An Austin lawyer threatened to pursue a new federal lawsuit Monday after learning that some newborn blood samples in Texas went to the U.S. military for potential use in a database for law enforcement purposes.
The Department of State Health Services never mentioned the database to Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, who settled a lawsuit in December with the state over the indefinite storage of newborn blood without parental consent, or to the American-Statesman, which first reported on the little-known blood storage practice last spring. Harrington said he thought another suit was likely unless the health department destroys the information obtained from the blood samples or obtains consent.
“This is the worst case of bad faith I have dealt with as a lawyer,” he said Monday.
Sept, 5, 2010 There was a great interview that Tonia (Terry’s wife) did years ago but it was in a format that I couldn’t figure out how to use. I found the interview on You Tube. I Highly recommended that anyone who wants to know more about what happened to Terry Yeakey, listen to this lady. There is a reason we use the phrase “the ring of truth”. It is because when you hear it, it rings throughout you like a bell. You will hear the truth ring in this lady’s voice.
Kaye
This is a reply from Ramona, sister-in-law to Terrance Yeakey, to an article I posted about his death which reeks of foul play. The original article written by Wendy Painting, is below.
I am the sister of Tonia Yeakey. SGT Terrence E. Yeakey was a brother to me and will always remain a hero in my heart and mind. The sad missing part to the story is how my sister and her two daughters have lived through this horrid true story. I have spent a few hours today looking on the internet to see if it was true that my sisters’ life story could be read at the click of a mouse. I could not believe what I began to read. The stories are almost a word for word account of my sister’s terror and nightmare online for the world to view and no one really cares that it is the truth. Blog after blog I see the truth tellers whoever they are God bless their souls for not letting go being shot down as psychos and nut jobs. My poor sister along with her in-laws have been called crazy since day one!
Anyone who knew Terry would know he loved life too much to just give it up. This man was one of the greatest people I have known in my life. Terrence E. Yeakey, the peace officer, the solider, the veteran, the son, the father, the friend, the hero, the lover of his country deserved more from his country!
I will pray that these warriors continue their crusade….they have given us something to believe again themselves!
Dear Ramona,
Thank you so much for giving me your thoughts. I want you to know that we did ask Tonia to join us and would have loved to have had her share her account regarding Terry’s heroism in the aftermath of the OKC bombing and the trials she and her family have suffered ever since that terrible day. She declined the invitation and I don’t fault her at all for that, she has been through hell and has been heroic herself in continuing to tell her story in spite of disturbing repercussions. That said, if Tonia should ever be inclined to speak out once again, the door is always, very respectfully open to her.
Terry’s story has grabbed my heart and won’t let go. Even at a glance it is painfully apparent that at the very least, this case was not handled with even a modicum of proper investigation. Upon looking more closely at the actions that followed his death and the events preceding it, I wonder how anyone could avoid developing a strong suspicion that something here is terribly, terribly wrong.
The only way for his loved ones to ever have any peace about the loss of this admirable officer would be to have an unbiased review of the circumstances that culminated in the death of Terry Yeakey by the proper authorities. I admit that I despair of such a thing ever happening as every submission of his case results in a predictable scramble of avoidance by the professionals that prior to receiving the details seemed perfectly willing to investigate. There must be someone out there with the credentials and courage to give this case the attention that it deserves. We pray that such a person be found.
I snapped the above picture of the Medal of Valor that was belatedly bestowed to Terry Yeakey on the day of his burial. Although the medal is breathtaking, the treatment of this man by the authorities we entrust to protect and defend us, have made a mockery of what that medal is supposed to symbolize and that is moral fortitude and courage.
There are many people, some that I am honored to count as friends, that have been trying to help this family get justice for Terry for years. They are an inspiration to me as well. You can be assured that although we have little power and limited resources, we will do what we can to make sure that this story does not go unvoiced or be forgotten.
It is terrible to realize that there is no guarantee of justice on this earth but I do believe with all my heart, that eventually justice will be done.
God Bless you and all who loved Terry Yeakey.
Kaye
Here is the article that she responded to;
Unanswered Questions Haunt Family of Oklahoma City Bombing First Responder.
By: Wendy S. Painting – October 28, 2009
On May 11, 1996, the New York Times ran a story with the headline – ‘A Policeman Who Rescued 4 in Bombing Kills Himself.’ Sergeant Terrance Yeakey, Oklahoma City Police Department, [OCPD] was 30 years old and was about to receive the police department’s Medal of Valor for his heroic rescue efforts the day of the Oklahoma City bombing, which occurred on April 19, 1995. Instead, his mother – Loudella – was given the Medal of Valor at Sgt. Yeakey’s graveside burial ceremony just hours before the official awards ceremony would take place in Northeast Oklahoma City at the National Cowboy Hall of Fame Complex.
