A mentor once told me, speaking of the Republican Party, “This isn’t a religion for me. I’m a Republican because it’s the party that I believe is best suited to promote my values and my vision. If it stops being that party, I’ll find another one.” The abandonment of Dede Scozzafava by the conservative voters in her district is that threat put into action. If the Republican Party has moved so far away from its conservative base that it has turned to promoting liberals like Scozzafava over real conservatives, simply because they think they have a better chance of winning an election, then it is time for a change.

One of the fundamental issues that I have with today’s Republican Party is that we allow ourselves to be defined by liberals and the liberal press rather than defining ourselves. As a former county party chairman, I had to live with county and state by-laws that forbade party officials from endorsing candidates in the primaries. It never happened in my county, but the fact that I might have one day been forced to officially support a liberal candidate always festered in the back of my mind.

The problem is that the National Republican Party, together with state and local parties, spend more time, money and effort trying to include everyone in the “big tent” than they do standing by the core conservative values that should be guiding them. I can understand how easy it is to fall into the trap of believing the goal is to elect people with R’s at the end of their names. Obviously, without enough R’s the party loses majority control of government, but this ignores the reality that control by Republicans isn’t the real goal. The real goal is holding our nation true to the conservative principles by which it was created.

Talk Radio personality Andrew Wilkow likes to say, “Individual Patriot first. Conservative second. Republican third.” What he means is that it is our first duty to be individuals who support our country, that we can do that best by living and promoting our conservative principles, and that the Republican Party is the currently the best tool that we have to do it with. If the Republican Party ceases to be the best tool for that job, then we are left with a couple choices. We can throw out the tool and get a new one, or we can refurbish our current tool and make it work how it’s supposed to.

Throwing out the tool would mean abandoning the Republican Party altogether and forming or joining a third party. This is a difficult course to follow, but it isn’t unheard of. There have been several ruling political parties throughout our history including Democrat-Republicans (one party, not the same as todays), Federalists, Whigs, Democrats, Republicans and dozens of smaller parties that exist in smaller numbers around the nation. It might be rare in our national history for a new party to come out of obscurity and take power at the federal level, and it is a difficult proposition, but it’s not impossible.

Refurbishing the current tool is the more likely scenario and would mean bringing the Republican Party back into line with its historical conservative principles. In order to forward those principles, we need to elect conservative Republicans. Not liberal Republicans. Not moderate Republicans. Conservative Republicans. Conservatives must retake control of the Party at all levels — from local precincts, to the statewide parties, to the National Republican Party. To succeed, we will have to make a stand against mediocrity, and so called moderates, and refuse to vote for or fund candidates that don’t truly represent us, regardless of whether or not they registered as Republicans. The first battle we face is to get conservative candidates nominated in the primaries, and only then can we carry those candidates through to victory in the general elections. We have to make our voices be heard loud and clear, and not allow the biased liberal press agencies decide which candidates are going to win our support.

I think that conservatives will benefit most by using third parties to force change in the Republican Party. By selectively abandoning the Republican Party, conservatives can bring about enough pressure on party leaders to force them to rethink which candidates they will endorse and support in the future. By supporting independent and third party candidates that more accurately represent our conservative values and principles, as the people of New York’s 23rd Congressional district have done, we can send the GOP a message about what kind of candidates we will accept. Give us a real conservative candidate to support, and we will. Send us a wishy-washy liberal like Dede Scozzafava? We’re gone. If we do it consistently, each and every time, the Republican Party will figure out that they should only send us candidates that share our values. Anything else will be a waste of our time, their money, and an erosion of their power base.

By regaining control of our party, and only supporting candidates that we want to support, we can define the Republican Party ourselves instead of letting the liberals and the liberal press define it for us. If the Republican Party continues to allow the likes of Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to carry our endorsement, then there is no reason for us to continue to be Republicans. We can throw our support behind a third party like New York’s State Conservative Party, or start a new one. If the Republican Party can retool, however, and show us that they can send us honest-to-goodness, conservative candidates, then we can continue to be part of the Grand Old Party. If we lose a few races in order to cement that position, then so be it. I would rather have a Democrat in office that we can challenge straight up in the next election than a sponge like Arlen Specter who sucks the party coffers dry, while voting with the Democrats anyway, and keeping the party from endorsing a real conservative candidate.

