July 16, 2019

Woman charged in Oregon standoff seeks $666bn from government

Shawna Cox, a key figure in the Oregon militia standoff who is accused of conspiring against the government, says she “suffered damages from the works of the devil” and wants federal officials to award her $666bn.

Cox, a 59-year-old Kanab, Utah woman facing federal charges for her role in the armed occupation of a wildlife refuge, has filed a “counter criminal complaint” against “federal employees” seeking “six hundred sixty six billion, six hundred sixty six million, six hundred sixty six thousand, six hundred sixty six dollars and sixty six cents”.

Source: Woman charged in Oregon standoff seeks $666bn from government | US news | The Guardian

Share

When the People Fear Their Government, There is Tyranny. When the Government Fears the People, There is Liberty… 

Lunny documented how the NPS repeatedly misrepresented the scientific record to depict the farm as environmentally harmful.  These concerns were later vindicated by the Department of the Interior Inspector General, which found the NPS “misrepresented research.”  Further, a review of the NPS’s activities by theNational Academy of Sciences found that one report “gave an interpretation of the science that exaggerated the negative and overlooked the beneficial effects of the oyster culture operation,” adding that the Service’s conduct “cast doubt on the agency’s credibility and motivation.”

Despite these developments, on December 31, 2014, the National Park Service forced the iconic eighty-year-old oyster farm to shut down.

“Let me be clear, we did not fail as a business. This was not bad luck. Rather, the Park Service engaged in a taxpayer-funded enterprise of corruption to run our small business out of Point Reyes. Our family experienced the worst of what a motivated federal agency can do to a small business,” Lunny testified. “From the beginning of our stewardship of the farm, false science has been used as the primary tool to divide our community, intimidate government officials, and ostracize our family. Our family run oyster farm became ground zero for scientific misconduct in the United States.” 

Source: When the People Fear Their Government, There is Tyranny. When the Government Fears the People, There is Liberty… – House Committee on Natural Resources

Share

Government May Soon Direct What Private-Sector Employees May Say in the Workplace

Employee’s Demotion for Comparing Media and Political Reaction to Trayvon Martin’s Death to Lack of Response Over Shooting of a White Baby Upheld

Decision Highlights Troubling Aspects of Potential Government Overreach in “Hostile Work Environment” Law

Washington DC – In response to a recently-announced North Carolina administrative decision upholding an employee’s demotion for comments about race, and in light of the calls for increased racial dialogue following Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri, the National Center’s in-house legal scholar is warning American workers that local and federal government leaders may soon restrict racial and political speech even in private work places.

“In the wake of Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri, political leaders and pundits are calling for Americans to engage in frank discussions about racial issues. It is a common theme following such events, but one that is fraught with peril for American workers,” warns National Center General Counsel Justin Danhof, Esq. “Just as President Barack Obama called for a national discussion about race following Trayvon Martin’s death, pundits of all stripes are clamoring for kitchen table and water cooler talks following the death of Michael Brown and subsequent riots in Ferguson, Missouri. This is potentially dangerous advice.”

Any earnest discussion about race – specifically in the workplace – could very quickly lead to claims of a racially hostile work environment. Those claims can lead to demotion or termination for those participating in such conversations. A case that was recently decided by the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings highlights the problem.

The facts of the case are straightforward. In brief, an employee – who was a government worker in a supervisory role – used a break in a meeting to read aloud from a Facebook post. Written from the imagined perspective of an actual 13-month-old white baby boy who was murdered in Georgia, the post lamented the decided lack of political and media attention to his death at that time as opposed to the constant attention surrounding Trayvon Martin’s death at the same general time. The post attributed much of this discrepancy to race – the baby being white and Trayvon being black.

The employee was demoted for her actions, and the recent North Carolina case upheld that decision.

“I do not have qualms with the specific outcome of the case since the employee appears to have broken clear office rules regarding cell phone and Facebook use. The problem is that the arbiter went too far in ruling that the employee’s action contributed to a hostile work environment,” said Danhof. “This has implications beyond this one government employee and could negatively impact many private sector employees as well. Many hostile work environment laws are inherently vague and therefore give the arbiter extreme latitude in deciding these cases. This is an issue that transcends race, and the way it can stifle free speech and put employees at risk for something even the President encourages shows why something must be done to reform this problem in the workplace.”

Cases such as this could very well lead to instances of government restricting speech based on content and viewpoint – where speech deemed hostile to blacks is punished and speech that is hostile to whites it not – even when such speech is on private property.

“By declaring that the employee’s speech was ‘racially and politically provocative,’ the precedent set by the hearing officer could make these types of statements actionable in a private work setting – even if the employer would not restrict such speech,” said Danhof. “That is big brother on steroids.”

