By Janice Daniels
Hard-hitting articles on today’s current events. Note: The opinions expressed herein are those of the author Janice Daniels and do not necessarily reflect those of MCU’s Board of Directors or members at large.
How to Deploy 5G Technology Now
by Janice L. Daniels, as published on iPatriot
Being as most of the clarion calls from “the people” to the men and women who have taken an Oath to protect and defend our constitution result in delayed hearings or additional hearings, more expert testimony, hand-wringing and secret back room meetings, but generally the final outcome is that the deep-pocket special interest groups get their way, and the people’s concerns are diminished, brushed away, or placated by more useless legislation using reams of paper and ink to basically say nothing, I have come up with a grand compromise regarding the serious health-concern issues of 5G that might actually result in an equitable outcome.
An overview of the type of legislative mumbo-jumbo that passes for oversight on the very serious 5G deployment issue can be found in my six-part analysis of one State of Michigan House of Representatives Energy Policy Committee hearing conducted on May 29, 2018 called I’ll Show You My Notes, If You’ll Show Me Yours (scroll down at https://mcu.today/janice-daniels-corner/), wherein I examine the testimonies of the technology wizards of the special interest class, and then the inane questioning and posturing of our legislative class, who never fail to amaze me with their lack of due diligence and need for maintaining a circus-like atmosphere with lame jokes and laughter among themselves.
More and more research is being made available to the hapless citizenry of the United States regarding the serious health concerns associated with increasing our wireless technology from 4G to 5G at a website called We Are The Evidence (https://wearetheevidence.org/) and another website called Americans for Responsible Technology (https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/), to name a few places where even the least technologically-savvy citizen can clearly see that we need to halt the advancement of increased exposure to the radiation that emits from our wireless infrastructure and clearly address the known and unknown hazards that we are prepared to pass along to our children.
My recommendation is that each and every legislator volunteers to place the new fangled 5G towers in front of their homes; only in front of their homes. Give the rest of the American citizenry a five year moratorium to discover more of the information needed to make a sensible determination on the best way to move forward into technology salvation, so that, at some point, we can all download 20 movies in the time it takes to download one movie now (that is one of the benefits of 5G according to one of the sponsors in the Michigan legislature). That way, only their children will be affected by our headlong rush into a future we are not ready to embrace.
You legislators in?
Man Vs. God a La Kavanaugh
by Janice L. Daniels, as published on iPatriot
Listening in the peripheral to the brouhaha surrounding the Senate confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme court, whilst at the same time listening intently to an audio version of Whittaker Chambers’ hauntingly captivating book Witness, I have been struck with the thought that the former proves the conceptual validity of the latter.
It really does boil down to the two great faiths of our existence, which Chambers basically expressed as being between the belief that God is the Supreme ruler of the universe, or the belief that man’s mind is the arbiter of all that is good or evil. This, according to Chambers, defines the great battle between freedom and communism.
Oh, go ahead, call it what you like: democratism, leftism, liberalism, progressivism, atheism, socialism, fascism, hedonism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Islamism, communism. We know that variants of these ideologies apply, whenever any one group of people holds another group of people hostage to their belief system under penalty of personal character destruction, financial ruin, or worse yet, death. We are dealing with the same philosophy that holds that unless they can mold you into the perfect image of what they think a man should be, say, or do, then you might not be worthy of life itself.
Allow me the literary latitude of calling them all communists, because that is what I believe them to be.
In contrast, in John 8:7, Jesus said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her,” when speaking to the scribes and Pharisees who had brought an adulterous woman to him, asking that she be stoned according to the law of Moses. After the crowd dispersed, because none among them was without sin (as are none of us), Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more.
So, here we are, in 2018, and like it or not, our Constitution gives our President (who is not without sin) the duty of nominating a person (who is not without sin) to sit on the Supreme court and interpret what that Constitution says is the Law. That is a weighty role, to be sure. And so with their small-r republican mindset, our forefathers (who were not without sin) gave our Senators (who are not without sin) the obligation to confirm or deny this nomination. This is a rather brilliant aspect of a truly remarkable check and balance republican form of government, like it or not.
And so, we the people (who are not without sin) rely upon our sinful representatives’ open deliberation, debate, study and discussion to determine whether that sinful man has displayed something of a measure suitable to interpret the Law, given his writings, his testimonies and his life’s work in total. As the old saying goes, nothing is guaranteed in life except death and taxes, so even after this grueling grilling, we can only be certain that he is flesh and blood, and that he will disappoint someone or another of us.
“But he sinned, but he sinned,” the sinners in the media cry out to the sinful masses, and all the sinners pick up stones and make this man’s life a hell on Earth for a short while, until they determine that he has suffered enough, so that in the future he will not be too hot or too cold when deciding anything. Then they will know that they have molded him into the perfect image of what they think he should be, say or do, and they will let him live.
So, how do we define sin, a La man versus God? Well, we have God’s Old Testament Ten Commandments that most Christians would probably cite as a gauge of what God considers sinful, or we could build a list of man’s 2018 definition of sin, that might include: You can’t like or dislike anyone, you can’t choose your tenant, customer or neighbor based upon who you like or dislike, you can’t hire who you like, or fire who you dislike, you can’t say the wrong thing to the wrong person (and you might be wrong if you try to decide what that wrong thing is or who that wrong person might be), and now, you can’t rise above your alleged potential misbehaviors as a teenager, even if you didn’t commit a crime against either God or man.
Our children (who are not without sin) must know that this obsessive road that we are on leads only to the pure evil of communism and away from the freedom that is to be found in the love of God. To start them down the road to recovery, I suggest that Whittaker Chambers’ book Witness be included as required reading in high schools and colleges across this country, even though Mr. Chambers was also not without sin.
Good Law, Bad Law – Congress Shall Make NO LAW
by Janice L. Daniels, as published on iPatriot
American forefathers identified Good Law in the first paragraph of The Declaration of Independence, when addressing the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” These laws are intractable inasmuch as a tree is a tree, a man is a man and a woman is a woman – that’s nature’s law based upon God’s eternal laws of the universe. It is figuratively written in stone that a tree cannot become a man, a man cannot become a woman, and a woman cannot become a tree. No matter how contorted the human mind becomes in their effort to disrupt the laws of nature and of nature’s God, “these Truths are self-evident” (to borrow another phrase from the Declaration of Independence).
Since that declaration of Good Law, the written word has been used by man continuously and consistently to make Bad Law, and the only reason this continues unabated is that for years, decades and now centuries, We the People have allowed it to happen.
To that I say, “Shame on us; let’s fix it before it’s too late (if it isn’t already too late); and remember, whenever something needs fixing, the best place to start is at the beginning.”
Enshrined in the Bill of Rights, attached to the other famous American founding document, the Constitution, is one of the people’s most important freedoms, the Freedom of Religion. Our forefathers used sixteen words to declare religious liberty for all posterity. Those words read as follows: “Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That’s really quite straightforward; understandable at an elementary level; concrete, clear and concise.
And what have we allowed our historical judicial tyrants to do with it? Slowly, serendipitously, stealthily obfuscate our rights so thoroughly that we now live in a country where “the courts” decide which bathroom we can use, or whether a private citizen of faith, in his privately held small business, can decide whether to bake a cake that includes a message that is fundamentally opposed to his religious convictions. And why has this happened? I believe it is because we have allowed the sworn enemies of Liberty to distort the very meaning of our God-given, constitutionally protected Rights.
