Opening Arguments

Prosecution’s Opening Statement

It should be pointed out that Steven Myhre filed a 26 page motion on September 24, 2017 to restrict what the defense could present. “Allegations of workplace misconduct by the Special Agent in Charge of the impoundment, or regarding those who worked for, or with, him” and “Allegations that officers connected with the impoundment acted unethically or improperly by the way they were dressed or equipped during the impoundment, or that they improperly shredded documents during or after impoundment operations.” If this happened it would guarantee a guilty verdict because the jury would not see sealed evidence, including how Dan Love ordered evidence to be shredded.

On the first day of partial freedom Ryan Bundy arrived in front of the courthouse in a white limousine rented by a friend. “This is the first time I have ridden in a limousine,” he told the waiting crowd.

Instead of being on the other side with the other defendants, Ryan sat with supporters in the gallery to watch the hearing of Micah McGuire. McGuire had been part of the security detail during the stand-down and had 11 charges against him. In a plea deal he pleaded guilty to one felony conspiracy charge to impede or injure a federal officer. By accepting the plea deal it would guarantee that he would not serve over 6 years. Judge Navarro set a sentencing date for February 16, 2018.

The 32 year old McGuire had spent 20 months in jail without bail or even a trial date, and then the government offers him a deal that would lessen his sentence and allow him to go free and live with his mother until his sentencing.
Every one asked the question, why couldn’t they have released him 20 months ago? I expect it is because they wanted to punish him as long as possible.
Maguire took the plea deal at the advice of his lawyer who plans to ask for time served. They seem confident that the request will be granted.
Lisa Bundy said this about McGuire, “Micah McGuire is someone that I will always admire. His innocence is real and he is a hero in my eyes. I’m glad he is with his family. He is innocent and no deceitful plea agreement will ever ring true in my eyes…not ever! I’m pretty sure all that Micah was armed with was binoculars…binoculars!”
None of the other defendants are angry that he took the deal. No one blames him. They are happy he is free and with his family.

The defense asked the prosecution to turn over emails from the FBI concerning Dan Love. The prosecution claimed no knowledge of FBI emails and asked for a continuance to gather information from the FBI. Each defense lawyer was asked if they agreed.
Payne’s attorney called for a mistrial.

Ryan Bundy rose and said, “It is ludicrous to have my family imprisoned.” He insisted that his family be released if a continuance was granted. “Your honor, I think it is ludicrous that defendants who have plead guilty through a plea deal are rewarded with freedom from pretrial detention, but if defendants maintain their innocence they are punished with prison prior to any conviction. It is upside down. We are not presumed innocent, if we have to spend time in prison without any conviction. I oppose any continuance and I agree with the other attorneys that the remedy is a mistrial.”

It took guts to say that. His release could have been revoked if that statement had struck a wrong cord with the judge. Ryan stood straight and spoke boldly, mincing no words. It was, in my opinion, a brave, but true statement.

After further discussion Navarro gave the government from November 16-19 to explore evidence. She then seated the jury.
Myhre gave the opening for the government. He talked about the court order given to evacuate the cattle from public land. He noted that no grazing fees were paid after 1993 and the BLM had sued Cliven in 1998 after he refused to obey court orders. In July 2003 Cliven Bundy was given 45 days to remove his cattle. He refused. This is when he said “I will do whatever it takes to protect our property.”

Myhre said the BLM offered to roundup the cattle at their expense, sell them, and give the proceeds to Cliven, but he refused to accept their offer. Myhre acted as though the BLM was doing him a favor by running him out of business.
If Cliven had accepted the BLM’s offer he would have given up his water rights forever, which was the BLM’s ultimate goal.

The prosecution said that in February 2014 Sheriff Gillespie visited Cliven to try and work out a deal and ease tensions, but nothing was accomplished.
Myhre said that helicopters were used to roundup the cattle. What he did not mention was that Bundy cattle were chased and run to death by the helicopters. Nor did he mention how some cows were shot from BLM helicopters and buried in a mass grave. He said nothing about it being calving season and that many of the calves were left without a mother to feed them. Some starved or died of thirst, but that was not mentioned.

Myhre talked about how a call was given for militia to come armed. He claimed that Ryan Payne sent out false emails and social media messages saying that the BLM was there, armed, and ready to take the Bundy cattle. He told how Payne had asked for militia to come to the Bundy ranch to stop the cattle from being taken. He showed photos of militia with guns to prove his point. He then gave a summary of what happened on April 12, 2014 and talked about how frightened the officers were of losing their lives that day.

Myhre gave an account of what happened at an auction site in Richfield, Utah. The cattle were collected by hired cowboys and taken to an auction house to be sold. Ryan Bundy and other protesters traveled to Richfield to stop the sale. He said that signs were hung that said, “Stolen cattle for sale.” Myhre than claimed that Ryan caused a disturbance and threatened force to get the cattle back. He said the sheriff had to be called to stop it.

The prosecution tried to explain away why Dave Bundy was arrested on April 6, 2014. They claimed that Dave and Ryan were on federal land blocking a convoy road. The BLM demanded they leave, but Davey refused. They told Ryan to leave, but refused to go without his brother. Finally, he said, Ryan agreed to leave to avoid being arrested.

According to Myhre, Cliven sent out a social media message saying, “They got my cattle, now they’ve got my boy, and the BLM has us surrounded.”
Next they focused on Ryan Payne and Operation Mutual Aid Defense, saying he reached out on websites for militia help. Payne supposedly sent a message that said, “I’m here as head of Operation Mutual Aid, we are here to prevent tyranny.”

Myhre claimed that the militia was just “looking for something.”
Myhre next brought up Pete Santilli, who does social media broadcasts on his Guerilla Network. He said that On April 9, 2014 Santilli broadcast that the Bundys are being abused. “If you have a gun you need to come and show a show of force.” He then claimed that Santilli blocked a convoy on SR-170.
The government then gave their version of what happened at the protest site when the convoy was blocked. They said that Ammon rammed an ATV into a truck to stop a convoy. He then swung at a BLM agent. After that, Myhre said, Ammon attempted to kick a dog, and that was when he was tased. They even claimed the dog was tased because of Ammon. Myhre also claimed that Ammon grabbed an officer’s arm and was tased the second time.

Myhre claimed that Ammon explained away his actions by saying, “Our whole goal was to make a big enough stink that the sheriff would interfere.”
Myhre closed by saying, “It is not about the Second Amendment, not about a protest, not a statement of beliefs. They get their way at the point of a gun.”

The opening argument was given for the defense by Morgan Philpot. He began by giving some background about the ranch. “Bundy ranch was started in 1877 and had water rights to 11 springs and the river. Cliven bought the ranch from his father in 1962.”
Next he explained that the Desert Tortoise was placed on the Endangered Species List in 1988. Cliven had a survey done by the Fish and Wildlife Service that said the tortoise is in no danger.

The Desert Tortoise was placed on the endangered species list for one reason, to get cattle off the range and run the ranchers out of business. The BLM succeeded in getting rid of 52 ranchers. Cliven Bundy refused to be 53rd.

In 1992 Cliven decided to fight. He knew he would lose his water rights if his cattle were removed from the range.  He fought back for the next 25 years.
Philpot talked about how the BLM threatened to use the IRS against him. When Cliven sent a letter the IRS of protest, the action was stopped.

“Once Cliven Bundy and the other ranchers signed a contract,” Philpot explained”the BLM  reduced the herd size from 159 cows to 89 per water right.” Ranchers could not make a living.

The BLM claims that Cliven owes one million dollars in grazing and other fees, but the real amount is less than a hundred thousand dollars.
Philpot said that Cliven Bundy had “done whatever it takes” for 25 years. He said the BLM started collecting cattle for 2 weeks beginning on March 28, 2014 and during that time Bundy obeyed the law and protested. He did not interfere, or as the government claims, impede the roundup.
Philpot talked about how BLM and FBI agents with AK-47 rifles were there in full battle gear. Cameras, he said, were moved every night for 7 nights. Something the government denied. On April 6, 2014 Cliven called Metro to help.

