June 6, 2023

Parkland, Florida: There May Be Devil in the Detail

Because we live in a Post Normal world, a person is now guilty until proven innocent and proving such is next to impossible when you consider all high-profile cases are tried in the Media.

As part of the fallout of the shooting in Parkland, Florida, the Media and even the president of the United States, blamed the event on the FBI and law enforcement in general because they did nothing to prevent this tragedy long before it happened…or did they?

What if law enforcement knew all this stuff about this person everyone calls “Cruz?” What if they knew it all and was helpless to do anything about it? What if local laws and school policy prohibited law enforcement from doing anything in order to make crime rates look lower than they really were?

This article might shed some light on that.


Blind Subservience to mAN-gODS’ Law Enforcement

In a letter to the editor in the Kennebec Journal/Morning Sentinel, a writer states: “Equally disturbing was the total lack of regard for Maine law by the investigation’s subjects. Illegal drug use, drinking and driving, drinking and hunting, driving with a loaded gun in addition to night hunting are not only illegal but dangerous behavior.”

This writer couldn’t agree more. However, to fully demonize and cast judgement on the “subjects” for breaking the laws of the State of Maine, while allowing a different standard for any law enforcement agency is not in the best interest of anyone and carries with it the same reasoning that such behavior by law enforcement, “are not only illegal but a dangerous behavior.” If Maine law allows law enforcement to break laws, it needs to be changed. If not, then how can one claim this behavior is “dangerous” for some but not for others. That’s known as a double standard. There can not exist double standards between the people and the government. Have we not been witness to the historic results?

If for no other reason, law enforcement, if it intends for the citizen-slaves to abide by state’s laws, should set the example and follow the same laws. Why are they any different from you and I?

As a parent, I always had the discussion with my wife, that if we intended our children to grow up with proper morals and behavior, then we must set the example for them. Where there is no leadership, the people perish.

Granting blind deference to any government and/or its agents, believing this is somehow in the best interest of our future as free men, is the exemplification of brainwashing and propagandizing.

If the Maine Courts are ruling according to the written law, they have told us that the actions of undercover agents have been legal. That does not make them right. I, for one, would like to see those rules and regulations changed.


Maine’s Warden Service Undercover Tactics Raise Questions

*Scroll Down to bottom of page for updates and information*

I really haven’t wanted to touch this story with a ten-foot pole…for obvious and not so obvious reasons. However, it is time to weigh in with questions, of which there seems to be few, if any, answers.

Of late, the uproar was reignited when Portland Press Herald investigative reporter, Colin Woodard, filed his report in the Sunday newspaper about a sting operation in the small, northern Maine town of Allagash, that took two years of undercover work by a Maine Warden Service agent and yielded basically nothing.

I will not offer comment about the details of the operation because there is little known about what actually took place, including all the ins and outs, approvals by whom, etc. I can comment on what can be found in writing.

We don’t know how much the entire operation cost – the commissioner would not give that information – that netted charges for illegally attaching a tag to a deer, poaching of a single partridge, and drinking alcohol, but common sense should tell us the decision to undertake an investigation of this sort was a bad one – or at least to continue the sting for two years.

Also at issue are the “policies” that govern the actions of undercover wardens in cases like this. The Press Herald provides a copy of these policies that date back to 2005. Upon request for the latest version, according to Woodard, what he got was a redacted copy. People want to know why? What’s to hide?

It appears as though a lot of people are angry and left with a lot of unanswered questions about this sting operation and that the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), which oversees the Maine Warden Service (MWS), isn’t answering any questions.

It is my understanding that when a decision is being made about whether to implement an undercover program, the determining factor is that the target must have a “predisposition” to poach game, i.e. break the law. Of course, such a prerequisite is, perhaps deliberately, left undefined and value laden from the perspective of the one who ultimately makes the decision.

Upon examination of the investigative reporting linked to above, Woodard gives readers an example of the request given to undertake an undercover investigation. For an agent to request an undercover operation they obviously have a hankering to do so and thus, as can be seen in the request, it becomes a sales pitch which should leave one to question how much such a request ought to be watered down…or maybe not.

