Second Amendment defended by Supervisors in El Dorado and Siskiyou Counties in California

February 23, 2013 3 comments

Here is the resolution from the El Dorado Board of Supervisors:

WHEREAS, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as part of United States Bill of Rights, ratified on December 15, 1791, protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; and,
WHEREAS, two landmark decisions issued by the United States Supreme Court established that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that Arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as, but not limited to, self-defense within the home, and that the right could not be infringed by the federal government (District of Columbia v. Heller); and that under the Fourteenth Amendment the right to keep and bear Arms was incorporated and would also prohibit state and local governments from infringement of the
right (McDonaldv. City ofChicago); and,
WHEREAS, sadly, recent high profile events within our country have sparked discussions of gun-control at the local, state and federal levels and include numerous gun-control proposals that assert to address gun violence while, in fact, many of these proposals would directly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights; and,
WHEREAS, the County ofEI Dorado’s economy and rural quality are supported by ranching, farming and natural resources, and that the right to keep and bear Arms is fundamental to our right to protect our families, our property, our livestock, and our livelihood, and that the residents of this County respect the rights afforded by the Second Amendment through the recognition and support of responsible firearm ownership, training and awareness; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County ofEI Dorado supports all discussions seeking new ideas to protect our citizens from violence but cannot abide by any provision infringing upon the Second Amendment.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of El Dorado at a regular meeting of said Board, held the 29th day of January, 2013, by the following vote of said Board:
Ayes:veerkamp, Mikalaco, Nutting, Briggs

Fully executed Resolution 006-2013-2.pdf

Here is the similar resolution from the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors:

Res 13-19 support 2nd amend.pdf

Perhaps your Board of Supervisors would also consider such a resolution.  Please bring it to their attention.


Categories: From Dagny

When the choices of men fail, things outside the choices of men will prevail.

November 7, 2012 1 comment

Looking back on the events leading to the election reveals that voter fraud could explain it all. Politically engaged women, youth, and minorities could also explain it all. Either way, the election has written a check the government cannot cover. The reckoning is coming with all the certainty of a law of physics.

They have all these dreams of larger government and thus greater control, but how will they do it without money? It is certain that businesses will not hire, that companies will not be founded, that jobs will disappear. How will any of their grandiose dreams come to reality? They can’t.

The very people who forced this through – the women, youth, and the minorities of the inner cities, the organized crime syndicates, the foreign nations that supported the fundraising fraud – will suffer horribly as a direct inevitable result of this vote. China, Iran, Russia, and the Islamics are now unchecked and will destabilize Europe and Asia with new violence and war. Inner cities will be the battleground of criminal gangs and poverty, even more so than now. Law enforcement and our military will be a tragic farce to those that depend on them. Young people who look to the government for sustenance will find inflation and poverty instead of a future.

Justice of a sort shall be done because justice is natural, inevitable, and terribly unforgiving. We must do our best to avoid being sucked up into their hell.

When the choices of men fail, things outside the choices of men will prevail.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, followed always by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
~ Alexander Fraser Tytler, Scottish-born British lawyer and writer, 1747 – 1813.

It is time to look to a different future: One we must build independent of the America we knew.

Categories: Uncategorized

The Light of History Illuminating Our Present

September 7, 2012 2 comments

“History by apprising [citizens] of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views.” –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781

At the risk of offending some people politically, I want to point out something the newsies are keeping quiet about.

We’re watching a Bad Rerun and half the American population doesn’t get it.

“Government is the one thing we all belong to” – The Motto of National Socialism, repeated by Barack Obama

That’s why Obama and his Party keep sounding just like this guy:

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” — Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927)

“We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:… an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. … We combat the… materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good.” – Nazi Party, Munich, February 1920.

It’s no accident of similarity. It’s identical ideology, identical strategies (promoting racial conflict, crushing Christianity, Redistribution of wealth into Party coffers, etc.) and we know exactly where it leads to. This is like turning a hungry hyena loose in the kiddie day-care center and hoping for different results from the last time. We know the hyena’s nature … but this one is sooooo cute!


“It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth — and listen to the song of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?” — Patrick Henry

– Victor Sayre

Categories: Uncategorized

The Birth Certificate Game

August 27, 2012 12 comments

There was a fraud perpetrated by a President of the United States.  He was not a natural born citizen so he obfuscated his nativity story.  He had all his relevant records destroyed to cover up his fraud, and he and his supporters got away with it.

Does this sound like our current occupant of the White House?  Actually, it was another president:  Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President of the United States.  He attained office due to the assassination of President Garfield.  This was in spite of the fact that he was not a natural born citizen, in violation of the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1.  His father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. The fraud was not discovered until long after his death.