Yeakey was the first to arrive on the scene that terrible day and saved the lives of (8) – eight people from the rubble of the building and the horrific effects of the explosion. The article says Yeakey committed suicide because he was living emotional pain because he could not do more to help the people injured in the bombing, and that he was suffering from intense survivor guilt which he was unable to manage.
But others in Oklahoma City, including the family of Terrance Yeakey, claim that his death was not a suicide at all, but a brutal murder, and indicate that local law enforcement were complicit in covering up this murder.
On September 26, 2009 the Yeakey family spoke out for the first time on video for an interview with journalists from the talk radio show – Radio Free Oklahoma [www.radiofreeoklahoma.net] and an American Studies PhD student from the University of Buffalo who is writing her dissertation on the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
What these researchers found was that the facts surrounding Yeakey’s death are quite disturbing, and that the treatment of the Yeakey family in the aftermath of the death was beyond appalling.
[Terry Yeakey and family – awards ceremony / reception - 1995]
It is important to note how, exactly, how Yeakey is supposed to have killed himself. He was said to have slit his wrists and neck, causing him to nearly bleed to death in his car, and then miraculously climbed over a barbed wire fence. He then was purported to have walked over 1-1/4 miles distance, through a nearby field, eventually shooting himself in the side of the head at an unusual angle.
Startlingly, no weapon was found at the scene of the body, no investigation was conducted, no fingerprints taken, and no interviews with family members or friends were conducted to try and determine why Yeakey would have been suicidal, or if he had, in fact, been suicidal at all. Instead, the conclusion that Yeakey’s death was a suicide was reached immediately, without an autopsy.
Yeakey had witnessed things during his response to the bombing which did not agree with the ‘official version’ of events touted by the national media and law enforcement at that time. Yeakey was in the process of collecting evidence which supported and documented the inconsistencies he witnessed the morning of the bombing at the scene itself.
Far from being suicidal, Yeakey was in the process of achieving some major life goals. He was scheduled to be interviewed a final time with the FBI in Irving, TX. He and was planning on working for the FBI in Dallas and moving there with his sister and brother in law. Yeakey, a Gulf War – I veteran who had served as an M.P. for two years in Saudi Arabia, was also a seven year veteran of the OCPD and had just been promoted to Sergeant [November of 1995]
Several weeks before his death he had been awarded the Key to the City of El Reno, OK for his heroism during the aftermath of the OKC bombing. [See photo above taken after that awards ceremony.] Additionally, Yeakey and had reconciled with ex-wife and plans were set to remarry her shortly after his move to Dallas, TX.
Despite all of this, Yeakey was living under constant scrutiny for his refusal to go along with official versions of events during and after the OKC bombing; and because of his refusal to change his story about what he saw that fateful day, he was the target of horrific persecution from his brothers in law enforcement – up to and including OCPD Chief Sam Gonzales, his C.O. – Lt. Joann Randall and alleged ‘good friend’ David Ramsey and several others on the force at that time.
Although he was looking forward to his new job with the FBI, Yeakey was described by his family as a man who was also living in great fear at this time, and who was preoccupied with the harassment he was being subjected to on a daily basis. When Yeakey showed up to his oldest sister’s home the evening before his alleged suicide; he was physically ill. When she attempted to take him to the emergency room, Yeakey would not allow this because, he told her, “they can find me there.” Yeakey never told her who “they” were in an attempt to protect her. Yeakey left his sister’s house that evening, and was found dead the next day in a remote field in El Reno, Oklahoma less than two miles from the front gate of the El Reno Federal Penitentiary; thirty-two miles due west of the OKC bombing site in downtown Oklahoma City.
Immediately after his family was notified of Terrance Yeakey’s death they insisted that they did not believe Yeakey had killed himself. Their conclusion was based on the manner of death, Yeakey’s personality, his recent statements about the future, and the lack of investigation and autopsy. At first they tried to get answers. Why wasn’t there a proper investigation? Where was the weapon he shot himself with? Why wasn’t an autopsy conducted? As they asked questions in the following days, they would sometimes be approached by others in the police department, who told them in no uncertain terms, but off the record, that Yeakey had been murdered. As a result of their inquiries they were harassed and followed by Oklahoma City police and others. Unmarked cars sat in front of their homes for hours and this stalking was caught on video by the family. Shortly after his death, Yeakey’s ex-wife had her home broken into and a balloon was left in her house. Written on the balloon in black marker were the words, “we know where you are.” This harassment and surveillance had a chilling effect on the surviving Yeakey family and on their inquiries into Terrance’s death, which were in effect shut down… until now, fourteen years after the fact.