The warden at the center of the covert action has a track record of trouble in other sting operations. In a separate report by the Press Herald, the same warden embedded himself to “sting” a registered Maine guide. According to the Press Herald report, “he enticed other individuals to commit wildlife crimes.” The Court, in finding the target not guilty, said the undercover warden, “created numerous instances of crime … participated in the criminal activity, and debased the integrity of Maine law enforcement in the process.” (Note: If the agent was allowed to carry out behavior of readily breaking laws and “enticing” others to do it with him for 10 years, one has to wonder to what degree, if any, he would be responsible for his actions in this latest sting.)

Perhaps the first question that needs to be answered is, to what level does a “predisposition to commit crime” need to rise that makes a target worthy of the time and money and the potential for criminal yield?

Another question might be, in fielding the request for an undercover sting, are the previous actions and results in court, considered by the person or persons making the decision to undertake a sting?

A third question should be, was the undercover operation being reported and updated on a regular basis to the powers in charge. If not, it should have been. If so, why wasn’t the sting called off once it became clear that return on investment was going to be poor. Is this a series of bad decision-making or a case of getting away with it in the past, so what that heck?

Question four, did it really require 30 game wardens, backed up by Maine State Police, to arrest one man and confiscate a 91-year-old-woman’s canned vegetables and moose meat, in a tiny town with only one road in and the same road out?

We now are hearing that state senator Paul Davis, who sits on the Joint Standing Committee of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, wants a meeting with the MDIFW commissioner to get answers. As was reported in this article, MDIFW is working on a statement about this incident. More than likely it will involve at least one, if not more, smooth-talking lawyers in order to cover up what needs to be covered up.

All of this should bring common sense citizens, at least those with some sort of moral compass and not blindly in love with law enforcement, thinking they can do no wrong, to question the need for law enforcement to break the laws they are sworn to uphold in hopes of creating or catching a “criminal.” If a person breaks the law, the person breaks the law. Arrest them for that act. One even has to question the need to allow law breaking for several years, sometimes resulting in more game poached than is legally taken, for the purpose of catching more people and making more charges. Is it really in the best interest of everyone to bait and trap people, the most of whom are easily influenced and under the right circumstances could be talked into anything? This is one of the troubles that result when undercover agents are allowed to go outside the law to make somebody else break the law so they can be arrested. When you consider that some agents provide alcohol to a sting target. Is this so their judgement becomes impaired and can more easily be influenced to break the law?

Illegal undercover operations are nothing new. I read about these kinds of fish and game undercover stings all across the country. Just about all of them that involve agents breaking the law to trap a “lawbreaker” end up being tossed out of court, i.e. a whole lot of time and money, all the resources that could be used for more productive things, down the tubes.

It appears to me, that in this case, whether it was the process or the decision making, or a combination of both, things were allowed to get beyond sense and sensibility and the result appears to speak for itself. Outcomes, such as the one at hand, do nothing for the image of the law enforcement and certainly destroys any level of trust and support that is often times needed to uphold the law. Is this not a pretty backward approach? Law enforcement needs to do their job but they can’t have the power to break the laws the rest of us are required to abide by, in order to find a criminal. It shouldn’t have to be this way. This is law enforcement out of control.

As far as the television crew from Animal Planet’s, North Woods Law, being on hand to film the mini, military invasion of Allagash, Maine, I’ll not even attempt to address that issue. Some think their presence embellished the entire bust. Readers will have to decide.

PPH has provided a chain of emails concerning its request for email from the MDIFW. This is incredible to say the least!



Governor LePage Signs Bill to Increase Wages for Game Wardens

Press Release from the State of Maine:

AUGUSTA – Governor Paul R. LePage today signed a bill into law bringing Maine law enforcement wages in the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and Department of Marine Resources more in line with other New England states.

LD 1653, “An Act Implementing Pay Increases for Certain Law Enforcement Employees to Aid in Recruitment and Retention,” sponsored by Republican House Leader, Kenneth Fredette (R-Newport), provides for the upward adjustment of salary schedules in fiscal year 2015-16 by 12 percent to 18 percent for certain law enforcement positions in the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and Department of Marine Resources.

“Law enforcement officers across Maine put their lives on the line every day to protect the Maine people, and the value of their public service ought to be reflected in a decent salary,” said Governor LePage. “To make the job even more difficult, wages throughout state law enforcement positions are not comparable to local law enforcement agencies or other departments in New England.”

Recruitment in law enforcement positions within State government remains a challenge. For example, the Department of Public Safety has a total of 324 Maine State Police positions with 32 now vacant. An additional 25 members of the Maine State Police are eligible for retirement this year.

