Thanks

Mid-February, 2008.

Stovepipe Wells, Death Valley, California.

We, civilian sheepdogs, often journey to majestic Death Valley to re-cement relationships spanning decades.  This time it was a long weekend riding off-highway dual sport motorcycles. My god, what a weekend!

Our group enjoys a special kinship with military warriors.  Have you ever heard of warriors referred to as sheepdogs?  Well, probably not. Put succinctly, sheepdogs run towards the gunfire and sheep run away from it. Three sequential photos taken in Iraq illuminate the notion.  An American soldier was walking through an Iraqi village when something happens; perhaps it is a bomb explosion or maybe gunshots.  Whatever happened, the soldier continues to stride forward purposefully while the Iraqi crowd flees in pandemonium in the opposite direction.

During the Vietnam War, an American colonel postulated the concept that humans are sheep, sheepdogs and wolves.  Sheep symbolize the majority of humans. Wolves predate upon the sheep, and the sheepdogs, both military and civilian, protect the sheep from the wolves.

My buddy Russ announced that he was packing a 5 foot by 3 foot American flag to display and thereby honor military sheepdogs should an American military jet fly nearby. That fired-up everyone’s enthusiasm.  Russ’ plan was a fine token of appreciation for our military sheepdog brethren. And, the plan was not far-fetched since military jets routinely fly the Panamint Valley skirting the western edge of Death Valley National Park. The valley is part of the military’s Special Use Airspace Complex.

For several days we negotiated dirt/gravel byways occasionally clogged with snow. The roads did their best to topple us if we slowed too much allowing the front wheel to plow and lose steerage. It is as if someone kicked the wheels right out from under you.  One second you’re upright, and the next you are down, or struggling to keep the motorcycle from pitching you head over heels.  Through all of that, we failed to spot a close military jet.

Homeward bound, two pick-up trucks loaded with motorcycles, we headed southbound through the Panamint Valley. The Panamint Mountain Range, home of Ballarat, the former mining town and now virtual ghost town, and Barker Ranch where Charlie Manson once hung out, graces the eastern flank of the valley with Telescope Peak rising to 11,049 feet. Clear, dry and tranquil it was. No wind. No birds flying.  Maybe a lizard hunkered under a bush or skittered about. We were tired and mellow.  Russ drove and I relaxed.

Suddenly, blasting over the mountains and dropping into valley, coming northbound toward us like the birds of prey they are, two Fighting Falcons, fast and low.  Dwight and Tim stopped ahead of us.  Russ stopped.  Bailing out from the shotgun side, I struggled to deploy Russ’ flag. The lead F-16 passed just to our west.  I’m not sure that I got the flag out in time for the lead pilot to see it. But three seconds later, Ol’ Glory was fully displayed for the Wingman.  He came straight up the road directly at us a mere 500 feet over our heads. If you have not had a close-up experience with a low flying military jet, let me tell you this, it is an incredible sight and sound to behold.

Russ and I were still high-fiving when both birds banked to an eastbound and then a southbound heading. Two black specks rocketing down the valley, back the way they came. When the leading jet turned westbound toward our partners, I realized that they were going to come around for another pass. I envision the radio conversation that might have occurred between the pilots.

Wingman to Leader: “Did you see those guys holding up Ol’ Glory?  Let’s go around.”

Leader to Wingman: “Roger. There are two stopped vehicles about a mile apart. I’ll take the first, and you take the second.”

Wingman to Leader: “Roger that.”

Lead jet buzzed Dwight and Tim, climbed out of the valley, and departed away to the southwest. Seconds later, Wingman turned northbound and descended this time to about 100 feet off the deck thundering up the road directly at us. Russ and I, holding Ol’ Glory stretched out between us, were head-on eye-ball to eye-ball with Wingman piloting his fifty foot bird with a thirty-two foot wing span and weighing up to 42,000 pounds.

Wingman’s first fly-by was routine.  But, not this time.  Now, it was personal.  Wingman did not know that we were fellow sheepdogs but he certainly recognized the respect that we accorded to him.  There was a connection between a pilot and two patriots standing steadfast in the desert. My feet were anchored to the ground like I had grown roots. Destiny deemed that I had no other function than to stand there with Ol’ Glory. It was as if we and Wingman were engaged in an intertwining dance, playing integral parts in the same play; a mutual salute. We were one. The tension was intoxicating.