For example, if in fact there is to be separation of church and state, the Bill of Rights puts this concept in the context of a “one-way street.” Congress shall make NO LAW. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything to the effect that religious people shall not influence Congress, and furthermore, if there is to be a healthy “separation” of church and state, a good understanding of the mutually respectful separation can be read in a commentary written in 1888 that includes the following paragraph: “Destroy our churches, close our Sunday-schools, abolish the Lord’s Day, and our republic would become an empty shell, and our people would tend to heathenism and barbarism. Christianity is the most powerful factor in our society and the pillar of our institutions. It regulates the family; it enjoins private and public virtue; it builds up moral character; it teaches us to love God supremely, and our neighbor as ourselves; it makes good men and useful citizens; it denounces every vice; it encourages every virtue; it promotes and serves the public welfare; it upholds peace and order. Christianity is the only possible religion for the American people, and with Christianity are bound up all our hopes for the future.”
See: “The American Idea of Religious Freedom”, by Philip Schaff.
It’s no wonder the statists want to deny our children a proper understanding of American history.
For example, an early challenge to religious liberty was brought to the United States Supreme Court in 1878 in Reynolds v United States involving the right of a Mormon to have more than one wife.
Now, to be clear, I believe in traditional marriage between one man and one woman, and I agree with Mr. Philip Schaff when he states that “Christianity is the only possible religion for the American people” (see italicized paragraph above).
That said, in my humble opinion, this case should never have been allowed (by We the People) to have been adjudicated at the federal level. This was a State issue and should have been finalized in Utah, where “the people” have “the right” to determine “the structure” of “their society” in “their State.” That’s federalism; that would have been in accordance with our constitution.
However, maybe because Americans were too busy building railroads in 1878, they failed to demand judicial adherence to their constitution, and the Supreme court was allowed to insert their opinion that the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.
I don’t remember seeing caveats to NO LAW that differentiated between opinion and action; do you? My opinion is that the Supreme court of 1878 should have cited the First and Tenth amendments to the constitution, declined to hear the case and remanded it back to the State of Utah where it should have been adjudicated in accordance with the will of the people. Instead, the Supreme Court’s handling of this decision seems to have been the proverbial camel’s nose under the proverbial tent.
Our religious liberty has, since then, continuously and consistently been eroded at the federal level to the point where, in the 1960’s, the Supreme court required governments to “refrain from limiting religious freedom, unless they have a compelling societal reason for doing so.” See Section I, Paragraph 3:
And, of course the socialist Representative from New York Charles Schumer and the infamous deceased Senator from Massachusetts Edward Kennedy were only too happy to enshrine the governments “compelling interest” restriction on our First Amendment Rights in 1993 under the deceitful guise of the Restoration of Freedom of Religion Act.
I ask you: Do you really believe that Rep. Chuck Schumer or Sen. Ted Kennedy ever intended to protect your religious freedom? I rest my case.
Say NO to Convention of States
My article published September 6, 2018 on iPatriot.com
Mark Meckler, representing Convention of States Action (COSA), the group dedicated to amending our constitution, unwittingly gave us the most compelling reasons not to open up the constitution under an Article V convention in his testimony before the Michigan Senate Committee on Government Operations on September 5, 2018. Thank you, Mark.
In his testimony he stated that “most of you in your legislature, I hear it all the time across the country, lament the fact that the American public does not pay enough attention to the constitution. They are not necessarily educated well in Civics; they are not necessarily educated well in the constitution itself.”
I would contend that this is exactly why we should not open the constitution to the amendment process.
Mark Meckler began his testimony by stating that a majority of Americans are frustrated by the fact that far too much decision making and power is vested in the federal government. I believe this observation true, but do we amend a constitution that we don’t understand, or do we rather educate ourselves about the constitution to remedy the situation?
He continued by saying that this is a simple debate about a simple question about where decisions should be made in the United States. I would actually contend that this is a complex debate about a complex question concerning why we as American’s don’t “necessarily” understand our simple founding documents.
There are speculative answers to this complex question. Some of us feel we have higher priorities (what time does the game start?). Some of us think that the constitution is a “living, breathing” document that can be changed at will to the point that we have far surpassed James Madison’s warning in Federalist 62 about the “internal effects of a mutable (or changeable) policy” (parenthetical definition mine).
In Federalist 62, Madison points to the fact that changeable policy “poisons the blessings of liberty itself.” He goes on to say that “It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.”
To see what Madison was alluding to, I would encourage you to study any Senate journal of any day of any year in any State. Take for example yesterday’s Senate Journal in the State of Michigan:
This one-day journal is 71 pages long. After a tribute to a public servant who had passed into eternity, our Senators passed a resolution recognizing July 2018 as Craft Beer Month. Then they referred a resolution to the Congress of the United States asking them to remember to enact legislation that requires disposable wipes be clearly labeled as “non-flushable.”
They then received a message from the Governor informing them that he had approved and signed the following Senate Bills:
SB 871 which amended the 1927 PA 175 related to criminal procedures; SB 872 which amended the 1961 PA 236 regarding the organization and jurisdiction of the courts; SB 731 amending 1956 PA 55 authorizing jeopardy assessment of personal property taxes; SB 732 amending 1929 PA 236 providing for the recording of waivers of priority of mortgages; SB 733 amending 1970 PA 132 providing for the filings of surveys relative to land divisions, etc.
Oh my God, I can’t go on … the Governor signed and approved a total of 66 Bills listed on a total of 16 pages of this one-day Senate Journal.
I would challenge any one of our State Senators to “testify” whether they have read 1986 RS 65, or 1929 PA 236, or any one of these so-called “laws” that they are busy amending, and if they could cite the exact Section and Clause of the United States Constitution that gives them the authority to do any of these things to the people of the United States.
The Journal goes on to “read” Executive Order (No. 2018-7) Transferring Refugee Services Functions from “the Office of Refugee Services within the Department of Health and Human Services to the Michigan Office for New Americans within the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs” (I would ask why), and Executive Order (2018-8) naming the Brian J. Whiston Memorial Fountain (I would ask who).
The Governor then submitted to the Senate appointments to 57 various Boards, Directorships, Commissions, Councils, Advisory Panels, Administrations, and Task Forces a myriad of faceless bureaucrats, whereby our Governor “has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” That italicized sentence, my fellow citizens, is the exact wording of one of the 26 grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence that caused us to absolve our allegiance to the British Crown in the first place.
All of the above was accomplished in the first 18 minutes of this particular Senate “day.”
They then took a 54 minute recess from 10:18 am to 11:12 am.
The reconvened Senate then blathered about this and blustered about that, and then at 11:32 am they took their second recess that lasted until 1:31 pm – almost a two hour break.
Upon return, they introduced 56 more bills and took their third recess, after which they discussed, voted on and cataloged more unreadable stuff and adjourned at 4:02 pm.
Read it yourself. See what I mean. Then we need to ask ourselves, “Why would Mark Meckler (or any of us) want these people to open up our constitution, other than to actually read it? Then ask your legislator to show us the constitutional authority that gives them the right to do any of what they are doing, when their actual duty is to protect and defend the constitution that they seemingly don’t follow and we seemingly don’t understand.
The Perfect Man – Until Death Do We Part
My article published September 2, 2018 on iPatriot.com about The Perfect Man billboard.
There is a clever meme called The Perfect Man that shows a once-lovely group of old lady skeletons, one in a wheelchair, sitting around a table with a wine bottle and candles on it with the words Women Waiting for The Perfect Man written below the picture. Funny stuff, but this is no joke. Maybe those ladies would have been better off waiting for a few good men.
Actually, there are two world ideologies that claim that their prophet is The Perfect Man.