Conservatives are going to regain control of this country’s future and hold our country true to its conservative roots, regardless of the tools we use. The Republican Party just needs to decide whether it’s going to be the best tool for that job, or just a tool.

This is why Americans should be armed. Do you think it is an accident that these guys set up shop in California, where they know that an average person they come across has no chance of being armed and able to mount an adequate defense?

The founders of our country saw the need of a well regulated, and well armed militia who was able to defend themselves and their country against impending threats. If defending yourself against illegal aliens, who are growing illegal drugs, and threatening Americans citizens on public lands, isn’t what they had in mind, then I have know idea.

When I commented on the original site that this was “One more reason to always be armed,” a guy named Joe responded:

“Yeah, your single handgun/rifle is going to be real useful against pot farmers with “five high powered rifles, equipped with rifle scopes and numerous rounds of ammunition” — not to mention greater numbers and a familiarity with the area.

“Good way to get yourself shot, more like.”

Since they moderated my reply (I guess I was too extreme for them) I give the basics of it here. Yes, my “single handgun/rifle is going to be real useful against pot farmers with “five high powered rifles, equipped with rifle scopes and numerous rounds of ammunition.” In fact, that sounds a lot like what I carry in my truck, and my camper.

The fact is that criminals are lazy and unlikely to have adequate training with their weapons. I, on the other hand, took my last Elk on the run at 600 yards and can empty two 13 round magazines into the center of a target at 25 yards in under 12 seconds with my .45 ACP. I’m not braggin, because that doesn’t make me special. Many people I know can do the very same thing.

The point is, if the pot growers would have never confronted the campers had they thought they posed even the remotest threat, which is why they choose to set up shop in places like California, where they know the public has a 99.99% chance of not being armed.

As I’ve said before, being armed is about making the choice yours. If only your attacker has a weapon, he makes all the choices. If your armed, you make your own. That doesn’t even mean that you have to defend yourself. In many situations, caution would dictate that you still comply, and never attack, but even then, as long as you have a .45 tucked neatly into your waistband, the choice is yours.

the adventure life

get outside and play

Marijuana Growers Chase Campers From Natl. Forest

by steve casimiro ? April 20, 2009 ? Post a comment

This week really wasn’t planned to be an all-pot kind of week, it’s just working out that way. (Today’s the stoner new year, right? But if you’re stoned, isn’t every year basically 1976?) Regardless, in Los Padres National Forest, California, two pot farmers scared off some campers in a high-speed dirt road rally that ended with arrests and confiscation of $26 mill in herb. The Santa Barbara County sheriff’s report reads better than I could rewrite, so here it is in its entirety:

New Cuyama – On Friday, 04-17-09, at approximately 11:30 a.m., two adults, who had been camping in the Aliso Park area west of New Cuyama, came across an active marijuana garden. While in the area, the campers were approached by two Hispanic male adult subjects who were tending to the marijuana garden.

The subjects attempted to converse with the campers, however due to a language barrier, they were unsuccessful. The subjects requested that the campers remain in the area, until the arrival of the “boss” who spoke English. The campers became fearful and packed up their gear and left the area. While the campers were driving down the dirt road, they were approached by a pick up truck traveling the opposite direction. As they passed the truck, they noticed the occupants seemed very interested in them. The truck stopped and the driver exited and waived for the campers to come back. They ignored his request and kept driving, believing he was the “boss” that the two subjects had referred to earlier. The driver returned to his truck and began chasing the campers down the mountain. During the chase, the truck came dangerously close to the campers’ vehicle several times.

[Read More...]

In the 25+ years since the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) was signed into law by President Nixon it has been used like a shock collar to keep individual States from wandering too far away from the herd. I’s initial purpose was noble, but in the quarter century since its inception the ESA has been corrupted to such an extent that it is completely unrecognizable as a successful, manageable, or even Constitutional piece of legislation. Instead of allowing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with dozens of environmental groups, to continually erode each States individual sovereignty, the States need to stand up to Washington and challenge their authority to impose this failed policy.