Philpot countered the government’s argument that Ryan Payne and Clive Bundy stirred up trouble by sending false messages on social media asking people to come, was not the reason people came. He said that Davy’s beating was the primary cause for people coming. After Davy’s beating Carol Bundy called for help. Another video showing Cliven’s sister, Margaret, a grandmother and cancer survivor, being “hip chucked” to the ground for simply standing and protesting. The prosecution had claimed she had rushed toward a BLM officer, but a video showed proof that she did not.

The prosecution had shown several still photos during opening argument showing Ammon and other protesters in compromising situations. They were presented and explained to the jury in a way to show the protesters and the Bundys in a bad light. When the defense showed video proof debunking the prosecution’s claims, the jury took note.

The prosecution claimed the protesters escalated the standoff with the BLM and FBI, but proof was presented that the operation had been called off the day before. It was shown where Dan Love ignored  orders to end the operation, but continued anyway. It was also pointed out that Metro deputies were there to protect the protesters, not to protect the BLM from the protesters as the government claimed. Photos were shown where Metro had their guns trained on BLM snipers who were pointing their weapons on the protesters.

The prosecution made out that people who brought their horses was somehow impeding the BLM from doing their job. Morgan Philpot explained to the jury that in the west cattle were moved with horses. The jury smiled.

“April 12th was a celebration,” Philpot explained, “not a confrontation, but when protesters arrived at the wash they were faced with an army.”
Philpot listed the fatal flaws of the BLM and FBI: (1) The operation had ended the day before; (2) undercover agents were proven to be in with the protesters; (3) and Dan Love’s office had monitors.

Morgan Philpot showed a video of the protestors gathering for prayer at the wash. “They prayed for God’s help,” he said.” He ended by pointing out that people coming to help “had everything to do with what was beating in their chest. They came because they were Americans.”

Ryan Bundy’s Opening Statement

Ryan Bundy arrived at the courthouse on Wednesday November 15, 2017 prepared to give his opening statement. Friends and supporters gathered with Ryan in a prayer circle, as they did every day before trial, to offer a prayer of thanksgiving and to ask for God’s help and direction.

When everyone was seated and the jury was seated and instructed, Judge Navarro asked Ryan if he was ready to give his opening. Ryan walked over to the jury, but before he could get the first word out, Steven Myhre asked the judge to counsel Ryan not to use the Constitution and his personal interpretation when presenting his opening statement. It is a sad day when our Constitution, the very document that governs us, cannot be used in a court of law.

Ryan opened by stating that his family had been on the land for 141 years, long before the BLM existed. They settled in 1877 and water rights were granted in 1890. “We elect people to protect and defend those rights. If you don’t defend those rights, you lose it. Those who control the land control the wealth.” Referring to the statement the government is trying use against him, he said, “We will do whatever it takes is not a threat, but a determination.”

Talking about grazing fees, Ryan said he had heard the government has spent 6 million and possibly up to 100 million to collect 100 thousand dollars. That leaves me to believe that grazing fees is not the real issue. When the BLM put up a sign in their office that read, No moo by ’92 and cattle free by ’93, it suggest to me that they are willing to use any excuse to remove the cattle.

“Sovereignty is with ‘We the People.’ The Bill of Prohibition prevents the government from taking our rights.” Ryan was referring to the First Amendment Areas set up by the BLM, areas he referred to as “pig pens.”
Ryan talked about how he loved growing up on the ranch, the hard work, the good times, what it felt like to be free to roam the range, to go to the mountains, and be with family. He talked about how his family had always offered their home as a place of refuge to anyone who needed it. “No one has ever been turned away,” he said. “Everyone has always been welcomed.” He then invited the jury to visit when the trial was over so they could also enjoy the land as he always had. “You are welcome to come anytime,” he said.

The people that came to help came because they “Felt the spirit of the Lord. They felt freedom. They came because they love America.”
Ryan set the record straight with the jury about the day Davy was beat up and arrested. He and Davy were with their families in separate cars headed home after church when Davy stopped to take pictures of the BLM compound. He was not standing on public land, he explained, but was standing on state land and was not blocking a road as prosecution had claimed. “He was not threatening anyone.”
“Davy was beaten and arrested for taking pictures, he was not threatening anyone.” He paused and looked directly at the jury, and said, “There were 4 snipers on the hill pointing their guns at me.”

Talking the so-called disturbance at the auction house, Ryan said, “Where ever I went I was always in contacted with local law enforcement. I talked to state officials. I talked to local officials−I even talked to the governor. Is that what criminals do?”

Ryan, who has been charged with impeding federal officers from doing their job, emphasized that the BLM rounded up 400 cows and placed them in a corral without him interfering. “I did not impede rounding up of cattle.”
The prosecution accused the cowboys of riding their horses to the corral to forcefully remove the cattle. He pointed out that (Vice-Sheriff) Lombardo “led horses to the corral himself.”

Ryan mentioned that the operation had actually ended the day before and Dan Love had ignored the orders from his boss and the bosses in Washington and continued it anyway. He pointed out that Love and federal officers escalated the situation, not the protesters. He said, “The sheriff finally did his job” by taking control and putting an end to it.

The jury hung on every word Ryan said. It was a spirit filled and professional presentation. When someone praises him for doing such a good job, it bothers him. He does not want to take credit for something God had a hand in.

Free At Last

Nov. 13, 2017 Free At Last
After 30 minutes discussing and ruling on motions dating back as far as January 2017, Judge Navarro cleared the courtroom so some other unresolved motions could be discussed. They had to be resolved before the jury could be seated, otherwise it could result in a mistrial. After a six hour delay the public was finally allowed back into the courtroom.
Ammon Bundy’s detention motion was partially addressed on November 10th, but Navarro put off her decision until today, November 13th. The prosecution was determined to Keep Ammon behind bars. They pointed out again the 11 violations against him while in custody, 9 of which, as Myhre put it, “major severity”. He was accused of taking a thumb drive from the jail library back to his jail pod. The drive had discovery on it about his case that he was afraid might go missing. He received 15 days in solitary confinement.
Another violation was hindering a jail employee from doing his job by placing a T-shirt over his eyes to sleep. Other violations were refusing to submit to a barrage of strip-searches. Earlier, Navarro had agreed that the strip searches were excessive and ordered them to be stopped. He was also accused of disobeying an order to turn around in an elevator to avoid seeing a keypad code. Ammon’s attorney, Dan Hill, disagreed saying that is not how it happened. Hill corrected Myhre on several allegations, but to no avail. Navarro said that she could not overlook the violations and noted his refusal to follow rules.
Ammon’s wife, Lisa, who had flown in from Emmett, Idaho with high hopes, watched as her dreams of being with her husband for the first time in 2 years vanished with the words, “motion denied.” Navarro agreed with the government that Ammon remained a danger to the community and was a flight risk. Lisa held back tears while in the courtroom, but once outside the tears flowed. It was a bitter disappointment. She did not look forward to telling her children that they would not be able to hug their father. When their daughter’s birthday arrived last week Lisa asked her what she wanted, she said, “Mom, that’s a silly question, all I want is my daddy to come home.”
Navarro, in a surprise move, reversed her decision to detain Ryan Bundy. She allowed him to go to a half-way house with a monitoring device to track his movement. He will be allowed to go to church, meet with his co-counsel and the other defendants to prepare his case, and enjoy other privileges he deems necessary for trial preparations and anything security deems reasonable and agrees to. It was understood that he may get to go home to his family on weekends.
Ryan’s wife, Angie, was stunned. His mother, Carol and his sisters were equally stunned at the reversed fortune. Angie could not believe her good fortune. Her smile lit up the night.

Everyone waited behind the courthouse, thinking that was where Ryan would be brought out. After about an hour Ryan was finally released, but in front on the steps of the George D. Lloyd Federal Building, not the rear.
When the news of Ryan’s release reached family and supporters, everyone gave a big shout and started running. Angie left everyone in the dust. Carol, in her haste, took a tumble on the concrete ramp, but wasn’t hurt. Even if she had been hurt her happiness was greater than any pain she might have experienced.