“Do you think affirmative action discriminates against white and Asian students, and that some black and Hispanic beneficiaries of the program are undeserving? You better not say so out loud. Do you support ballot integrity measures such as voter identification laws? You better not talk about it, lest you be judged as hostile to blacks,” warns Danhof. “Law and justice are increasingly color-centric, not color blind. Americans who want to have earnest discussions about these and other important issues at work, do so at their own peril. ”

To read more of Danhof’s legal analysis and commentary on this issue, go here.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Overreaching Federal Government Makes Strong Men Weak

*Editor’s Note* – I read yesterday a reader’s comment that said, “that the government is your servant and not you its servant.” Perhaps it is time for more and more of us to shed the fear of government and force government to serve us. We were warned for generations that we should NEVER fear the government and that when that time comes, we are doomed.

“I saw tears in the eyes of ranchers. These were tough men; men who could scrape a good living out of the rock and tumbleweeds in the harsh imgresNew Mexico deserts. But when asked about passing on the ranch to their children, a ranch that may have been in the family for generations, eyes grew moist, jaws quivered, and grown men became so choked up they couldn’t speak.

Carolyn Nelson, who teaches kindergarten through third grade in a one-room school house in Catron County, New Mexico, while her husband handles their ranch, held the camera crew spellbound as she told her story. She stated: “The federal government has taken away jobs; they’ve taken away hope. Shame on them.””<<<Read More>>>

Share

CEOs Wary of Speaking Truth About Government, Group Says

Bristol-Myers Squibb CEO Ducks Question About Political Meddling in Drug Pricing at Annual Shareholder Meeting

CEOs are Hesitant to Speak Out On Political Matters Affecting their Industries, Says Health Policy Analyst Dr. David Hogberg

Who Wants to Risk an IRS Audit or Worse?

Plainsboro, NJ /Washington DC – Asked at his company’s annual shareholder meeting whether the federal government is sufficiently fostering an environment for drug innovation, Bristol-Myers Squibb CEO Lamberto Andreotti largely ducked the question.

Andretti was responding to a question from David Hogberg, Ph.D. of the National Center for Public Policy Research, who asked, in part:

In March, Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), the ranking member on the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote a letter to Gilead Science’s CEO and demanded a justification of the company’s pricing, among other inquiries….

And according to an article in Life Science Leader, Express Scripts “urged its insurance and employer clients to join a coalition to stop prescribing Sovaldi, a breakthrough for Hepatitis C, once competitor products hit the market,” unless Gilead drops its price….

… considering that President Obama backed a dual-eligibles rebate plan in his 2013 State of the Union Address and now a ranking member of Congress is openly attacking a lifesaving drug over its pricing, do you think enough is being done in Washington, D.C. to foster an environment for drug innovation here in the United States? What more would you like to see done?

Andreotti replied:

Thank you. I will say we are not [going to] comment on a product or a product of another company or what [that] price says about that company or that product. As far as we are concerned, we are very convinced that we are pricing our medicines in a very fair way, based on a number of factors that include the value it delivers to patients and use society, and in scientific innovation that is included in this. We’re investing big money and risk in the development of our innovative pharmaceuticals and we believe that pricing should give you, the owners of our company, a return on those investments.

But at the same time, we also are very aware of the very big benefits we are delivering for patients and communities through improvements in treating diseases. So, we need as a company, as an industry, to continue to speak about this very openly and more. There will be always, based on the price, conflict between us and the payers; us and the decision-makers. I think that when we can have the opportunity of explaining our case, explaining what we are delivering, we can have our counterparts reach an understanding.

So, we will continue to work at: 1) developing our innovation, 2) pricing that innovation fairly, and 3) making our different counterparts in this country and elsewhere, aware of the value we are delivering and we will continue the dialogue.

“Andreotti’s answer was very telling in that it avoided all mention of politicians meddling in the pricing of pharmaceuticals,” said Hogberg. “It reflects poorly on the current environment that President Obama and others in Washington have created that CEOs are hesitant to speak out on political matters affecting their industry. Which CEO wants to risk an IRS audit or worse by pushing back against their Washington overlords?”

An audio recording of the exchange is available online here, and David Hogberg’s full question, as prepared for delivery, is available here.

David Hogberg is one of the nation’s leading health care policy analysts, and a frequent media commentator on health care issues. So far in 2014, he has been a TV or radio guest 85 times, and been cited by newspapers over 100 times. Various publications by Dr. Hogberg are available here, and his March 11 testimony at the U.S. Senate on the problems with government-run health care systems can be viewed here.

David Hogberg appeared at the Humana meeting representing National Center Chairman Amy Ridenour, a Humana shareholder.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is a leading free-market corporate activist group. In 2013, Free Enterprise Project representatives attended 33 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, media bias, gun rights and many other important public policy issues. The National Center has attended 24 shareholder meetings so far in 2014.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

I Ain’t Likin’ What I’m Seein’

GunsandGovernment

Share