RiteOn Blog

  

TAKING THE FIFTH

By Chuck MacNab 

As we watched the House of Representatives IRS hearings this morning we could not believe that the committee allowed Ms Lois Lerner, the Committee's main witness, to make an utterly self serving statement, then assert her Fifth Amendment privilege and leave. In our view, SC Representative Tray Gowdy was absolutely correct in stating that the witness had waived her Fifth Amendment privilege when she made a statement and should therefore be compelled to testify before the Committee.

We cannot understand why Committee Chairman Darrell Issa did not insist on exercising the Committee's full powers to compel Ms Lerner's testimony. We assume that the Committee has subpoena powers and, we assume, also has the power to compel testimony once a witness has waived the Fifth Amendment privilege, as SC Rep. Gowdy asserted that Ms Lerner did today. We assume that the committee has the power to force testimony, through incarceration or whatever and we cannot understand why the Chairman did not immediately insist on testimony from Ms Lerner. Despite what her lawyers advised, our view is that a lawyer's counsel does not supersede the Committee's power to force testimony once a witness has waived her rights.

Today's actions in the instance of Ms Lerner's appearance before the Committee leaves the impression that the House of Representatives is powerless to discover the truth, and that is a very bad impression to leave with the public! It is no wonder that the public holds Congress in such low esteem when we witness hearings that appear to be nothing but a media farce. We would like to see the Committee require Ms Lerner to return, be informed that the Committee considers that she had started to testify and, therefore waived her Fifth Amendment rights and insist that she answer the Committee's questions. If she refuses, she should be incarcerated until she agrees!

We stand with Rep. Gowdy and we applaud his statement concerning Ms Lerner's arrogance toward Congress! We assume her actions are a "message" from the Obama Administration! Will Speaker Boehner and Chairman Issa accept it? 

   

A LETTER FROM SENATOR RAND PAUL
Editorial comment by Chuck MacNab 

 

Following this commentary is a letter from Senator Rand Paul to Arizona Guest Editor CP who copied us on the Senator's reply to him. Sen. Paul's letter is intended to explain his position on an Amendment to gun control legislation recently debated in the Senate. We can expect this sort of legislation, or something akin to it, to emerge from the cracks as long as liberals control the Administration and the Senate... and not only in the gun control area! Guess what!!!... if they manage to gain control of the U.S. House of Representatives!  

There are several important points made by Senator Paul in his letter and we urge you to study its content. One of the most important is that legislation proposed by Harry Reid's pals is the unusual provision that criminalizes (to felony levels) INACTION by citizens. In other words, if you don't do what the legislation proposes (if it should become law), within the short time frame allowed, you will be subject to criminal prosecution (felony conviction) and fines and/or imprisonment. As Senator Paul points out, "It is highly unusual in American law to criminalize inaction."

This shows the "mentality" of the "big government" mind-set. Should the Democrats and Pelosi gain control of the House and the Senate remains in Democrat hands in 2014, be warned! Big government liberals fully intend to try to pass laws that will criminally prosecute ordinary citizens WHO FAIL TO DO WHAT THEY WANT! If they get away with it in the gun control area we can be certain they will move to other areas... in some cases, they already have. This is about as close to brutal government dictatorship and total control through enforcement of draconian laws as any society can get. We will not need to imagine we are living in a

 

We will actually be LIVING IN ONE!

 

Just proposing this sort of legislation with a straight face is scary and shows where big government liberals are going. We have recently witnessed the Obama Administration's disregard of Constitutional requirements, rule of law and long established procedure. Personally, the Benghazi "cover up" and incompetence, the stonewalling of Fast and Furious, the attempt through the IRS to shut down opposition comment by Tea Party and Patriot groups, the "investigations" of the AP reporters without notification (and for trumped up "security" reasons)...and much more, some that that we may not even know about, are indications that big government advocates believe they have reached the point where they can do what they want with no consequences and without MEANINGFUL opposition! To put it plainly, those whom Obama has placed in powerful government positions, especially since he was RE-ELECTED, believe they can administer their areas of jurisdiction as dictators. They need not gain the acceptance of Congress and need not inform anyone of actions they take.