The purpose of the ESA is to protect species that are identified as threatened or endangered and the ecosystems that they depend on. There are some examples of success among the plants and animals listed as threatened or endangered in the United States. The most notable is the American Bald Eagle, whose population of just 417 pairs in 1963 increased to an extraordinary 11,040 pairs when is was delisted in 2007. Another is the Ursus arctos horribilis, also known as the good old Grizzly Bear, whose population in the Yellowstone area more than doubled from a measely 271 bears in 1975 to more than 580 in 2005. He was also delisted in 2007. In fact, there have been 19 success stories in the nearly three decades of protection given by the ESA to 1,891 species of plants and animals around the world. Yes, you read that correctly. There have been only 19 species removed from the endangered species list because their populations have recovered. That is a success rate of about 1%. For all of the taxpayer money that has been spent on 589 distinct recovery plans, and for all of the private property owners and businesses that have been bankrupted in the name of habitat protection and restoration, there have been only 19 success stories to come out of the Endangered Species Act. It is one of the most wildly unsuccessful government programs in history.

Species can be added to the list as threatened or endangered in one of two ways under the ESA. First, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), can directly list species through their candidate assessment programs. The second is by petition. Any individual or organization can petition the USFWS or the NOAA to list a species. Both processes are long, drawn out, and nearly impossible to accomplish. Did I say that there were only two ways? I forgot one didn’t I? The ESA only lists two, but our liberal federal courts have created another, and as a result, the new and preferred way to get a species listed is to file a lawsuit. The federal courts are clogged with lawsuits against the federal government, demanding that they list one species or another.

The listing process, however, is not nearly as long and drawn out as the process of delisting, and so far, only 45 species have ever been delisted. Presently, there are only six reasons that a species can be delisted. The first is extinction. Obviously, once an animal is extinct they don’t need federal protection anymore. Thankfully, only two species are known to have gone extinct while they were listed (7 went extinct before they were listed). The second way is when new populations are discovered that increase known population levels to a number that warrants delisting. That has happened five times. The third is taxonomic reclassification, which has happened ten times (I’m not even going to try to explain what that means, because I have no idea). The fourth is because of a listing rule violation, which has happened once and the fifth is by an act of Congress, which has happened once. The last is as a result of recovery, which has happened only 19 times in the history of the ESA (as we discussed earlier).

I have to admit though, that the number 19 is probably not really indicative of the number of species that have actually recovered. Realistically many more species probably should be delisted, but lawsuits have also become the new preferred way of making sure that no species ever gets taken off the list. It doesn’t matter if the species meets the population goals set by the biologists charged with their recovery, and it doesn’t matter if their habitat size expands to reach the goals set by their recovery plans. Either way, the conservation and the environmental groups that feed off the broken legislation file lawsuit upon lawsuit, blocking the delisting of even species that have recovered beyond even the most liberal benchmarks. The constant meddling by the courts in these matters have made the ESA almost completely unmanageable, and utterly useless as a tool protect endangered wildlife.

Ultimately though, the biggest problem with the Endangered Species Act is that it has no Constitutional foundation. The United States Constitution gives the federal government very specific powers, and nowhere among their number is the power to manage wildlife. The power to raise armies and declare war? Check. The power to mint coins and print money? Check. The power to protect interstate commerce? Check. The power to bankrupt a farmer and take the private land that his family has cultivated for six generations in order to create a viable habitat for the Southeastern Dismal Swamp Shrew and force its host state to spend millions of dollars on politically motivated, non-scientifically contrived, court ordered and unattainable recovery plans? Hold the check! Since the Tenth Amendment guarantees to the States any powers not specifically granted to the federal government, the individual States are Constitutionally empowered to manage their own wildlife without interference from Washington!