[The Yeakey Family, September 2009]
Yeakey’s 91 year old grandmother, Mary Kuykendahl – [at far right] says that it is important that she knows who killed her grandson and implores anyone who can help her: “From my heart I want something to happen to show he had no right to be killed. His life was taken away for nothing.”
His oldest sister, Vikki Yeakey – [at far left], speaking out again after all of these years, states that she knew as soon as she was told by the OCPD that Yeakey had committed suicide that it untrue, “I screamed out ‘He didn’t take his life. Someone murdered him.”
Yet detectives told her that she was crazy and that she watched too much television. “I had just seen him the night before. He was mentally fine…I wanted answers that night.” But, she says, they rushed her through the paperwork all the while telling her she was “crazy.” She asks, “Who was he running from? Who was he trying to protect?…I am doing this interview to reach out to the world, to anyone that can help.”
Another sister, Lashawn Hargrove [second from left] says, “He was an awesome older brother. He was always all about his work. He was serious about being a cop.” When she received news of his death she says she dropped the phone and “began to sob.” She felt nauseous. She needed to get to her family. Later OKCPD would approach her and say “sorry for your loss,” but soon after, she says, the family was told that they needed to “keep our mouths shut,” and were continuously told that the death was a suicide. She feels that her brother’s death deserves answers and an investigation that were never provided, “I want justice for his life. He needs to have his story told. I wish I had him back.”
When Yeakey’s mother, received a call notifying her of the death she was told by the OKCPD not to drive anywhere and that a car would come to pick her up. This was around 10 PM, but by 1 AM the promised transportation had not arrived. In fact, they never showed up for Yeakey’s grieving mother, “No one ever came.” Yeakey’s mother says that for the last fourteen years she has been “going over and over something I don’t believe to be true. I believe it to be murder. I don’t know who did it. [That's] why we need answers…you need to put your child to rest and without knowing what happened [we can't]…I vowed I will never give up. I need answers. If there’s ANYONE who could help I would appreciate it.”
The family says that the death of Yeakey is a taboo subject in Oklahoma City. There is a saying: “if you don’t want the Terry Yeakey done to you…keep your mouth shut.”
Yeakey is not the only suspicious death which has occurred do to the attempt to find answers about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and it is not the only one to be called a suicide; the strange and grisly torture/murder of Kenneth Trentadue being another. The suspicious death of Kenneth Trentadue at the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center in August 1995 would be ruled a suicide despite the opinion of the Dr. Frederick Jordan – the Oklahoma State Medical Examiner. [see: http://kennethtrentadue.com/ ]. After examining the body of this brother, it became clear to attorney Jesse Trentadue that his brother had been tortured and murdered. Jesse had received chilling information from Timothy McVeigh (convicted and executed for his role in the 1995 bombing) that his brother’s murder was related to the bombing and its subsequent (mis)investigation. Subsequently, Jesse began a quest to determine why exactly his brother had died, leading him to file many Freedom of Information Act Requests about the bombing and related matters. After filing a wrongful death lawsuit the Trentadue family was rewarded $1.1 million dollars for emotional distress caused by the authorities mishandling of the death. On September 28, 2009, attorney Jesse Trentadue made national news when portions of surveillance tapes of the bombing were begrudgingly released by the FBI under the orders a federal judge.
Like Jesse Trentadue and those who lost family members in the Oklahoma City bombing, the surviving family of Terrance Yeakey also seek answers which they feel will help them achieve closure, justice and peace of mind.
Help this Family of a true Oklahoma hero. Please consider donating to the Terrance Yeakey Truth Legal Fund. Go to www.tytruth.com
Bill of Rights at serious risk in Supreme Court case
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact Felicity Bower, 602-996-4020
Nov. 24, 2009
Should individual states be required to honor your guarantees under the Bill of Rights? Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to say yes, in an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief just filed. The goal is to require states to be bound by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They are not currently obligated to do so. This principle is up for review in McDonald v. Chicago, expected to be argued at the High Court in February, 2010, and decided by June. See the filing here — http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm
The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 only to control Congress (e.g., “Congress shall make no law…”), and the High Court has only applied the Bill to the states in bits and pieces. Studies have shown most people are unaware of this. The 14th Amendment in 1868 said states cannot abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens, or deprive or deny the rights of the people, but it provided few details — and the High Court has been evaluating that since then.
