Rand and Ron Paul ride to the rescue for Bundy in Nevada standoff with feds

Rand and Ron Paul


By Phillip Swarts


Defiant Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy received some key but qualified support in his still-unresolved standoff with the Obama administration.

Libertarian icons ex-Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and his son, Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, both came out with critical comments on the federal government’s handling of the land dispute, while the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association broke its silence on the dispute Wednesday with harsh words of its own for the feds.

The NCA’s careful statement noted the group “does not condone actions that are outside the law, in which citizens take the law into their own hands,” but it noted that Mr. Bundy and his family were provoked by the policy of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

“Ranchers such as Mr. Bundy have found themselves with their backs against the wall as, increasingly, federal regulations have infringed on their public land grazing rights and the multiple-use management principle,” the association said. “This is not only devastating to individual ranching families; it is also causing rural communities in the West to wither on the vine.”

The senior Mr. Paul also criticized what he said was overkill in the armed confrontation that nearly led to violence before the BLM stood down over the weekend.

“They may come back with a lot more force, like they did at Waco with the Davidians,” the senior Mr. Paul said on Fox News, referencing the 1993 Branch Davidian standoff in Texas that left nearly 100 people dead.

His son, Rand Paul, became one of the first of the 2016 contenders to weigh in on the dispute, criticizing the heavy federal enforcement array in the confrontation.

“The federal government shouldn’t violate the law, nor should we have 48 federal agencies carrying weapons and having SWAT teams,” Mr. Paul said on a Kentucky radio station.

The younger Mr. Paul also appealed for the Bundy family, which does not recognize the federal government’s jurisdiction over the disputed lands, to seek redress nonviolently.

“I hope it’ll go through a court,” he said “But if it were in a court, I would be siding and wanting to say that, look, the states and the individuals in the state should own these lands.”

The dispute between Mr. Bundy and the federal government revolves around grazing rights for a herd of cattle. Mr. Bundy contends he owns the land the cattle graze on and that it has been in his family for generations. But the government disputes his ownership claim, and won a court judgment that he owes nearly $1 million in grazing fees and taxes.

Armed federal law enforcement personnel surrounded the ranch, while armed militias joined with Mr. Bundy. After a few days, the government withdrew to prevent a direct conflict, Bureau of Land Management and Interior Department officials said.

Friends of the Bundy family said they found damage to Mr. Bundy’s property and livestock once federal personnel withdrew.

“They had total control of this land for one week, and look at the destruction they did in one week,” Corey Houston, a friend of the rancher, told Fox News.

Mr. Houston charged that the federal government left the territory in disarray, including destroyed water lines, holes in fences, and several dead cattle.
“So why would you trust somebody like that?” he said. “And how does that show that they’re a better steward?”

Read more:


Pregnant Woman Dies After Horrifying Medical Mixup

pregnant woman death




As far as medical mix-ups go, it’s a horrifying one. In October 2011, a 32-year-old woman underwent an operation at Queen’s Hospital outside of London; Maria De Jesus was suffering from appendicitis and needed to have her appendix removed. Instead, her right ovary was taken out, and De Jesus, who was 21 weeks pregnant with her fourth child at the time, ended up dying roughly three weeks later. The case is now in front of a medical tribunal, which is weighing the medical fates of the two doctors involved, then-trainee surgeon Dr. Yahya Al-Abed, and Dr. Babatunde Coker, who was supposed to be supervising him.

During the Oct. 23 surgery, De Jesus began to bleed “quite heavily. … In the midst of this, Mr. Al-Abed removed what he clearly believed to be the appendix. He thought he found it, removed it, and gave to a nurse what later turned out to be Patient A’s ovary,” the tribunal heard. Coker, who was eating lunch at the time, was never summoned, nor was he aware the surgery was taking place. The mistake wasn’t uncovered until much later.

The Telegraph reports that De Jesus returned to the hospital in severe pain on Nov. 7; two days later another doctor realized she still had her appendix, and the next day she went into surgery to have it actually removed. Instead, she died on the OR table, having earlier delivered a stillborn boy. Her cause of death was ruled as multiple organ failure due to septicemia. The Press Association reports the hearing will likely last a month.