I tried to run but all I could manage is a fast walk. I got there just in time to see Angie run into Ryan’s arms and smother him with kisses. Tears of joy fell like rain. His mother and sisters took their turn with long, tight hugs. Friends and supporters joined in with hugs, handshakes and well wishes.

Standing on the courthouse steps Ryan said, “I feel a burden come off me. I know that I’m not free yet. I still have a monitor and a whole bunch of rules. I still have a big burden because our freedoms aren’t yet won. I’m still not free myself, my brothers are still not free and this country is not free. There is a lot of work to be done. I’ll keep working hard and I’ve learned a lot. This incarceration I hated every day. Every day I hated it, yet I’m very thankful for it because I’ve grown so much. I’ve grown closer to my Father in Heaven. I’ve learned a lot about the law. I’ve learned a lot about people who are incarcerated and most of them are not what you think. I’ve seen the atrocities by the government upon many, many people, and I’m appalled by it. Our Constitutional rights are not being adhered to. We have a right to a speedy trial, a right to a fair trial a right to bail. So many of our rights are being violated−the court says they are not, but they are. My family has been abused, terribly abused, because the Sixth Amendment has not been adhered to.

After about 30 minutes, Ryan, wearing a black 3 piece suit, was whisked away by his attorney to the half-way house, but not before his wife handed him his white cowboy hat to wear. His children, at their home in Mesquite, Nevada, about a 50 mile drive from Las Vegas, were transported to the half-way house where they got to hug their dad.
I asked Angie how she felt, she said, “It’s bitter-sweet, because Ammon was not allowed to go free and Lisa is so sad.”
I had the chance to speak to Ammon’s attorney, Morgan Philpot, who volunteered to take Ryan to the half-way house. I asked him why the judge had changed her mind. “Because the prosecution lied so much,” he said.
The prosecution had claimed that Ryan was tased during an arrest in Utah 10 years ago. The defense produced a video proving otherwise. They also claimed that Ryan had a dispute at a cattle auction site where seized Bundy cattle were to be auctioned off. The defense was denied a chance to call the sheriff as a witness. The sheriff disputed the allegations saying that the protest was peaceful and no threats were made. The auction company later refused to sell the cattle.
After proof was presented that Myhre had lied, Navarro reversed her decision. I give the judge credit for that.
Stating untruths or half-truths appears to be the norm for the prosecution. It certainly was in the last two trials. The jury will have to decide if Ammon will ever be a free man.

 

Bundy Trial Updates

Fox Guarding the Hen House
On November 7, 2017 opening arguments were scheduled to begin. I got up at 4:00 am to drive the 120 miles to the Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse in Las Vegas. I arrived 3 hours early. Seated in Judge Gloria Navarro’s court on the 7th floor. I watched as Cliven Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne were led into the courtroom. The first thing I noticed was Cliven’s emaciated body. His face was gaunt, he looked to be sick. All of the defendants had lost weight, their faces showing signs of stress and worry. And no wonder, they were charged with conspiracy, extortion and various firearm charges and faced years in prison if convicted. They have not been with their families because they have been unlawfully jailed for almost 2 years.

Ryan Bundy, acting as his own lawyer, was wearing a dark three piece suit looking every bit the attorney. Ryan Payne was dressed in a blue shirt and gray pants. Cliven and Ammon Bundy were wearing an orange jumpsuit that said “Detainee” and “Inmate” on the back in bold black letters.
Navarro asked Ammon why he chose to wear the jumpsuit instead of civilian clothes. He answered, “I have no comment”. Navarro again asked him if he chose to wear it and if he was happy to do so. He replied in the affirmative. Cliven was asked the same question and he also replied in the affirmative.

Representing Cliven Bundy was Bret Whipple. Ammon was represented by Daniel Hill and Jay Morgan Philpot. Ryan Bundy had Magsoun Fletcher as stand-by counsel. Ryan Payne was represented by Shari Kaufman, Brenda Weksler and Ryan Norwood. The government was represented by Steven Myhre, Nicholas Dickenson and Erin Creegan, plus several stand-by attorneys.

Ryan Bundy had filed a motion to compel the government to turn over all evidence they had withheld. Ryan had also made a motion to dismiss the case because the prosecution had held back evidence that could be instrumental in proving their innocence. It could also have helped those in the two previous trials.

From testimony 3 weeks earlier it was revealed that the FBI had surveillance cameras trained on the Bundy home as early as March of 2014, one month prior to the cattle roundup, something the prosecution denied. The defense found out about the videos by accident when a U.S. Forest Service agent testified a few weeks earlier that she viewed video feed from multiple cameras for 4 days at the command center located near the Bundy ranch. This was never mentioned in the two previous trials. “It is difficult for the court to imagine there was a camera placed with no one watching it and making notes”, Judge Gloria Navarro told the prosecution. “It seems there should be somebody who has documentation or testimony as to why a camera was used.”

The defense had asked the prosecution for discovery by turning over any video or information they had not previously revealed, but was summarily ignored for 3 weeks. If such video did exist and the prosecution knew about it, that would be grounds for dismissal of the case. If the attorneys involved knew of the video and failed to disclose, they would be subject to being reprimanded, including disbarment.

Ryan Bundy said that cameras with lasers were pointed at the Bundy’s home. The prosecution claimed that a camera had been set up but had been knocked down after a day and a half and that no other cameras or video existed. The defense claimed that Dan Love, BLM Special Agent in Charge of the roundup could not be trusted when he claimed that he had not seen a video. Love has since been fired for tampering with evidence, lies and cover-up in the Burning Man case. He also claimed that the FBI was in charge of surveillance cameras and that he had nothing to do with it. Ryan Bundy also testified that snipers were there with rifles pointed at the family home, The government denied it.
Navarro agreed that the defense should be given any video, if it existed, that would help their case. I suspect she agreed because of agent Hinson’s testimony 3 weeks prior that those cameras did indeed exist, so she had no choice but to agree, and that is the only reason.

Because of the motions Navarro decided to put off opening arguments and gave the prosecution until the next afternoon to come up with any videos or notes that may be out there. Of course that is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.
The jury was called in and sent home. She compelled them to come back on the following Tuesday.

Ryan then asked the judge to release him from jail since there was a continuance so he could have the same advantages as the other attorneys to properly prepare his case. Navarro stated that she would not rule on that until later. She did say that it might be possible for him to go to a halfway house where he could be watched, and that she would consider that. However, she gave a hint to what her decision would be when she cited the Bundy’s inability to follow rules. She would also have to take into consideration the safety of the community and the safety of the officers assigned to watch over him if he were to be released.

What exactly did Navarro think Ryan was going to do to harm the community, or federal marshals? A hearing was set for November 9th at 8:30 am for both sides to present their argument.

The prosecution claimed that only one camera was used in multiple locations and that no video existed. Navarro made her position known right away. She stated that if video did exist, it did not mean that it was discoverable.
If the video showed that snipers were pointing their assault rifles at the Bundy home on March 8, 2014 before the April roundup as the Bundys claimed, then it would prove that the FBI had lied by saying that no snipers were there.
Navarro gave the prosecution until 1 pm the next day to do their investigation and then adjourned for the day.

As I got up to leave the court room Ammon turned and saw me, broke out with a wide smile and waved. Cliven saw me and nodded. It did me good to see him smile and was happy to be there to offer my support. On the other hand I was very concerned at their poor appearance, but especially Cliven.

The next day, November 8, 2017 the courtroom filled with family, friends, supporters and reporters to hear if the prosecution had located any video.
Cliven Bundy’s nephew, Scott Sessions, testified that he saw three cameras at different locations. Steven Myhre, representing the government, said prosecutors had spoken to the technician who handled the camera, and a special agent who supervised its placement. He said that federal agents had reviewed FBI logs and found no records of any surveillance log kept. “None of our investigation reveals any recording was made from that surveillance camera,” he said.
Ryan Bundy and defense lawyers said they did not trust Myhre and asked why the technician and FBI agent could not be called to testify.
“I’m not satisfied with the offer of proof,” said assistant federal defender, Ryan Norwood, Ryan Payne’s attorney.
Myhre said that the defense was just using delay tactics and called the defense request “highly improper”. He (the fox) then said, “We’ve done our due diligence to discover and we’ve not found anything. None exist.”
Navarro told Myhre to look again. Myhre then asked Navarro if he could just respond on paper. She agreed, and that was the end of it. She never answered why the two witnesses could not be called to testify. Of course the explanation is simple: She did not want them to testify. She did not want to take a chance that crucial information might be revealed that would help the defense.