One of those world ideologies just so happens to be our own: Christianity. We hold dear the fact that the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was without sin, was crucified willingly for our sins, was buried and rose again on the third day to reign at the right hand of God until the day of His second coming, when He will return to recover His people and ultimately bring peace and harmony on earth is it is in Heaven. That is a beautiful image to behold.
That is not to say that our Perfect Man wasn’t capable of “turning over tables” when confronted with greed and misguided allegiance, and there is no short supply of God warning us against following foreign gods, who would become snares to us if we allowed them in our midst.
Read the Bible; it’s not me saying that, it is God saying that. Well, what about turning the other cheek, you ask? Certainly Jesus would want us to forgive other Christians when we are offended by something that they say or do. After all, the blood of Christ is thicker than water, as the saying goes. But does God really want us the turn the other cheek when we are slapped in the face with evil itself? I don’t think so.
Now, the other Perfect Man world ideology is alluded to on an actual billboard that lists the historically verifiable actions of that man. Never once does the message on this billboard state that man’s name. Never once does this billboard state the name of that other world ideology, and yet the defenders of that ideology reliably rose up in dismay and outrage, doing what they could to try to get the original billboard taken down, and to try to stop the placement of this billboard elsewhere.
The defenders of that other faith claimed that they would raise money to place another billboard nearby that would stress the peace and love of their world ideology. That doesn’t seem to have happened. Don’t wait too long for that billboard either, ladies.
Soon thereafter, the media belted out their typical online smear campaign reliably designed to destroy the character of the messenger, rather than to refute the message, using many of the market-tested words that are sure to rile up the radical faith followers, such as anti-Muslim, inflammatory, degrading, Islamophobia. You get the point.
But, how did the “believers” of this ideology and their complicit and compliant media know the identity of that particular Perfect Man, who was never once named?
All that the billboard says is that this “Perfect Man” was a rapist, he married a six year old, he had 11 wives (nine at one time), he was a slave owner and dealer, he beheaded 600 Jews in one day, and he tortured and killed unbelievers. That’s enough to make even old lady skeletons shiver in their bony boots.
Maybe it was because The Koran states that Muhammad is the Perfect Man for Muslims to imitate if they want to meet their foreign god Allah (Chapter 33:21), or maybe it is because The Koran (and other significant Islamic writings) support the truth of the billboard statements.
These few good billboard men are serious about educating America. In fact, this year’s billboard campaign includes a website called The Perfect Man Truth that offers clickable links to support the points made on the billboard.
So, what are Christians and Jews (unbelievers) waiting for, before we stop this foreign ideology from further infiltrating America? Are we waiting for our Perfect Man to save us? Is that what you think our God wants from us? Or, would He want us to start turning over tables and defending ourselves?
Maybe we should start by supporting the efforts of these few good men to further the truth by getting more of these billboards placed throughout the country, before death indeed do we part.
A Speech Revisited: “Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is No Vice”
Posted in iPatriot News on August 16, 2018
The situation our nation faces in 2018 suggests that history truly does need examination using a different lens.
In my humble opinion (IMHO), it is a tragedy that everybody tends to quote the atheist (aka communist, IMHO) from Spain Jorge Agustin Nicolas Ruiz de Santayana y Borras (aka George Santayana) born in 1863, when he supposedly said, “Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it,” rather than quoting Edmund Burke (Anglo-Irish statesman; staunch supporter of the American Revolution) born in 1729 when he said, “People will not look forward to prosperity who never look backward to their ancestors,” in his book The Reflections on the French Revolution, written in 1790.
Another tragedy is the short shrift that is given to Barry Goldwater (the great libertarian leaning Republican candidate for President in 1964) versus the democrat, socialist, communist (IMHO) former President Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Go back in history to the Republican national convention in San Francisco where Barry Goldwater gave a speech that was filled with inspiration and wonderful small r republican principles … the very principles that are burning right now, in the ongoing march forward of the destructive socialist policies of Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Maybe by reviewing some of Barry Goldwater’s motivating clarity of purpose we can re-ignite some of the pride he had for the Republican Party and for the United States of America, re-ignite the flame to restore American principles and enforce constitutional limitations upon our bloated government bureaucracy, and thereby douse the flames of anarchy that have been signed, sealed and delivered by men like Johnson with his Great (socialist) Society (IMHO).
Early in Goldwater’s speech, he said, and I quote: “The good Lord raised this mighty Republic to be a home for the brave and to flourish as a land of the free – not to stagnate in the swampland of collectivism, not to cringe before the bullying of communism.” End quote.
Yet today, we stand on the very edge of the fine line between Liberty and the bullying of communism. Make no mistake about it, the stakes are huge, our opponents never sleep, and we must be braver than brave if we are to ever again truly stand free. We cannot let our American Republic burn when so many men have spent blood, sweat and tears to protect and defend her.
Candidate Goldwater went on to say, “Now certainly simple honesty is not too much to demand of men in government.”
I envision Mr. Goldwater rolling over in his grave in the year 2018 where it is now almost as if honesty is a thread-bare old coat left to catch fire in a dusty broken down attic somewhere in the recesses of our mind, possibly never to be worn again.
Haven’t we reached a time where the pendulum has to stop in its tracks, where we must grab hold of it, pull it back to center, then get behind it and push it to the side where pride and honesty, love of God and safe streets are cherished again, not mocked?
Barry Goldwater had something to say about safe streets in this almost forgotten but truly memorable speech. He said, “History shows us – it demonstrates that nothing prepares the way for tyranny more than the failure of public officials to keep the streets safe from bullies and marauders.”
Imagine that, elected officials focusing on the most important constitutional duty of government at all levels – protecting the citizenry from outside aggression and inside insurrection. Our politicians need to be reminded that the protection of our streets is their primary responsibility, and the citizenry needs to know that if our elected officials choose to continue to ignore their primary responsibility, we must find men and women who understand this constitutional mandate, so that they put a stop to the burning of our cities.
Barry Goldwater went on to list what he considered to be the essence of republicanism. He said, “The cause of republicanism was to resist concentration of power and to ensure that power remains in the hands of the people.” He said that, “the cause of republicanism is to restore a clear understanding of the tyranny of man over man in the world at large, to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony if we just don’t rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression – and this,” he said, “is hogwash.”
Are you listening President Trump, Senate Majority Leader McConnell, House Speaker Ryan … Attorney General Sessions? The list goes on. Are you listening? You should be.
And then, near the end of this must-read speech, Mr. Goldwater went on to say, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”
Before the mobs of 2018 find faux support in these words of wisdom, the extremism we see on our streets today is not defending liberty but destroying liberty (IMHO).
I have read that Barry Goldwater was known for his alleged “blunt comments,” and the partisan media of his day used every tool in their box to destroy his character and thereby destroy his chances to become the 36th President of the United States. In the lens of history, I only wish that he had been elected President so that we would not still today be burdened with the unrealistic, unsustainable, in fact destructive policies of President Lyndon Johnson.
The modern day Republican Party would do well to go back, study their own history, and reclaim the glory that must have been alive during the founding of our blessed nation; that great men like Edmund Burke were able to see from across the ocean, and great men like Barry Goldwater were able to identify.
This is our day; we are living what will become history to generations yet born. We must find a way to rewrite the American Dream and put out the flames of anarchy.
The Day After the Primary Election
Posted August 9, 2018 from iPatriot
“Let me embrace thee, sour adversity, for wise men say it is the wisest course.” These words, said to have been penned by William Shakespeare, could have been written to the many disappointed supporters of State Senator Patrick Colbeck, I being one of them. We are all suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, when on the eve of August 7, 2018 we found that Senator Colbeck has come in third in a four-way race to become the Republican candidate for the November general election race to become the next Governor of the glorious State of Michigan.