Working piecemeal, the Court has declared states cannot deny free speech, protection against unreasonable searches, the right to counsel in a criminal trial and more. This principle is now on trial in what may be the highest-profile case of its kind — the right to arms in the Second Amendment. Chicago has flatly banned this right, leaving its citizens defenseless, and insists it has the power to do so. The city’s ban does little to disarm hardened criminals who simply roam free, carrying guns illegally at will.
“The core issue is whether a state has legitimate power to deny any fundamental right to its people,” says Alan Korwin, author of eight books on gun law and the publisher at Bloomfield Press, the nation’s largest producer and distributor of gun-law books. “This issue is so broad and crucial to America that pro-rights and even anti-rights people on the gun issue are aligned to overturn Chicago’s blanket denial of a fundamental right,” he says.
The avowedly anti-gun-rights Washington Post observed that, “Lawyers from both the left and right of the political spectrum will present strong arguments that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.” That sentiment was echoed in the similarly anti-rights LA Times, which stated editorially, “It’s tempting to hope that the court will rule that states aren’t bound by the Second Amendment,” but continued, “Allowing the states and cities to ignore this part of the Bill of Rights could undermine the requirement that they abide by others… this is no time for the Court to start picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights.”
Bloomfield Press joins 34 California DAs, eight Nevada DAs, former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack (the hero of the successful Brady-bill case that set 10th Amendment limits on federal invasion of states’ rights), several law-enforcement associations, and citizens’ rights groups in Arizona, California, Texas and Virginia in the amicus filing. Mr. Korwin’s extensive research and material appears throughout the brief, drafted by California attorney Chuck Michel of Michel and Associates.
1) The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a deeply rooted “fundamental right” and thus properly applied to the states;
2) The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment necessarily incorporates the Second Amendment to apply against the states;
3) The right to armed self defense is a fundamental right recognized repeatedly by the Supreme Court dating back to the 19th century;
4) The right to self defense, in addition to the right to arms, has been well established as fundamental for centuries in state constitutions, and in federal law and state law;
5) Firearms are and have always been recognized as essential to exercise the right to self defense, with each one reliant upon the other; and
6) Federalism (states rights) presents no obstacle to incorporating a fundamental right of the people.
The 14th Amendment, Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The amici include the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), The Texas Concealed Handgun Association (TCHA), and The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL). The complete list of amici with descriptions of their interests are in the brief. http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm
——-
28th Amendment, Proposed: “Congress shall make no law that applies to citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to citizens of the United States.”
Alan Korwin Bloomfield Press “We publish the gun laws.” 4848 E. Cactus, #505-440 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 602-996-4020 Phone 602-494-0679 Fax 1-800-707-4020 Orders http://www.gunlaws.com alan@gunlaws.com Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog (This is our address and info as of Jan. 1, 2007)
22% of Nevada motorists are uninsured, according to Jim Gibbons’ chief of staff, Robin Reedy.
According to Chicago company InsuredNet, Nevada could raise $30 million by using InsuredNet’s system of photographing license plates to identify uninsured and unregistered vehicles.
Yesterday HJR 1063 was scheduled to be heard in the Rules Committee. About 15 minutes prior to the meeting, HJR 1063 was removed from the schedule.
Rep. Charles Key introduced HJR1063, the OK Sovereignty Protection Act. This legislation calls for a ballot initiative. The initiative would institute a process for the state legislature to determine if a federal law is unconstitutional.
If you would like the opportunity to vote for strengthening our sovereignty in Oklahoma as well as send a clear message to the state legislature that we want them defend our state against federal encroachment, please call Speaker Benge (405) 521-2711 and Senate President Pro Tempore Coffee (405) 521-5799 and let them know that you want HJR1063 to be heard and passed.
I was amused to find out that apparently some people think that RFID chips having the ability to track and monitor our behavior is a “conspiracy theory” My time is short tonight so I went to the first RFID industry site that popped up and scrolled down through the news section looking for one article that demonstrates how they can and are being used to spy on you.
Didn’t take but about 2 inches of scrolling to find something suitable.
“CenTrak’s RTLS infrastructure was built to provide certainty-based room and bed-level location for both assets and people, so we had the core attributes of the required system already built into our technology,” said Ari Naim, Ph.D., President and CEO of CenTrak. “We are pleased we can help address such an important issue for our customers that not only impacts the safety of patients but also the bottom line of these hospitals that are already operating in a financially challenged environment.”
