Tuesday, October 10, 2017

JW Presents: A Discussion on the Awan Brothers IT Scandal w/ Congression...

Ayn Rand: The Author People Love to Hate

This author found Atlas Shrugged to be inspiring and appalling in equal measure. Inspiring in the message that the individual has a right to do for themselves and to wish to earn a profit and to do so without a lot of nanny statery. Appalling in the notion that the underlying Judeo-Christian morals, values and ethics that make such capitalism work - and work stupendously - may be discarded in favor of whatever works for the individual - which is just moral relativity - which is the other extreme position and does not work in the long run any better than nanny statery..



NOAA facts forum - part 6 - Kris Sarri


This is Kris Sarri - President/CEO, National Marine Sanctuary Foundation She appears to be here to confirm the idea that money, in the form of grants, will grace any community that accepts a national marine sanctuary.
She is soft spoken, and polite, even gracious. In fact all of the panelists were very polite people.

At about the 5 minute mark, Ms. Sarri says "These are public waters, these are America's waters."No madam, these are not America's waters. They belong, legally, morally and ethically to the people of the state of Wisconsin, just as the natural resources of the other states belong to the peoples of those states. Do I get to say I shouldn't have to pay state income tax like the people of Texas because they have oil to offset their expenses as a state? No. Why not? Because the oil in Texas,(as does the gold in Alaska, the fertile soil in Oklahoma or the pastures of the Dakotas) belongs to the people of that state. These are our waters here in Wisconsin and ours, too, is the responsibility of caring for them and any historic, cultural, etc  heritage they may contain. We have been taking care of them since the state was founded and we are perfectly capable of continuing to do so. With the assistance of your foundation or without it.

Some may say, no, that the federal government owns all the water, that there are regulations and agencies and statutes saying so. But what does the U S Constitution say? Does it mention ownership of resources like land, oil, gold, or water? Article 1, Section 8, when outlining the duties of Congress, says? "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"  


This clearly indicates that any state land (aside from D.C.)desired by the federal government must be"
1. used for the specific purpose of "the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
2. ceded to the federal government by the state legislatures and
3 purchased by the federal government. 

That indicates that the federal government does not own the land or resources of the states, nor may it do so except for very specific purposes. That is has done so - particularly in the west (At 84.9% federal "ownership" why is Nevada even regarded as a state at this point?) - is an egregious lapse of vigilance on the part of the citizenry and should be corrected ASAP. And this is the main reason why this author opposes the sanctuary.


The federal government has become incrementally more powerful and usually through the impetus of greed.This author is hoping that tactic will not work here.

Ms. Sarri, at one point, insists that the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation is not affiliated with NOAA. Perhaps this is an attempt to present her view as that of an unbiased outsider.
 Their website says:

" The National Marine Sanctuary Foundation is the national non-profit partner for the National Marine Sanctuary System and its chief advocate." If there were no agency creating national marine sanctuaries, would there be a national marine sanctuary foundation? She is clearly comfortable advocating for NOAA in her segment. The NOAA and NMSF websites even use the same shade of blue as an accent color. So whether they are officially affiliated or not, they are clearly very cozy with one another and Ms. Sarri cannot be considered to be unbiased based on the claim of no official affiliation.

Ms Sarri says "this is not a federal power grab" repeatedly. What this author heard was "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.". NOAA has it's own law enforcement agency. So, if a citizen of Wisconsin does something that is perfectly legal in Wisconsin, but that violates one of NOAA's regulations - which law enforcement agency will have jurisdiction? Because, logically, if the state of Wisconsin is maintaining control and jurisdiction over our waters, shouldn't it be under our laws and with our law enforcement agencies if this isn't a federal power grab? Are there any readers who think that will be the case?

She then goes on to indicate that everybody didn't agree with Monterey or Thunder Bay and that things are going just wonderfully anyway. (Even though the "old top down" approach was so egregious? ) What this author heard was:"resistance is futile; you will be assimilated". 


As mentioned before, Wisconsin is perfectly capable of taking care of it's own heritage and resources. This is not a question of whether such resources are valuable or whether or not the people of this state wish to preserve our heritage, but whether we can and will do so without submitting to federal agencies and their not-officially-affiliated "friends".


Some may say "Why not take free money and let someone else deal with the hassles of preserving those wrecks and things?" And the answer is TANSTAAFL. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. If you give up the responsibility for something, you give up the freedom to enjoy it at the same time. This author hopes that the citizens of the state of Wisconsin will prefer to keep the responsibility and the freedom that goes with it.  
Apologies for the shakiness of the video and special apologies for the many errors in the closed captioning. This one was a bit of a challenge.
This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here.

"
Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox." ~ Prov 14:4

American Pravda, NYT Part I – Slanting the News & A Bizarre Comey Connec...