Alas, and it is true, so many of Senator Colbeck’s volunteers worked so hard to get the word out that he indeed was the most qualified man of the people, with bright original ideas on how to address the many problems facing our state and, in fact, our nation. Wise, gifted, Godly, thoughtful, articulate, handsome, who could have asked for more – to be or not to be – that is a question?
Ah, but in the stead the winner is, Bill Schuette, a man who himself could easily be a convincing character from a Shakespearean play. Maybe like Julius Caesar, who if he were to become King would possibly mean the end of Rome’s republican form of government or Macbeth, the tyrannical ruler of Scotland who sought political power for power’s sake. “Too cruel, anywhere. Dear Duff, I prithee, contradict myself, and say it isn’t so,” as said by Banquo in Act 2, Scene 3 of MacBeth, when confronted with the fact that their royal master was gone.
Ok, that was fun for a moment, but let’s end the similarity right here, because at this point, our choices are limited to two, and we have “to be” for one of them. Bill Schuette is not Julius Caesar, nor is he MacBeth. Much to my chagrin, he was President’s Trump chosen heir apparent to the throne of Michigan, and as much as we have protesteth, the end of this play must be success not failure.
We must now turn our attention to Mr. Schuette and his opponent, the Democrat candidate, Grethen Whitmer (we can all breath a sign of relief that it will not be Albulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed – a backhanded victory, to be sure).
Many of my libertarian-leaning friends are crying out that the establishment and the special interest crowds have won again, and no matter which of these two general election candidates wins in November, we are once again confronted with the mantra that voting for the lesser of two evils, still gives us evil. There certainly is some truth to that sentiment. Both of these general election gubernatorial candidates are, without a doubt, career politicians, which to many of us is a strong indicator, if not of absolute evil, certainly of a love of big government over liberty.
Nonetheless, it also cannot be disputed that when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you do indeed leave “less evil” for our children to contend with in this earthly journey that they have inherited from us. So how do we determine just who is the lesser evil (if in fact you are of that mindset)?
If you examine both of these establishment candidates issues page on their websites, you will see that they are advertising that they are “the one” who can fix the roads (Ms. Whitmer insists on being a potty mouth when she talks about “the roads” – I wonder how that corresponds to her pledge to “Improving Education and Skills Training” – I thought using swear words was an indicator of a lower IQ or a lesser education). I guess we have to ask Grethen that question somewhere along the campaign trail.
Both candidates claim that they will “fix the roads,” “combat or end the opiod crisis,” focus on “jobs for Michigan,” “hold government accountable,” “protect women’s rights,” “roll back or repeal a previous administrations tax plan” … blah, blah, blah. Guess what, we have heard it all before.
These issues, or variations thereof, are repeated year after year, election after election, and things only seem to get worse, with more regulation, higher taxes, bigger government, to the point that it appears that these problems are similar to the cards stuffed up the card shark’s sleeve, left hidden until they get pulled out again, when they can be used to trick the honest card player into folding their hand, but now is not the time to fold in our hands.
We are, once again, at a crossroad, needing to pick up the pieces, unite with elements of the same basic philosophy, work hard to explain our terms, and get out the vote in our general favor. The only question that remains is, “Will the people aligned with the republican form of government (whom I would identify as the establishment Republican, the conservative, the libertarian, the constitutionalist, and the Christian) be able to win over the progressive, the socialist, the communist, the Democrat?” In the final analysis, that is the true nature of the political battle we face – it always has been, and it always will be. I don’t think that is a line from Shakespeare, but it probably should be one.
FISA vs. the Fourth
A Stolen Freedom Odyssey
Has anyone read the 49,000 word original FISA legislation introduced on May 18, 1977, by the late Senator Ted Kennedy and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1978?
I didn’t think so.
The first thing that jumped out at me, as my eyes were glossing over the “Definitions” outlined on page 1 of this “Act” (that includes 804 Sections), was that “Foreign power” means “a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons.”
Not substantially composed of (So, in other words, there can be a couple of U. S. “persons,” that “compose” a foreign power)?
United States persons? According to the definition found on page 1,443 of 22 USC 6010, a United States person means: “any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States, and any corporation, partnership, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States.”
I wonder if the definition of persons includes the estimated 12 million illegal aliens that have “unlawfully” admitted themselves for permanent residence in the United States (using 2014 Homeland Security data, which, by the way, excludes refugees, asylum seekers and nonimmigrants)?
I also find it interesting that the mammoth United States Code can be found on a U. S. Government Publishing website with the byline: Keeping America Informed. Indeed.
The task of attempting to understand the myriad legalese and loopholes that comprise our modern day so-called laws is monumental and, quite frankly, impossible to accomplish (me thinks that might be the usurpers’ goal).
We should examine some of the additional myriad words, acronyms, clamps, bells and whistles relative to the groundbreaking (or earth shattering) legislation known as FISA written by the so-called “lion” of the Senate (or was that “lying,” as in what I thought about his cowardly, self-serving defense of the untimely, tragic death of Mary Jo Kopechne at the bottom of Poucha Pond on July 18, 1969).
The American people should periodically read about, and never forget, that sad piece of history, but I digress.
What are some of the many ways that our public servants have usurped our Fourth Amendment cast-in-stone protection against unwarranted searches and seizures? Well, there is the Terrorist Surveillance Act, which was the NSA surveillance program developed during the G.W. Bush administration (2001-2009). This administrative-state beauty of countless words was a part of The President’s Surveillance Program which included the warrantless surveillance program with the code name Stellar Wind.
Apparently, at the time, the GWB administration joined the late Senator Kennedy in ignoring the Supreme court majority decision in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
And they all ignored the Supreme court (8-0) unanimous decision in United States v. United States District Court, No. 70-153 (known as Keith) (1972).
Both of these cases concurred that wiretapping was indeed included in our Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches and seizures.
Then there’s the Privacy Act of 1974 (8,253 words), the Protect America Act 0f 2007 (2,557 words), the USA Patriot Act (61,154 words), and the USA Freedom Act (20,950 words), to name but a few. All numbers shown in this commentary are approximate, but, I would bet taxpayers’ money that nobody has read any of them in their entirety!
I am also beginning to wonder if anyone has read the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the United States constitution. If you haven’t looked at your constitution lately, here are those 54 specific words that comprise the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What’s that old advertising campaign slogan? You’ve come a long way, baby? Indeed we have, and if I remember correctly, that ad campaign was about women smoking. Oh, great. You know that the devil is always in the details, sort of like Alexander Hamilton’s unheeded warning in Federalist 84 about adding a Bill of Rights at all to our constitution for fear of the usurpers regulating that which is written but never granted to the federal government in the first place.
Alas, it seems that buggy has left the station, probably never to be seen again, and in fact with the current cache of usurpers posing as power-brokers in this country, if we were to try to eliminate the Bill of Rights in 2018, it would no doubt be couched in some big government takeover of even more of our liberties. I wouldn’t doubt that for one legislative minute.
So, as the story goes, the people continue to naively look the other way, while our usurper government takes our very specific 54 word limitation upon their power to lord over us, and strips the very essence of our warrantless-search-and-seizure rug right out from under our feet.
I am not the only one who believes that this type of lawless infringement upon our Liberty must be stopped. You can check out for yourself the myriad (also unreadable) online opinion pieces that have been written through the years since the battle of FISA Vs the Fourth first began its fateful journey in 1978 (not to mention the grief our beloved President Donald J. Trump is experiencing today as a result of this lawlessness).
