Tuesday, September 2, 2014

When's the last time you held your elected official accountable for this? (I'll estimate that 99% of the voters never heard of it.)

Previously posted here: The farmer in the dell, The farmer in the dell, Hi-ho, the derry-o, Your Country's going to hell
Anti-Deficiency Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) is legislation enacted by the United States Congress to prevent the incurring of obligations or the making of expenditures (outlays) in excess of amounts available in appropriations or funds. It is now codified at 31 U.S.C. § 1341[1]. The ADA prohibits the Federal government from entering into a contract that is not "fully funded" because doing so would obligate the government in the absence of an appropriation adequate to the needs of the contract.
This Act of Congress is sometimes known as Section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, as amended.
To some extent, but not entirely, it implements the provisions of Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the "power of the purse") of the Constitution of the United States which precludes the expenditure of funds by any branch of the Federal government unless those funds have been appropriated by Congress. In part, the Act is actually inconsistent with the Constitution because it recites that expenditures without appropriations can be made where expressly permitted by Congress: the Constitution permits no such exception[citation needed].
Although the ADA and its predecessors are over 120 years old, no one has ever been convicted or even indicted for its violation.[2]. (Emphasis mine...may Obama be the first to be convicted. ~ Storm'n Norm'n)
An important corollary of the constitutional provision is that departments and agencies of the government may not "augment" appropriations either by raising money instead of seeking and getting an appropriation or by retaining funds collected and using them instead of receiving an appropriation. This bar to augmentation of appropriations is regularly violated by the executive branch and often with the consent of Congress. Practices in the nature of revolving funds (funds that are kept liquid by the use of "income" realized by agencies) clearly violate the augmentation limitation.
A more subtle but important violation of the Constitutional provision occurred when Congress passed TARP. Congress never appropriated ANY funds to TARP and instead simply recited that the necessary funds would be "deemed appropriated" at the time they were expended. This "deeming" provision violated not only the cited provision of the constitution but a host of other provisions as well.

Monday, September 1, 2014

The Weatherman...today, tomorrow, and five to seven years from now (plan ahead)

Dateline 2009 (uploaded to YouTube)

Dateline 2014

a Typical Al Gore response...↓
If you're interested in a daily picture of both the polar and antartica ice caps click on the link below:

There will be an all-out civil war. No question about it.

“if they attempt to do that, it will be an all-out civil war. No question about it.”

(TPNN) – Early last year, as Americans feared that the federal government would enact unconstitutional anti-gun measures via executive edict, support for the Constitution came from some unlikely places. Even in Oregon, a Democrat stronghold in elections, Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller flat-out declared that he and his office would refuse to enforce any such unconstitutional federal laws or regulations. Mueller wrote, “We are Americans. We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.”
Mueller later stated, “We’re restricted and prohibited from enforcing all types of federal laws, including immigration laws. It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that I would enforce a federal firearms law.”Since then, anti-gun crusaders have slowed down amidst fierce push-back from patriots. Still, patriotic law enforcers are willing to speak out. Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis, a sheriff in the state of Maryland, recently reminded the citizens of his county that he will not violate the Constitution and warned the federal government that any attempt to disarm Americans will result in an all-out Civil War. I made a vow and a commitment,” Lewis said. “As long as I am sheriff of this county, I will not allow the federal government to come in here and strip my citizens of the right to bear arms.”Sheriff Lewis is mindful of keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous felons, but also explained, “We do not need to strip law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. That I get upset over. I really do.”Sheriff Lewis also added a stern warning to the federal government about what will happen if they try to disarm the law-abiding populace:“I can tell you this,” Lewis said, “if they attempt to do that, it will be an all-out civil war. No question about it.”It’s encouraging to see that even as federal lawmakers and supposed federal law enforcers forget their duty to preserve liberty on behalf of the American people. Rampant tyranny is bound to be checked by local authorities and the will of a fierce American population that is armed and unwilling to acquiesce to tyrants.