The CenTrak Hand Hygiene Compliance System can be deployed on a stand alone basis or in conjunction with CenTrak’s full RTLS. Battery powered Dispenser Monitors can be mounted to any dispenser, canister, pump, or sink to track their usage. The system automatically captures a specific caregiver’s badge ID and entry to and exit from patient care areas along with hand hygiene events, based upon hospital determined compliance business rules. The Dispenser Monitor communicates each event to the network and records each caregiver’s compliance performance. All of the recorded data is stored on CenTrak’s local or hosted server and can be accessed by compliance management and reporting solutions.
This is a really good example because the chip used is the one in their id. A passport would work with this very same system as well as an Enhanced Drivers License, which is favored by DHS Sec. Napolitano. Expect to get a chance to find out for yourself very soon! PASS ID (basically a name change for REAL ID-sure. we won’t notice!) is likely to be passed this year and without HB 2569 which would have prohibited the chips in our ID’s, we will surely get a chance to experience the real conspiracy. That would the US Governments plans to keep close tabs on its flock.
HB2317 The Oklahoma Enumerated Powers Act, passed committee today
HJR 1063 was taken off the Rules Committee roster about 15 minutes before the meeting started, apparently by Speaker Benge.
HB2538 (Message from OK2A)
Open Carry would allow law abiding Oklahomans to openly carry a sidearm if they wanted to do so. But, unfortunately, the chairman, Representative Sue Tibbs, of the (Public Safety) committee that the Open Carry bills are assigned to in the House has single-handedly held those bills up.(last session)
Because of pressure brought to bear by freedom loving Oklahomans, Representative Tibbs promised she would run an Open Carry bill.
After obtaining a copy of the bill, it is crystal clear that Rep. Tibbs is not living up to her promise…
NewsOK 2/24/2010
Rep. Sue Tibbs, chairman of the House Public Safety Committee, said House Bill 2538 would allow a gun owner who has a permit to carry a concealed firearm to put the loaded weapon on the dashboard or seat of a vehicle. Now gun owners with permits must conceal the weapons in their vehicles, said Tibbs, R-Tulsa. HB 2538 passed the committee 11-1 and goes to the full House.
This sure doesn’t sound like an “Open Carry” bill to me.
Rep. Mike Ritze attempted to read a brief statement in support of the proposed amendment that would have added open carry to the bill but was not permitted to do so. When asked if there were any other amendments, Rep. Ritze offered “The Second”
Good Call!
Tibbs tabled the amendment immediately; the move was opposed by Ritze, McCullough, and Murphy who managed to get a recorded vote on that vote.
Results- Oklahoma. No Open Carry for You! Oh. Don’t go barring your door either;
Well, if police are permitted to assault and detain peaceful citizens legally bearing arms in public, and civilians are forbidden to wear enhanced clothing intended to protect themselves against bullets and high-voltage energy weapons, we can still cower in our heavily fortified domiciles, can’t we? A man’s home is his castle, and all that?
Maybe not.
Last November, a measure went into effect in Oklahoma that makes it a felony, punishable by a five-year prison term and a $10,000 fine, to “fortify” a home “for the purpose of preventing or delaying entry or access by a law enforcement officer.”
Under the measure, written by Republican (natch) State Representative Sue Tibbs, it is impermissible to “construct, install, position, use or hold any material or device designed … to strengthen, defend, restrict or obstruct any door, window, or other opening into a dwelling, structure, building or other place to any extent beyond the security provided by a commercial alarm system, lock or deadbolt, or a combination of alarm, lock, or deadbolt.”
And now for the shocker of the day- HB 2569 the anti-RFID bill by Rep. Wesselhoft passed unanimously BUT, Rep Liebmann moved to strike the title meaning that the bill has been effectively monkeywrenched. Wesselhoft was quite surprised as apparently he had not been informed of Liebmann’s intention to strike the title.
Customarily the author of the bill will be informed beforehand when such a move is planned as a matter of courtesy.
Why Liebmann chose to do this is a matter of speculation. It might be assumed that he did so as a payback for all the heat he has been taking over holding back HB 2810. The other possibility is that federal officials got wind of it and directed him to quash the bill. Insiders say to expect the PASS ID ACT to be implemented shortly after state legislatures adjourn this year. These ID’s will likely be loaded with RFID.
HB 2810-The Oklahoma Sovereignty Act stuck in Rep. Liebmann’s Craw
2/23/2010
This morning I joined with other supporters of HB 2810, The Oklahoma Sovereignty Act this morning to meet with Oklahoma Rep. Guy Liebmann in order to try to resolve whatever concerns he has with the bill so that he might allow it a hearing in his committee. This was my first meeting with this legislator and I won’t be in a hurry to meet with him again.