The elitist faction’s anti-American 80-20 strategy for the GOP

GOP 2016 logo

By Alan Keyes of

Despite my efforts to explain how silly it is, I still encounter apologists for the GOP’s quisling leadership who cite the infamous 80-20 maxim for politics as if it ought to be taken as Holy Writ. That’s the rule that says that you shouldn’t reject a candidate who’s with you on 80% of the issues just because they oppose you 20% of the time.  Of course, this makes no sense if the 20% includes even one issue where going wrong leaves the rights, including liberty, of the American people 100% dead and gone.

Thinking about the 80-20 rule as it appears in another context will help you to understand the idiocy of the way it’s being misapplied in GOP politics.  In that other context, it’s known as the Pareto principle, so-called because it’s logic was first systematically articulated and applied by the Italian thinker Vilfredo Pareto.  It “states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.” It’s also known as the principle of “the vital few and the useful many.”  But in the context of the GOP’s complicity in the elitist faction’s assault on America’s liberty, it might more aptly be described as “the elitist few and the useful idiots.”

Forces intent on destroying constitutional self-government for the American people have been using this principle to turn the GOP from an obstacle to their agenda (which it was during the Reagan era) into perhaps the most critical reason for the imminent success of that agenda.  Their strategy for doing so involves identifying changes that would severely damage the key sources of the America’s historically unparalleled success in sustaining self-government for our people.  To serve the elitist faction’s destructive agenda GOP candidates are encouraged to support one or two of these destructive changes, while on other issues continuing ineffectually to parrot positions acceptable to the GOP’s conservative base.

As a result of this strategy, the GOP’s cadre of elected officials at the national level now consists of people whose views appear to be in line with the Party’s conservative constituency, but who oppose that constituency in key areas vital to the survival of self-government.  This leaven of apostasy assures that the elitist faction always has the support of enough supposed “conservatives” in the GOP to leverage the legislative and policy results that sustain most of the damage presently being inflicted on America’s strength and liberty.

Thus 80 % of the GOP’s elected officials, can appear to represent the Party’s conservative constituency at least 80% of the time.  But at all times at least 20% of them are positioned to make up the critical fulcrum without which 100% of the results that advance the elitist faction’s destructive, ant-American agenda would never be achieved.  Hence, Obamacare; lax enforcement of border security; immigration policies that coddle and encourage illegal immigration; money policies that constantly increase debt and spending; education policies that constantly degrade the understanding of America’s political heritage; and executive actions (or failures to act) that exacerbate the erosion of the rights, moral habits, and self-discipline vital for the survival of liberty.

New York City Resident gives NYPD officer a parking ticket

Ticket cop

Danny Panzella, political activist from Staten Island, decided to give the NYPD a taste of their own medicine today. While traveling, Danny discovered a “Sheriff” from the NYPD had illegally parked over by St Marks place in Manhattan. As an activist, Danny travels around with “Peaceful Streets” parking tickets. Basically, they are fake tickets that are meant to make a point, rather than actually enforce any penalties.

In the description portion of the ticket, Danny wrote “you should know better, you’re an officer of the law, not above the law”. Couldn’t have said it better.

If you’d like to enact your own revenge for all those tickets you’ve received from the NYPD, you can print out your own fake tickets (for free) here

Can ‘the Traitor’ Jesse Benton Unite the GOP?

Jesse Benton


Written By Sam Youngman

He helped Ron and Rand Paul tear down the Republican establishment. Then the ‘sellout’ went to work for Mitch McConnell. Meet the operative who just might bring the party back together.
When Jesse Benton moved to Kentucky, he didn’t think he would ever have to choose between them.

But in early 2013, Benton, the former aide to Rep. Ron Paul, Sen. Rand Paul, and now campaign manager to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, was booed as he walked to the bathroom in a Louisville pizza place.

“I had been told I had to choose, so choose I did,” Benton said last week. “I have no ill will toward [the University of Kentucky], and pull for them against everybody but the [Louisville Cardinals].”