Folks, this is not the way things have been or should be done in America. While differences between people about government exist in any democracy, this is "way off the platform" and a gross denial of EVERYONE'S freedom. If allowed to continue, it will destroy the fundamental core values that created the greatest (and maybe the last and only) protector of freedom on earth...the USA.

Please take time between now and the 2014 mid-term elections to focus on opposition to a Democrat "takeover" of Congress. Join and become active in a conservative oriented group (we are partial to The Missouri Patriot and The Missouri Patriot Forum...please excuse the "plug") and volunteer your time. Regardless of your personal view of politics, we are beyond that now! You can help make a difference. Freedom hangs in the balance. Obama and the Senate "slipped by" in the last election because the majority was conned into thinking nothing really important was at stake and some candidates came up short. THIS TIME... We cannot let that happen... If we want to preserve freedom in the USA, those who recognize its absolute necessity must choose candidates who can win, join forces and act together. 

....  Chuck 

-----------------------------------------------

Letter from Senator Rand Paul 

May 20, 2013 

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding gun control. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.

In the wake of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., there has been substantial debate about gun control. I hope we can learn more about what warning signs were missed and how we can better prevent tragedies like this from occurring in the future.

In April 2013, the Senate considered two legislative options related to gun control. I chose to support the substitute amendment offered by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) (S.Amdt.725) to S. 649, which would have reauthorized and improved the current National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).In 2010, approximately 48,000 felons and fugitives were denied guns after being discovered by NICS. However, only 44 were actually prosecuted by the Department of Justice. This amendment would have encouraged prosecution of felons trying to buy guns. It would have improved and reauthorized grants for the maintenance of the NICS database, conditioned federal grant money for states on their submission of relevant court and mental health records to NICS, and prioritized funding and increased resources for school safety and mental health programs. It would also have criminalized so-called straw purchases in which an individual purchases a firearm for someone else that is legally prohibited from doing so.

The Grassley amendment also would have enhanced Second Amendment rights by allowing for the interstate sale and transportation of firearms under certain conditions. It also would have defended the rights of veterans and other Americans who have received mental health treatment. It would have protected due process rights by requiring such mental health adjudications to go through a court, in which the individual has the opportunity to participate and seek legal counsel.  Unfortunately, the Senate defeated the bipartisan amendment by a vote of 52-48. I supported it.

I do not believe we should rush to enact reactionary legislation curtailing anyone's rights. No amount of gun control will be able to prevent mentally disturbed individuals from committing despicable acts of violence. High-risk individuals will still be able to acquire firearms and other lethal weapons, even with an increase in prevention. I opposed the underlying gun control bill (S. 649) due to my concerns with the fact that the bill would not have prevented the Newtown shooting, and only infringed on the rights of law-abiding Americans.

One of my primary concerns with S. 649 is that it would outlaw almost all private sales and transfers of firearms, except among immediate family. It would require all private firearms sales and transfers to go through a licensed dealer, who would be required to take possession of the firearm and perform a background check on the transferee. However, S. 649 defines the loan of a firearm as a transfer, meaning that a full background check would also have to be completed on someone even temporarily borrowing a gun from a friend, neighbor, or family member, except under very limited circumstances. S. 649 would also give the U.S. Attorney General unlimited authority to levy fees on firearm sales and transfers, conceivably making any sale or transfer prohibitively expensive for many Americans.

Another troubling provision of S. 649 is that it would require individuals to report a stolen firearm within 24 hours to local law enforcement, as well as the U.S. Attorney General. Failure to report in the 24-hour window would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. It is highly unusual in American law to criminalize inaction. Although it is important to report lost or stolen firearms, slapping felony charges on otherwise law-abiding victims of gun theft who forget to report in a timely manner, or are unaware of the requirement, is overly harsh and runs counter to the principles of our judicial system.