Only two classes of Citizen are recognized by the US Constitution. The first is a Citizen. Whether by birth or naturalization, all Citizens share the same rights and privileges. The other is a Natural Born Citizen, a separate class defined by different legal conditions and with different privileges, specifically eligibility to the offices of President and Vice President.

Wikipedia’s page on the subject of Natural Born Citizen claims that this term was never defined in law, that we must divine the Founders’ intended meaning by reviewing myriad, conflicting opinions and comments in court cases. This is simply not true. The Founders legislated their definition of that term just two years after the Constitution was ratified, providing clear meaning for a requirement of the highest office of the land. One would expect no less of them:

“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens” – Naturalization Act 1790

Taking a critical look at this Congressional legislation, we see that “the children of citizens” is an absolute requirement. There are no qualifiers. No exception is made for the child of a non-citizen. The Founders’ definition extends to those who may be born outside the limits of the United States as well. They understood that ambassadors such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would spend years abroad in service to their country, possibly with their families, and did not want to disqualify their own children born during such service.

The US Constitution, written by the Founders, requires the status of Natural Born Citizen to be eligible for the Presidency. This requirement can only be removed through the Amendment process. While the original 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed and replaced by later legislation redefining the means by which one could become a Citizen, the Founders’ intended meaning of Natural Born Citizen still stands.

You can repeal a law, but you can’t repeal evidence, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 is unequivocal evidence of exactly what the US Congress meant by “Natural Born Citizen”.

Some conveniently insist that the 1790 law is no longer in effect or that it does not provide a currently applicable legal definition. Yet, when doubts were raised about the eligibility of John McCain in the 2008 election, the US Senate referenced that law to confirm his status:

“…as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’ …  Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” – Senate Resolution 511

Birth to US Citizens was thus recognized, in 2008, as the primary condition for Natural Born Citizen status. The Panama Canal Zone was under US Sovereignty until 1977.  McCain was born under US Jurisdiction as surely as if he had been born in New Jersey. However, he still had to meet the requirement of birth to Citizen parents to qualify.  The definition in the law remains in effect.

Whenever posted, the text of the 1790 law is promptly removed from the Wikipedia page, as it is inconvenient to those trying to cloud the issue and confuse the general public.  Furthermore, when this information was posted at a forum owned by a former subsidiary of the New York Times, not only was the posting removed, but perhaps coincidentally, the entire forum was permanently shut down overnight. There has been a concerted effort to keep this information out of the public eye.

There have been no fewer than eight Congressional attempts to remove the Natural Born Citizen requirement from the Presidency since 2003, mostly by Democrats.  The only Republican to sponsor them attempted to remove the natural born citizen requirement twice and reduce the citizenship requirement to 20 years. This would in fact nullify the Constitution without the lawful amendments process.  All these attempts failed.

We can see that the Founders’ primary intent was that neither parent be a foreign national, which makes good sense. This minimizes the likelihood that either parent will pass down foreign loyalties or ideology to the would-be President that would dilute his bond with his countrymen and his nation’s principles. Case in point, the fellow illegally in the White House today who demonstrates abundant foreign loyalties and ideologies hostile to America.

The birth certificate provided by Barack Obama is an obviously altered document, according to multiple digital forensics experts.  Have you ever wondered why such a blatant forgery was presented?  Were the Obama handlers that incompetent?  Didn’t anybody in the White House care that such a shoddy piece of photoshop work was made public?

The answer lies within our legal system. Obama and his DNC/Holder Justice lawyers are notorious for using the mechanisms of the system to gain power and abuse it, thwarting the law in the process. This is a part of their strategy.

In fact, the ongoing furor over the place of birth is exactly what Obama wants. It is a red herring, a distraction from the fact he cannot legally be a Natural Born Citizen no matter where he was born.

Some have argued that Obama is the result of an affair in Hawaii by Ann Dunham with communist agitator Frank Marshall Davis (a US citizen born in Kansas) – see Dreams of My Real Father. If that were true, it would make Obama a natural born citizen.

However, mere illegitimacy would be unlikely to justify the expense and risk Obama has taken to hide his past. Furthermore, the details of the alleged birth certificate presented by Mr. Obama himself, if false, are a poorly chosen lie because they disqualify him from the Presidency.

It is Barack Obama’s foreign parent – Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. – that disqualifies him. The Democrat-controlled Senate knew this in 2008 when McCain’s eligibility as a Natural Born Citizen was legally resolved. They did not do the same for Obama precisely because he could not meet the legal requirements.

Barack Obama has gone to great lengths to stir up controversy over his place of birth while preventing legal resolution of his eligibility. He could easily provide court access to his original documents but that would, according to the laws above, work against him. That’s why he instead has teams of lawyers scrambling to block any court case seeking access to his original birth documents. Obama’s place of birth is an intentional distraction.