Yet, it seems that no one has delivered the much-needed knockout punch that might restore our constitutional limitations, placed upon an overzealous, out of control government, by our Founders who were much more keenly aware of the potential tyranny of the State than we seem to be … the key word here is yet … It’s FISA (141,914), the Fourth (54) … but, this fight is not over, yet. I’m still praying for the underdog Fourth.
I’ll Show You My Notes, If You’ll Show Me Yours
The Michigan House of Representatives Energy Policy Committee Meeting: 5G Wireless Technology Infrastructure Hearing
Part One of Six
As I sat on one of the hard wooden cushion less chairs provided to “the people,” in Room 519 of the Anderson House Office Building in Lansing, MI, waiting for the beginning of the Energy Policy committee hearing on the Senate Bills 0637 and 0894 (regarding the approval of infrastructure needed to implement the advancement of wireless technology from its current 4G to 5G), my very first NOTED observation was the upside down configuration of that very room.
It seemed illogical to me that the elevated hardwood podium and cushy leather-bound, stuffed and swiveled chairs were provided to the public servants of the people, instead of being provided to the bosses of those public servants. “We the people” should be sitting in those expensive, comfortable chairs and the hard wooden row cushion less chairs should have been provided to the public servants who are supposed to be working for us.
That observation basically sets the stage for my opinion of the government we have formed seemingly of, by and for the public servants.
The hearing began with the Sprint, AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile representatives (I called them The Music Men of Technology), being interrupted by the Senator who championed these bills in the first place, Senator Joe Hune, R-District 22.
Senator Hune spoke of having moved to a small town named Gregory where the Internet connection was non-existent. He said that it’s funny that his three year old thinks that, “Internet is a basic human right,” and his three year old “hollers every time the Internet goes out.” NOTE: If Internet service is non-existent, how did it go out? These remarks didn’t exactly give me a feeling of great comfort that the good citizens of Hamburg had used the requisite discernment in electing the best and the brightest when they gave Mr. Joseph Hune that Senate seat. But, then, everybody makes a bad joke, once in a while. Just ask Rosanne Barr.
Senator Hune went on to mention “our (his/their) friends” at Frontier, who provided some Internet service to the area where he lives. NOTE: I thought Internet was “non-existent” where he lived? Forget it. Oh, and by the way, most people don’t have any “friends” at any Internet Service Provider. We just pay them money for service. But then, that’s us, and most of us are not Senators.
Senator Hune continued by indicating that “the bills before them would not address rural Internet service, but that it would break down the government barriers to investment in Internet service.” He then described what 5G is, by saying, “it is approximately 20 times faster than 4G,” and “you can download 20 movies in the time it takes to download one movie.”
NOTE: As if downloading 20 movies were the criteria for a good life in America. I wasn’t overly impressed. Nor was I impressed when Senator Hune admitted that, “it was ‘kinda funny’ that he would champion a piece of legislation based on technology, because he’d just as soon not even have a cell phone.”
NOTE: Another bad joke that was not at all funny (I wonder if Senator Hune “championed” these bills because of campaign contributions added to his coffers from the Music Men of Technology). I also didn’t find it funny when he said that 5G was almost indispensable to the “autonomous vehicle wave that is coming,” being as this was a statement that was later challenged and seemingly refuted.
The AT&T Music Man then spoke up saying that small cell technology is “new and crucially important technology needed to increase broadband capacity in areas where large amounts of people are using a vast array of wireless devices to search and download a lot of information.” It will “also serve as a cornerstone on the coming 5G networks.” And it will “help usher in innovations like The Internet of Things, Driverless Vehicles and Smart Cities.” NOTE: Say what?
Mr. Verizon Music Man spoke next. He really didn’t have much to say other than to identify the words “small cells” versus existing “macro towers” and the ability of small cells to be incorporated easily into the existing macro towers – NOTE: I might mention that Senator Joe Hune at one point gave the impression that “small cells” were about the size of a briefcase.
Mr. Verizon Music Man then passed the microphone to Mr. Sprint Music Man. He spoke of the process; as in the number of hours of work and compromise that went into these pieces of legislation.
Then a consultant spoke on behalf of T-Mobile, obviously in support of the bills. He complimented the Chair for “doing a great job.”
Then a lawyer for AT&T (I call him Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney) spoke about the “compromise” in the bills; as in the process for fees, rents and access; a uniform process for permitting timelines; tools for authorities to protect aesthetics of the right of way; placement spacing requirements to avoid “clustering,” and height restrictions – new poles are to be under 40 feet of above ground level and collocation on existing poles of no higher than 5 feet above existing structure. NOTE: Quite a bit of mumbo-jumbo, (and quite a bit of footage for a briefcase sized small cell, isn’t it)? But then, confusing even the simplest issue, so that no one understands much of anything said, is what attorneys seem to do best. Good job, Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney.
Then we listened to highly questionable questions posed by our public servants. It doesn’t get much better (or worse), than this. NOTE: I suppose that depended upon whether you were sitting in a cushy leather chair or a hard wooden chair. To Be Cont’d … See Part Two of Six
Part Two of Six
I suspect “hearings” conducted by the myriad Senate and House “committees” in states across this nation have similar questionable discourse revealed in my analysis of the conversations and questions posited by the people whom we have elected to represent us. This is troubling at best and tragic at worst. I would like to think that the People deserve better than this … or do we? NOTE: We elected them.
Once the aforementioned presentations were completed by The Music Men of Technology and Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney (see Part One of Six) that began the Michigan House Energy Policy committee hearing on Senate Bills 0637 and 0894 (regarding the approval of infrastructure needed to implement the advancement of wireless technology from its current 4G to 5G), our House representatives began their much anticipated questioning.
State Representative Tristin Cole R-District 105, began the questioning by asking The Music Men of Technology to outline the size of the small cell boxes and to let us know if there was any current infrastructure in the Right of Ways.
Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney fielded the question. He looked at Page 7 of the 36 page SB 0637 and said, “Each antenna had to be within 6 cubic feet of the associated equipment, and on Page 8 with 25 cubic feet, down from 28 cubic feet – that’s the size of the structures we are talking about.” NOTE: This answer was to me about as clear as mud, especially when I still had this image of a briefcase-sized piece of equipment to which Senator Hune had alluded.
Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney continued to say that each of the wireless companies would have “different deployments.” NOTE: “Deployments” – isn’t that a military word? I’m just asking.
House Energy Policy Committee Chairman Representative Gary Glenn R-District 98, posed the following question(s): “Will each company … will have different sets of poles? Each carrier has different network needs? The preference is to “deploy” on existing poles … but these poles are low powered antenna, they only propagate 300 to 800 feet or so, so there may be a need for new poles?
Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney furtively answered, “It depends.” Chairman Glenn seemed satisfied with this vague answer, because he immediately then asked about the distance between poles.
Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney said, “That answer also is: ‘It depends.’ What we are talking about is another layer to existing wireless that’s out there – You have macro towers that propagate a mile or so. There is an extraordinary increase in data usage over the last ten years. You have to build more capacity into the network. You can’t create new spectrum and so to do that, they are bringing these smaller facilities down closer to the user. The key component is capacity. The frequencies used allow very low latency. You can’t afford to have poor latency. You need zero latency which is an important part.” NOTE: Wouldn’t “zero” latency be less than “low” latency or even “poor” latency? Move along; nothing here. No one challenged him.
