The Minuteman » Tag » Tyrant

Tag Archives: Tyrant

Quote of the Day–Joe Huffman (06/19/2012)

By | | , , , , , , ,
1 Comment

What is extraordinary here is that Issa didn’t have Federal Marshalls rip his jacket and shirt off, tie him face down on the table, stuff a copy of the subpoena in his mouth, give him 30 lashes with a bull whip, then tell him there would a whipping every day at 9:00 AM until he fully complied or his flesh had been stripped off and his bones were polished clean.

Joe Huffman – Extraordinary Offer

June 19th, 2012

[Personally I think Joe’s response would have been way too kind.  Give me a bucket, a rat, and a blow torch.  Some assembly required.  If you don’t know how it works, don’t worry about it, it prevents you from knowing how mean, evil, and sadistic my mind can be towards those who willingly endanger my friends and family in the name of destroying my rights.*

Don’t worry Joe, it’s not cruel or unusual.  At the time the Bill of Rights was written lashing was still a standard punishment on the high seas.  In fact so was keelhauling which I think would also be a fantastic venture for Mr. Holder. –B]

*In my defense, I would feel bad for the rat.

On that Soda Ban…

By | | , , , , ,
8 Comments

So Phil over at RNS stumbled across and laid out a bunch of petty tyrants talking about how great the soda ban is.  I sparked the beginning of what became the reclassification of the term “New York Reload”.

Now supposedly this ban doesn’t affect places that sell things like grocery’s and convince stores unless they fall under the purview of the “health department”.  I.E. this mainly affects fountain drinks.  I don’t care, and the whole thing is absurd, especially when in light of the following: Continue reading →

Fast and Furious, Root Cause Analysis

By | | , , , , , , ,
1 Comment

Currently Eric Holder is screaming that the cause of guns going into Mexico was because of a “lack of gun control.”  There’s one problem with that though, it is false.  Not only is that statement blatantly false but in light of the evidence, given Operation Fast and Furious, gun control is what allowed those guns to walk to Mexico.  While it may seem humorous and a joke, the fact is it’s true.

I have largely been silent on Fast and Furious for one major reason.  There are a lot of other people covering it better and more in-depth than I possibly could.

To start off for those who are familiar with the term, root cause analysis is something used in engineering to identify problems to come up with solutions that don’t just hide the problem.  Ultimately proper root cause analysis should trace the problem to a point where you can turn the issue on and off like a light switch.  Now we’re going to trace back through the events and find the point where we can turn this issue that would turn this problem on and off.

What was Fast and Furious?

Fast and Furious otherwise known as Operation Gunwalker, was an operation conducted by the ATF under the guise of busting Mexican drug cartels.  This was done by forcing FFLs to complete illegal firearms transactions, purchasing firearms and handing them over to known criminals, and otherwise circumventing current law for criminals.

The ATF didn’t just allow guns to flow into the hands of criminals, but actively encouraged the practice. They purposely cleared transactions that were flagged. They performed the straw purchases themselves, delivering the weapons to known criminals. They instructed dealers to go ahead with transactions the dealers could tell were not “honest”.

Often when agents had followed the firearms they were told by their superiors to let the recipients go and not to follow them.  All of these actions violated existing law, yet the cause, as purported by Eric Holder, was a lack of gun control.

How did gun control cause Fast and Furious though?

The most direct route is the fact that this whole program was done with the mind of expanding gun control.  New gun control legislation and powers were the motivator behind the program.  Even as the program crashes and burns, pushes for new legislation based of the inflated numbers of Fast and Furious keep appearing.  The results of the program were used to force the long arms registry and to bolster support for additional funding for the ATF.

However the actions of the ATF have common threads with different agencies.  It is all a quest for money and power.  So we have to look back further to where the ATF got the root of its power and what allowed them to use this power to try to gain more.

The ATF is responsible for overseeing FFLs and ensuring adherence to existing firearms laws.  The can put a business that works in firearms under faster than any other.  The agency can halt a FFLs license during an investigation which can easily put them out of business.  So when the ATF asks a FFL to do something illegal, there ATF has all the leverage to make the dealer comply.  The only other option is for the FFL to go out of business under the weight of the ATF.

The ATF gained this power and latitude under the Gun Control Act of 1968.  Unsurprisingly allegations of abuse led to the Firearm Owners Protection Act to attempt to rein in the ATF.  The FOPA also stated different registry’s were prohibited from being enacted or run by the ATF, one of which they are attempting in the wake of Fast and Furious.