It was a very odd and uncomfortable encounter. Seconds after I shook hands with the representative he looked straight at me and shoved a newspaper in my direction, asking; “Have you read the paper today?”
His tone was unmistakably superior and sarcastic but I looked at the article that he was tapping with his finger; Skimming, I read; Rep Charles Key. . .anti-government…. HB 2810 ……state’s rights extremists.
What?!
HB 2810 is in a subcommittee whose chairman, Rep. Guy Liebmann, R-Oklahoma City, has refused to consider it.
This has riled the states’ rights extremists, who are criticizing Liebmann and Rep. Ken Miller, R-Edmond, who heads the Appropriations and Budget Committee. They want Miller to remove the bill from the subcommittee. If that happened, we have no doubt Miller would immediately spike it himself, and for good reason.
I don’t know who wrote it but judging from the proud air demonstrated by Rep. Liebmann when he shoved the article under my nose and the giddy schoolgirl-like antics of both he and Rep Miller over it in the halls of the Oklahoma Statehouse one would easily get the impression that they wrote the trash piece themselves. Don’t these two make Oklahoma proud!
Do Ken Miller and Guy Liebmann really think that I’m an extremist for wanting our state government to defend our sovereignty? It is their sworn duty to do so.
I recoil from the terminology not just because it is undeserved but also because of the political environment that we are presently in. This sort of rhetoric is nothing less than pure old fashioned political intimidation and I thoroughly resent Representative Liebmann’s insinuation that Tenth Amendment supporters are “extremists”
The “extremists”, in any event, are also the majority. From a February, 2010 Rasmussen Report
Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of likely voters say states should have the right to opt out of federal government programs they don’t agree with.
Furthermore, these so called “state’s rights extremists” do not advocate extreme measures;
. . .despite the rise of so-called “Tea Party” anti-federal government sentiment around the country, there’s no second Civil War at hand. Only 14% of voters think individual states have the right to leave the United States and form an independent country. Seventy-two percent (72%) do not believe states have this right, and 13% more are undecided.
I see this for exactly for what it is and want the big government extremists at the Capitol to know that it isn’t going to work. I am already intimidated by our government and that is exactly the reason that I spend my time advocating for constitutional government. While these fellows are drawing a salary and seem to be having a fine time, political involvement for me and many other activists is neither a vocation nor a hobby but rather a necessary exercise in self-defense.
What some of our elected officials might view as business as usual, these political hijinks can lead to real harm to innocent people. The infamous MIAC report is a good example of how this kind of rhetoric can go terribly wrong;
The Columbia Tribune
March 14, 2009
The report’s most controversial passage states that militia “most commonly associate with third-party political groups” and support presidential candidates such as Ron Paul, former Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate last year.
[. . .] At a “Tea Party” to protest wasteful government spending Thursday in Flat Branch Park, several people displaying the Revolutionary War-replica “Don’t Tread On Me” flag were upset to learn the MIAC report lists the banner as a “militia symbol.”
“That’s insane,” said Doug Wendt looking at the MIAC document. “That is not a militia symbol. That is American history. This is historic. The only animosity” American colonists “ever directed with this was towards England.”
[. . ]Neal, who has a Ron Paul bumper sticker on his car, said the next time he is pulled over by a police officer, he won’t know whether it’s because he was speeding or because of his political views.
“If a police officer is pulling me over with my family in the car and he sees a bumper sticker on my vehicle that has been specifically identified as one that an extremist would have in their vehicle, the guy is probably going to be pretty apprehensive and not thinking in a rational manner,” Neal said. “And this guy’s walking up to my vehicle with a gun.”
Is this how we expect our legislators react when they find themselves at odds with the people of this state? What is it about interacting with genuinely concerned citizens of Oklahoma that inspires Liebmann to a nostril flaring fit of temper? I met the gentleman with genuine respect and warmth and wonder what he feels justifies this sort of reception.
Rep Liebmann said that the bill was against the constitution and he would not hear it. Section 1 Article 8, the federal government has the right to collect taxes. One of the bill’s advocates replied that this bill would in no way interfere with the collecting of taxes for any legitimate, constitutional purpose.
We wanted to know if adjustments were made to the language would there a chance for the bill to be heard. Liebmann said “Not in my committee, it won’t”
I told him that people were worried about the federal government overstepping and the reason that this bill is a popular one is that it would provide some definite means to protect our state from egregious federal mandates.
The point was raised that the procedure that is required by this bill to arrive at the point where our taxes would actually be held in escrow would be quite involved and require the majority of the state legislature votes in order to even begin the process.