The reintroduction of wolves into the greater Yellowstone area by the USFWS, and the subsequent lawsuits that have prevented their delisting in Wyoming but allowing their delisting in Idaho and Montana, on completely political instead of scientific reasons, has presented fertile ground for a challenge by the States of this unsuccessful and unmanageable legislation. This is an opportunity for the individual States to reclaim control of their own jurisdictions, and put the out of control U.S. Congressional and Executive Branches back in their places. The Governors and Legislatures of each State should direct their Attorney Generals to immediately file suit against the federal government and to challenge the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act on the grounds that it violates the Tenth Amendment and infringes on the sovereignty of the individual States. This is a battle that should be taken all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

It’s time to take off the leash that the federal government has put on our States, and retake control of our lands, our wildlife, and our rights. The Endangered Species Act, as it currently exists, needs to be made extinct. Individual States, who are much more qualified to manage their own wildlife populations, must retake the command they once held over their own jurisdictions, kick the Washington bureaucrats out of our forests, our swamps,  our deserts, our rivers and our lakes, and send them scurrying back to D.C. where they belong.

While working the sales counter at one of my stores Tuesday night, I got a surprise, and not the good kind that Santa brings. I was toiling away, ringing up one customer after another, when a guy put a six pack of 7oz Bud Light on the counter. The kid looked young, so I asked him for his I.D. He handed me his Driver’s License and I typed his birthdate into the cash register which promptly buzzed back at me and flashed the message that the kid was underage.

“You’re not old enough!” I said sternly. He smiled and put his hand out to get his license back. “Nope,” I said, and walked over to the phone and started dialing the police.

“We’ll get that back for you,” I heard as I pushed the buttons. I looked from the phone to the person who was standing in line next to the kid, and recognized that he was a police officer I had seen many times before in the store. He was wearing a knit cap pulled down over his forehead, a clever disguise. This was a @#$%& sting. “I’m officer _________ with the police department, we’re doing compliance checks,” he said, grinning, as the kid hurried past him and out the door.

“Uh huh,” I said, as I finished dialing, and listened to the ring tone.

“Really,” he said, pulling out his badge and waving it.

I ignored him as the voice at the other end of the line answered, “Rock Springs Police Department. Can I help you?”

“I was calling to report a minor attempting to purchase alcohol,” I said with a bit of ice in my voice, “but, apparently, they just ran a ‘compliance check’ on me. Thank you, have a good night.” I hung up the phone, walked to the counter, and tossed the kid’s I.D. on to it in front of the officer, saying nothing.

“The good thing is, you have a choice,” he said, still grinning and sure of himself, pulling a couple of restaurant gift cards out of his pocket to show me.

“I don’t want your @(*#&^% coupons. And I don’t appreciate anyone coming in here and asking me to break the law,” I said pretty angrily, starting to raise my voice.

“Well, there’s uh, a lot of people in town that would uh agree with you, but we uh have to do it,” he said, starting to stammer a little bit, and falling back onto the age old excuse that he’s just doing his job.

“I also think your &%(*#$@ program is worthless. It hasn’t done one God Damn thing to reduce the number of minors drinking alcohol!” Now my voice was even louder.

“Well, that’s your opinion,” he said, not as sure of himself, starting to get a little angry, and definitely not grinning anymore.

“Bull$#*!. It’s not a #*$^@&( opinion,” I said, “I’ve seen the statistics, it hasn’t done one $%&^#* thing!” I growled as he quickly turned around and left the store without another word. He didn’t even have me sign his “compliance check” paperwork.

Obviously, the officer did the right thing by leaving before our argument could escalate, and I was probably out of line taking my anger, at being the target of what I believe is entrapment, out on him.

But. then again, maybe I wasn’t.

First of all, I’ve written before how I feel about what I call “stings” and they call “compliance checks”, but this is the first time I’ve ever personally been the target of criminal investigation by anyone, ever, and it flat out pisses me off. I have always had a very good relationship with the members of law enforcement in my community, and have the utmost respect for them. I know most of them by name, including the officer who was in charge of this sting operation, and have always done my best to make their jobs easier when I come into contact with them. Many of them shop in my stores — on duty, when they are filling up their official vehicles with fuel, and off duty, when they are filling up their own.