The Fighting Falcon’s maximum speed at sea level is 915 mph.  I don’t know what speed Wingman was doing, but he was cooking. Whooom, he passed over us and immediately pulled a high-g ascent as straight up as an F-16 can do, propelled by the flaming jet engine. A barrel roll and Wingman was gone as fast as he arrived leaving us with the mist and smell of jet fuel and a memory of a lifetime. The tension released and Russ and I went nuts, like a couple of kids. When we regained our composure, it was so quiet.

Saddling up and continuing toward home, the desert and mountains once again paned by giving testament to their endurance, as if frozen in time but not. We drove mostly in silence for quite awhile.  I was absorbed in my thoughts; I suppose that Russ was too.

That is the way it happened when we said, “Thank You.” And, they said, “You are Welcome.”

Uu-ah, Sheepdog!  Hunt the wolf.

Jon’s Freedom Ride 2011

I bought a T-shirt today. It’s a gray shirt with three blue stars inside blue circles on a white backdrop. To the right, streaming out from behind the stars are swooping parallel lines of red and white. Underneath reads, “Jon’s Freedom Ride 2011. The shirt cost me $22, a pittance. The money went to a good cause.

Who’s Jon? That would be Jon Seyster, a 26 year old Simi Valley man with cerebral palsy. He intends to ride a hand propelled tricycle 530 miles from Ground Zero to the Pentagon starting on 9/11/11. Jon is participating in the Ride 2 Recovery’s 9/11 American Challenge ride. Jon is raising money to assist our Wounded Warriors.

I strained to understand Jon as he spoke from his wheel chair. He explained that it is his passion to “give back to our military.” Jon is going to ride side by side with our Wounded Warriors.

Jon said on his website, “I can’t think of a better way to begin my new chapter in life by first giving back to our military. It is because of them that I was able to go to college and be what ever I want to be. Riding side by side with them will be such an honor.”

Who is this severely handicapped man reaching out to his heroes in a real grueling and physical way? He is a man, perhaps better equipped than most of us, to know personally the challenges facing our wounded.

I don’t know a lot about Jon, but I do know this; he’s a man with a huge heart and buckets of courage. We can learn from him.

Perhaps you might be interested in helping Jon by financially assisting to make his dream come true. Go to Jon’s website, Jon’s Freedom Ride http://jonsfreedomride.com/ and sponsor him as a rider at the Ride 2 Recovery site, http://www.ride2recovery.com/sponsor-a-rider

Links in this Blog:
Jon’s Freedom Ride

Ride 2 Recovery

Sponsor a Rider

On the Path to a Police State

When the government formulates laws and regulations targeting a minority, everyone’s liberties are in jeopardy. Here’s the background story.

Suction dredging for gold is a mainstream (pun intended) activity for small mining operations. It is the goal of radical environmentalists to terminate all suction dredging. To that end, suction dredging is currently halted in California pending new regulations following a recently released environmental impact report conducted by the Department of Fish & Game.

The public comment period on the report and proposed regulations ends 5/10/11. Enclosed below is my public comment addressing the proposed regulations, which provide draconian police tools to target law abiding citizens.


5/3/2011

Mr. Mark Stopher
California Department of Fish and Game
601 Locust St.
Redding, CA 96001

Comments Regarding: Suction Dredge Permitting Program
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
California Department of Fish and Game

Dear Mr. Mark Stopher,

When I read California’s newly proposed suction dredge regulations, I immediately began to see red flags. My law enforcement background and sense of justice is sounding a red alert.

Although I’m not a suction dredge miner, I am a miner and these proposed regulations are just plain wrong — and unjust. As a former law enforcement officer, I easily recognize the threats contained in these proposed regulations to suction dredge miners specifically and to the public in general.

The Department of Fish and Game intends to impose on suction dredge miners a class of permit requirements and restrictions that it does not impose on hunters and fishermen. There are four notable areas of unique requirements:

1. a maximum of 4,000 suction permits are to be provided

2. dredging equipment must be itemized, “A list of all suction dredge equipment that will be used under the permit, including nozzle size, constrictor ring size (if needed), engine manufacturer and model number, and horsepower;”

3. a maximum of six dredging locations are allowed per license and a list must be provided with an exact geographical location for each site

4. an approximate date for dredging must be provided for each location

Historically, there has been no limit to the maximum number of suction dredge permits that can be issued. According to DFG, the previous number of annual permits issued is in the area of 3,000 or so.