Ryan Bundy once again asked that he be released so he could properly prepare for trial and enjoy the same privileges the prosecution enjoyed. “If the judge wants to treat everyone equally the prosecutor should be placed in a jail cell next to me to prepare his case,” he said.
Dog and Pony Show
The next day, November 9th was the detention hearing where the defense would argue for their release and the prosecution would give their reasons why the Bundys and Ryan Payne should not be released. One whole side of the courtroom was filled with Bundy family member and friends. The Bundy children had books and drawing paper to keep them occupied. One carried a Teddy Bear. As they watched their father, Ryan Bundy, and Grandfather, Cliven Bundy, enter the courtroom − they wept and strained to see them.
Mel Bundy’s attorney requested that his client and Dave Bundy be allowed to join the hearing to argue for their release. Navarro denied the request and told them to file a separate motion.

Navarro immediately showed her bias by addressing the defendant’s past making them all look to be a bunch of lawless and dangerous thugs. The prosecution joined in by saying they were worried about the safety of the community and Navarro stated that she worried about the safety of officers assigned to oversee the defendants during their release. It was plain to me that she was setting the stage for the outcome. She already knew what her decision would be.

Cliven Bundy’s attorney, Bret Whipple, said that Cliven had 20 teeth when he entered detention and that he only had 10 or 15 left. He said instead of treating the infection they just pulled his teeth. “He has lost weight and cannot chew,” Whipple said. “Cliven refers to himself as just an old cow.”

The prosecution asked Navarro to deny the motion citing his lack of respect for rules and federal laws. For the next 20 minutes Cliven was called names and made out to be a hardened criminal that would stop at nothing, including killing. They accused him of being the chief conspirator and claimed he called for gunmen to come to the ranch to prevent his cattle from being taken by the BLM.
Navarro backed up the government by saying Cliven has been charged with crimes of violence, has recruited gunmen to challenge law enforcement, that he was the leader of the conspiracy and that was proof that he is a danger to women and children. “Motion denied.”
Never one time did Navarro use the word “allege” she tried him and judged him guilty without a trial, and she did it with pure venom in her voice and a look of delight on her face.
Immediately Shiree Bundy Cox, Cliven’s oldest daughter, stood and shouted, “Gloria Navarro, you are an evil, cold-hearted woman. You have no feelings.” The look on Shiree’s face was a mix of anger, extreme sadness and worry. She knew her father was a sick man and needed medical attention and the the care of his family.
Federal Marshals moved toward her. “I probably won’t be back,” she shouted as she stepped into the isle. “I love you Dad, I know you are innocent!”

As security and Deputy U.S. Marshals approached her she again shouted at Navarro, “You are a liar! I love you, Dad.” “Again she called Navarro evil and cold-hearted as she was escorted out.
Navarro calmly went to the next case, Ammon Bundy’s motion for release.

Daniel Schiess, acting for the government, started out by accusing Ammon of pointing a weapon at an officer; Dan Hill, Ammon’s attorney, objected, saying there was solid proof that he never carried a gun during the stand-down. Schiess continued by pointing out that Ammon had no respect for federal law. He also said Ammon has had run-ins with officers at the jail. The Malheur Refuge take-over was also mentioned, saying he was the chief conspirator, although he was acquitted of all charges. The Malheur case should have never been mentioned. An objection was over ruled without discussion. In fact almost every objection by the defense was stymied.

Hill, called Ammon to testify on his own behalf. As Ammon walked toward the witness stand I noticed he walked slightly slumped over and had his arms behind his back with his hands turned as if he were wearing hand cuffs. This is the way he has been forced to walk for 2 years. It was extremely bitter to see.
Once sworn in Ammon wasted no time telling Schiess that he was lying about him pointing guns at officers and that he never had a gun at the stand-off. Schiess, knowing he had been caught in a lie did not respond.

Hill asked Ammon if he were to be released would he obey a curfew, not be around guns, limit his travel, wear a monitoring device, not make statements that would incite protests. He then asked if he would have any problem coming to court, to come early and stay late.
Ammon looked directly at the judge and said that he would have no problem obeying the rules. “I give my word,” he said. Hill then asked if he would have a problem going back to jail if he violated the rules. “Absolutely,” Ammon replied, “If I break my word.”
Schiess stood for the prosecution and asked what he would do if the BLM started rounding up cattle again. Hill objected saying the question was leading the witness. Navarro immediately overruled him.
“I know my attorney has advised me not to answer, Ammon said, but I don’t mind answering any questions you have.”

“What would you do if the BLM started rounding up the cattle,” Schiess asked again.

Ammon’s answer was direct and truthful. “I would peacefully assemble as before.”
Addressing the judge, Schiess said, “His credibility is not worth your worth. He will not obey court orders because his principals get in the way. He can’t set aside his principals.”
Navarro asked Ammon directly if he would stay home. Ammon looked the judge in the eye and said, “I give my word that I will stay at home.”
“Would you obey the laws regardless of circumstances, even if it went against your principals?” Navarro asked.
Ammon paused and said, “It depends on the circumstances.” He then said that he would obey the law even if he did not agree with it.
Schiess then read out 11 rule violation Ammon has had while in jail. Of course he did not give the circumstances, things like, being verbally abused, pushed, shoved, threatened, starved, placed in solitary confinement for no reason and constantly strip-searched.

Schiess continued to try and make Ammon answer hypothetical questions hoping to make him say something that would make him sound untrustworthy and dangerous. He, like the others, accused Ammon of being a flight risk.
Surprisingly Navarro said that the prosecution had not shown sufficient evidence where Ammon should not be released.
I was shocked.
The judge said she would rule about Ammon’s release the following Monday, but qualified her statement. It was to give the government more time to find additional evidence as to why he should not be released.

The next to be considered was Ryan Payne. His attorney talked about his military service as a combat veteran of the war in Afghanistan where he had been deployed twice. It was noted that after his tour of duty Payne served in the Army reserve and was released with an honorable discharge. It was mentioned that Payne had PTSD, an anxiety disorder caused by a profound emotional trauma, like seeing someone killed in battle or related incidences of war. It was made known that he was not at the wash during the stand-down and no photos existed that showed him armed.
It was pointed out from the previous trial that Loveland and Drexler had guns and had pointed them at BLM agents, but was released to be with their families. Navarro acted as though she did not hear that statement.

The prosecution went on to paint Payne a loose cannon by mentioning that he was in a militia movement called Operation Mutual Defense. The word “militia” is connotative as an anti-government fringe movement, something dangerous.  They said that he had called for gunmen to come to the ranch to prevent Bundy cattle from being taken.

Prosecutor Nadia Ahmed accused Payne of positioning snipers where their weapons were trained on BLM snipers. Payne supposedly said, “If they acted by firing, then they would all be dead.”
It was also said that Payne could not follow rules.
Payne had served in the military for several years without having a problem with authority. He was a perfect soldier. When the roadblock ambush was set-up for the Malheur occupiers, Ryan was the first to give up without incident and followed all orders given him by the FBI and Oregon State Police, so I find that statement ludicrous.
Ahmed continued by asking, “Is he (Payne) a risk to the community? Would he hurt someone? Absolutely!”

Navarro wasted no time getting to the point. “There is not a change in circumstances as I hoped there would be. In light of new information with concerns brought up by the government about his statements, sugar coated by talking about his military record…it was not just talk, but action. The court finds no guarantee that harm will not come to the community. He called for gunmen and pleaded guilty of conspiracy to impede federal officers. The motion is denied.”
As with Cliven, Payne was tried and convicted by Judge Navarro. How would that sound to a jury? Would that be considered jury nullification?