Finally, S. 649 would water down important privacy protections in current law that require the government to destroy records on individual gun transactions after the background check has been processed. Current law prohibits the sharing of these records with other agencies without the individual's consent. These important protections would not apply to the new records required by S. 649. Without these privacy protections, the new recordkeeping requirements could serve as a first step toward creating a national gun registry.

A number of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, raised concerns about the lack of privacy and civil liberty protections in the bill. Fortunately, the Senate did accept one amendment to the bill (S.Amdt.717), which would withhold five percent of federal justice grant funding from any state or local government that releases confidential and sensitive information on law-abiding gun owners. In light of the release of the names and addresses of firearm permit holders by government officials in several New York counties, this amendment is an important protection for the safety and privacy of gun owners.

On April 18, 2013, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced his intention to table consideration of the legislation due to a lack of support from Members on both sides of the aisle. Although S. 649 has been set aside for now, please be assured I will continue to oppose any legislation that infringes upon our constitutional rights, and will continue to defend the proper role of government, as outlined by the Constitution.

Sincerely,

Rand Paul, MD

United States Senator

    

BIG BLUNDER - TAKING THE MEDIA FOR GRANTED
By Chuck MacNab 

 

The media has been on Obama's side since he was elected... and before. It didn't matter how ridiculous were his mistakes, how many he made or even how senseless his advocated policies were. With the exception of FOX News, a few bloggers and Tea Party-Patriot organizations the major media covered his back. They dug up, and sometimes just simply invented, reasons why what he did or what policies he advocated were "plausible." Then, of course, there was always George Bush to blame! In short, they sold out to Obama and slurped up and re-invented whatever bogus hogwash made him look good.

 

We started analyzing the tealeaves about the time Obama came on the national scene. Our forecast was that whatever he touched in government would be both incompetent and corrupt. Sadly, time has proven our early indicators to be accurate in this regard. He has proven, as we have written in many commentaries, that the Administration now in office is not simply flawed, it is dangerously inept. Just how corrupt it is will be brought forth by current and future Congressional hearings. We hope they will dig deeply enough to show the American people the truth.

 

Misinformed, "low information" voters elected Obama to office and now we (including those just mentioned) are beginning to see the results of not paying better attention. It has taken some years, but the numerous scandals that are just now emerging are the result of appointing incompetent political hacks to oversee every department of government and allowing them to have free reign.

 

The closest example of what is going on here is the corrupt African "Republics," who are being run by former tribal chieftains. Chaos reigns in most of those countries because their political activities are guided by the cult of personality and pervasive corruption. Only the elites, temporary as their positions may be, have opportunity, security and some of the comforts of life. Ordinary people in those societies can only be described as being hungry, unhealthy, insecure and generally miserable. Those at the top in such societies are accountable to nobody (who is still alive and functioning after "the system" gets through with them) and suffer no penalty from anyone because they are completely controlled. What we have taken for granted here as a long time ethical standard is now being turned into an argument that supports and perpetuates a corrupt and self-serving leadership. In looking at the Obama Administration certain indicators and some similarities to these African "republics" should cause concern, especially in a society that believes it is free and is supposedly protected by a Constitution.

 

Maybe the "discovery process" has finally begun! Now, at least for the moment, the media has developed "an awareness." Why? Well, that's a no-brainer. The liberal crony club of Obama and his hand picked bunch of dummies that work in the White House must be tone-deaf. They may have believed so much in Obama's invincibility that they made the blunder of all blunders. Result? THE MEDIA DISCOVERED THEY WERE UNDER ATTACK! All of a sudden, the Associated Press becomes the target of phone hacking by the Justice Department. Horrors! It's OK to beat up on the Tea Party and Patriot organizations, even some religious organizations and others, but it's OUT OF BOUNDS to target the media! That's OFF LIMITS!

 

Now, we don't care what side of the political philosophy you are on. You don't attack the media...that's where they draw the line. So, now the media are sounding an alarm for that "failure to understand." But, not to worry, the Press may undoubtedly be back at BO's side before long. However, two good things may come of this Administration feeling some media heat. The first is stronger legislative protection for media (including web commentators, we hope). The second is a wake up call for many of those who once considered that liberals were big defenders of free speech. They are... but only when it is speech they approve of! The fact is that Barrack Obama has proven himself to be a President who seeks all the power he can dream up to destroy the Constitution and the individual rights protected by it.