I asked the Representative if he thought it would have to be a very obvious overstepping on the part of the federal government in order for such a consensus to even be possible and in that event wouldn’t we wish we had such a law to protect us? He didn’t seem to disagree on this point and added that the measure would also require the signature of the Governor. Suffice it to say, no trivial matter would trigger this process of placing our tax monies in escrow, withheld against unconstitutional demands by D.C.
The debate about the constitutionality of HB 2810 went back and forth for a bit longer with Liebmann interjecting what appeared at first to be a non sequitur, but in truth, went straight to the heart of the matter;
“Do you know how many dollars we get for every one we give to the National Guard? I confessed that I did not know the answer. “FOUR! Four dollars for every ONE we put in”
So, is HB 2810 unconstitutional or is it that he fears, and not irrationally so, that by passing such a bill our state might expect to incur the wrath of federal government in the form of withholding federal funds from our state? This is not only a legitimate concern; it illustrates the catch 22 that the states are now under
In 1997, Justice Scalia issued the court’s opinion on Printz v US, a case that closely examined our concept of federalism.
Justice Scalia expressed;
“It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty” and that the states retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty.”
“Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other.”
It is important to note that we are protected from federal incursion only in as much as our elected representatives have the will to do so.
Scalia said;
“The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.”
Our state legislators, by lure of federal dollars, can certainly choose to give over voluntarily what cannot be commandeered legally and so they have done.
In this manner we are bartering away our rightful independence and Rep. Liebmann’s pragmatic interjection implying the loss of federal dollars is gives testimony to the fact that Oklahoma’s sovereignty is being bought more so than taken.
The good news is that the responsibility lies with us. It is within our power to reclaim our constitutionally protected sphere of sovereignty.
The question before us all is; do we have the will?
I hope that the slurs entered into record by virtue of an unsigned editorial in the Oklahoman do not deter or intimidate one person who sees the importance of claiming every bit of independence that our state is rightfully due. Many legislators will vehemently oppose any attempt to wean our state off of extraneous reliance on the federal government and the process would not be easy.
Personally, I would rather suffer the rigors of freedom than to have the questionable security of being kept as federal chattel.
This morning I joined with some other supporters of HB 2810 The Oklahoma Sovereignty Act this morning to meet with Oklahoma Rep. Guy Liebmann in order to try to resolve whatever concerns he has with the bill so that he might allow it a hearing in his committee. This was my first meeting with this legislator and I won’t be in a hurry to meet with him again.
It was a very odd and uncomfortable encounter. Seconds after I shook hands with the representative he looked straight at me and shoved a newspaper in my direction, asking; “Have you read the paper today?”
His tone was unmistakably superior and sarcastic but I looked at the article that he was tapping with his finger; Skimming, I read; Rep Charles Key. . .anti-government…. HB 2810 ……state’s rights extremists.
What?!
The Oklahoman published an editorial that stated;
HB 2810 is in a subcommittee whose chairman, Rep. Guy Liebmann, R-Oklahoma City, has refused to consider it.
This has riled the states’ rights extremists, who are criticizing Liebmann and Rep. Ken Miller, R-Edmond, who heads the Appropriations and Budget Committee. They want Miller to remove the bill from the subcommittee. If that happened, we have no doubt Miller would immediately spike it himself, and for good reason.
I don’t know who wrote it but judging from the proud air demonstrated by Rep. Liebmann when he shoved the article under my nose and the giddy schoolgirl-like antics of both he and Rep Miller over it in the halls of the Oklahoma Statehouse one would easily get the impression that they wrote the trash piece themselves. Don’t these two make Oklahoma proud!
Do Ken Miller and Guy Liebmann really think that I’m an extremist for wanting our state government to defend our sovereignty? It is their sworn duty to do so.
I recoil from the terminology not just because it is undeserved but also because of the political environment that we are presently in. This sort of rhetoric is nothing less than pure old fashioned political intimidation and I thoroughly resent Representative Liebmann’s insinuation that Tenth Amendment supporters are “extremists”
The “extremists”, in any event, are also the majority. From a February, 2010 Rasmussen Report
Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of likely voters say states should have the right to opt out of federal government programs they don’t agree with.
Furthermore, these so called “state’s rights extremists” do not advocate extreme measures;
. . .despite the rise of so-called “Tea Party” anti-federal government sentiment around the country, there’s no second Civil War at hand. Only 14% of voters think individual states have the right to leave the United States and form an independent country. Seventy-two percent (72%) do not believe states have this right, and 13% more are undecided.