Ryan Bundy, acting as his own defense, was the next defendant to plead for his release. His family still held out hope in spite of the other rulings.
The prosecution painted Ryan to be a perpetual offender. Past misdemeanor cases where he was not convicted were hashed over. The government accused him of not appearing for a court date. Ryan countered by saying that he did appear, that he had talked to the clerk and there was nothing on the docket concerning him. To make sure he was seen by the judge, he sat in the courtroom.

The prosecution continued to make accusations and painted Ryan, like the rest, to be dangerous and a flight risk.
The prosecution said that Ryan gave a diatribe on the Constitution and the federal government, and said this about the cattle impoundment, “We will do whatever it takes. You interpret that any way you want.”

Addressing the flight risk allegation, Ryan said, “I have no desire to be a fugitive. Where will I go? How would that benefit me? They would just find me and bring me back.” He also said that he did not want to be anywhere without his family.
In an attempt to make Ryan a liar, the prosecution said that he had claimed to have several businesses but no record of a business license could be found. Ryan answered, “I have been incarcerated for 2 years and could not renew my license.”

Ryan told Navarro that he could not prepare for his case physically, mentally and spiritually because they get him up at 3 am to be transported to court, stays in court all day, and then transported back to the jail. He told the judge that it is 9:00 pm or later until he is processed back in. “Because I get back late I do not get to eat,” he said. He mentioned that he goes without food for 10 hours or more. Because of travel time, court, and being processed back in at such a late hour, he said, “I am too tired to prepare my case properly.”

Ryan also told the judge that he is deprived of legal material and that his notes have been taken from him. He also mentioned how they kept his father and Ryan Payne chained to a table for hours for no reason.

Ryan then asked his family to stand. His wife, Angie, their 6 daughters and 2 sons stand, all looking hopeful that their father and husband will be released.  Ryan pointed out how much they have suffered because he has not been there for them, especially his children. He mentioned that he has not been able to make a living for them because he has been kept in jail.

Referring to Amendment 13 that says, Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Ryan remarked, “I am not a slave. I deserve some respect as an innocent man. I have been deprived of taking care of my family. I have been treated as if guilty. Pretrial conditions should not be a punishment. I have been punished.”

One of the earliest rulings concerning bail is the case of Hudson v. Parker, 1895, that said, federal law has unequivocally provided that a person arrested for a non-capital offense shall be omitted to bail. This traditional right to freedom before conviction permits the unhampered preparation of a defense, and serves to prevent the infliction of punishment prior to conviction.
Unless a person has been convicted of murder he cannot be denied bail. Not one defendant in this case has been charged with murder, but that does matter to Gloria Navarro. In the federal courts of the United States, run by corrupt, biased judges, laws no longer matter. They make their own.

Amendment VIII also says, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. The courts do not allow the Constitution to be argued in our courts any more, it is a vacant place in our society. It is a vacant place in Navarro’s court. She does not want arguments to be based on the law of the land. Almost all federal judges do not allow the Constitution to be used as a valid argument for acquittal.

Ryan Bundy had in his possession 34 letters from people in his community as a witness to his good character, but Judge Navarro was not interested in seeing them.
The prosecution talked about his role in the 2014 stand-off. Ryan replied by saying, “People came to do no harm. They came to help people, to protect liberty.”
Ryan told the court that he looked forward to defending himself. He promised to meet all pre-trial conditions and gave his word that he would appear in court. He gave an impassioned plea to Judge Navarro for his release. It was honest. It was sincere. He wanted to be free so he could be with his family, not to cause trouble.

Ryan Bundy gave a compelling case as to why he should be released.
It did not matter in the end. The prosecution strongly opposed his release stating that he was a danger to the community, that he would not follow the rules and that he was a flight risk.
Navarro agreed and denied Ryan’s motion for release.
His children held their hands over their faces and wept.

It is cruel to offer hope to the families, especially to the children who do not understand, as Navarro did. It is heartless to make families think there is a chance for their release with her knowing there is not one. It was all a cruel game. When the prosecution spoke she was spell bound, she glowed. When the defendants and their lawyers spoke, her countenance was totally different. She only gave the appearance that she was listening, that she was being fair-minded, that she was compassionate, when all along she knew what her decision was going to be. She only wanted to give the appearance that she was sympathetic toward the defendants, that she was a benevolent judge. It was all a dog and pony show for the public and media.
In the end she would show her true colors. She would rule in favor of the government regardless of what the defense would say or do. She is biased and everyone who has watched her in court can attest to it, including me

 

THE NEW RACISM IN AMERICA

When the Democratic Party was real, not what it is today, “Progressive”, it fought desegregation tooth and nail up until the administration of JFK and LBJ. The liberal state of Massachusetts and the great liberal city of Boston was the last state and one of the last cities to integrate. Lawsuits were filed against the federal government, demonstrations and protests held, threats were made and everything humanly possible was done to stop black kids from stepping foot in a white school. This was long after the South had successfully integrated. But today the Progressives will tell you a far different story.

On the other hand Republicans, before they became Republicans, fought against slavery and for equal rights for blacks. They were in the forefront of the abolitionist movement.  They created the first schools for former slaves and fought for their right to vote and to earn decent wages. They fought for equal education opportunities. That is why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. I can remember when there were all white schools and all black schools. The black schools got the hand-me-down books and supplies from white schools. The white schools got everything new, including school houses, while the “Negros” got the old ramshackle buildings. When blacks, or should I be politically correct and say, Afro-Americans, were allowed to vote, the Democrats instituted a Poll Tax to make it harder for blacks, who were economically depressed, to vote. Even tests were administered so uneducated blacks could not vote.

I can remember parades in my hometown where men donned KKK hoods and marched down main street. Bands played and people cheered. It was a big event, city and county officials, members of the police and sheriff’s department donned their pointed hats and hoods and marched with pride. They were Democrats. The Republican party was non-existent in Florida, in fact the whole South was solid Democratic. To be a Republican was to be a “nigger”lover.

Today none of the things I mentioned are recognized by the Democratic/Progressive/Socialist Party. They will tell you otherwise. They will tell you that the Republicans are the racist, that cops are racist, that veterans and military personnel are racist and that whites in general are racist. If you disagree politically or socially you are a racist. If you believe in the original intent of the Constitution, then you are a racist. If you believe that marriage should be between a man and a women, then you are a racist. If you believe in separate restrooms and showers for little boys and girls, then you are a racist. If you believe in protecting our borders, then you are a racist. If you voted for Trump you are absolutely a racist, at the least you are a deplorable person. Of course they use other names like Homophobic, Islamophobic, and Misogynist to belittle and create a false narrative. All of the above names do apply to some people regardless of political persuasion, even Democratic/Progressives, but the left would have you believe they only apply to the Republicans, especially the Conservative side of the party. Many on the far right are racist, just like many on the far left are anarchist.

Today there is a new racism in America. Racism is now accepted on college campuses, although it is not called racism, but that is exactly what it is. Many colleges and universities are holding separate graduation ceremonies for black students, including Harvard. Some are holding separate commencements for blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups so they wont have to share the stage with white students. According to the Boston Globe Columbia University holds six separate events, one for Whites, one for Blacks, one for Asian, one for LGBT, one for Latinos and one for “First Generation” students, whatever the heck that is. Virginia’s Emory and Henry College is holding “Year-end Ceremonies” with designated events for LGBT students.

This is neo-segregation. It is the new racism! They do not embrace the teaching of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the more radical Malcolm X who both proclaimed that we should respect each other’s cultures and beliefs, that we should integrate and live together as Americans instead of separating ourselves into categories. They believed in assimilation. It is now just the opposite. Young people today are being taught that diversity is bad, that it is wrong, that everyone should be classified into different groups. A new caste system has emerged. The definition of civil rights is being re-written to mean something completely different than what Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders taught. It is not about diversity at all. It is not about inclusion, it is not about coming together as Americans for the greater good and cause. It is about rejecting the white race and making anything white a symbol of oppression. To be white is to be shameful for the wrongs committed in the past. With that kind of thinking I suppose that today’s German citizens should be held accountable for the murder of 6 million Jews by Hitler 75 years ago. Jews, therefore should be treated differently, they should have more privileges.