Being booed by Kentucky Wildcats fans for wearing a Cardinals T-shirt and navigating the Bluegrass State’s intense basketball rivalry, an area that got McConnell in hot water this week, was the easy part for Benton.

Being the “sellout traitor” (Google “jesse benton traitor”) who has moved from running insurgency campaigns and throwing bombs at the palace with the Paul family to guarding its gates on behalf of McConnell, Benton has learned that being in the middle of two warring factions can be hell.

At 36, Benton is one of few Republican operatives to have lived in both the Tea Party and establishment camps of a party that has repeatedly self-destructed over infighting and purity tests in recent years.

Despised by many on both sides of that divide, Benton might well be the future of the party—someone who knows both sides, is connected throughout, and, above all, wants to win.

“What Jesse is trying to do has never been tried by a political operative at such a high level: bringing together the two wings of the Republican Party,” said Scott Jennings, former deputy political director in President George W. Bush’s White House, a former top aide to McConnell and the man now advising the senator’s super PACs from his firm in Louisville.

“There’s no road map for how to pull this off, so that means sometimes you hit a few bumps in the road,” Jennings said. “But if he pulls it off—and I believe he will when McConnell is reelected this year—he will have created a template for the future of the GOP, where the establishment and the Tea Party find ways to work together to achieve policy and electoral victories.”


Wearing his uniform—cowboy boots, jeans, open-collared shirt, blue blazer, and pocket square—Benton rocked back and forth and gave it his all singing along in the cavernous Baptist church he and his wife, Valori, attend in Louisville. They’ve bought a house and joined a modest country club.

Valori is Ron Paul’s granddaughter. The two met at the second Republican presidential debate in 2007 in South Carolina, when Benton was working as the former congressman’s communications director and Valori was her granddad’s traveling assistant.

Over omelets at the Bentons’ club last Sunday after church, while their adorable 3-year-old daughter spread out her Disney toys on the table in front of her, Jesse Benton described how he and McConnell came to work together.

In the early part of 2010, the two men were adversaries as Benton worked to help Rand Paul shock the political world by upsetting Trey Grayson, McConnell’s hand-picked successor to retiring Sen. Jim Bunning.

On the Saturday after the primary, McConnell led a unity rally in Frankfort. Whatever skepticism Benton had toward the state’s senior senator dissipated that day, Benton said.

As protesters waved signs and shouted “Rand Paul racist,” Benton said, “Mitch held the line and made sure every single Republican of consequence was there for this unity rally and made very, very clear that everybody in the party was rallying behind their nominee.”

McConnell then fired up his fundraising machine for the upstart candidate, and the big donors who had backed Grayson and feared Paul started writing checks to Paul.

“That’s because Mitch knocked down that door for Rand,” Benton said. “I saw all this happen. It was really cool.”

Josh Holmes, who was McConnell’s chief of staff and now, at the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), comprises the second head of McConnell’s campaign apparatus, said McConnell was impressed by Benton as he watched the young operative build a grassroots campaign that ended with a 12-point victory for Paul.

“McConnell is the single best political mind I’ve ever been around so he recognizes talent immediately,” Holmes said. “If you couple that with total dedication, he’s interested and the seeds of that with Jesse were planted in his mind.”

Holmes said he and McConnell watched as Benton led Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign, scoring “underrated” political victories in early states. But it was Benton’s work to get some of the elder Paul’s ideas, like Federal Reserve oversight, into the Republican Party platform, that impressed McConnell the most.

“We were impressed by his ability to pull together divergent political factions and move them forward under one banner,” Holmes said. “In this case, he successfully implemented much of the Ron Paul agenda into the platform despite the fact that neither side felt like they won. He clearly demonstrated leadership qualities that could relate to McConnell world. That’s the moment McConnell began seriously considering him for the role.”

After he finished with Paul, Benton and McConnell began a long series of conversations, many in McConnell’s U.S. Capitol hideaway, getting to know each other and discussing the challenges that lied ahead as McConnell, approval numbers deeper underwater than the Titanic, plotted to win a sixth term.