The current plan to limit the maximum number of permits to 4,000 is unsupported by data indicating the necessity of the requirement. Whether or not it is an intended consequence by the DFG or not, the plan presents the possibility that environmental activists may purchase permits with the expressed purpose of locking out suction dredge miners from exercising their federal statutory rights to mine. Buying up most of the suction dredging permits is far cheaper for the environmental activists than filing lawsuits. The State is, therefore, aiding and abetting a radical environmental agenda.

There are only three dredging equipment specifications in the regulations:
1. the diameter of the suction nozzle;
2. the intake hose diameter;
3. and pump intake screen specifications.

Why is it necessary for the state to force the miner to disclose a list of all unregulated equipment used to include engine manufacturer, model number and horsepower? Changing any of the equipment without the onerous modification of the permit is impermissible and citable. Clearly, the listing of all equipment, for which there are no State permit requirements, is a selective enforcement tool for DFG law enforcement, a polite way to say harassment.

The requirements of location and dates reveal another State agenda, which will impede and make difficult the lawful activity of suction dredging.

The proposed regulations would make it unlawful to dredge anywhere other than the maximum six locations listed on the dredging permit. The limitation to number of dredging locations, without justification of supporting data, clearly limits the opportunities to suction dredge.

Why does the State need to know the whereabouts of suction dredging locations? And, why does the State need to know the “approximate” dates that each location is intended to be dredged? These requirements are clearly designed to assist law enforcement to easily locate a suction dredging operation.

Civil law enforcement operates in two modes, reactive and proactive.

Reactive enforcement is when law enforcement learns of a potential violation of law and responds to address the specific violation by specific violators.

Proactive enforcement is when law enforcement targets a class of suspected violators of law with specific actions. Unlike reactive enforcement, proactive enforcement presumes violations by a class of violator.

These regulations clearly announce that suction dredgers are a specific class of potential law violators that requires that law enforcement be provided the proactive tools to deal with the violators. Therein lays the rationale for the location and approximate date requirements for permitted suction dredging. These regulations provide no data to support a de facto assertion that suction dredgers are a specific classification of law violators justifying the specific proactive targeting of them by law enforcement.

Unintended consequences of the requirements of location and dates are even more ominous. DFG license data is public information and thus discoverable via a public records information request. The data will be extremely beneficial to anyone desiring to locate a dredging operation for purposes of robbery, theft or vandalism. In addition, it tells criminals when the suction dredger’s residence may be vacant and more vulnerable for burglary and/or home invasion robbery.

Characterizing suction dredgers as potential criminals, these regulations provide law enforcement with specific and unique proactive tools to target the miners. By formulating unjustified regulations, the State is deliberately limiting freedoms and creating an environment ripe for the encouragement of law enforcement excesses. Incentivizing police abuse of citizens, whether intended or unintended, is a step forward on the road toward a police state.

Regards,
Paul Coambs

Bare Your Breasts but Don’t Mention Them

Yesterday, I read that high school girls at Baltic, SD, are forbidden to wear “I Love Boobies” bracelets, which are designed to raise the public’s awareness of breast cancer. The bracelets are considered “in poor taste” and perhaps offensive.

It is absurd that anything as innocuous as the message on a bracelet could cause such an uproar. The community of Baltic should be praising its young women, who are actively promoting the awareness of a disease that strikes one in eight of American women.

The picture accompanying the article was of 16 year old Amelia Atkins, who is wearing a “I Love Boobies” bracelet and a Susan G. Komen For the Cure breast cancer shirt saying, “Save the Ta-Tas.” Lord have mercy, she dares to wear the phrase “Ta-Tas” too.

In Clovis, CA, the boobie bracelets have also run afoul of educators. “The school district's dress code outlaws jewelry with sexually suggestive language or images…” So, I guess anything to do with a breast, even mentioning it, is sexual. How about breast feeding? Then again, Clovis is in Central California, don’t you know?

We are much more sophisticated in Southern California. Yesterday, in Simi Valley, CA, I saw a young girl leaving a junior high school with a low scooped blouse revealing a major portion of her bare upper breasts. She didn’t have a lot of protuberance, but what she had proudly jiggled as she walked. This girl is apparently not violating any school dress codes. Of course, she didn’t have on anything saying boobies or ta-tas either. But, I’ll bet that more than one of her male schoolmates experienced a surge of something relatively new to them, testosterone. Do you think that might be distracting to the school’s educational mission?