Racism is more prominent now than it was eight years ago. Although not perfect, black/white relations was at an all time high before Obama took office, although the left would have you to believe it started with the emergence of Donald Trump. Now, today, it has regressed, and it started during the Obama era  with the tall tale that Michael Brown, the bully and thief, was shot and killed by a racist cop while Brown was holding his hands up in surrender. It escalated from there. Even members of the House and Senate raised their arms high in solidarity with the misinformed and ignorant saying that Brown had been killed intentionally by a white Missouri racist cop. This, after the truth was well known. The truth after all should not get in the way of an agenda.

And then Obama took the side of a black university professor against a white cop who was called to his home to investigate a break-in. Obama accused him of racial profiling without knowing the circumstances. The mainstream media helped to advance this and the Michael Brown lie over and over, even after the truth came out. Even before Michael Brown Obama started dividing Americans by pitting the haves against the have-nots with his Social Justice and wealth redistribution doctrine, the Christians and First Amendment advocates with his “Clinging to their guns and religion” comment, and comparing radicals and terrorist with members of the conservative Tea Party movement, who were actually peaceful. On the other hand he later embraced Black Lives Matter and the radical Occupy Wall Street protesters who destroyed property and advocated violence.

White people in America have done plenty to suppress the black man. The Supreme Court ruled that “Separate but Equal” was Constitutional. Jim Crow was acceptable, even in the North. The Supreme Court also ruled that a slave was property, like cattle, and was not a man with Constitutional rights. Afro-Americans have been treated unfairly there is no question about it. They have been made to walk through the back door, sit in separate sections in the movie theater, sit in different waiting rooms, drink out of different water fountains, barred from restaurants, barred from attending white schools and universities, unfairly kept out of good jobs, and paid a portion of what whites earned. In other words they were discriminated against. White folks should not try to deny it ever happened, they should not try to cover it up or dismiss it.

On the other hand Confederate dead should not be dishonored. Statues should not be torn down and history rewritten. It should be remembered for what it is. It should be recognized as a part of our history to show how wrong it was to enslave fellow human beings. Slavery happened, lynching happened, discrimination happened in all forms. Things were unfair for the black man for a very long time. That cannot be changed, but the future can be. Great progress has been made to make things equal for all, but we still have some improvements to be made in all areas. Neo-segregation is pushing that progress backward. There has not been this much racial division since the days of the riots in the 1960s.

If the example set by Martin Luther King, Jr. was followed today, racial disparity would be at its lowest point in history. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. Unfortunately it will not improve as long as this new social order is preached and is allowed to fester and become an acceptable part of our society. If it is accepted as the norm then we are right back where we started.

 

The Electoral College

I have heard celebrities, politicians, electors and the uninformed shout about how the purpose of the Electoral College is to make sure someone unqualified becomes president. They neither understand the Constitution or the purpose of having electors. The Constitution does not say anything about preventing a person from becoming president if they, meaning a handful of oligarchs, should decide who is fit and who is not. That is up to the American people.

Last night I heard one of the electors say that it is his job and duty, along with the other 537 electors, to decide who is and who is not fit to be president.  He went on to say that in a democracy Hillary should be president because she got the most votes. I agree, if we lived in a democracy, but we do not. We live in a republic. If that person is too ignorant to know that, then he should not be an elector.
If you look at the electoral map you will see that it is around 95% red and only about 5% blue. That’s because Hillary won the large populist cities and Trump won rural America. Just about every county in the United States voted for Trump. Because we are a republic and not a democracy, the founders set the electoral college up so the most populated states could not decide who the president would be while disenfranchising the smaller less populated states. Otherwise all the candidates would have to do at election time is to visit those states, promise them the moon and forget the other states even existed. The founders knew this, so in their wisdom they set up a system to prevent this from happening.

It is the duty of the electors to represent the states equally, it is not their duty to ignore the will of the people. To do otherwise would be a coup, and nothing else. We would be a dictatorship.

I have heard people cry about Russia influencing the election, and that Donald Trump is an illegitimate president-elect. If the Russians, or any other country did interfere in our republican process, then certainly it should not be tolerated. Until proof is given to the American people that Russia caused Trump to be elected, and Hillary defeated, then the hysteria should stop. People, especially elected officials, should stop dividing the nation more than it already is.
It is up to the House of Representatives to bring impeachment charges against a sitting president, and it is the duty of the senate to try the president and remove that person from office. They are the only people, according to the Constitution, to determine whether a president should be brought up on charges, impeached and removed.
The Constitution is very clear. The Threshold for qualifications to be president is simple. A person needs to be a natural born citizen who has reached the age of 35 and resided in the United States for 14 years (Article. ll, Section 1) It gives no other qualification. It says nothing about what is fit and what is not. The American people decide that.

For a person who is already president, the 25th Amendment provides for a process for removal. “If the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”  That means physically and mentally. One example where a president should have been removed is when Woodrow Wilson had a stroke in 1919 and was incapacitated until the end of his term in 1921. For two months the First Lady determined who could and who could not see the president. After Wilson was able to get out of bed, the paralyzed and partially blind president was unable to discharge his duties because his mind wandered and he was not lucid enough to make a decision. During the remainder of Wilson’s term his wife unofficially acted as president without the public’s knowledge. This is when the 25th Amendment should have been invoked, but was not.
The electoral college does not have the authority to determine whether a person is fit to serve. I hear people quoting Hamilton from the Federalist papers, but the Federalist papers, although written by the founders, is not the Constitution. Only the Constitution stands as the law of the land, no other writings. We are not an oligarchy (in principal), and 538 people do not get to decide against the will of the several states whom they represent, will be the president.

Stop listening to celebrities and politicians who do not have a clue. If Donald J. Trump, regardless of how you feel about him, is prevented from taking office, not thousands, but millions will fill the streets of Washington and every city and hamlet in America. This is not going to happen of course, because our Constitution (for the most part) is intact and the Republic will stand against tyranny.  That will be proven on December 19, 2016 when the Electors in their appointed states meet, and again on January 6, 2017 when the House and Senate meet in a joint session to formally declare the winner.

Death threats to the electors will not change the outcome of the election. True patriots will not be dissuaded by such tactics. Those that would ignore the Constitution and place in power a person who was not elected, is not a lover of freedom. They will not prevail. Those who are hoping they will are no better than people who burn the flag, and stifle free speech. They are worse, in my opinion, because they are usurping the Constitution of the United States, the greatest document ever written in the history of the world, a document that has brought more peace and prosperity to more people anywhere and at any time, than any other nation in the world that has existed in any period since the beginning of history. The only nation that could come close is Israel under the leadership of Moses.

Until Russia’s involvement has been substantiated and proof presented to the American people, then what we hear are simply opinions, lies and innuendos by people who would destroy our republican process. Make no mistake, it is deliberate. The whole world knows it, and so do the American people.

If we are to judge Russia for the same thing we have done, then it is a double standard for sure. We have interfered in the affairs of other nations since we became a Republic. We have assassinated leaders we deemed to be dangerous or not acting in our interest. We have toppled governments both small and great. Just recently the United States tried to influence Israel’s election. We tried to tell England how they should vote on the European Union. We are not pure., not by a long-shot.

 

The Charters Of Freedom Under Attack

 

You cannot have a socialistic society where the government rules the people unless it becomes a total humanistic society. You cannot rule a people who believe in a higher being … not for long. The moral conscience of a nation must be completely destroyed. This has been going on in the public school system for years and years. When a person’s own belief system has been destroyed, that person, can then marginalize someone else’s beliefs by branding them as raciest, homophobic or as being non-inclusive. These are the watchwords of today’s humanistic believers. They preach tolerance while practicing intolerance.