According to the Department of Public Safety, there has been a dramatic decrease in applicants for the State Police and only 11 successful applicants in 2015. Troopers in other New England states average $6 to $14 more per hour compared to Maine. The State is also competing with local police agencies that pay higher salaries than the Maine State Police.

Maine’s commercial fisheries and hunting and fishing are highly dependent on the work carried out by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Department of Marine Resources, and the bill adjusts wage parity issues accordingly for law enforcement positions within these agencies, as well.


When THE LAW is the Problem

LawProvided by James Beers:

Yesterday I wrote TWO QUESTIONS, an article that appears [on this website]. An astute and well-informed reader in Europe wrote me the following response to that article:

By American law ..

I : = B
2 : = B

In other words, pups born as the result of the mating of a wolf and a dog are legally unprotected dogs and not protected wolves. This is true. Additionally, anyone that shoots, traps, injures, harasses such a DOG is not bound by any law concerning wolves but only those state and local Laws and Ordinances concerned with DOGS. This is also true.

However, I submit that today neither of these things are really true.

We throw around these reputedly “scientific”-based terms like wolf, dog and coyote like they are elephants, lemurs and kangaroos. While these latter THREE Species don’t look alike or eat the same things, they are absolutely, inexorably and basically different because THEY CANNOT MATE AND PRODUCE VIABLE (fully capable of and able to reproduce their own kind) OFFSPRING. Once upon a time for centuries and until very recently this capability to produce viable offspring was the defining characteristic determining, what was a distinct group of animals we defined as a Species. That is why mules (the offspring of a horse and a donkey that are not capable of producing viable offspring) are NOT a species, for instance. This definition of Species, while biological, has served us all well for centuries in myriad ways as we domesticated animals and managed wild animals for the benefit and protection of our families, communities and societies.

Enter the wolf and federal wolf laws and regulations.

In the late 1960’s, in the midst of great social chaos in the United States federal jurisdiction and authority over wild animals took major authorities from state governments under the auspices of “saving” endangered Species. This new federal authority steadily grew into previously unimaginable federal power to take and control private property; destroy formerly viable businesses; close public lands to any use or management or renewable natural resources; stop construction projects like dams and irrigation districts; eradicate valuable game animal herds; destroy local economies and communities; and even destroy the lives, families and livelihoods of rural men and women protecting their property and families from radically destructive government actions.

Early-on federal seizure and protection of remnant wolves as an endangered “Species” in Minnesota and subsequent releases of wolves in the Upper Rocky Mountains in a National Park and on an Indian Reservation (two locations that share the unique distinction of always having been outside and beyond state or surrounding local jurisdictions and their authority). Long story short, absent the federal “Endangered” Species Act, absent the absolute central government power it spawned largely due to federal bureaucrats writing and amending federal regulations to serve their own purposes plus the inattention of the public and state governments busy “Hoovering”- up (i.e. vacuuming or sucking-up) federal dollars with “strings” – were it not for all this – there would only be a remnant wolf population (and moose to hunt once again) in Minnesota and other than a few straggling wolves along the western Canadian/US border NO WOLVES IN THE LOWER 48 STATES today.

But, what is a wolf? Wolves breed with and produce viable offspring with all dogs, all coyotes PRODUCING VIABLE OFFSPRING. The genes of these three animals are in reality a stew of all manner of interbreeding from numerous wild encounters that have gone on for eons to the intentional crossbreeding by men to obtain more fearsome animals or animals with more stamina to do work like pulling sleds or any of a countless number of other human intentions lost in the mists of time.

Thus we in the Lower 48 States find ourselves fighting for our lives, families and livelihoods against a hostile (against humans) government with the outcome often hinging on points like:

– Was that a wolf you killed?

– Was it a wolf that killed your sheep?

– Is that a wolf hanging out where your kids play or catch the bus?

– Was that a wolf you were shooting at?

– Is that a wolf den with a wolf bitch and wolf pups “out back” of the pasture?

– What is your expertise to say it was not a wolf?

– You should have exercised due caution.

– Do you just shoot at anything?

– How could you have placed a snare like that where wolves were present?

– How do YOU tell a wolf from a German Shepherd or a large coyote?

– On what do you base YOUR expertise?

Ah, but you say “we have DNA Analysis” to identify wolves. HMMM, who sets the “Wolf” DNA Standard: The “Dog” DNA Standard: the “Coyote” DNA Standard? Is it the same “scientists” either employed by or funded in large measure by the federal government? “’It’ is a dog when ‘it’ has 30% of this and a coyote when it has 62% or more of that and a wolf when we say so”! Really?