Then State Representative Donna Lasinski D-District 52 inquired about rural reach. Her “concern is that the citizens who sent letters of support actually had the impression that this new service was going to give them Internet access that presently does not exist.”
Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney replied: “This is not a solution for unserved areas.”
Rep Lasinski’s second question was about “access equity” – enhancing service instead of expanding service. She asked, “How would this close the equity gap?” Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney answered by speaking of zoning challenges that might have impeded coverage where certain areas that don’t have 4G could receive small cell that would provide 4G and 5G in the future.
No follow-up question to that murky answer either, but Rep. Lasinski wasn’t finished. She then pontificated upon the digital divide being mostly along socio- economic means by pointing out that “the people who can’t afford any other devices but a cell phone are much more dependent upon their cell phones.” She continued by saying that she “believes this bill will close the digital divide,” but then she said that “the bill will possibly exacerbate the divide, just because we are seeing increased investment in our urban areas that will use the necessary capital dollars that will not be available to expand in rural areas.”
NOTE: Leave it to an Ann Arbor Democrat to make the case for and against the same issue in one fell class-warfare-observation swoop.
Rep. Lasinski’s next brilliant question: “When technology is moving very quickly. When 5G becomes 7G, 8Z, who knows … how does the bill provide for the removal and discarding of old equipment?” NOTE: As if the most pressing problem with “8Z” (if it comes to that exponential alphanumerical technology requirement) would be the discarding of old equipment, rather than the potential exponential destruction of our children’s health!
Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney said that there is language in “here” that addresses removal. He offered to point the committee to where it is, if that would be helpful. He also said that there was language in the bill that requires written notification to the city when a site is no longer being used and that he thinks there was specific language in the bill that would allow the city to do “it” if the company didn’t. He wanted to point out the specific language.
Ms. Ann Arbor Democrat Donna Lapinski said “That’s okay, we’ll have it “poled up” right there. (NOTE: Not funny) … she “just wanted to make sure “that” was addressed, because it was another concern of her community.” NOTE: Finally she was finished, but I’m not … Oh, and, by the way, the community is not hers; she belongs to the community (see Part Three of Six).
Part Three of Six
I share Thomas Jefferson’s opinion that the best government is the least government, and it is the job of the People to examine the actions of people set in high places to make sure that they act in accordance with the constitutional constraints that have been placed upon them. Right now, the people are doing a terrible job of oversight, and the public servants are doing a great job of taking advantage of our negligence.
I continue my analysis of The Michigan House of Representatives Energy Policy Committee hearing on the issue of the 5G Wireless Technology Infrastructure.
The next inquisitor, State Representative Steve Johnson R-District 72 finally (sort of) addressed the issue of health concerns, which was why many of us took time out of our busy day to come to this hearing in the first place. His question was with regard to whether a homeowner can make a request for a certain small cell to be moved away from their house.
NOTE: Surely, Rep. Johnson jested. The concerned citizens of Michigan will not be happier if the alleged cancer-causing new technology is placed 10 feet away from our home, rather than only 5 feet away, I can assure you.
But, Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney assured us that “there is language in the bill, Page 15, lines 1 through 5, that allow … and this was something that was negotiated as part of the stakeholder group for this exact concern, umm, so that they can require the applicant to come forth with certification of compliance with the FCCs rules related to radio frequency emission from the proposed facility. Umm. So that the authority can bake right in to the actual application requirements that certification is required as part of your permit. Ah Umm, to deploy. Ah, does that answer your question Representative?”
The camera switched back to Rep. Johnson who had a classic deer-in-the-headlights blank stare, as he meekly nodded agreement that his question had been answered. NOTE: More campaign contributions, anyone?
Chairman Glenn asked, “The language would allow a city to do so, to require that, but would not require a city to do so, is that correct?
Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney answered by saying: “Mr. Chairman, it gives the discretion to the authority to require this, if they so choose.” NOTE: Which authority; what discretion; whose requirement? Move along; nothing here. No one challenged him.
NOTE: I have everlasting respect for Representative Gary Glenn, whose work in the private sector is unmatched in clarity, bravery and sound doctrine, and he is probably one of the best legislators in Michigan; but the bar has been set very low, and it seems he has been somewhat affected by that same seductive allure of political power that softens and recasts even the best among us.
Then Rep. James A. Lower, R-District 70 inquired about maintenance – how would it work when a city wants to do some maintenance to a street light that has equipment on it? Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney answered “there was … that an agreement that could be put right in the language in the permit for the collocation.” NOTE: Say what? The softball question was completely missed. Ball one.
Then Representative LaTonya Garrett D-District 7 asked, “Out of curiosity, I’m trying to figure out what’s trending now from a 4G that is different that is now causing our data to run slower? What are people accessing, what are they searching the web for that is causing the data to run slower which is causing us now to need to have access to 5Gs and then maybe like the minority chair said that 6Gs and 7Gs? What’s trending? Can you explain that and then also could you just tell us some of the issues with regards to zoning? And then I’ll come back as ask some more questions.”
Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney answered by saying that there has been a huge increase in mobile data minutes, so this is people streaming video on their mobile devices and people rely on their phones more than ever to do things now; it’s a replacement for typically what we used to do at our homes, and so this increase in mobile data usage has caused this capacity crunch, and you can’t create more spectrum; it’s a finite resource. You have mobile data minutes going up; you have more people on flat rate plans going up, and you have limited spectrum; and so you need something to do to deal with our customers and your constituents’ needs. He then turned to Rep. Garrett’s second concern about zoning by basically stating that this bill addresses permitted use in the public right of way and if you are outside of that right of way, you are going to go through the traditional zoning procedure that the local authority “may” have.
Rep. Garrett made a follow up request: “Provide me with some reasons authorities have indicated in preventing; why they would like to prevent small cells in their jurisdictions.”
Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney said, “It is not so much that they are preventing; that people have come out with a notion that I don’t want small cells in my jurisdiction, but that from a state policy perspective is: What can the state do to encourage this investment in the state and having a uniform process and fee structure is extremely useful for encouraging that investment.”
NOTE: Rep. Garrett asked about authorities (the people); Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney talked about people (the authorities), and the discussion concluded by deferring to “the State.” So, even though the people are the true authorities; our public servants and the Music Men of Technology seem to give that distinction to the State. This, in a nutshell, is what needs to be fixed, and this type of careful oversight might be just what the doctor ordered (See Part Four of Six).
Part Four of Six
The Michigan House Energy Policy committee meeting, addressing The Wireless Technology Infrastructure bills, was split into two sessions.
This was done because our public servants had “something else to do” in the middle of the first day back from the 3-day Memorial Day weekend.
As if the citizens who traveled from all over the State of Michigan didn’t have “something else to do” that might have precluded their standing or sitting around in Lansing all day long waiting for an important meeting to reconvene. And then the second half of the meeting could only go until 5 pm, because our public servants had somewhere else to go that evening.
NOTE: This meeting should never have been split into two sessions in the first place. If our government was in proper alignment, the meeting would have started early and continued throughout the day, until the end, even if that meant that our public servants had to reschedule their other afternoon meeting and/or they were going to be late for their scheduled con fab on Mackinac Island that evening. Yeah, that’s where they had to go for the remainder of the week – Mackinac Island – one of the premier vacation spots In Michigan.
NOTE: There is definitely something wrong with this picture.
These observations are small potatoes compared to the meat of the subject; however, they do set the stage for my overall opinion of the government we have formed seemingly of, by and for the public service class.
Next up was Representative Beth Griffen R-District 66, who was curious about different companies having collocation on the same poles. Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney used a lot of words to answer this question, but the final answer was no, due to interference and incompatibility.