I personally believe you can disagree with a gay lifestyle, for instance, while still loving the individual who practices it. I also believe it is the right of a person to teach that a gay lifestyle is wrong as a matter of personal belief. I also believe a person can protest and speak against such a practice openly, in public, without being made out to be someone who is pushing his or her beliefs on another. In today’s world to be against something on moral grounds is to be evil, censored, and to be an outcast. Even the President of the United States brands his own citizens who have a moral objection to gay marriage, unisex restrooms, shower and locker rooms, to be someone who should be shunned and shouted down. We have truly lost our way.

Our orderly world is crumbling beneath our feet. Our government is being changed from a government which is ruled least, to an all powerful government centrally ruled. This is being accomplished by people who believe the Constitution has been a failure and is a document that gets in the way in today’s society. They say it is an evolving document that changes with the times,with the whims of men and the fads of the day.

Who is this monstrous person that has allowed this change? Look in the mirror and you will see that person. It is our fault for not paying attention and for allowing the people we elect to make laws contrary to the writings and principals of the Founders. Laws that are against everything we have been taught as being right and just. We have become complacent and our nation has strayed because of it.

If you will look you will see that the economic and political problems plaguing America are the direct result of the Federal Government indulging in practices which are entirely socialistic in their objective and completely opposite to the success formula of the American Founding Fathers.

Many are responsible, including the multinational corporations, the big banks, the Federal Reserve System, organized labor and special interest groups, all trying to get something which the free enterprise system and the Constitution strictly forbids. The gradual replacement of People’s Law with Ruler’s Law – or who ever controls the money, rules, has been going on since the early part of the 20th century.

The doctrine of “soaking the rich” has been encouraged beginning with the populous movement of the 1890s  and ending with the adoption of the 16th Amendment which provides for direct taxation of incomes on a graduated scale. Next, the states were weakened by passing the 17th Amendment which provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators. This took away home rule. Now Senators are no longer responsible to the people of the states whom they represent. We foolishly allowed private financial houses to get control of the monetary system so they could issue the people’s money, fix the value, and print at will. The Federal Reserve is neither Federal nor a reserve, but a private corporation that pays no taxes and controls the wealth of the United States, and much of the world.

We have set up a welfare state where the citizenry is becoming more and more dependent on the government. The more dependency, the more control over our lives, like heroine. Finally we get mixed up in foreign wars, Iraq is a perfect example, to speed up the process of centralizing power on a permanent basis. It has become more than a centralizing of power in Washington, it has now become a centralizing of power on a global basis. The United Nations is now looked upon by governments of the world, including the United States, as the ultimate authority. It is now international law we must abide by instead of the Constitution. We are no longer sovereign.

The Founders believed the continuance of the Constitution depended on two principles:

  1. The Constitution must be interpreted precisely as it was written.
  2. To be very deliberate about any fundamental changes which would weaken or destroy the “chains” of the Constitution allowing the government to invade the rights reserved for the people.

If we would take the shades off of our eyes we would see that this is exactly what has happened. We now have a president that said with exactness, that we would see a “fundamental change” in America once he took the oath of office. This president learned from one of his admitted heroes, Saul Alinsky, who wrote the “Rules for Radicals”. One of the first rules he lists is that you cannot have any morals, you must lie and not have a conscience about it. You must not be afraid to take an oath and not abide by it. This is what has happened. The oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic has been totally abandoned.

Here is what Senator Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania said when denouncing the legislative function as provided by the Founders. “We have inherited from our forefathers a government structure which so divides power that effective dealing with economic problems is cumbersome… Of course, inaction is what the Founding Fathers intended – inaction until such time as overwhelming consensus was prepared for action… They were right in their day, But they are wrong in ours. I have no hesitation in stating my deep conviction that the legislature of America, local, state, and national, are presently the greatest menace to the successful operation of a democratic process… The Executive should be strengthened at the expense of the Legislative. Surely we have reached the point where we can say that Jefferson was wrong: that government is not best which governs least.” (The Elite and the Electorate, 1963, pp. 11-14)

Is this not the Socialistic cry of the day? I had rather adhere to the words of the Great George Washington as he warned, “If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in our instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” (George Washington’s Farewell Address) 

The Constitution is and always will be about separation of powers and preserving the unalienable rights of the people it was written for. It never goes out of style.

The Charters of Freedom are under attack as never before. It will be up to us to turn the tide, to save the Constitution by electing good men and women that are Constitutionally principled. We must hold them accountable by being ever watchful of their actions, and when they stray from the principals the Founders put in place, we must demand they repent or be replaced.

May the Lord bless you and me as we work together to preserve what has been given us by the provident hand of God.

Wear your cowboy hat proudly!

 

ASSAULT ON THE CHARTER OF FREEDOM

“If you stand on the shoulders of a giant, you can see further than the giant.” Sir Isaac Newton

People in the United States have come to understand that most of the economic and political problems plaguing this country are the direct result of the Federal Government establishing programs and passing laws that are socialistic in their objectives and completely opposite to the success formula of the Founding Fathers.

Some people are offended, or they act offended, when they are identified  as those who are guilty of leading us down the path of disaster we are currently travelling. It has been said that “If you want to find the devil who is responsible for our becoming more socialist, go home and look in the mirror. We are all responsible! If we have become a socialist nation it is because we have allowed Washington to do it. Not only have we allowed it, we have demanded it.

We as Americans work through our own special interest groups to put pressure on our politicians in order to gain special privileges or unconstitutional advantages.

You and I are responsible, multinational corporations, unions, big banks, the Federal Reserve and various lobbying groups are equally trying to get something which the Constitution and the free enterprise system strictly forbids.

The gradual replacement of People’s Law, or “We the people” with the principals of Ruler’s Law, or whomever controls the big bucks rules, has been going on for the past 100 years. How was this done? This may sound familiar:

  1. Encouraging the doctrine of “soaking the rich”. This began with the populous movement in the 1890s and culminated with the 16th Amendment to the Constitution which provided for direct taxes on a gradual scale against the private citizen’s income. This is called a Progressive income tax.
  2. Weakening the state legislatures and the protection of states’ rights through the passage of the 17th Amendment. This allows the direct election of a senator by the people instead of by state legislatures. This resulted in a loss of home rule. Senators are no longer beholden to the people of the state they represent.
  3. Creating and allowing the Federal Reserve to gain control of our financial system so they could print and issue currency and fix the value.  It is neither Federal nor a reserve, but rather a private entity designed to control the economy the way the banks desire. The F. R. pays no taxes and is beholden to no one. Because of the Federal Reserve we are no longer on the gold standard.
  4. Setting up a welfare state with Federal Social Security as the heart of the Socialist system. Now that America is dependent on Social Security we are beholden to the government’s demands. It is used as a whipping boy to keep us in line. That is the way the government works under a socialistic society. The government gets us hooked by taking care of our needs by giving us “free” stuff, and then threatens to take it away if we don’t comply to their demands. When the government gets enough people on board the socialist train, there will only be one political party, the one that takes care of our needs from cradle to grave.
  5. Purposefully involving the United States in foreign wars to expedite the process of centralizing power on a permanent basis. When we look in the mirror it is obvious that the majority of the problems we face in America have come about by our willfully abandoning the Founders’ Charter of Freedom and principals of righteous government that it advocates.

WE MUST BECOME INFORMED, GAIN KNOWLEDGE, AND WISDOM

We as parents and grandparents must teach our children and grandchildren fundamental religious principals that will instill faith in God, faith in their family, and faith in their country. We must create and foster strong family units if we are to survive as a nation.

Even college students do not know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, or who authored them. Nor do they care. We have allowed schools to punish students if they talk about God out loud. If a child sticks a finger out with a thumb up, they are arrested or expelled for imitating a gun. Schools, especially colleges and universities, teach our kids how to be intolerant of other’s views if they differ from their own and then teach them to call those who disagree intolerant. They teach that America is the cause of all the wrongs in the world. They teach that the Constitution is outdated and must be done away with so socialism can sweep them up and give them all the things they have been cheated out of. We have leaders that glorify Marxism and call it social justice.

We no longer have rights. We are told they are only privileges, unless they are illegal aliens, then they become rights again. In fact illegals have more rights and privileges than American citizens do.