DNA Analysis is perfectly suited for individual identification as shown daily by criminal investigators. But there is a great difference between tying someone’s DNA to the DNA found at a crime scene and the ARBITRARY standard that there is a genetic line and on one side we will call them wolves and on the other a dog and on yet another it is a coyote. Those are value judgments made by bureaucrats and the “scientists” they employ AFTER the fact of all these disputes arising from the forced introduction and protection of wolves. When such determinations determine prosecutions and great harm to citizens they are reminiscent of 19th century phrenologists describing the “criminal type”, or acolytes of Margaret Sanger describing the mentally-deficient that should be killed, or 1930’s racial “experts” describing those with Jewish “blood”.

None of that DNA specificity about wolves (in all their, like dogs, endless VARIETIES) is published in any regulation. That they can and do often look alike is undeniable. It is as if citizens were told that some deer had a gene resistant to Chronic Wasting Disease and they are totally protected but all the other deer, without the gene, should be killed to save the deer from the disease. The fact that they all looked alike and could only be identified after being killed was the shooter’s problem and if a warden found you with a deer THAT HAD THE GENE; you would be prosecuted, fined, imprisoned and have much of your property seized by the government. Distinguishing such deer is no different than relying on arbitrary government DNA Standards to identify real wolves! Such use of DNA findings is in fact (I speak here as an old state and federal law enforcement officer) DISCRETIONARY.

Forget that you thought it was a coyote or that you were sure it was a large dog that killed your dog or livestock. If I was the state or federal enforcer you wound up with and I was interested in:

– Ingratiating myself with environmental/animal rights zealots running my agency.

– Making an example of you to put the fear of (Gaia?) in others.

– Helping to rid the area of hunters, grazers, loggers, etc.

– Making a name for myself with a prosecution that engenders lots of publicity.

– Simply interested in proving how tough I am to both the public and coworkers.

– Getting even with you for some reason.

– Impressing everyone with how important these nutty laws are.

– Needing a complex investigation to justify overtime or Premium Pay.

– Forging a case with “Precedence Value” to immortalize myself.

– Etcetera.

I could be your worst nightmare.

Look no further than the recent “raid” on the cattle operation of Mr. Bundy in Nevada by such government enforcers, without a court order, that resulted in the shooting of valuable livestock and confrontations with citizens fomented by enforcers armed to the teeth ostensibly protecting a tortoise that nearby government-funded solar panel farms are harming far worse than any cattle. Those enforcers are “doing their job”, being rewarded for a “good job” and are planning their next moves to further oppress citizens as I write. (“Next time we will first use bean bags by the camera and then loudspeakers and then we rush them if they don’t disperse and then…!”)

Wolves, dogs and coyotes that appear for all intents and purposes as the same animal are either: A.) Wolves completely protected at all times, B.) Coyotes that are unprotected and may be killed at any time, or C.) Dogs that are either 1.) someone’s private property and thus covered by property laws and the owners ire, or 2.) free-roaming dogs covered or not by local ordinances and/or state laws. Just as the cattle shooters are apparently unrestrained as they go about their “duties”; so too are the enforcers arresting and prosecuting citizens that kill or bother wolves that may or may not look to every American just like a large coyote or dog.

Utilizing the discretion inherent in this genetic mishmash, I would seize the animal in question or describe it if it got away as a wolf. As I built the case, I would document your background, interview people that had dealt with you like environmentalists and anti-gun folks and game wardens and other enforcers. I would copy and enter as evidence everything you ever said or wrote about wolves or government benevolence. Only if the DNA Analysis was absolute (there is no such wolf or dog or coyote) would I stop if I wanted to go forward. I would document how you thought “it looked like” a large/small, light/dark canid (i.e. wolf/dog/coyote?). How you didn’t know about how tails and ears indicate one animal or the other. I would document how you mistakenly guessed the weight of the animal or how you misread the tracks around your dead dog and how you didn’t know the official government distances distinguishing the tracks of a wolf and the tracks of a coyote. I would catch all the times you said things like “that looked like” something you “should have” or “shouldn’t have” done .I will have a field day because the laws and regulations give the government all the aces and the citizens all the deuces.