Her next question was for the Music Men of Technology to give examples of how signal boosters are already being used, so we might understand where it is going and how it might help.
Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney gave an example of the University of Michigan football stadium, where how a DAS system works and that it is similar to how a small cell polygon would work in an urban setting.
Rep. Griffen then said that she would be remiss if she didn’t mention that there are farmers and businesses and families that work from home in her district … then she said … “this bill is not going to directly address underserved or unserved rural areas (a barrier to growth for them), and that they are losing house sales because of it. She just wanted to appeal to all of them in the room today … and she thinks technology is good, but at this point she encouraged them to keep going and keep reaching because it is to our advantage economically and quality of life to millennials to keep pushing out into those areas, so thank you very much.” NOTE: Ok, next.
Mr. Verizon Music Man interjected that “the federal government, last year, there was CAFF money and grant money put forth for a lot of the land line companies and … they are building out.” NOTE: Basically his point was that when the additional deficit spending of fiat money from the federal government was used to expand fiber optic coverage into rural areas, they would then be able to increase the potential cancer-causing wireless technology into those areas as well. Oh, great. In other words, let’s all get sick together. Thank you Mr. Verizon Music Man.
Then came the good Representative Beau Matthew LaFave, R-District 108 from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, who gave something of a warm welcome to “his friends in the telecommunications business.” NOTE: Why is it that our public servants have “friends” in the telecom business? Could it have anything to do with campaign contributions?
Rep. LaFave then mentioned that the Upper Peninsula State Fair held over a 7 day period in Escanaba was Michigan’s “only State Fair.”
NOTE: Small point, but not really https://www.michiganstatefairllc.com/faq.
Nevertheless, Rep. LaFave’s concern was that “being as he spends about 16 hours a day at the Escanaba State Fair, where just last year, while he was talking to people and explaining to them what goes on at the State Capitol, unfortunately he got a call from Michigan’s House of Representatives Speaker Tom Leonard, R-District 93. He tried to answer … wouldn’t work. He tried to text him back … he actually had to leave the facility to get to his Speaker.” He went on to lament that there was “no going on Facebook live, there was no posting videos of him or any of the kids or any of the really cool events; the Fair … the live auction for the youth couldn’t be live streamed, so small cells would enable, in my understanding of the bill, to offload some of that data, so you could actually get a text message at the UP State Fair,” and he thought, it would be beneficial from an economic development standpoint an investing in one of, I believe, the best facilities in the State of Michigan, which is our fairgrounds in downtown Escanaba, but making it so families when they come to that campground and when they come to the fairgrounds can actually be contacted by their colleagues, their bosses, or get in touch with their employees, so is it, umm, am I correct in assuming that a couple of small cells scattered through the facility would take down some of that demand and make it so that I would be able to get in contact with the good representatives of whether it be the 46th District or the 2nd?” NOTE: Due to the long-windedness of so many of these “good representatives,” with too often repetitive questions, this honest analysis is taking way too much time, as did the entire hearing (See Part Five of Six).
Part Five of Six
The question posed by Representative LaFave, R-District 108 in Part Four of Six, was answered by one of Rep. LaFave’s “friends” at the technology table, who said, “Mr. Speaker, Representative … you’re correct.”
NOTE: The camera did not show us who actually responded. I suspected it was Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney, and I thought I could hear a smirk in his voice when he offered this brief answer to the very long-winded “question” posed by the representative from Escanaba.
But epresentative LaFave was not finished. He continued, “and really quickly, I had a conversation with my county road association … umm, I’ve got three counties that I’m responsible for protecting and making sure that they have the tools that they need to do their job as well, and one of the concerns that they had was that they would be forced to put a pole at the end of a three way intersection.” He went on to explain what a three way intersection looks like and that his understanding was that they could move a pole 50 to 70 feet away from a dangerous situation, if they wanted to.
NOTE: I thought this question was already addressed (maybe Rep. LaFave wasn’t taking notes when Rep. Johnson basically asked the same question – See Part Three of Six).
Mr. Slick AT&T Attorney said yes, then he continued by stumbling through how he wanted to address Rep. LaFave … He said, “Mr. Chairman, Speaker, uh, er, Representative” which elicited laugher among the privileged class and a comment not to worry about it. Someone said, “It happens.” To which Rep. LaFave responded that he appreciated the support; more laughter.
NOTE: I failed to find the humor in what should have been a very concise, well thought out investigation about a very serious issue, not the dog-and-pony show that we were witnessing.
The next questioner was Representative John Reilly, R-District 46, who seemed, to me, to be the only member of this house body who wasn’t interested in making light of this serious issue, or making a campaign stump speech, or a class warfare argument that could be brought back to a district to say, “See what I did for you?”
Representative Reilly directed his questions to the sponsor of these bills, Senator Joe Hune. He asked how much effort was put forward to address the health concerns of many of the people in attendance.
Senator Hune responded that they “had, personally, a ton of dialogue with people who were concerned from the health aspect component of it, and (he) received an enormous amount of communications from them, folks that were concerns, and, um, also from the supporters of the legislation dispelling some of the concerns, so, um, as was mentioned earlier there is language in the bill, and I’m not sure exactly where at in the bill, to allow local authorities, local units, to require some health related concerns in the legislation before permit is ultimately granted.”
Representative Reilly then asked, “Was there any evaluation of the studies that was put forth from the other side as, I mean, being in there that long, I was trying to figure out, did you have experts evaluate the data that from the other side to see if that was credible or not?”
Senator Hune glanced over at the Music Men of Technology as he responded: “Um, let me tell you our full process. We had, ah, introduced the bill and it went to a work group of folks involved with the telecom industry, Chairman Noffs, folks involved in local governments and other, um, vested interests involved that we sat for literally for tens of hours, I don’t know, maybe 40, 50, 60 hours discussing the various components and aspects of the legislation. Ah, we had, I don’t know how many committee hearings on it. Folks in support of the bill, folks in opposition to the bills, um, and we received written testimony as well, folks in support and folks in opposition. We saw the research of folks that were concerned from the health aspect and we saw the research of folks that were, um, dispelling those health concerns. So, I don’t know it that completely answers your question but that’s my explanation. It was a very lengthy process and if you look at other issues that I have worked on in the legislature, um, I’m generally let’s march forward, if we got the votes, let’s march forward, um, and Chairman Noffs did a fabulous job of bringing folks to the table. Maybe, ah, not every person that has concerns in the legislation was brought to the table, but Chairman Noffs did a yeoman’s effort.”
NOTE: The lack of seriousness about the legitimate potential health concerns of wireless technology, as expressed in these pivot-and-weave answers is breathtaking. Senator Hune should have been prepared to answer these questions with his NOTES from the “ton of dialogue” or the “40, 50, 60 hours” of discussion. He should have known exactly how many committee hearings were conducted. He should have been prepared to cite the concerns expressed by “the folks that were concerned from the health aspect,” and he should have attempted to address those concerns based upon the “research of folks that were, um, dispelling those health concerns.” Senator Hune, once again, revealed his lack of discernment that was first revealed in Part One of Six when he announced that “his three year old thinks Internet is a basic human right.”
These disappointingly vague, insufficient answers to possibly the most important questions asked in this hearing, were only made worse by Senator Hune’s deflective butt-kissing acknowledgement of the “yeoman’s effort” done by Senate Committee Chairman Noffs, who holds the keys to power at that committee level.
NOTE: As if that matters to anyone, but Senator Hune (Continued in Part Six of Six – The Final Analysis, finally).