These antics began in mid-2008, well before the election, when Democrat attorney Philip Berg attempted to determine the eligibility of his own party’s candidate. Obama’s obstructionist response revealed Obama’s own knowledge of his legal problem, though the mainstream news media willfully concealed it from the general public and derided anyone who would bring it up as a “Birther”.

“Instead of satisfying Plaintiff and the general public’s concerns regarding Obama’s citizenship status, or lack thereof, Obama and the DNC have chosen to litigate the matters in lieu of providing what should be simple proof. Defendants have filed two [2] Motions to Dismiss and a Motion for a Protective Order instead of simply solving the matters and providing the proof verifying Obama’s citizenship status.” – Berg v. Obama et al

A Judge vetting Obama’s eligibility can only rule based on the legal evidence presented to the court. If Obama’s true birth certificate is presented, then the Judge can take legal notice that Obama’s father was not a US Citizen and disqualify Barack Obama from eligibility for the Presidency.

Obama’s people understood this well in advance and ensured that the only copies of his birth documents that might be obtained by plaintiffs against him were easily identified as “altered” documents, therefore easily disputed as proof in a court of law. It’s a fair bet his own attorneys would dispute their evidentiary value just as they absurdly proclaimed in a Florida court that Obama is not yet the Democrat candidate for 2012 and is therefore immune to lawsuits demanding his eligibility be resolved.

A President of the United States illegally took office while violating the Natural Born Citizen requirements.  Not only could it happen; it did happen. Twice.  It is a part of history.  Barack Obama is not the first to perpetrate that fraud but this time the consequences are more dire.  With the news media and cowardly politicians concealing this fact, will the American People be fooled yet a third time?

Victor Sayre is principal author and co-authored this with Dagny.

Categories: From Dagny


June 29, 2012 2 comments

Remember Chief Justice Marshall said: “That the power of taxing it [the bank] by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it, is too obvious to be denied”, and “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy … [is] not to be denied”.

According to the ruling they can tax you for what you do, and what you don’t do, and what you have, and what you don’t have. It is all in the power of Constitutional Congress.

So they can tax you for being gay.
They can tax you for being straight.
They can tax you for being white.
They can tax you for being black.
They can tax you for not being a vegetarian.
They can tax you for blogging things considered hate speech.
They can tax you for being a Republican.
They can tax you for not being a Republican.

And so on.

That should scare the **** out of people.

This power has always been there. The power was used with some fig leaf of restraint until now.

It was always true, but now it is obvious.

It may be triggering the sea change we have been waiting for. Whether that was by design by Chief Justice Roberts, or whether somebody got to him with a credible threat we may never know.

The SCOTUS also ruled against the Stolen Valor Act and the Arizona case. The Stolen Valor decision made it legal for people to pretend to be war heroes with Purple Hearts etc. The only people this benefitted were those leftist slime balls who show up at protests against wars etc. pretending to be war heroes with their phony Purple Hearts. The beneficiaries of the Arizona decision were obviously Sinaloa and drug gangs.

They all point to influence by the hard left and their affiliated criminal organizations such as Sinaloa. Only 4 months ago a Supreme Court Justice (Breyer) was robbed by a machete wielding man while on vacation. That should not have happened.  In 2004 Justice Souter was assaulted by a gang of thugs and beaten. That too should not have happened. Where was the security detail? The SCOTUS and their families are obviously vulnerable.

Remember Bush caved on many things shortly after his daughter was robbed while on vacation. I suspect that controlling the security means controlling everything. Please refer to these older articles:

Part 1 The Many Ways to Bribe Politicians
Part 2 The Dominican Connection
Part 3 The Leftist Criminal Elite’s Tropical Paradise
Part 4 The Curious Assistance of the Bush White House
and Obama and the Sinaloa Drug Cartel or
Fast and Furious Favors

Categories: From Dagny

Is Gay Parenting Bad for the Kids? Yes.

June 11, 2012 Leave a comment

Here is an interesting fact that should get wider exposure:

Children with a parent in a same-sex relationship “underperform” in almost every category. Some of these differences may be relatively benign — whether one voted in the last presidential election, for example — but most are decidedly not. One deficit is particularly worrying: Less than 2 percent of children from intact, biological families reported experiencing sexual abuse of some nature, but that figure for children of same-sex couples is 23 percent. Similarly disturbing is that 14 percent of children from same-sex couples have spent some time in foster care, compared with around 2 percent of the American population at large. Arrest, drug experimentation, and unemployment rates were all higher among children from same-sex families.

More than 1 in 5 kids raised by a gay couple are sexually abused. That is compared with 1 in 50 for kids of straight parents.

Categories: Uncategorized

Brilliant clarity from Free Market America

April 22, 2012 1 comment
Categories: Best of the Web