Sen. Sessions: a “stark” and “perilous hour

Read the last line, that is the part that he has right. Congress has shown time after time that they don’t have the stomach to enforce the laws and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
I do believe though, that this flood of illegals across the border may be the final straw. Fully 77% of those polled want them sent back and 81% consider it a serious problem. The anger on this issue is deep as it effects our very sovereignty as a nation.
Chairman Zero may end up back pedaling on this, but if he doesn’t I think the pot is going to boil over. I think everyone is at the point that they have had enough. I know that I have.  You may send me my drone strike now.



“Sessions said it is a “stark” and “perilous” hour and emphasized that he has never seen “a situation in which a president–weeks in advance–has announced that he’s going to take action that clearly violates law.” Sessions said Obama is taking America into “exceedingly dangerous waters” and a constitutional crisis by “preparing to assume for himself the absolute power to set immigration law in America” with the mentality of, “I’ll just enforce what I wish to enforce” and “determine who may enter and who may work, no matter what the law says, by the millions.”

Sessions said Obama’s actions “would undermine the very sovereignty of the nation” and amount to an “open borders” policy that even the National Journal said would be “explosive.”

“Anyone the world over will get the message: get into America by any method you can, and you will never have to leave,” Sessions said.”

He also said Americans “will not accept nullification of their laws passed by their elected representatives,”

An update on the Dorner principle in real time

I have a guy that works for me who is a convicted felon and on probation. I don’t have a policy on not hiring felons; It is on a case to case basis. Things happen in life and sometimes people make bad choices without actually being bad people.
He is not a thief or a burglar or a violent offender. He is young and got tied up with drugs and got busted for possession of meth.He got probation and went through a drug treatment program and was released back into society.By all appearances he is trying to get his life together and just got custody of his 2 Yr. old daughter.
I know that I was taking a gamble hiring him because drug addiction is a powerful thing. Good intentions can quickly devolve back into drug use as soon as the pressure is on. But hey, the guy, at least for the moment, wants to earn money the hard and honest way.
I was once given a second chance in life and believe in giving it to others; When you are on probation, work is pretty hard to find.My situation didn’t involve crime of course ,but rather being adopted out of the worst criminal gene pool that could ever be imagined.(That is a story for another time.)
So on to the Dorner principle:
It doesn’t take long for someone in my employ to find out what I am about. There are flags, writings ,posters and all kinds of militant crap hanging around my office.(Not to mention guns, weapons and various calibers of ammunition laying around)
Shortly after this young gentleman came to my employ, a discussion came up about drug searches being the routine after a traffic stop. In our small county every single traffic stop is initiated with “Would you mind if I searched your vehicle?” If the answer is negative, a canine unit is called in to do a walk around.
He thought that because he was on probation that he would have to say yes to the search. I corrected him on his misconception and told him that if he was pulled over that he did not have to consent. If he did not then they would bring a dog and search anyway if it hit. I also explained the Dorner principle and the use of resources to him.
Sure enough, within two weeks he gets pulled over on his way back from lunch. The cop tells him that he was doing 50 in a 40 and then asks if he can search his vehicle.The answer is of course, no you can’t. The cop holds him up for about half an hour and then lets him go with a warning ticket.
So, a couple of weeks later he is coming back from a job site in his personal vehicle and what do you know; A cop pulls him over. The cop tells him that he was doing 50 in a 40 and asks to search his vehicle. Again, the answer is no and they keep him for a while and let him go with a warning.
Now, here comes the interesting part. I have a friend of mine who used to be a cop and now works security at a local store. A cop came into the store and was having a conversation with him as he frequently comes there to make arrests on his behalf.He pulls out a picture of the guy who is working for me and tells him to be on the look out for him.
He then proceeds to tell him that they have pulled him over twice already, but did not have a canine unit available to sniff the car.He then says that the next time,they don’t care how long he has to wait, they will keep him there for two hours if they have to.
(That in Florida is illegal. Florida’s constitution not only meets the standard of the federal constitution, but in areas, far exceeds it.Too bad the cops don’t know that.)*See below
But anyway, this is about the Dorner principle.We have a very well funded sheriffs Dept. here and they have multiple canine units. Even so, they do not have unlimited resources. Apparently there are others out there that are not giving consent to their searches and consuming their resources.Drug dogs can only be in so many places at the same time and on both occasions they were in use somewhere else.As long as people say no, they will have to continue spending valuable time and money. Being in a small county of 130,000 people,big expenditures don’t go over well with those of us footing the bill.
I gave him a heads up on the info that I had been given this morning and he had a hard time believing it. He finally asked what he should do. Should he just let them search his car? My answer was Hell no. Make them get that dog, while they are searching you, they will not be searching someone else. Don’t give them anything for free. Resist everything that they do and make them harassing you as difficult as possible.Use as many resources that you are able to.
In the end I don’t how the kid will turn out, but harassing him while he is actually doing the right thing doesn’t sit well with me.