That’s part of why this program infuriates me so much. Retail clerks and local business owners are sometimes the police department’s best link to the community. We see large numbers of people every day, and we hear things that help the police out with their investigations. It’s not rare for the police to come visit us, asking for information, looking for leads, or hoping to look at our surveillance cameras in order to help out with a case they are working on. Many local crimes have been solved because an officer has sat down in one of my stores and had coffee with my clerks and my customers. Conversation with the public is sometimes law enforcement’s best investigative tool.

This policy, where police officers are assigned to investigate normally law abiding citizens, endangers that previously beneficial relationship. When ordinary people become the target of random criminal investigations, how willing do you think they will be, in the future, to cooperate with the police? Instead of feeling secure every time we see a police officer, should we now be suspicious? Should we be looking over our shoulders, nervously waiting for an undercover police officer, or an undercover informant, to ask us to break the law?

And what’s next? Will they be hanging out in the school yard, asking our kids if they want to buy a little meth? Are they going to wander the halls of the Holiday Inn, asking every patron if they want a buy a fun night with a hooker? Maybe they will be standing outside the pet store, asking each customer if they want to buy an orange-bellied parrot? How far is far enough, and when have the police gone to far?

I’ll tell you. Any time the police, and those working for them, ask ordinary people to break the law, they’ve gone too far. Any time the police make ordinary people the targets of criminal investigations, they are crossing the line and endangering what should be great relationship between law enforcement and the general public. This “compliance check” program has already changed what used to be a friendly relationship between this particular officer and myself. From now on, every time we see each other he will remember me being pissed off and raising my voice at him, and I will remember what it feels like to be treated like a criminal suspect.

The fact is, the police need us, ordinary people, to do their jobs. They need a working relationship with the public in order to keep the public safe. They need our support, and our cooperation.

How willing do you think we will be, though, to cooperate with the police, to help them with their investigations, and to help them make the community safer, when tomorrow… they might be investigating us?

-Wisdom

“To declare that in the administration of criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution.”  -Justice Louis D. Brandeis, (1856-1941) US Supreme Court Justice

-Authors Note: I think any police officer who is asked to take on an assignment where they have to investigate ordinary people should ask themselves, “Did I join the ranks of law enforcement so I could investigate criminals, or make ordinary people into criminals?” Just saying that “it’s my job” isn’t enough. I’ve heard it from beat cops all the way to the chief of police that they don’t have a choice when it comes to whether or not they run these stings, and I don’t buy it. Wilhelm Keitel was just doing what he was told, too. It’s not an excuse. You always have a choice.

When is it okay for a representative of a law enforcement agency to ask an otherwise law abiding citizen to break the law, knowingly or unknowingly, and then charge them with a crime?

Consider this scenario. Officer Bill Blue is fishing today. Working an undercover sting operation, Officer Blue picks Joe Somebody out of the crowd on the street, pulls him to the side and says, “Hey man, I really need 10 bucks. Will you buy this joint off me?” This is the thirteenth person he’s tried this on today after 12 failures, but Officer Blue knows if he casts his lure enough times, someone will bite. This time Joe Somebody does. “Sure man, I’ll buy it,” Joe says as he starts digging in his pocket for $10 bill. A jerk on the pole and this fish is caught. Officer Blue reels him in and he’s charged with the illegal possession of a controlled substance, and the court date is set. Except this time, there’s a problem. The officer initiated the sale, not the “perpetrator”.

Any lawyer worth his salt would throw the word entrapment into the mix and Joe Somebody goes home a free man. Why? Because the prosecution cannot prove that he would have broken the law on his own accord without the officer encouraging him to do so. That is how our system should work. Our law enforcement officials are supposed to investigate people who are already breaking the law, using undercover officers, informants, and forensics to gather enough evidence on them for a conviction. They are not supposed to randomly select members of society and offer them a chance to break the law. That is why you never hear of the police running a sting of this kind to make a drug bust. It is simply the wrong way to get it done. The basis of our freedom relies on our legal system being a reactionary one that punishes criminals who are already criminals, not a proactive one that sifts through the population in lottery fashion tempting Joe Somebody’s with a chance to break the law.

Continue reading