The prophet Hosea said, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” We must not let that happen here.

We must study and learn for ourselves the principals laid down in the Constitution which have preserved our freedoms for the last 200 years. If we do not understand the role of government and how our rights are protected by the Constitution, we may accept programs or organizations that help erode our freedoms. An informed citizenry is the first line of defense against anarchy and tyranny.

We must teach our children about the spiritual roots of this great nation. We must become actively involved in supporting programs and textbooks in the public schools that teach the greatness of the early patriots who helped forge our liberties. We must teach our children that the Constitution was inspired by God by people who were placed on this earth for this very purpose.

Edmund Burke said. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” We have to do more than complain and wring our hands. We must educate ourselves. We must support good constitutionalist for public office. We must work in our communities and make our voices heard.

Even if one does not believe in God, we must stand together, believers and non believers, to preserve our freedom. All voices are important.

We live in a great, even a chosen land. We have received great blessings from heaven. Me must never forget that, and we must instill that in the up and coming generation, starting in the crib. This must be a standard in every God believing, freedom loving home. We must counteract what society is teaching.

“I testify to you that the foundations of this country are spiritual. I testify that God has watched over us and blessed us greatly. I witness to you that those who keep the commandments of God will continue to be blessed in this land, for ‘righteousness exalteth a nation.’ God bless us all to be faithful. And may our Heavenly Father bless this land and preserve our divine Constitution and the Republic which it established…” (Ezra Taft Benson, Provo Freedom Festival, Marriott Center, June 29, 1986).

I am confident God will save our nation, but only if we fight for it. May God bless all you great patriots out there who are fighting the good fight. For it is you who will, with God’s help, save this great nation inspired by heaven and brought forth by good men.

Well, it’s time for me to put my boots and cowboy hat on and go to bed. After all, real men and real women sleep in their boots and are never far away from their hats.

Adios Amigo!

 

 

Does Congress Have to Vote For A President’s Choice For The SCOTUS?

Is it Congress’ duty to approve a president’s nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States?

The answer is yes…eventually, if that person is to take a permanent seat on the bench. The Congress of the United States does not, however, have to approve a nomination, nor does it have to set a time limit to call for a vote just because the President prefers it.

What will happen to the Supreme Court if nine Justices are not sitting? Something, or nothing, is the answer. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give direction on how many judges are required to sit on the Supreme Court or to rule on pending cases. The size is not specified. Over the years we have had as little as six judges and as many as ten at one time.

In Article III, Section I, it reads, “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their office during good Behaviour, (behavior) and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”

As far as appointments and confirmations, Article II, Section 2 states in the second paragraph, “He [the President] shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate shall appoint Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States , whose Appointments are not herein provided for, and which shall be provided by law…”

In Article III Section 2 it talks about Judicial power, and that is it! It does not say anywhere that the Senate has to hold hearings, it does not establish a timeline for what constitutes a quorum, or whether a justice can be confirmed by an absolute majority of those voting, or even a super majority, which the Constitution does require for other purposes, such as the two-thirds majority that is necessary to convict a president of an impeachable offense.

The Constitution does not give direction for senators on whether or not to ratify  a presidential nominee for the Supreme Court. If a senator does not like a nominee because that person likes cats instead of dogs, he does not have to vote for that nominee. If a senator does not like a person’s personal beliefs, or their political persuasion, he does not have to vote to confirm. The Supreme Court confirmation process is limited to issues of character (good Behaviour), or legal judgement.

Also, the Constitution does not specifically create the office of Chief Justice, nor does it say how one might be chosen. It only says that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is to preside over the senate trial of a president who is up on charges of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. As a matter of precedent the President names a Chief Justice. As far as that goes, the nominee does not have to be a lawyer. The nominee can be a barber or an office manager.

So, a President can rant and rave all he or she wants to about the Senate not considering his or her nomination to the Supreme Court. The Senate does not have to consider nor approve a candidate just because he or she is nominated. A justice may not sit permanently until approved by the senate. That is clear. The President does, however, according to Article II, Section 2, have the authority to fill a vacancy temporarily when the Senate is in Recess, and that appointee may serve until the end of the next congressional session.

I’m sure we will hear a lot about how the Senate is not following their Constitutional duties by not confirming the president’s nominee, and how the Republic and justice will suffer.

It isn’t, and it will not.

So there!

Well good people, it’s time for me to put my hat and boots on and go to bed. I’m serious!

Adios Amigo

 

 

The Old Man Wept

When Jefferson served as Ambassador to France the Constitution was being written by James Madison, but that doesn’t mean that Jefferson had no influence on the greatest document ever drawn up by the hands of men.

All of the founders were well read. They studied all of the great civilizations of the world and found two things in common with the most successful ones. Two of the most successful nations were the Anglo Saxons, and the Israelites. The two things they had in common was their belief in a divine creator, and a representative form of government.

The Anglo Saxons inhabited the British Isles. They were direct descendants of Shem. Alfred the Great, a son of Isaac, traced his genealogy all the way back to Adam. The Israelites were the descendants of Israel, who were remnants of the 12 tribes. Do you see the relation?  Do you see why they were so successful?

The founders knew what made them successful and happy. Thomas Jefferson sent Madison hundreds of books during his time in France. Books on philosophy, religion, literature and ancient history. History of the Peloponnesian War,the Roman Republic, the writings of Socrates, Thucydides, Xenophon, Josephus, Romulus and Herodotus, the ‘Founder of History’. He purchased over 2,000 books while in France and shared them with Madison and the other founders.  He sent letters sharing his thoughts and feelings. No one in the 13 colonies, or in Europe, were as well read as Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, Adams, John Jay, Franklin or any of the other fathers of this Great Experiment called Democracy. Jefferson, even though thousands of miles away, had a profound effect on the Constitution.

As my friend, GK Mangleson, one of the premier Constitutional scholar in America, likes to say, “Thomas Jefferson was the genius of all geniuses.

President Kennedy remarked to a group of learned men gathered at the White House, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House – with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

The way this nation came about was nothing short of a miracle. People of different backgrounds, beliefs and opinions met for months in a small room in a place that came to be known as Independence Hall. They argued as intelligent and opinionated people will do, and at times almost coming to blows. Their disagreements became so heated that it appeared they would never agree on a government at all.

It was during this crisis period that the 81 year old Benjamin Franklin made his famous plea for prayer.

“Gentleman, gentlemen, , the little progress we have made in the last weeks is a melancholy proof of the imperfections of the human understanding; groping as it were in the dark, how has it happened that we have not sought the Father of Lights to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning of the war with Briton we had daily prayer in this (very) room, and asked for divine protection. Our prayers were heard; and they were graciously answered. And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance?

“I have lived, sir, a long time; and the longer I live the more convincing proof … that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, in the sacred writings, that except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it.

“I therefore, beg leave to move, that hereafter prayers, imploring the assistance of heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business.”

Franklin’s plea changed the attitude of those who gathered in that great hall of freedom. It had a sobering effect on the delegates, and they set about their task with great determination. (The Miracle of America: The Birth of a Nation, Brian P. Trotter and William S. Norton, Captured Miracles Production)

Within weeks they had a Constitution like no other ever created before or since. Is the Constitution divinely inspired? You bet it is!

When it came time to sign the parchment on which the Constitution was written, Benjamin Franklin, old and eat up with arthritis, had to be carried in because he could not walk for the excruciating pain throughout his body. It is said that when he leaned over to sign the Constitution, the old man wept.

Today we would be horrified at the thought of these men having prayer…in a public building. Scandalous! We would be shouting at the top of our lungs, “Separation of Church and State!” Ban prayer in public places! These men would be called bigots, offenders of men, and a call for them to be banned would flow across the nation with the intensity of a great storm.

Our founders always recognized God in all of their deliberations, and gave praise to Him in all of their writings, with few exceptions.

Benjamin Franklin would surly weep today, but for a different reason.

One afternoon as Franklin was walking down the street, a woman asked, and I paraphrase, “Mr. Franklin what have you given us today?”

He replied, “A Republic Madam, if you can keep it.”