“What had sort of not necessarily seemed like it made the most sense at the beginning, really started to make sense,” Benton said.

To Holmes and McConnell, Benton had proved himself on the right battlefields.

“We needed someone who had run a presidential campaign who wouldn’t flinch at red-hot scrutiny,” Holmes recalled. “We needed someone who had run and won a campaign in Kentucky. And we needed someone who could organize a cutting-edge ground-game that united all sides of the party. The number of operatives in that category is basically Jesse.”

When Benton signed on with McConnell, he wrote an op-ed in The Daily Caller explaining why.

It didn’t help.

To the far right, the same people who propelled Ron Paul to more success than anyone would’ve guessed in 2012, Benton is a traitor: He threw his candidate under the bus in a colluded effort to elect Mitt Romney, a phony conservative, and then went to work for McConnell, the most evil and well-known face of the establishment, earning chatroom disdain and death threats along the way.

Though pretty and quick to offer a sweet smile, Valori Benton is tough. She recently caught a would-be burglar in the garage of their new home and chased him out into the street.

But she grimaced at the mention of “death threats,” saying quietly that there have “been some tough times.”

Jesse Benton explained, lowering his voice in front of his family, that, for lack of a better term, he was “Ron’s asshole.”

Cont. reading here:

Bundy Ranch: What Have We Learned From It?

cliven bundy


by  @SusanKnwoles

It’s been a busy week surrounding Bundy Ranch.  Watching it on television with all of the Federal agents coming in like gang busters has brought back memories of Ruby Ridge.  Although Ruby Ridge had a much different set of facts than does Bundy Ranch, the result was that the accusations against the accused, Mr. Weaver, resulted in the FBI and other Federal Agents killing Mr. Weaver’s wife and son when they descended on his property.

Mr. Cliven Bundy has a property dispute and past fees dispute with the federal government over land that the federal government claims they own and to which Mr. Bundy allegedly owes past due fees.  Mr. Bundy on the other hand, claims that he doesn’t owe the fees because his family has been using the land to graze their cattle on it since the 1800s.  Who is right and who is wrong?

We’ve watched as the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) flocked to Mr. Bundy’s ranch, allegedly confiscated his cattle, used a taser on his son, and threw his 57 year old cancer-stricken daughter down on to the ground when she “blocked” one of their trucks from leaving the area.  I saw the video and noticed how small the woman was compared to the burly young man who literally appeared to body slam her down onto the ground.

So, then what have we learned from watching the events of the past week coupled with the memories of Ruby Ridge?

What we have learned is both complicated and very simple all at the same time.

It’s complicated because there are disputed property rights involved and the matter of grazing fees that have been assessed by the federal government against a property owner in Nevada.  This brings up the federal issues of the 10thAmendment which basically asserts that those powers not granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States.

The issue also involves the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, which states that States must apply the laws equally and cannot discriminate against its citizens.

Additionally, the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause (14th Amendment as it applies to citizens of the State) essentially protects against the loss of life, liberty or property without due process of law.  In this case, the Federal government removed Mr. Bundy’s cattle and may even have deprived him of the use of what the government is claiming is public land since Mr. Bundy claims use of the property since the 1800s by family members.

There may be other legal issues that must be addressed in this case but those mentioned are the most glaring.  The issues are indeed complicated and will have to be mulled over in court with arguments from attorneys on both sides before a final outcome is given.

If those are the complicated issues then what makes it so simple, as well, you may ask?

What makes it so simple is that a lawsuit should have been the course of action taken by the federal government from the very beginning. The BLM knows this and decided instead to play judge and jury all on their own by taking property, harassing landowners and others without a legal basis perhaps for doing so.

If you’ve ever been in any kind of dispute with a neighbor over property and called the police, the police will tell you that you must take your claim up with the courts.  Their job is to “enforce” the law not to “decide” the law as it appears the BLM did in the Bundy Ranch case.

It appears that this finally dawned on someone within the BLM and that is why the Feds were called off.  It’s also why the cattle may have been returned.  However, it is my understanding that some cattle were killed during the ordeal.  Thus, the property damages issues and other legal causes of action will have to be resolved in a court of law, as well.