*Several decisions from Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida have invalidated traffic stops that were prolonged by police in order to allow for the arrival of canine drug units. In Whitfield v. State, 33 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), a defendant was stopped by highway patrol officers for speeding. Id. at 788. Upon conducting the stop, the officer asked a series of wide ranging questions of the defendant and then failed to issue a citation until after 27 minutes had elapsed. Id. at 789. One minute later, a K-9 drug unit arrived, conducted a dog sniff of the exterior of the defendant’s vehicle, and alerted officers to the presence of narcotics. Given the Officer’s delays in issuing a citation, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the length of the stop was unreasonable, thereby rendering the subsequent k9 search invalid. Id. at 795. The Court explained that, under the facts of the case:

“[W]e do not see how the length of this stop could be justified by the circumstances. Had the officer started and completed his traffic duties instead of expending the majority of his time asking the motorist about matters having nothing to do with the issuance of a traffic citation, the stop would have been completed before the dog arrived to conduct a sniff search.” Id. at 791.

The Fifth District further stated that “the amount of time reasonably required to do the necessary license/warrant checks and issue the citation (even including the several minutes expended on verifying [Defendant’s] authority to drive the car) was significantly less than the twenty-nine minutes expended” [before the K9 search began]. Id. at 791. The Court expressly rejected the state’s contention that the prolongation of the stop was rendered constitutionally permissible by the fact that the additional time taken to conduct the K-9 sniff was de minimus. Id. at 792-93.

The state of the III percent

You may wonder at times what the actual state of the III percent movement is. Are we everywhere? How many of us are there actually out there? It is lucky for you that I have already done the legwork for you on this one.
Let me start by saying this: Over the past two years the numbers of our movement have increased exponentially. How would I know that? You might ask.( Yeah, or more likely not) But read on and I will tell you anyway.
About three years ago, I started keeping tabs on the growth of the movement. I would go to google (Which I do not normally use) put in the term “Three percent” and then hit images. The results were paltry at best, bringing only two or three images up that were relevant.
Then I would go to ebay and do the same; Once again the same result. After that I would move on to facebook (Which I do not use) and do it there; Four or five groups numbering in the tens.
That is not the case today. On an image search hundreds if not thousands of results come up. Any kind of gear that you may want to buy is represented; From magazines to coffee mugs to tee shirts. If you follow the images they will also take you to a host of threeper sites.
Where there is product being sold there are customers and there is a lot of product out there. On an ebay search there is now product all over under the listing of three percent.They even have all the different spellings (3% III) with more product there.
Facebook, which was once a 3% wasteland, is now loaded down with 3% pages and groups (Sam K. take note, this may be a fertile fishing ground)some of which have 40,000 plus likes. There are now groups representing almost every state in the nation.
So I would advise that you take heart from this. If we are not everywhere, we will be soon. I am taking an active campaign online to spread the movement. As a former political activist I belong to hundreds of groups and can reach out and touch a lot of people in a short time.I am thinking that many of these groups will now be receptive to the 3% philosophy.
In my daily read at WRSA the other day they were stressing the importance of growth and I think that they are right.
The ground to plant the seeds in are not going to be more fertile then they are right now. Don’t only resist now, but spread the resistance. Make a comment on an article? Bring up three percent. Got a facebook page? Three percent.
If things keep growing the way are they you won’t be able to sling a dead cat without hitting a threeper.( And that is NOT advisable)

If you want to join the official III percent society you can here :

Founder of the new republic

I was having a discussion with my wife last night about John Roberts and the decision he made that so many consider onerous. She not only thinks that Robert’s has gotten a bad rap, but in the future there is going to be a mountain with his face carved on it.
She doesn’t think that he took the easy way out. She thinks that he made the hard choice at the last moment and steered our republic in a different direction. Here is the argument:
With six words Roberts put our nation on an entirely different course; be careful who you vote for. Roberts upheld the decision on the fact that congress has the power to tax…On anything. Yes, you can elect tyrants and they will impose their tyranny on you.(Wait until they figure out the you can tax for anything part)The court can’t save you because it is appointed by those you elect.Be careful who you vote for.