What gives? Well, clearly we Americans don’t have a consensus on the matter.

To the moral guardians and limiters of free speech in Clovis, Baltic, Colorado, Idaho, Florida and Wisconsin, I know that the courts have ruled that you can limit free speech of students at school. But, I say, “get a life.”

To the complacent educators in Simi Valley, get a backbone and address the issue about your young female students becoming sex objects before their time?

To the rest of you, support the breast cancer awareness movement. You owe it to all the women in your lives. Oh, and say “well done” to Amelia and her cohorts.

Link in this Blog:
Schools ban bracelets promoting cancer awareness

Incumbency Trumps Free Speech in Simi Valley

The City of Bell, CA, gets caught dolling out megabucks to its top political leaders and suddenly the media eye is scrutinizing the expenditures of cities in their own neighborhoods. You can bet that city fathers all over the country are squirming at the exposure. But, the awarding of full time employment benefits to part-time city council personnel is every day fare. But, how about writing a city ordinance which benefits the city council incumbents to the detriment of aspiring city council candidates? Simi Valley did it. It gives me a warm feeling to know that my city fathers have only the public’s interest at heart.

I submitted a letter to the editor on the subject to the Simi Valley Acorn, which published an edited version under the title of, “Sign ordinance is bad for democracy.”

Below is the unedited piece that I submitted.

City of Simi Valley Prohibits Political Signs In Favor of Incumbency

In 2006, the City of Simi Valley enacted a city ordinance prohibiting the placing of temporary signs, including pre-election political signs, on the public right-of-way.

The ordinance asserts, “The placement and accumulation of temporary signs in the public right-of-way, on traffic and utility devices, upon public sidewalks or on public easements presents dangerous conditions to the free and safe flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Such areas must be preserved for official traffic signs and official utility notices in order to assure the safe flow of traffic.” The ordinance justification offered no proof of hazard existing in the City.

The only proof of justification stated within the ordinance concerned aesthetics. The 0rdinance states, “Prior to the adoption of the ordinance, the City of Simi Valley has permitted temporary signs in the public right-of-way, which has resulted in substantial unsightly conditions, as illustrated in evidence presented to the City Council during its consideration of this ordinance.”

The ordinance further states, “A limitation on temporary sign display is directly related to the objective of aesthetics.”

It goes without saying that a sitting member of the city council enjoys a considerable political incumbent advantage over an election challenger. That advantage is the result of name recognition and opportunities to interact with the residents and business community in the course of conducting city business.

One of the main mechanisms to gain name recognition is the time honored tradition of posting temporary political signs in advance of an election. There is no greater venue for political signs than the public right-of-way.

By improving the “aesthetics” of the city and forbidding the posting of political signs on the public right-of-way, the council voted a political advantage for themselves.

Limiting candidate free speech robs the public of the opportunity to learn about their prospective city leaders.

City Council challenger Keith Mashburn wants to amend the city sign ordinance to correct the political injustice. Vote for Keith Mashburn, a man of integrity.

Link in this Blog
Sign ordinance is bad for democracy

Obama Legacy-Erosion of American Personal Rights

The consistent theme in the Obama administration is the reduction of American exceptionalism, which is framed in personal freedoms. Obama is not unique in his agenda, but he is the most successful leftist American leader in terms of the rapidity and expansiveness of the federal grab of personal freedoms.

Obama is putting in play and adding federal bureaucratic teeth to a whole host of mechanisms that reduce Americans’ personal rights. He is now signaling that an American foundational concept, religious freedom, is in jeopardy.

“Words matter - listen carefully to our current administration.” This quote is from the article, “Minor Changes in Language Could Mean Major Changes in Religious Freedom.”

“The change in language was barely noticeable to the average citizen but political observers are raising red flags at the use of a new term "freedom of worship" by President Obama and Secretary Clinton as a replacement for the term freedom of religion. This shift happened between the President's speech in Cairo where he showcased America's freedom of religion and his appearance in November at a memorial for the victims of Fort Hood, where he specifically used the term "freedom of worship." From that point on, it has become the term of choice for the president and Clinton.”

