Patriot Action Network

Standing against big government and for the people!

Happy New Year! "Barry's end run decrees" HIS Feds list 141 new regulations in only three days!!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s a new year and you know what that means — new regulations. The Obama administration has wasted no time in writing them.

The website lists 141 regulations that have been posted by federal agencies in the last three days alone. Of these regulations, 119 are “rule-making,” meaning they establish a new rule. Twenty-three are “non-rule-making,” meaning the regulations does not establish a new rule.

The largest group of regulations have to do with energy and environmental issues, many of them issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. One new EPA regulation is an amendment to a rule on hazardous emissions from lead smelters.

The EPA has come under fire from lawmakers for cracking down on emissions from coal plants and other carbon-heavy fuels and materials. The agency is also working on 134 major and minor regulations that will take effect in the coming years.


Views: 49


You need to be a member of Patriot Action Network to add comments!

Join Patriot Action Network

Comment by Rowdy on January 6, 2014 at 9:21am

It is beginning to look like there is no alternative.

Comment by Brock Peterman on January 6, 2014 at 9:12am

Revolution is looking better and better isn't it?

Comment by Rowdy on January 5, 2014 at 5:35pm

Here is a post from a friend and fellow patriot.  He teaches classes on the Constitution, Concealed Carry, and Self Defense.  And he writes one of these rants he calls them almost every day.  Not much posting here so I thought I would share this.


“[The Constitution] was framed on truly republican principles; and that as it is expressly designed to provide for the common protection and the general welfare of the United States, it must be utterly repugnant to this Constitution to subvert the state governments, or to oppress the people.” ~Alexander Hamilton, New York State Ratification Convention, 1788.

What does an advertising executive living on the Upper East Side in Manhattan have in common with a bean farmer in Dove Creek, Colorado, other than the fact they both live in the United States? Does the fact there are possibly more people living in the area of New York where this advertising executive lives or works than there are living in the entirety of Dolores County, Colorado, (population 1,994) give the ad executive the right to determine what laws should govern the conduct of the bean farmer, simply because in a “democracy” the majority rules? Which of the two because of their income or station in life would have more influence in using government to acquire dominion and control over the life of the other? Does a “one size fits all” government defend what is important to each as they go about their separate quests for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?

For those who would find problems with my above analogy, I would remind them that not so very long ago the now former Mayor of New York City spent quite a bit of money here in Colorado to tell the bean farmer in Dove Creek how many bullets he could have in his gun.

Believe it or not, in the hot humid days of July in Philadelphia in 1787, the above questions, although not presented in such futuristic detail, had almost brought the Constitutional Convention to a halt.

From the time we first studied “government,” possibly in a Civics class in elementary school, we have heard the phrase “checks and balances” as it refers to our government. The form of government ratified by a sufficient number of states as required in Article VII of our constitution has morphed over the past almost 225 years into a highly centralized, unconstitutional in its operation, behemoth that sees no limitations to its power. The three branches of government have become equal partners in tyranny. The theory of “checks and balances” has for all practical purposes disappeared. To justify this tyranny, members of our ruling class often seek to justify their actions by imposing Article 6 Section 2 of our Constitution, or what is commonly referred to as the “Supremacy Clause.”

Several in our country’s history, including Abraham Lincoln, Senator Daniel Webster and Supreme Court Justice John Story would have us believe the federal government existed before the states. This concept is completely asinine considering our well documented history.  One could only look upon such ridiculous assertions as a motive to seize power that was not granted. We need look no further than the Preamble to the Constitution itself for the proof desired.

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." (Emphasis added)

There we have it; our Constitution was ‘ordained and established” for the United States or the States United. It was established for the states and by the states acting as individual entities. At this point in our history all thirteen states were members of a Confederacy, governed under the Articles of Confederation.

The States, as were listed separately in the Treaty of Paris were uniting to form a government operating under “consent of the governed” to “secure” their natural, unalienable, rights as granted by their Creator. No way, no how, did the people of these states bequeath or grant to this government of their own creation supreme authority over their lives.

The intention was clear: these states and the sovereign individuals residing in these states would retain the right to be a “check” on the actions of their government. In the words of the Declaration of Independence the people acting through their individual states retained the right to “alter or abolish’ their government when it became “destructive of these ends.” In other words; if there are no “checks”, exercised by the states and the people in the operation of their government, there can be no “balance.”