Here is another outstanding commentary by "Growltiger."
You can read her column at: http://growltigerslitterbox.blogspot.com/
-------------------------------------

SERPENTINE I

"Mistakes were made, but nobody made them." (Kirsten Powers, columnist for the Daily Beast, Fox's Special Report following the Obama's Administration's reluctant admission that mistakes occurred during and after Benghazi but neglected to name names or discharge anyone). Ms. Powers, like most of the mainstream media is a liberal. However, unlike the majority of her cohorts, she did not leave her brain at the desk when she picked up her press card.

Even those who receive their news from the Alphabets, the NY Times, Washington Post, USA Today, etc., know by now that the Benghazi attacks were not provoked by a sophomoric video posted on YouTube. The producer of the video, unlike those who actually committed the outrage, is currently in the slammer. (*see below for details).

The Sunday following the lethal attack on Benghazi, Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday morning news talk shows and blamed the Benghazi attack on the anti-Islamic YouTube video. A few days later, then Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) assured the Faithful that the attack was due to a video the United States "had nothing to do with." Around the same time, President Obama likewise condemned the video.

All this after the Administration was well aware Benghazi was a coordinated terrorist attack.

When the news first leaked out that the September 11 attack on Benghazi (funny that the date did not ring anybody's bell) was definitely terrorism and not Mr. Bacile's video, the Obama Administration clammed up, claiming Benghazi was under investigation. Six months later, Press Secretary Jay Carney refused to answer questions on Benghazi because "it happened a long time ago."

And now that the fit has hit the Shan as the old joke goes guess who's fault it is! The Republicans for continuing to pursue it. Never mind the ear splitting shrieks of the Whistle blowers. Get over it. Mistakes were made, but nobody made them. So let's move on. The election is over and the President's meme carried the day: Osama bin Laden is dead and GM is alive. Never mind that an Al Qaeda affiliate attacked an embassy which is considered American soil, murdered four Americans and got away clean and GM just contracted to build cars in China. Mitt Romney was effectively silenced (with the help of CNN's Candy Crowley), the Republicans defeated and President Obama has four more years to implement his policies.

What Benghazi proves more than that terrorism continues is that with the proper media support and backing, a presidential election can be influenced by withholding information and curtailing dudgeon until the votes have been tallied. Then, when all is safe, and the chosen candidate is elected, the media can allow the facts to see the light of day.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

*On 9/27/12, US Federal authorities arrested Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (Sam Bacile) for allegedly violating terms of his probation, including making false statements regarding his role in the film and his use of an alias. On November 7, 2012, he pled guilty to four of the charges and was sentenced to one year in prison and four years of supervised release. Wednesday, May 15, 2013

OBAMA'S CLOSEST "ADVISORS" ??

By Chuck MacNab

We would not be at all surprised to find out, eventually, that the failure to take action to save the lives of Americans in Benghazi was handed out by his close "everything" advisors, Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama!

Our observations of these two "advisors" over the years lead us to suspect that they might have been more interested in protecting the political aspects of Obama's re-election campaign than they would have been in advising about timely, informed and ethical decision making relating to Americans in danger overseas. They also have 24-7 access to the President!

The House hearings have revealed that nobody knew where Obama was, or who was giving him advice, if any was given, during a critical period when decisions should have been made regarding the Benghazi attack. Perhaps his political "advisors" had Jimmy Carter's election and the 1979 Teheran Embassy  hostage situation in mind and decided that the best thing he could do would be to "disappear."

Of course, nobody will be able to prove a speculation but, given the circumstances and previous press reports concerning who gives advice to the President in critical areas we believe it is appropriate to mention what we think could be likely!

President Obama would be well advised to STOP listening to these two ladies on ANY matter relating to decisions he makes. (Or fails to make!) That is, if he wants to stop making mistakes... some that are critical!