoc and attempt unlawful conversion of assets and threaten (and take, in the case of LaVoy Finicum) the lives of the American People, aka, United States Nationals, this IS an act of “international terrorism” by “uniformed officers” against peaceful non-combatant civilian Third Parties.

There you go.

Just remember that in America the words “interstate” and “international” are completely interchangeable, because each state is also a nation—- and also remember that the federal government, whether territorial or municipal, is foreign with respect to us, and there you have it—- acts of “international terrorism” being promoted by our own employees against us.

They will put themselves right out of business if they continue with these abuses, and I hope and I pray that the Bundys and Steve Curry and everyone else who has been wrongfully attacked by these vermin take such a bite out of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, INC.  commercial profits that they learn their lessons and never, ever do these things again on American soil —or anywhere else for that matter.

Which brings up my final good thought for the day—- Trey Gowdy seems like a real American—-a tough, intelligent example of the breed.  I like him.  And he just happens to be co-chair of the all-powerful House Oversight Subcommittee…. and they just happen to be investigating the actions and inactions of the FBI….

Now, the FBI and the BLM, which have both played such a disgraceful part in the prosecution of the ranchers that is just ending, are owned and operated by what appears to be a private, for-profit agency holding company calling itself the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, INC.

I’ve mentioned this fact before.  BLM wasn’t just calling on the FBI for help with a problem within FBI jurisdiction.  BLM was colluding with a sister-company, being directed by the same parent corporation.  Ah, so, can anyone tell us who is responsible for the Bad Behavior of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, INC.–their parent company?

Who is on the Board of Directors of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, INC.?

Who is accountable for the misdirection and misconduct of these agencies?  Who isn’t doing their job to properly inform, direct, and deploy the BLM and the FBI to do the actual jobs that they are supposed to do?

We didn’t hire them to harass innocent ranchers over grazing rights they are owed.  We certainly didn’t hire them to ambush and murder LaVoy Finicum in cold blood.  So who set these public servants on such a misdirected path?  And why?

Americans want to know— so we make changes to this little “system” of things gone so horribly wrong.  It’s abundantly clear that somebody somewhere needs the fear of God put into them.  And I bet Trey Gowdy can find out who without burning up too many calories.

Let’s ask him.  Let’s ask the whole House Oversight Subcommittee.

See this article and over 800 others on Anna’s website here:


Kick Cliven Bundy in the mouth and take his cattle




by David Keene

The Bundy cases bears remarkable, and unsettling, similarities to the Waco standoff

Twenty-five years ago this year, federal agents stormed the compound of a religious group in Waco, Texas, with armored vehicles, machine guns and tear gas. Claiming the Branch Davidians were a dangerous religious cult, they killed David Koresh, the group’s leader, along with and some 70 men, women and children who were with him when the assault took place.
The ostensible reason for reducing the compound to rubble was to serve a search warrant on Mr. Koresh for illegal weapons officials believed he possessed. The issuing judge was told Mr. Koresh was a crazed paranoid who never left the compound where he and his violence-prone followers were illegally hoarding automatic weapons and represented a clear and present danger to the Waco community.
Long after the smoke cleared the facts proved that the raid was staged not because Mr. Koresh and his Branch Davidians were a threat to anyone, but as a public relations stunt by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) to be used to justify a budget increase. Everything was filmed to be shown at future budget hearings, but when things went bad, the PR stunt turned into a murderous massacre.
Surviving Davidians insisted federal agents opened fire on them first, but when investigators sought the audio and video recordings made by the BATF and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, they were informed that all the cameras had malfunctioned and the audio tapes had disappeared along with other physical evidence. The Clinton administration then prosecuted the surviving Davidians relying on testimony later demonstrated to be perjured and sent them off to prison, hoping the whole incident would be forgotten.
Later, however, following a tip from a whistleblower, the Branch Davidian’s attorney David Hardy filed carefully worded Freedom of Information requests that turned up literally tons of missing evidence that agents carted off to a sealed warehouse within hours of the assault on the Davidian compound.
Mr. Hardy, author of the recently published book, “I’m from the Government and I’m here to Kill You,” says the warehouse held all the evidence the government had insisted didn’t exist and made it clear that the BATF and FBI agents who ended up killing 70 people had come looking for trouble and when they found it, covered up what they had done and lied to the public and those investigating the incident.
Las Vegas rancher Cliven Bundy must feel, as Yogi Berra once said, it’s like deja vu all over again. Mr. Bundy refused back in 2014 to cooperate with government agents sent to confiscate his cattle because he had refused to pay disputed charges for grazing rights on federal land adjacent to his ranch. Agents from the Bureau of Land Management and the FBI confronted
Mr. Bundy and his family and neighbors in a stand-off that went on for months.
Mr. Bundy, like the Davidians a quarter of a century ago, was portrayed in the media as a crazed extremist with a “militia” ready and even anxious to shoot it out with federal agents simply doing their job. When the confrontation ended, prosecutors went after Mr. Bundy and his allies in a number of cases, most of which ended in acquittals.
The key trial which began last November included a conspiracy charge that Mr. Bundy and his family had recruited militia support by falsely claiming that they were the target of a government vendetta, surrounded by FBI snipers and in danger of being killed by federal agents who had used excessive force in arresting Mr. Bundy’s son. The government claimed these were all paranoid lies.
As the trial progressed, it turned out that paranoid or not, the Bundys had pretty well figured out what the government was up to. The FBI and prosecutors first denied and then admitted illegally wiretapping privileged conversations with one of the defendant’s lawyers and eventually admitted that, yes, they had deployed snipers just as Mr. Bundy had claimed.
The BLM agent in charge, who had a record of playing fast and loose with the rules, was later fired for misconduct in a separate case. A whistleblower informed investigators that he had indeed ordered his men to use excessive force in arresting Mr. Bundy’s son and later ordered his men to “kick Cliven Bundy in the mouth (or teeth) and take his cattle.”
As in Waco case, the government wouldn’t voluntarily turn any of this clearly exculpatory evidence over to defense lawyers as required by law. When she learned the extent of the government cover-up last month, Federal Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial in the case on the basis of what she termed the government’s willful misconduct. This week she will decide whether or not to dismiss the case with prejudice.
At least this time the government agents didn’t open fire though the evidence suggests they wanted to and they didn’t have any tanks, but it’s clear they haven’t learned much in the 25 years since the butchery at Waco.

David A. Keene is an editor at large at The Washington Times.

Olddogs Comments!

Only the dull and ignorant still believeAmerica is the land of the free and the home of the brave”. Personally, I believe one has to be INTENTIONALLY IGNORANT to support this outdated myth, because the information is so easily available, and the evidence of tyranny is everywhere one looks. The really sad part of this is, Americans are doing it to their own families and friends. The greed for power and money has taken control of them. Read: http://www.annavonreitz.com/