Six words and with those words he unceremoniously uncapped a fiver of gasoline and threw it on the culture war. Flame on Johnny. What Roberts did was to abdicate the power of the SCOTUS to the people.He said in not so many words that the court can’t save us from tyranny; only we the people can.
Of course I always knew that that was the case, but he threw it out at the feet of everyone. He made a tough choice and then rubbed our face in it. We are not a bunch of contentious children and the court is not our nanny. Put on your big boy pants and step up. If there is tyranny afoot then it is up to you to stop it.Whether he realized the further implications of his decision I can’t speculate on, but I have a gut feeling that he was very aware of what he was doing.
I believe that Roberts got a big whiff of tyranny at the state of the union address and didn’t like the smell of it. I’m thinking that the court getting dressed down in front of the entire nation didn’t sit well with him.I am sure that he is also aware that we are only one appointment away from a kangaroo court that will agree with anything that comes out of the executive branch.
But here’s the rub;our two party system has become so corrupt that one choice is as bad as the next.The Republicans don’t care that Chairman Zero is shredding the constitution. They are only focused on the next election and maintaining their own power. Oh yeah, and putting their man on the throne that the chairman has created
So in the end, what choice are we left with? The one that Roberts gave us. It is not up to the SCOTUS to save us from tyranny. It is up to you…And me.I think that the Bundy ranch ordeal was a turning point in our nations history.It didn’t seem like much of an event, but it really was. It showed that there are men out there that don’t ask for freedom, but rather demand it. I think that it was a portent of much more to come in the future; a time when people all over this nation begin demanding their freedom and stop asking for.
I also think that it was in part, a direct result of Robert’s decision to let the tyranny of our congress stand.The pot has been boiling and the lid has been rattling, but with his decision, it started to boil over.

I think my wife was right about that portrait of John Roberts being carved somewhere into a lone rocky mountain. But I think that below it should be carved a fitting inscription ” Founder of the new republic”

Yeah, I’m a racist and a hater

I really think at times that a lot of people are convinced that I am over reacting to what is happening in our country. They look at me oddly when I tell them that I think that we are living in a “Post political ” era. In other words our system of voting has failed so miserably that if we want freedom we must use other methods to ensure it. Of course when ever it comes from someone on the left I am just a racist and a hater. I am sure that most of you have read the following, but for my friends and family who read my blog, and at times question my sanity, I would like you read it. If that does not put what is happening in plain and simple terms then nothing will. This was Turley’s testimony before congress urging them to pursue the lawsuit against chairman Zero for his over use of executive action.

The George Washington University law professor — who supports many of President Obama’s policies but opposes their unilateral implementation — expressed his support for the lawsuit and his belief that Congress, as a coequal branch of government, has the standing to sue to presidency.

“Our system is changing,” he warned, “and this body is the one branch that must act if we are to reverse those changes. We are seeing the emergence of a different model of government, a model long-ago rejected by the framers.”

Turley excoriated lawmakers who he believes won’t stand up for their own rights under the Constitution.

“A dominant presidency has occurred with very little congressional opposition,” he noted. “Indeed, when President Obama pledged to circumvent Congress, he received rapturous applause from the very body that he was proposing to make practically irrelevant. Now many members are contesting the right of this institution to even be heard in federal court.”

“This body is moving from self-loathing to self-destruction in a system that is in crisis,” the law professor charged. “The president’s pledge to effectively govern alone is alarming, and what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill that pledge.

When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself,” he warned, “which is precisely the danger the framers sought to avoid. What we’re witnessing today is one of the greatest crises that members of this body will face.”

It has a patina of politics that is hard to penetrate,” Turley explained. “It did not start with President Obama — I was critical of his predecessor, and certainly this goes back long before George Bush. But it has reached a tipping point.”

Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, and other schools.

The quote is via the Daily caller here:

Imposing Economic sanctions against our own government

My wife is a very intelligent woman but I think a far more valuable trait is that she is wiley. Smart is one thing but it is the wiley ones that you have to watch out for. They think like a fox and never think inside of the box. What she proposed to me last night is certainly not a task for a lone person or small group of people. It is something that would require large numbers and a dedication of time. We were watching the news and they announced that Chairman Zero was increasing the sanctions against those in the Russian Oligarchy, when Bing! the light went on. She looks over at me and says” If there is no other way to get to those bastards in Washington then why don’t we impose economic sanctions against them? They are all rich business men and all their money comes from their businesses. They choose to impose tyranny on us, so we punish them by attacking their revenue stream” See? I told you she was smart and wiley. This is a woman who it is better to stay on the good side of. That has been sitting right in front of my face and I never even thought of it.Now I am not suggesting that a bunch of Threepers in pick up truck rampage through Nancy Pelosi’s vineyard (Although that would be hilarious, especially if they had flamethrowers) but rather find these peoples investments and attack them. Identify the business and the product, boycott anything that comes from them. Put pressure on those doing business with them to not process their product or sell their wares. I know that this is a large undertaking ,but I really think that she is onto something. It is the only way that I can think of to do something back to these dirty scum. Vote against liberty? Screw voting you out. Instead give them a financial whack as punishment for their misdeed. I think that that would get their attention more than someone holding up a little sign. I have already started trying to track down our nefarious Sen. Bill Nelsons revenue stream. This is just in the birthing stage and any additional ideas or info is welcomed