"To anyone who closely follows prominent discussion of religious freedom in the diplomatic and political arena, this linguistic shift is troubling: "The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It's about the right to dress according to one's religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don't go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves-yet "freedom of worship" would protect none of these acts of faith."

Wake up Americans! Your president and the leftist political leaders are intent upon structurally transforming America with an expansive federal government power grab that diminishes personal freedoms. It is happening in a myriad of ways: from healthcare; to voting rights; to mining rights; to the public access of public lands, and it has been going on for a long time. The trend diminishes when Republicans control the government and rapidly accelerates when the Democrates wield the power.

You should be feeling a little European socialist by now. When do we become fascist?

Links in this Blog:
American exceptionalism

Minor Changes in Language Could Mean Major Changes in Religious Freedom

“Alien Rule”

“A Stranger in Our Midst,” is an article that I wish that I had written. I didn’t. It was authored by Robert Weissberg, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana. I borrowed his characterization for the title to this piece.

Professor Weissberg wrote,

“I finally realized that the Obama administration and its congressional collaborators almost resemble a foreign occupying force, a coterie of politically and culturally non-indigenous leaders whose rule contravenes local values rooted in our national tradition. It is as if the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and this transcends policy objections. It is not about Obama's birthplace. It is not about race, either; millions of white Americans have had black mayors and black governors, and this unease about out-of-synch values never surfaced.”

Recent national polls show that nearly half of Americans not only distrust our government, they see government as a threat to individual rights. Least we focus exclusively on the federal government, recognize that the distrust extends downward to local government and law enforcement. In other words, the public distrusts from top to bottom the institutions entrusted with protecting the citizens’ Constitutional rights.

Thomas Sowell wrote in “Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?”

“In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.”

American democracy is diminished by the disregard and willful failure to uphold Constitutional rights guaranteed to American citizens.

I’m willing to bet that every law enforcement officer on the job over ten years has witnessed or knows of incidents wherein law enforcement has knowingly violated the rights of citizens. Often, it is a “little person,” someone not likely to challenge authority, who has his rights violated. Here’s an example.

A drug abuser with likely damaged mental faculties probably took off his clothes on a public street in the dark of the predawn hours. That is all the subject apparently did. A motorist called and notified the local police department. Officers responded and located a subject fully dressed. The subject was neither under the influence of alcohol nor drugs, and he had no outstanding warrants for his arrest. Finding no other mechanism to arrest the subject, officers arrested him for indecent exposure under a California penal code statute. The trouble with the arrest is that the law stipulates that the subject must have drawn attention to his genitals in an effort to arouse a sexual response in another person. The law is a misdemeanor, and there must be a witness who will affirm that he observed the subject commit the violation. The notifying motorist made no mention of any sexual activity and at any rate he was not available to make an assertion one way or the other. The officers did not observe a violation, and in truth there is no evidence, other than an anonymous assertion, that the subject had been naked on a public street. Mere nakedness by California statute is not a violation. The alleged perpetrator wasn’t talking. Maybe he was not so mentally impaired after all. He knew better than to talk to the police. The police Watch Commander, a lieutenant, was advised of all the circumstances and couldn’t care less about the niceties of the law. The arrest and booking was approved. Unlawfully depriving a man of his freedom is not a trivial matter. I know the story is true because I am the one who apprised the lieutenant of the officer’s unlawful arrest.

A glaring example of law enforcement’s major violation of Constitutional rights were the Louisiana orders for warrantless and lack of probable cause confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens during the Katrina disaster.

Alarmed by the firearm confiscation and other rights violations, individual law enforcement and military personnel, who honor their oath to uphold the Constitution, formed a national organization called the Oath Keepers. When individual police officers find it necessary to declare publicly that they will not obey orders which violate individual’s Constitutional rights, there is trouble brewing. It is a warning that violations of personal rights are likely rampant. The Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey these ten orders.

“We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.”

“We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.”

“We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.”

“We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.”

“We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.”

“We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.” “We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.”

“We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war. “

“We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.”

“We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.”

Values alien to the Constitution and American democracy are definitely in play from top to bottom. Thomas Sowell is correct,

“Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time.”

Links in this Blog:
Robert Weissberg -A Stranger in Our Midst

48% See Government Today As A Threat to Individual Rights

Thomas Sowell-Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

Oath Keepers