What else is so simple about this case and not complicated at all is the fact that we see more and more cases today where the Feds are becoming not only the enforcers of the law but the prosecutors, judges, and juries of the law.  This is a dangerous precedent and one that was stopped in this case by private citizens who said “We’ve had enough.”

These citizens, some armed under the auspices of their 2nd Amendment rights, came to the rescue of one man who stood in solitary defiance of an ever growing federal government.

Armed militia and Oath Keepers were called to stand shoulder to shoulder with other citizens and Mr. Bundy, himself.  Oath Keepers is a nonprofit organization founded in Nevada and are made up of former military, law enforcement personnel, National Guard, and Fire Fighters who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  They are people, just like you and me, who hold the Constitution up as the law of the land and who will not silently stand by while our rights are infringed by an overreaching federal government.

Had these men and women not pledged to stand strong against the BLM, I’m convinced that Mr. Bundy or one of his family members may have followed in the legacy of Ruby Ridge.

We may all be called upon to be Oath Keepers of one kind or another one day if the federal government continues to overextend its lawful reach into the rights we have been granted by the U.S. Constitution.  #StandForTruth

Birth Certificate Sex Change Is Document Fraud

Birth Certificate

By Eric Dixon

proposed bill working its way through the New Jersey State Legislature would revise the history of transgendered people, allowing their birth certificates to reflect their after-acquired (that is, their new) gender.

This is revisionist history; in fact, it is worse. It is document fraud and is not appropriate.
Official documents must be sacrosanct.  The lack of credibility or ease of forgery causes numerous headaches for the victims of identity fraud and other crimes.  Such crimes are the ostensible reason why native American citizens born in Puerto Rico must provide more forms of identification than other native-born citizens, because birth certificates from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (an American possession since 1898) are so rampantly forged that they are no longer recognized as official, genuine government identification.
How does this affect transgendereds? The New Jersey bill would allow transgendered people the right to get new birth certificates to reflect their new gender.  The problem is that this entire process reflects, indeed it requires, recognition of both the gender of the person at birth and the person’s new (that is, for the moment) gender. (Now in an age of sex-change operations, hormonal therapies and the like, gender can be changed as often as one wishes and can afford to pay for it.)
But what is a birth certificate? Is it not a document that identifies who you were at a defined moment — at birth? Is it not a document that establishes, for example, where you were born?  Does that permanent fact — a historical fact — not entitle you to the rights and privileges of citizenship?
If you were born a male, your birth certificate reflects that historical fact, the fact that existed at the time of birth.
If you are an American, native-born, your birth certificate reflects that.
If you wish to change into a woman, there are all sorts of legal recognitions of your newly-acquired gender of which you can avail yourself.  You can get a current government ID stating, for example, that you are a female.  Steven can become Stephanie, or vice versa.
What horrors might be unleashed by permitting the backdating of official records to reflect not what was a fact, but what you now wish was a fact way back when?
Do foreigners now get to change their birth certificates to reflect an American birthplace years ago, well, because they just wish it so?
Or is the real meaning behind this bill the push to make nothing permanent, to remove the true meaning from anything and to give fearsome powers to government bureaucrats to change things as they see fit?

Campaign for Liberty stands their ground against the IRS

Ron Paul Angry

BY JOEL GEHRKE, Washington Examiner


Ron Paul’s nonprofit Campaign for Liberty will fight the Internal Revenue Service’s demand that it reveal its donor list to the agency, despite having already been fined for refusing to do so.

“There is no legitimate reason for the IRS to know who donates to Campaign for Liberty,” Megan Stiles, the communications director at Campaign for Liberty, told the Washington Examiner in an email on Tuesday. “We believe the First Amendment is on our side as evidenced by cases such as NAACP v. Alabama and International Union UAW v. National Right to Work. Many 501(c)(4) organizations protect the privacy of their donors in the very same way as Campaign for Liberty. For some reason the IRS has now chosen to single out Campaign for Liberty for special attention. We plan to fight this all the way.”