I see this for exactly for what it is and want the big government extremists at the Capitol to know that it isn’t going to work. I am already intimidated by our government and that is exactly the reason that I spend my time advocating for constitutional government. While these fellows are drawing a salary and seem to be having a fine time, political involvement for me and many other activists is neither a vocation nor a hobby but rather a necessary exercise in self-defense.
What some of our elected officials might view as business as usual, these political hijinks can lead to real harm to innocent people. The infamous MIAC report is a good example of how this kind of rhetoric can go terribly wrong;
The Columbia Tribune
March 14, 2009
The report’s most controversial passage states that militia “most commonly associate with third-party political groups” and support presidential candidates such as Ron Paul, former Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate last year.
[. . .] At a “Tea Party” to protest wasteful government spending Thursday in Flat Branch Park, several people displaying the Revolutionary War-replica “Don’t Tread On Me” flag were upset to learn the MIAC report lists the banner as a “militia symbol.”
“That’s insane,” said Doug Wendt looking at the MIAC document. “That is not a militia symbol. That is American history. This is historic. The only animosity” American colonists “ever directed with this was towards England.”
[. . ]Neal, who has a Ron Paul bumper sticker on his car, said the next time he is pulled over by a police officer, he won’t know whether it’s because he was speeding or because of his political views.
“If a police officer is pulling me over with my family in the car and he sees a bumper sticker on my vehicle that has been specifically identified as one that an extremist would have in their vehicle, the guy is probably going to be pretty apprehensive and not thinking in a rational manner,” Neal said. “And this guy’s walking up to my vehicle with a gun.”
Is this how we expect our legislators react when they find themselves at odds with the people of this state? What is it about interacting with genuinely concerned citizens of Oklahoma that inspires Liebmann to a nostril flaring fit of temper? I met the gentleman with genuine respect and warmth and wonder what he feels justifies this sort of reception.
Rep Liebmann said that the bill was against the constitution and he would not hear it. Section 1 Article 8, the federal government has the right to collect taxes. One of the bill’s advocates replied that this bill would in no way interfere with the collecting of taxes for any legitimate, constitutional purpose.
We wanted to know if adjustments were made to the language would there a chance for the bill to be heard. Liebmann said “Not in my committee, it won’t”
I told him that people were worried about the federal government overstepping and the reason that this bill is a popular one is that it would provide some definite means to protect our state from egregious federal mandates.
The point was raised that the procedure that is required by this bill to arrive at the point where our taxes would actually be held in escrow would be quite involved and require the majority of the state legislature votes in order to even begin the process.
I asked the Representative if he thought it would have to be a very obvious overstepping on the part of the federal government in order for such a consensus to even be possible and in that event wouldn’t we wish we had such a law to protect us? He didn’t seem to disagree on this point and added that the measure would also require the signature of the Governor. Suffice it to say, no trivial matter would trigger this process of placing our tax monies in escrow, withheld against unconstitutional demands by D.C.
The debate about the constitutionality of HB 2810 went back and forth for a bit longer with Liebmann interjecting what appeared at first to be a non sequitur, but in truth, went straight to the heart of the matter;
“Do you know how many dollars we get for every one we give to the National Guard? I confessed that I did not know the answer. “FOUR! Four dollars for every ONE we put in”
So, is HB 2810 unconstitutional or is it that he fears, and not irrationally so, that by passing such a bill our state might expect to incur the wrath of federal government in the form of withholding federal funds from our state? This is not only a legitimate concern; it illustrates the catch 22 that the states are now under
In 1997, Justice Scalia issued the court’s opinion on Printz v US, a case that closely examined our concept of federalism.
Justice Scalia expressed;
“It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty” and that the states retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty.”
“Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other.”
It is important to note that we are protected from federal incursion only in as much as our elected representatives have the will to do so.
Scalia said;
“The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.”
Our state legislators, by lure of federal dollars, can certainly choose to give over voluntarily what cannot be commandeered legally and so they have done.
In this manner we are bartering away our rightful independence and Rep. Liebmann’s pragmatic interjection implying the loss of federal dollars is gives testimony to the fact that Oklahoma’s sovereignty is being bought more so than taken.
The good news is that the responsibility lies with us. It is within our power to reclaim our constitutionally protected sphere of sovereignty.
The question before us all is; do we have the will?
I hope that the slurs entered into record by virtue of an unsigned editorial in the Oklahoman do not deter or intimidate one person who sees the importance of claiming every bit of independence that our state is rightfully due. Many legislators will vehemently oppose any attempt to wean our state off of extraneous reliance on the federal government and the process would not be easy.
Personally, I would rather suffer the rigors of freedom than have the questionable security of being federal chattel.