The depth of the corruption within the ATF and its drive to seek power through runs even deeper back to the National Firearms Act of 1934.  This provided the ATF, which was under the department of the Treasury at the time, the ability to enforce the newly created firearms laws.  This law laid the foundation for what would become the power-hungry space the ATF occupies today.

Both the GCA 1968 and the NFA 1934 are both pieces of legislation made in the effort to regulate firearms and limit their ownership.  The ATF blatantly violated existing laws during Operation Fast and Furious and went through considerable effort to arm and traffic firearms to prohibited persons.  All the while the ATF was clamoring for more gun control.  However many law-abiding citizens were left jumping through the hoops and difficulties of the existing maze of firearms legislation despite the appearance of lax laws created by the ATF.

Conclusion, Gun Control is the root cause

The ATF completely disregarded existing laws and regulations in conducting operation gun walker.  Many of those coerced into participating were in a situation that allowed the ATF leverage over them because of existing gun control legislation.  The ATF during the operation was petitioning congress for more gun control legislation, which it would be responsible for enforcement.

The ATF was also petitioning congress for additional funding for two reasons.  The first was a claim of a lack of resources to enforce existing law, which was false since they were expending resources to actually circumvent it.  The second was that it would need additional funding for enforcement of the expanded programs.

The root cause of Fast and Furious is gun control itself.  Existing gun control legislation provided the ATF with leverage over FFLs to coerce them into transactions they knew to be criminal.  Gun control provided the ATF with the resources and power to organize and conduct the operation.  Lastly, gun control was the root cause of the operation itself.  The operation was conducted in an effort to create a crisis that would warrant the further restriction of firearms.  This restriction would either be that of ownership by law-abiding citizens, or that in preventing new purchase by a law-abiding citizen.

Without the GCA of 1968 the ATF would not have had the leverage over a FFL to coerce them into proceeding with an illegal sale.  Without the NFA of 1934 the ATF would have never been the power-hungry beast it is today.

To say that a lack of gun control allowed Operation Fast and Furious is like saying a lack of prohibition let the DEA allow drugs to be smuggled across the border.  Oh wait, bad analogy, the DEA took part in Fast and Furious too.

If a lack of gun control allowed Operation Fast and Furious then violating the law to commit a treasonous act of war against a friendly neighbor is lacking in laws as well.

Your have the right to remain silent

By | | , ,
Comments Off on Your have the right to remain silent

California Supreme Court ruled today that while you have the right to remain silent, your phone does not.

Monday’s decision allows police “to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone or handheld computer merely because the device was taken from an arrestee’s person,” said Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, joined in dissent by Justice Carlos Moreno.

Why should an officer be allowed to search a phone incident to arrest. I understand searches for the officers safety. In this case however the only possible thing to be gained is private information, or possible other “crimes”. I would suggest getting phones that support remote wipe and to regularly lock it. The idea of me being arrest and thus allowing the police to search my email, including the secure communications is BS. This whole thing further supports my idea that the sole goal is to make everyone a criminal, and thus a slave.

This is extremely WRONG

By | | , , ,
2 Comments

I came across something this morning saying that Census workers can enter your household in your absence with the permission of the landlord.

What many Americans don’t realize, is that census workers — from the head of the Bureau and the Secretary of Commerce (its parent agency) down to the lowliest and newest Census employee — are empowered under federal law to actually demand access to any apartment or any other type of home or room that is rented out, in order to count persons in the abode and for “the collection of statistics.” If the landlord of such apartment or other leased premises refuses to grant the government worker access to your living quarters, whether you are present or not, the landlord can be fined $500.00.

What I find interesting is there’s a couple problems here. In Washington at least the Landlord Tenant act says the landlord may not enter the premises without 48 hours advanced notification. Further the census website says the following:

Note that the census taker will never ask to enter your home

That is straight off the website verbatim. If you have had a landlord allow a census worker into your home I highly suggest you contact an attorney immediately as well as conduct an audit of all valuables and identity information. Census workers are NOT to be allowed in homes to conduct survey information. It is a violation of the 4th amendment as is constitutes a search by a government entity. Many states have similar laws to Washington’s Landlord Tenant Act. If you are a landlord and allowed someone claiming to be from the census into a property, contact your tenant and law enforcement immediately.