The law and loss of moral authority

To put our current legal situation into context you have to ask one basic question; what is law? Is law as we have been lead to believe, the codification of statutes defining what is illegal or not? Or is there some inherent property of moral righteousness that must exist for that law to have force?

I will argue that there is a moral component of law that must be present to make the system of law work. I am, of course, aware that there are many places that laws are passed that have no moral basis at all. There are dictatorships around the world that oppress their peoples and use their codified statutes to imprison and kill any who dissent.

The ultimate example of this is was the Nazi Germany government who made it legal to kill Jews. It was not only legal, but a system of laws was implemented to guide their extermination. But those laws, even though written out with penalties for those who did not follow them by the legislature, were illegal.

It is a basic component of the human being to know right from wrong. It is the reason that human beings set up laws in the first place. They are set up to make sure that innocents are not victimized by the predacious in our societies. In virtually every place that a human society exists, whether on a group, tribal or civilization level, there are always laws that govern behavior. Even those that break the laws have a sense of righteousness. In prison populations, if the prisoners feel that they are being treated in a fair and just manner they will comply with the rules and follow the system. Take away that feeling of just and fair treatment and prison riots and mayhem ensues. The prisoners realize that they have broken the law and when treated humanely will accept their punishment for the most part. The prisoners know that they have committed a wrong and they knew the possible penalty beforehand and knew what they risked. If torture, mal-treatment and other injuries are added to the punishment then a situation of self-righteousness is set up. The only way to control a prison population under those circumstances is with solitary confinement and complete isolation; if left to exist within prison society it would quickly conflagrate into confrontation.

In places where law exists without any moral authority there is always rebellion brewing just under the surface of society. The dictators and bureaucracies of these societies must rule with an iron fist because they know that one moment of slackness will have them swept from power and executed or exiled. Every single individual who is subject to these laws knows that they are illegal. How can they be illegal if they are written into law you might ask; Is that not the definition of law?

My argument is that it is the moral component of the law that is essential for it to work. It has nothing to with writing a statute and everything to do with human nature. We are after all the ones who create the laws, then write them and in the end follow them. It is at the very core of our nature to organize and codify law because we are innately social by nature and always end up forming some type of society that must have rules. It is also our own feeling of self-righteousness that makes us create the laws.

Certain things are innately wrong and one person should not be able to do this or that to another, and that is the basic creator of law. Laws don’t start out as regulations to govern society. They start out as basic rules of moral behavior; don’t steal from those in our community, don’t kill anyone and don’t try to take my wife. It is this same sense of self-righteousness that drives us to rebel when we know that a law is being applied without any righteous basis.

Take traffic laws for an example. Someone is driving down the highway when they suddenly see blue lights in the rearview. They were oblivious to their speed, lost in thought, and look down at the speedometer and see that they are doing 70 M.P.H. When the cop walks up and gives them a speeding ticket for doing 70 M.P.H. in a 50 M.P.H zone, there is little room for self-righteousness. Most people knowing that they broke the law, and one enacted for public safety, will accept the ticket and pay it without even showing up in court. The next example is the opposite.

Someone is rolling down the highway and the only difference in the scenario is that when they look down they see that they are only doing 45 M.P.H. They continue on for a while, waiting for the cop to go around them. When they eventually pull over, part of it is curiosity as to why he would be stopping them. In this case when a 70 M.P.H. ticket is handed out the reaction is going to be entirely different. That person will go to court. In addition to going to court, if not resolved there, they will spend large amounts of time and money to right the injustice. They will actually spend time and money far out of proportion to the actual injustice that happened because they are self-righteous.

Now imagine that the law was written like this: If you are driving down the highway you can be pulled over and issued a speeding ticket at any time no matter what your speed was. That is the point where the law goes against human nature. People would naturally begin to rebel against it because of its inherent injustice. In the second case it is not only that person’s right to rebel against the law, but also their moral obligation. They have a moral obligation to rebel because they should be seeking to re-establish moral law. If they live in human society then moral law, compatible with human nature should be the rule. If this is not the case, then they are being set up to have very bad things happen.