When Compliance Is Honored In The Breach

wells fargo


See this new report from the New York Post on Sunday about an internal Wells Fargo Home Mortgage manual on how to get necessary documents for foreclosures in cases where those documents were originally “missing.”  This is a repeat of the infamous robo-signing scandal of earlier this decade.
It seems that the more we have Too Big To Fail institutions engaging in “compliance,” the more it really means they’re just trying to hide something.  Didn’t these institutions — and Wells Fargo is by no means alone — hire thousands, or tens of thousands of compliance officers to ferret out exactly this type of abuse?
It would seem there is either a deep breakdown in corporate ethics, or the entire premise behind compliance departments seems to be one of being a whitewash to better insulate the company against future charges of deliberate intent to commit misdeeds yet to be discovered.  If the latter theory proves true, it would mean compliance officers’ true function (and value) is not in “compliance” but in its exact opposite, that being in helping the company evade detection of its misdeeds or, in the event of discovery, to evade the consequences of those misdeeds.
Left forgotten in this story is the fact which remains that thousands of homeowners are getting away with staying in “their” houses for years (and possibly indefinitely) without paying their mortgages.  That is the true tragedy and a deep moral hazard.

Punishing Political Enemies With Prison? New Jersey As Banana Republic?

The concept of jailing your political opponents is one that evokes images of totalitarian despots and banana republics along the lines of the fictional country in “Moon Over Parador.”

But one new revelation buried in interview memoranda released yesterday by the lawyers for the New Jersey Governor’s Office (the firm of Gibson, Dunn) could suggest that political considerations could affect your liberty.

(See Eric Dixon’s legal analysis of the original Gibson, Dunn internal investigation report here.)

This nugget of information about former federal prosecutor turned Department of Community Affairs head under Christie, Richard Constable, reveals that Constable himself claimed to the lawyers at Gibson, Dunn that he was going to be appointed Essex County Prosecutor once Christie became Governor in 2010.
One problem, though. Constable did not have the requisite five years of experience as a New Jersey lawyer.
In fact, he had zero.
Constable took the New Jersey bar in 2010. DCA was a way to get him management experience while he amassed the “five years of legal experience.”  (Note: Constable was a New York barred lawyer who was able to appear in federal court because he was admitted to the federal bar and specifically admitted to the District of New Jersey. State bar admission not necessary. But once leaving the Justice Department, Constable needed to take the state bar exam in order to practice.)

But why, with all the hundreds or thousands of fine lawyers in New Jersey, why the effort to put this one crony (a former assistant federal prosecutor under Christie at the Newark U.S. Attorney’s Office, who handled corruption cases) in the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office? (The former head of that office, Paula Dow, became Christie’s first Attorney General.)
Incidentally, we’ve seen this “reaching” for a particular person when numerous other unquestionably more qualified people were available. We saw it when Christie tried to appoint Phil Kwon, and then non-litigator Bruce Harris, to the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2012. Kwon’s nomination was withdrawn after the allegations his family engaging in illegal money-structuring transactions surfaced, while Harris was rejected by the State Senate.

(Full disclosure: I testified in opposition to Bruce Harris on May 31, 2012.)

Might this be a way to have someone loyal to Christie handling the levers of “prosecutorial discretion” to ensure investigations get stopped — while others get started up and, possibly, innocent people (but political enemies) get railroaded?
More to the point: Does this indicate another effort to use the state’s prosecutorial power for political gain? (The flip side is that political enemies could have their liberty jeopardized. Prime examples are some of the Bid Rig investigations and prosecutions, and of course, the prosecution of now-jailed former Alabama Governor Donald Siegelman.)
Now, who in Essex County, New Jersey might be someone who would be up for protection? Or, conversely, who would be a political rival ripe for targeting and elimination?
And the real offensive issue is how one’s political alliances can affect one’s liberty.
In short, this new information hints, at least, at the atrocious and scandalous possibility that crossing the wrong powerful people in New Jersey (or elsewhere) can put your freedom in jeopardy.