The bottom line is that census takers are only allowed to question people. If you fail to respond they can ask your landlord how many people are residing in the residence. No entry is allowed or is necessary. All information can be acquired from neighbors that is necessary for the Census. Again, my suggestion to landlords or tenants that have been affected by this is to contact an attorney immediately. FYI for landlord, come clean and contact law enforcement and an attorney, your tenant can probably put you into oblivion in civil suits. You can probably make a case that is was due to duress of someone pretending to be acting from the government. If you fail to come clean after reading this, it’s on you. Census.gov even states they are not to enter the premises.

Anyone desiring access to a residence should be assumed to NOT be a census worker but someone looking for stuff to steal. Your condition meter should transition to “Orange” immediately upon someone approaching and asking; claims to authority or not. As my dad always said, “Challenge Everything.”

UPDATE:

Had a question come through, landlords must provide access to non-living spaces where privacy is not expected. A prime example of this is a gated community or an apartment building where the front door is locked but there are common hallways. Basically a way to look at it is they are exempt from efforts to keep solicitors out. Access is to be allowed to the entrance of the residence. The full law is as follows:

Whoever, being the owner, proprietor, manager, superintendent, or
agent of any hotel, apartment house, boarding or lodging house,
tenement, or other building, refuses or willfully neglects, when
requested by the Secretary or by any other officer or employee of
the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, acting
under the instructions of the Secretary, to furnish the names of
the occupants of such premises, or to give free ingress thereto and
egress therefrom to any duly accredited representative of such
Department or bureau or agency thereof, so as to permit the
collection of statistics with respect to any census provided for in
subchapters I and II of chapter 5 of this title, or any survey
authorized by subchapter IV or V of such chapter insofar as such
survey relates to any of the subjects for which censuses are
provided by such subchapters I and II, including, when relevant to
the census or survey being taken or made, the proper and correct
enumeration of all persons having their usual place of abode in
such premises, shall be fined not more than $500.

To surmise it, as I did above for landlords, provide the number of occupants or allow them to go door to door. Do not allow them into private living spaces.

People need to STOP worrying about offending others

By | | , , ,
2 Comments

People will be offended no matter what happens. But telling someone they can’t fly the American Flag in their window of their residence is bulls**t!

“This policy was developed to insure that we are fair to everyone as we have many residents from diverse backgrounds,” the statement read. “By having a blanket policy of neutrality we have found that we are less likely to offend anyone and the aesthetic qualities of our apartment communities are maintained.”

That is a national symbol and, honestly, if it offends you pack your bags and leave this country! I’m sure there are plenty of people willing to help with that.

My husband and I feel that being told not to fly the flag is highly offensive.

~TMW~

Since when is it our job to take care of everyone else?

By | | , , , , ,
Comments Off on Since when is it our job to take care of everyone else?

What happened to self reliance and why in Zeus’s butthole does the current administration want to take care of everyone else and ignore the issues in our own country?

The U.S. must shape a world order relying as much on the persuasiveness of its diplomacy as the might of its military, he said. All hands are required to solve the world’s newest threats: terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons, climate change and feeding and caring for a growing world population, he added.

As I continue reading Atlas Shrugged I frequently see similarities between the book and present day America.

From each according to his ability to each according to his need. – Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Apparently other countries, who could IMO take care of themselves, are higher on the list of priorities than people right here at home.

The government also seems to think that throwing money at problems will be the solution. For example, programs such as Social Security, food stamps, unemployment, etc. are having money taken from tax payers for funding. This creates a decline for private wages.

The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. “This is really important,” Grimes says.

The Obama administration is pushing the country towards communism:

Economist David Henderson of the conservative Hoover Institution says a shift from private wages to government benefits saps the economy of dynamism. “People are paid for being rather than for producing,” he says.

(Emphasis mine). In this case, the way to make more money would be to have more kids, because then your need is greater.

We don’t have any kids and we are working our butts off to make ends meet, yet we are punished for our hard work just because someone else doesn’t work but needs more because they couldn’t keep it in their pants or their legs closed. Oh yeah, they also need a new big screen TV and an expensive ‘green’ vehicle to cart the kids around in.

Why should my husband and I not shrug?

TMW

Obama seeks to force votes on spending cuts

By | | , ,
Comments Off on Obama seeks to force votes on spending cuts

Isn’t it ironic? Obama wants to force spending cuts on lawmakers, yet he partakes in deficit spending to “help the economy“.

Obama’s National Dept Impact
Upon Inauguration:    $10,626,877,048,913
As of May 21, 2010:    $12,987,796,841,337
Increased by:        $2,360,919,792,424