The purification of sin in the ancient Temple - Holy of Holies. Insight ...

Monday, October 9, 2017

Sunday, October 8, 2017

Thursday, October 5, 2017

On Watch Live: Exposing The Awan Brothers/DNC I.T. Scandal (feat. Luke R...

The right to bear arms isn’t up for debate

Came across this excellent article and thought I would share with a tip o the topper to Andrew Klavan:

"When debating the wisdom of the Constitution’s Second Amendment, the media tends to start from the presumption that the question is purely scientific, and that the answers can — and should — be derived from statistical analyses and relentless experimentation. This approach is mistaken. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not the product of the latest research fads or exquisitely tortured “data journalism,” but a natural extension of the Lockean principles on which this country was founded. It must be protected as such."
Read the rest here.

General Dunford ISI has terrorist connections

NOAA fact forum - Part 5 - Russ Green


One day my mother came home from work and said, "I told them today that I am not going to any more of the staff"input" meetings." When asked why she had made that decision, she said" They say they want our input in order to craft policies and procedures, but it is clear that they have already decided what they are doing and are just asking us for input because some management book told them we would be happier if we thought we were having an effect on the policies that are being implemented. That's a waste of my time."

That is what came to mind as Mr. Green was speaking. There was a definite air of "we are doing this to make you feel like you have some say in the process, but it will happen whether you like it or not."

In one of the earlier video descriptions there was a thought experiment. Here is another one: Should the federal government's interest in gaining control over such a large body of fresh water (or any other resource that may be in or under Lake Michigan) become pressing, how could we prevent them from designating every piece of driftwood, driftglass and rusting metal as being "of historical significance" and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of NOAA?

As with some of the other speakers, the unspoken word "yet" could have been added to many of the denials that NOAA would end up with sole control and jurisdiction over the entire area of the designated marine sanctuary. And given the expansion of the Thunder Bay sanctuary, there are no guarantees. Even were we to believe all the top down nonsense and even if it were true, without a change of the pertinent rules and regulations imposed on marine sanctuaries by NOAA there is no way to prevent them from becoming tyrannical under a change of personnel or administrations.

Wisconsin is better off taking care of it's own.

This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here.



"14 And the men took of their victuals, and asked not counsel at the mouth of the Lord.

15 And Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, to let them live: and the princes of the congregation sware unto them.

16 And it came to pass at the end of three days after they had made a league with them, that they heard that they were their neighbours, and that they dwelt among them." ~ Joshua 9:14-16

Monday, October 2, 2017

Condolences

On the day after the terrible shooting in Las Vegas, this author offers her condolences to the friends and families of all involved. This is world’s largest free-flying American flag this evening, flying at half staff to let the families know that their nation mourns with them. 
"14 The murderer rising with the light killeth the poor and needy, and in the night is as a thief."
 ~ Job 24:14

NOAA facts forum - part 4 - Mike Friis


This is Mike Friis, the Program Manager and Public Access Coordinator, Wetland Protection and Land Use Planning Coordinator, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, Madison, WI He is very earnest and makes it sound as though he is representing the State of WI. He is working for what sounds like a state agency- right? He says he is accountable to the state government. However this press release from 2016 clearly states that the coastal management program is federally funded. Hmmmm. The press release is talking about a 2.3 million dollar grant. A grant from where? A grant from whom?.

"The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program balances natural resource protection and sustainable
economic development along Wisconsin's Great Lakes coasts. The program awards federal funds from the Office for Coastal Management in the U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration to local governments and other entities for innovative coastal initiatives."(emphasis mine)

Efforts have been made by those who oppose the sanctuary to convince Governor Walker to oppose it as well. He has refused. On August 10 of this year, Governor Walker made this announcement:
"Governor Scott Walker announced today that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has awarded Wisconsin a three-year $840,000 Coastal Resilience Grant to help Lake Michigan communities and property owners in Southeastern Wisconsin reduce damages from coastal hazards and sustain the operation of their coastal economic assets. The grant entitled “Improving Economic Security in Coastal Wisconsin” will be awarded to the Wisconsin Department of Administration’s Wisconsin Coastal Management Program."


One can understand the Governor's wish to be fiscally responsible and to avoid burdening the taxpayers of the state but again, the pockets of the taxpayers are not bottomless and this nation is trillions of dollars in debt. Why should the people of the entire nation be on the hook for protecting our resources? And, if we cannot, and if these resources are so important to the nation as a whole then why should the state be required to relinquish any of our sovereignty to obtain federal funds? Are we not American citizens paying into those coffers as well as our own?
The question of whether or not this should even be a pressing need in a nation so far in debt should also be addressed at some point. Yes, this is a wonderful idea, but is it a responsible use of tax dollars?

 This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here.

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."~ Matt 6:24