The Jews in Nazi Germany also had a moral obligation to fight and for the most part they did not (With the notable and heroic exception of the Warsaw ghetto and a few others) and were led to their slaughter. They had a moral obligation not just to themselves, but to their fellow Jews and compatriots. They were obligated to save their children, their mothers and fathers and other humans and in the end, for the most part did not.

Instead they followed the laws of Nazi Germany. (Just as the German soldiers at the Nuremberg trials did) They agreed to be registered because to not do so would be breaking the law. They showed up in groups to be transported away because to not do so would be breaking the law. They gave up their goods and businesses and money because not to do so would be breaking the law. There were, of course, severe penalties for breaking the law such as being imprisoned or just disappearing into the night and that drove most to comply.

I know that faith also played a part for many and I am not judging their actions or inaction. I am simply stating the results of what happened by their following the law and putting forward the fact that we are all morally obligated to act when law becomes illegal or immoral.

When law has lost its moral authority and becomes nothing more than something punitive to arbitrarily punish enemies then it is not true law; or at least not true to human nature , by which we all act. In that case all the law becomes is a fear of retribution. No one cares if they break the law for they feel no guilt about doing so and we humans, for the most part, are moral beings. Personally I don’t rob people because it is against the law. I don’t rob people because of the fact that it is morally wrong and I have no desire to violently take from another to gain wealth. I will die before I take the sustenance of another to live.

Once the moral component of law is removed only fear of punishment remains. If someone follows the law it is only because they don’t want to be fined or imprisoned; It I not because they have a moral imperative. But fear only goes so far; when the law becomes illegal its moral authority is transferred to those against whom it is used. They now have righteousness on their side and righteousness has a way of cancelling out fear.

Counter-intuitively, the more injustice that is piled on the more it is met with resistance. The IRA is an excellent example. By the 1960’s their membership was flagging and their armed struggle against the British was at very low ebb. That all changed on bloody Sunday when British troops opened fire into a crowd of demonstrators and killed and wounded a number of them. Instead of being frightened by this, they were outraged and active resistance against them doubled. A vicious cycle was started as the British escalated their actions in response to the increase in attacks and therefore caused even more.

The result of the British crackdown was the highest membership in the IRA in history and the start of a real shooting war. The level of violence escalated to a point never seen before and eventually drove the Brits to sue for peace. The danger of enrolling in the outlawed organization was more than offset by the sense of self-righteous outrage that was generated by the deaths and military lock down of entire neighborhoods. When one joined the IRA it was not a matter of if you would die or be imprisoned, but rather when. Still, even knowing what the outcome would be the ranks of the IRA swelled to enormous numbers. When the British military began a covert assassination program to kill suspected IRA members and affiliates, instead of instilling fear it just added to the sense of outrage and drove more to join and fight.

It was the (Legal) injustice of what was being done that gave the moral righteousness to the IRA and drove them to war. I bring this all up because we are now, in our own society, entering an era of legal lawlessness. We will be forced to make choices about how we respond when confronted with these laws. From the patriot act to the NSA spying, the NDAA authorization of indefinite detention, the IRS and the DOJ it is becoming clear that we are living in an increasingly lawless society.

The lawlessness is not on the part of the people, but rather on the part of those writing the law. The irony is that as the laws become more illegitimate the numbers of them are increasing exponentially. There are already so many federal laws on the books that at any given time any given individual is guilty of a crime. We have now become beholden to the very institutions that are supposed to be serving us as a society. Instead of serving us, the people, they now serve the bureaucracy instead. The bureaucracy and the institutions thereof have become the center of law giving rather than we as citizens. The law, rather than protecting us has become an instrument to protect the bureaucracy and punish those who disagree with it.

We have come to the point where our laws are becoming as corrupt as any given banana republic and if we do not actually want to become one, then we need to make a stand and say enough is enough. I am sure that while I have been writing this that I have committed at least three crimes; either by what I have written or done or thought or possibly what type of lighting I used. Do I care? No not at all. My sense of self- righteous indignation has grown to the point that I have no fear. I have no fear of death or imprisonment. The level of outrage has grown in me to the point that I will go to war.

Will they put me in prison? Go ahead lock me up with a captive audience and let me speak the truth to them; I will leave with an army of self-righteous individuals. Of course the speaking of this truth is illegal in prison, but at this point what is law? We all have hard choices coming up in the future; choices that could affect the rest of our lives and need to decide how to act. In the end how we act is going to be influenced by how the legal system acts. Let me end this with a question: If you receive a letter from the IRS informing you that you are subject to an audit, is your hard drive going to crash? I know that mine is.

And no this is not a 2200 word paragraph..All of my indentations disappeared…Again!