Part Six of Six – The Final Analysis, Finally
Where are the NOTES that our Senators and our Representatives should be taking, as they sit in their high places, lording over us with endless, confusing, confiscatory rules and regulations that they don’t even appear to understand?
The hearing that I am transcribing is only one example of the countless hours of pomp and circumstance wasted, on our dime. It is like show time, offered up by legislators who have probably already made their decisions, but based upon what? We never know, because they don’t show us their NOTES. They hardly show a modicum of deliberative analysis to our faces and they rarely address, point blank, the issues that the citizenry want covered, without turning their hearings into some sort of joke fest, as if we are there to be entertained by the clowns. All we seem to get is fake news and phony rituals from our governing class. I am convinced that it must stop.
The morning session of the Michigan House Energy Policy Committee concluded with the following dialogue.
Representative John Reilly came back with a relatively good follow-up question. He asked, “Ok, from your perspective, you feel that there was a legitimate amount of time to evaluate the data that the opposition would have on this?”
NOTE: A better question would have been to ask for the conclusive evidence that gives Senator Hune the confidence that he should say, “Let’s march forward, if we got the votes, let’s march forward.”
Senator Hune responded, “Absolutely, and I am, I wouldn’t put forth something that I didn’t believe in.
NOTE: Please refer back to Part One of Six where Senator Hune said the following: “It was ‘kinda funny’ that (he) would champion a piece of legislation based on technology, because (he’d) just as soon not even have a cell phone.” Come on Joe, which is it? Do you “believe in” 5G, or would you “just as soon not even have a cell phone.”
Senator Hune wasn’t finished. He went on to say, “And I’ll tell ya, as I mentioned earlier, ah, and it’s been commented several times amongst the panel here, this is truly an economic development issue. Our 3 year old, again, at home, is outraged when we pull out of the driveway and he is not able to access Wi-Fi. NOTE: You should examine the video at 1:00:38 to see the faces of the two music men who appear to look down in shame at that stupid comment, as the audience groaned.
Senator Joe Hune seemed unaffected by his surroundings. He continues, “Um, it is unbelievable, unbelievable to me, um, um, how much of a utility this is perceived as from younger generations.
Representative Reilly simply said, “Ok, thank you.” NOTE: For what? Repeating a bad joke twice?
Representative Garrett had a follow-up question. She specifically asked the Verizon Music Man how much of a cost would be imposed on a Verizon customer. Mr. Verizon Music Man said, “There will be no cost on the Verizon customer as we build out our network.” To which, Rep. Garrett said “Oh, wonderful.”
Mr. Verizon Music Man then said, “I mean, the driver behind the cost would be the competitive nature of the industry, which is very competitive, and we don’t foresee any increase in cost as we build it out.”
Rep. Garrett: “So, every time there’s an increase going from 5Gs, like I said, to maybe 8Gs down the line, the customer does not take on any additional cost at all?”
Mr. Verizon Music Man: “I cannot say when we get to 8G, (he chuckled), but as of right now we don’t have any plans for any additional costs as we build out the 5G network.
Rep. Tom Barrett wanted to clarify the issue. He said, “What you are saying is that your investment is already part of your monthly bill for future prospective investment in other things. There’s certainly a cost to putting any type of tower infrastructure improvement, but it’s already anticipated through your normal monthly bill – you’re not going to have a 5G line item on the bill, but it will be part of your monthly subscription that you already have to go toward other infrastructure improvements.” NOTE: What needed clarification for me was why Rep. Barrett tried to defend Mr. Verizon Music Man’s skating around the issue of additional cost?
Not to be outdone, Representative LaFave felt a need to grab the microphone one last time to beg the Music Men of Technology to please put some more infrastructure in the Upper Peninsula because they could really use some help.
Then a new voice emerged. Representative Joseph N. Bellino, Jr., R-District 17 said that he was “really hopin’ that someday parts of his District … can get some Wi-Fi.” He went on to express dismay about this same issue that was not even going to be addressed by these bills – rural reach. NOTE: No one at that podium seemed to hear that Senator Hune had said at the very beginning that Wi-Fi outreach was not a part of the meeting agenda, or maybe they did hear, but were just doing their usual grandstanding routine.
Representative Bellino then turned, pointed at the audience (his bosses) and said, “And to the people in the back who groaned about the 3 year old, I’m havin’ a tough time with my 3 year old granddaughter. I give her my phone. She hits the You Tube icon and watches Mickey Mouse videos. So … thank you.”
NOTE: How shameful.
How long are we going to accept these vague, frivolous, diversionary, stupid questions and answers from the men and women who take an oath to protect and defend our constitution? Can we become the good overseers of our constitutional government if we show them our NOTES, and demand that they show us theirs? It’s worth a try (duly NOTED).
———————- ########## ———————————————
Were We Right to Write a Bill of Rights?
I had a few questions for a new friend I met at MiCPAC-2018, and again at UPCPAC this year http://mcu.today/. My new friend is the constitutional scholar who goes by the name Publius Huldah (Really she does. Check it out for yourself, at her blog site:
I asked her if there were any specific references in the Federalist Papers that address or further define the first amendment “Freedom of the Press” in the Bill of Rights.
Going on, I asked, “Was it possible that “Freedom” was therein somehow defined as the protection of the destruction of culture, government, society and spirituality?”
My final question to Publius Huldah was, “Does the definition of “The Press” somewhere include liars, seditionists, traitors, and enemies of our Constitution?”
She responded by referencing Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist 84, which is named Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered.
I wanted to quote the source material from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84; however, I know that his writing style might confuse many and bore most of my readers, so I needed to extrapolate, consolidate and make some modern day sense of his writing (which is beyond brilliant, if you take the requisite time to actually read, study and decipher what he is saying)!
But wait, Publius Huldah did just that in her excellent answer to my original questions. She wrote back to me saying, “When a King claims total power over his subjects, as did King John I of England, a Bill of Rights is appropriate to carve out exceptions to that claim of total power. Thus, in 1215, the Barons forced King John I to sign the Magna Charta.
But our Constitution delegates only a small handful of powers to the federal government over the Country at large.
To add a bill of rights to such a Constitution creates a pretext to regulate to those inclined to usurp.”
“Pretext to regulate”
A concise definition of the word “pretext” can be found on an Internet search engine, as follows:
“A reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason” (italics mine).
Although my original query was with regard to the “right” to a “Free Press” and how to define it, I now extend the conservation to another important “right” supposedly “protected” by the Bill of Rights: The Second Amendment “Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” and I ask, “How many Federal regulations are the good men of this country going to allow to be written before they determine that their “right to bear arms” has been Infringed upon?”
Well, let’s see. In my search for an answer, I found a “list” of Federal laws regarding firearms. It is nine pages long (I would wonder if it’s all inclusive).
Here is the list: http://fedcoplaw.com/html/federal_firearms_laws.html.
So, I ask, “Would 10 pages of firearm regulations be too many, promulgated by our Federal government on the pretext that the government has a “right” to regulate our Rights that are not to be infringed upon?”
As Alexander Hamilton opined in Federalist 84 … (in America), “the people surrender nothing; and as they retain everything they have no need of particular reservations.”
Publius Huldah lists the small handful of powers delegated to the American federal government herein:
Nowhere in this list does it indicate that the federal government has any right to a pretext to regulate the rights of the people regarding religion, assembly, gun ownership or a free press, to name a few, except in the Bill of Rights.
And so, I ask again: Were we right to write a Bill of Rights? Publius (Alexander Hamilton) didn’t think so, Publius Huldah doesn’t think so, and, upon reflection, neither do I.