In addition to watching ambulance chasers descending on you like vampires when the sun goes down, I would “shop” for the “professor” or DNA “Analyst” (just like litigious modern environmental Americans “shop” for Washington DC or 9th Circuit judges and courts to get judges that prefer them) to get DNA “Results” that will send you like Diogenes in search of “your own” “Analyst” or “Professor” that the court and jury will look down on as inferior to the august government “expert witness”. The public will admire me and begin to look on you as they do that guy that owns (owned?) the Los Angeles Clippers with the “girlfriend” about the age of his grandkids. Whether I win or lose: you lose and I win! Why? Because, it is all based on a bad (un-Constitutional and oppressive) law with all manner of hidden agendas and loopholes put there over time by self-serving bureaucrats that keep harmful federal and state politicians in power with illusions about animals.

So is “B.” the right answer to both questions?

1.) Is the wolf bitch birthing pups from eggs fertilized by a German Shepherd, a coyote and a Yellow Lab (yes litters can have more than one Papa) giving birth to wolves or dogs? Despite what a lawyer or bureaucrat tells you about how DNA “proves” and the Endangered Species Act says they are unprotected dogs: believe them at your own risk. Those offspring are what a court and a judge says they are. Go no further than the next generation when the half-Lab is subsequently bred by a wolf and the Lab genes join the genes of ancient semi-wild dogs from Indian Villages, peasant cottages in Medieval France and caves in prehistoric Europe and Asia in the genetic soup of the “wolf” critter you are charged with “taking”.

2.) Is the person that kills or harasses such offspring of a wolf/dog cross a felon or a hero? See #1. If the pup grows up looking just like his mother’s brother in the Little Red Riding Hood story, I would not hold out a hope or expectation of some benevolent enforcer or government bureaucracy with a scintilla of concern about your welfare if you are caught in a web of prosecution wherein the outcome revolves on what a jury thinks about the charges against you in light of claims about what the DNA “proves.”

I must admit I think the answer to both questions is “it depends.”

Like tyrannies down through the ages, our fate once more has come to “depend” on bad laws that exist only to mask the way the whims of the powerful are imposed on the rest of us day in and day out; in all we must do and all we cannot do.


Infiltration of Radical Islam Into U.S. Law Enforcement and Defense

Incredible whistle blower video reveals the depth in which radical Islam, i.e. Muslim Brotherhood, has infiltrated our law enforcement agencies, including FBI, Department of Defense, college campuses and virtually every aspect of American life.

Part II


Day 85 – No Executive Orders


After 85 days of a false promise to provide 23 executive orders for gun control by Barack Obama and still nothing is published on the White House website. Do these orders really exist and are being hidden from the public? Or was it all just a dog and pony show? Why doesn’t the media or members of Congress call into question this action, and lack thereof, of deceiving the American people while exploiting innocent children for political gain?


Survey Says

Recently when President Barack Obama wasted millions in tax dollars schlepping family members involved in the Sandy Hook school shooting to Connecticut aboard Air Force One, setting the stage and backdrop for what yesterday I described as a “preacher’s tongue-lashing,” as the President, sometimes cacophonous in his derision against those who dare oppose his despotic rule, blared to the public statistics and data about guns, violence and the wants and wishes of the American people. One of his very questionable claims, was when Obama stated that 90% of the American people wanted “universal background checks.”

I’m not exactly sure under which cabbage in the patch the President found that piece of convenient information but like most poll numbers they come from polls designed to get a desired result. While I concur that, ignorantly, many, perhaps even a majority, of Americans want some form of a beefed up background check before being able to purchase a gun, very few want any kind of check of the kind the President is selling. One aspect of his background check proposal is to collect personal information on each person getting a background check and saving that information for…..for…..well, you fill in the blank.

While it’s easy for the President, or any of the lying Troglodytes in Congress, to throw out statistics, as if they mean something, is President Obama’s claim that the majority of Americans want his kind of gun control?

It may not be a representation of the American public, but PoliceOne.com recently polled 15,000 law enforcement official, both active and retired, to get their “attitudes” on guns, Second Amendment, gun control, what, if any, kind of “control” makes us all safer, and whether or not the recent cries for banning assault weapons will do anybody any good.

If you would like to review the results of this survey and make your own conclusions, visit the PoliceOne website.

For a brief synopsis of the survey, you can find that at USA Carry.com.