This completely lays waste to the belief that acts of legislation introduced and passed by Congress, signed by the President and even confirmed by the Supreme Court are in any way binding on the States and the People if they are not “in pursuance of the Constitution.”

Alexander Hamilton would say in the Ratification Convention of New York “…the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.” Hamilton also would state in Federalist 33, “it will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution…”

There are also from James Madison, sometimes called the “Father of the Constitution” the words of Federalist 45, “the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite… the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people…” (Emphasis added)

“One size fits all” government is as useless and uncomfortable in its application as would be one size fits all ladies undergarments.

It would be correct and constitutionally valid to claim that the states are in fact the final check on unconstitutional and tyrannical acts by the federal government. There exists a plethora of examples of such unconstitutional laws and tyrannical bureaucratic regulations.

The federal government cannot determine what the best form of medical care (ACA) is for either the aforementioned bean farmer in Dove Creek nor the ad executive in New York City; neither can they subject anyone to invasions (NSA) of their persons, papers, houses and effects; (4th Amendment) nor can their very lives be subject to the whims of a president. (NDAA)  It is imperative we remember that governments are instituted among men primarily for the purpose of protecting the unalienable rights of its people, not for protecting tyrants, either elected or appointed, from the just wrath of the victims of that tyranny.

As our Founders argued in July of 1787, the demographics and the personal desires of the people of different states require different ideas and solutions. Joseph Taylor, a delegate from my home state of North Carolina to the Convention of 1787 questioned if the people from the North could be trusted to even consider the desires of the people from the South, “We see plainly that men who come from New England are different from us. They are ignorant of our situation; they do not know the state of our country. They cannot with safety legislate for us.”

Would anyone claim for a moment those who live in the big cities of our various states have a clue as to what the people in the rural areas of those states find important? Is there not a reason here in Colorado we have several rural counties on the Front Range talking of Secession?

Also at the Convention of 1787, Gouverneur Morris would say, “I came here to form a compact for the good of America. I am ready to do so with all the states. I hope and believe that all would enter into such a compact. If they would not, I am ready to join with any states that would. But as the compact is to be voluntary, it is in vain for the Eastern States to insist on what the Southern States will never agree to…” (Emphasis added)

As the discussion of the various attitudes and even the climates of the different states were discussed and how each element pertained to the differing ideas and desires of the people of those states, the question became, “how would each state deal with legislation passed by the majority that even one particular state found unacceptable to the people of that state.” James Madison would say, “We are not to consider the federal union as analogous to the social compact of individuals; for if it were so, a majority would have the right to bind the rest, and to even form a new constitution for the whole…”

Madison would refer to the Federal Union, “as analogous, not to the social compacts of individual men but to the conventions among individual states.” In other words should any “one party the Union” breach any part of the compact, “all the other parties are at liberty to consider the convention as dissolved, unless they choose rather to compel the delinquent party to repair the breach.”

When researched and seen through the eyes and words of many of our founders, any law passed or bureaucratic regulation foisted on the people of the individual states that is not “in pursuance of the Constitution” is null and void and the states or the people have the right or perhaps even the duty to “compel the delinquent party to repair the breach.”

The powers of a sovereign people lie not in the government they created for the primary purpose of protecting their natural rights, but as stated in our Tenth Amendment, those powers “are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

As I have stated on numerous occasions in our Constitution classes, “if you do not know and understand what your rights are, you will not know when they are taken from you.” To paraphrase scripture, more specifically Hosea 4:6, my people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge of their unalienable rights as granted by their Creator.

In Liberty



"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."
"The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children."
—Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Comment by Rowdy on January 5, 2014 at 5:20pm

We are drowning in rules, regulations and laws.  We have so many on the books now that no one can help but violate some law about once an hour.  Yet they are choosing to enforce only the ones they wish.  I don't think that is the way our system is supposed to work

Blog Posts

GOP, Are You Ready To Reach Out to Blacks Yet?

Posted by Lloyd Marcus on September 2, 2014 at 7:34am

Tuesday Morning Edition

Posted by Rudy on September 2, 2014 at 7:30am

Persistance - "We all toughed it out"

Posted by Prof. Charles Xavier on September 1, 2014 at 9:00pm — 6 Comments

Our Country

Posted by William Smith on September 1, 2014 at 6:39pm — 2 Comments

Monday Afternoon Extra

Posted by Rudy on September 1, 2014 at 12:30pm — 6 Comments

Take Back the GOP!



© 2014   Created by Grassfire Nation.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service