Hard Tellin’ Not Knowin’

I mentioned above that one of the biggest hurdles in voting on any kind of “enhanced” universal background checks for gun purchases is whether the governments, or any other agency, can gather and keep personal information. Although current provisions in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) prohibits “that any record or portion thereof generated by the system established under this section be recorded at or transferred….” and “use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions,” I have little confidence that this administration and previous administrations are rightfully adhering to this law or that some other executive order or omnibus bill somewhere didn’t provide for exceptions to the rule.

Regardless, today the Senate is scheduled to take up gun rights and with anything coming out of Washington, there is no reason to believe it will be honest and forthright. On the contrary. These ruthless liars always know how to create fuzzy language in order to provide loopholes for their personal agendas and to take care of those who took care of them by giving them millions of dollars during campaign terms. This of course is known as corruption and it runs very deep. (And we wonder why Congress has a 9% approval rating.)

David Addington, of the Foundry, writes that Sen. Harry Reid’s anti gun rights bill provides this very kind of language that will NOT guarantee that information used for background checks won’t be used later on as a means of gun registration. Is this the kind of universal background checks those sketchy 90% of Americans the President brags about, are eager to have?

Obama Executive Order #666?

David Hathaway warns at Lew Rockwell.com that although the talk and promises made by our “friends”, the cops and G.I. Joe, when push comes to shove, will they actually not enforce any gun confiscation laws?

Hathaway fictitiously shows how any orders to take away your guns WILL NOT HAPPEN:

Obama Executive Order 666:

All federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and all active duty military personnel are hereby ordered and required to seize firearms from all persons whose only crime is non-compliance with the firearms transfer provisions contained in the Children’s and Puppies’ Omnibus Health and Safety Act of 2014. Operation Patriot Crush will commence at midnight on June 1, 2014. All will be required to participate from that date forward and to actively engage in door-to-door gun seizure operations against fellow Americans. Constitutional objections by officers will not be recognized and are hereby deemed meritless.

For a reality check in how it might actually happen, this is a pretty good read.


Day 27 – No Executive Orders


The silence on the whereabouts of these fabricated 23 executive orders of President Obama tells us a lot if we pay attention. I stick with my original assessment that the intent here is to create more anger, distrust and violence; perhaps to even drive people to the streets in violent protest. There are no executive orders, at least at this point, but while we are watching and focusing on other things, watch out for the Great Deceiver will foist his 23 Hitleresque executive orders on the people. And while we wait, still nothing is posted on the White House website.

And while we wait, watch this video below and then you should be asking yourself many questions. The most obvious is whether this person is capable of doing his job?; is he capable of rational discourse?; is he an example of the kind of person we should have heading any police department?; what ignorance exists in a man’s mind that he would attempt to convey to people that guns are not a defensive weapon? Also note that I don’t even think any of the people gathered around him believe a word he is saying and some actually seem embarrassed to be there.

I find this video frighteningly staggering!


Obama Attempting To Abolish Local Sheriff Departments

As is reported at LiveLeak, if it is sincerely the intent of the Obama Administration to get rid of state’s sheriff departments, please use your head for a second and try to imagine why he would want to do that. Is this simply usurping the local law enforcement from the citizens and placing that power in the hands of the Federal Government? And if so, for what reason? Or, does it run much deeper than that?

In one email sent to me this morning, the author wrote: “Disgrace or an Islamo Marxist chess move designed to disarm you with the full force of the central government then commit mass genocide.”

I’m not sure I would concur with the “Islamo Marxist” being the perpetrator of such an action but what was once something in our wildest dreams, has now become a thought, or should be, in the forefronts of our minds. Piece by piece, chunks of our freedoms and control are being chiseled away. Piece by piece big government becomes bigger, with dictatorial powers allocated to the president.

While some may choose to disregard all of this action as nothing more than politics as usual, may I remind you the common denominator in all of this. There exists hundreds of new laws and executive orders that give the reigning president unprecedented powers of control over the people. These powers can be administered in things including full control over all mass media, including radio, television, cell phones, land phones. In addition power to control every aspect of transportation and commerce and even authority to imprison citizens for no reason and without due process.

This is a partial list and the one catalyst needed to place that dictatorial power in the hands of one man, is a national emergency. It’s all there. Everything is in place. The clock ticks.

Again, take a second or two and ask yourself why our president would want to do away with any local law enforcement agency. And while you’re at it, have you considered that there might be more behind the latest effort at gun grab?