A Republican National Committee’s Rules Committee member named Curly Haugland has let the proverbial ‘cat out of the bag.’ He says it’s the party who will decide who the GOP nominee will be, not the voters.

“The media have created the perception that the voters will decide the nomination,” said Haugland stated, “That’s the conflict here. The political parties choose their nominees, not the general public, contrary to popular belief.”

“The rules haven’t kept up,” Haugland said. “The rules are still designed to have a political party choose its nominee at a convention. That’s just the way it is. I can’t help it. Don’t hate me because I love the rules.”

“You have groups of people who are going to try to take over the rules committee,” he warned. “That could totally change everything, and mess things up with the delegates. And people across the country will be very frustrated.”

It’s important to note in all of this that the rules governing the convention itself are subject to change: A 112-member convention rules committee will meet at the start of the event and will be able to revise and set at least some of its own rules. Its members — one man and one woman from each state and territory — each elected by their peers.

Haugland has proposed a change in rules that would allow any candidate who earned at least one delegate to be submitted for nomination on the floor. That would sweep away requirements that, for the moment, precludes either Ted Cruz or John Kasich — or any of the candidates who collected delegates before dropping out of the race — from qualifying for the nomination under Rule 40, which requires a candidate to have the majority of delegates from at least eight states.

So far, the proportional allocation of delegates means front-runner Donald Trump is the only candidate to have met this mark. He has met the requirement in 11 states; Cruz has done so in just four, despite victories in 10 states.

Its time to get all political parties out of the electoral college and return it to its U.S. Constitutional standard as provided by Amendment 12 which reads in part:

“The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate…”

While the name Spott is important when discussing Yurok tribal and Del Norte history in general, there is one story about the Spott name that remains folded in history. It’s the brief story of Seeley Lane Spott’s death at the age of 33.

Brief because only a few news articles mention either man. This includes one in which  Seeley pleaded guilty to driving on a suspended license and was placed on probation for one year, while a 10-day jail sentence was suspended as well as pleading guilty to a charge of disturbing the peace and being fined $125 for the offense in December 1969.

Seeley disappears from the public record until January 9, 1974, when he was killed sometime between 4-5 a.m., that Wednesday morning, having been stuck in the head with a small, long-handled chopping axe. His body was found, at 8 a.m., in the street near his home on Nickel Avenue in Crescent City, by a 10-year-old girl on her way to school.

Arrested the same day at his Roy Avenue home only four blocks away and held for murder was an unemployed logger, 22-year-old Antone ‘Tony’ F. Martin Jr.  Del Norte County Sheriff Tom Lowry said the department’s investigation revealed that a heated argument occurred at Spott’s home before the slaying.

Less than three months later and after a three-week trial, a Del Norte Superior Court jury acquitted Tony of the axe slaying on March 30. His defense attorney James McKittrick had contended the death of Seeley was an act of self-defense.

According to retired Del Norte County Sheriff’s detective Richard Williams, in his 2007 book, “Mass Murder, The Ship Ashore Killings,” McKittrick later shared after the trial an insight about Tony “as being cold inside without any real regrets or feelings about his ax murder of Sealey (sic) Spott.”

Tony died July 18, 2003, at the age of 53 in Hillsboro, Oregon following a bicycle accident. He was living in Grants Pass, Oregon at the time.

Born October 28, 1951, in Corvallis, Tony was a member of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians. He also served in the U.S. Marine Corps, was a logger and construction worker, and labored for several years at the Portland shipyards.

Tucked between two letters Mom had written me years ago, I found her recipe jus’ in time for Easter. It is one of those pleasant surprises that seem to come from out of nowhere. This was one of my childhood favorites growing up in Klamath, where I’d smother a warm slice in butter and eat it with an icy-cold glass of milk.

Ingredients:

2 cups all-purpose flour
1 cup granulated sugar
1 cup milk
1 large egg
1-1/2 tsp margarine or unsalted butter
1-1/2 tsp baking powder
1 tsp anise seed
1/2 tsp ground cinnamon

Directions:

Combine flour, sugar, milk, egg, butter, baking powder, anise and cinnamon.
Mix thoroughly.
Pour mixture into greased 9-inch by 5-inch loaf pan.
Preheat the oven to 375 F.
Bake about 45 to 55 minutes.
Bread will puff and top may crack.
Cool five minutes in pan, then transfer to wire rack to cool completely.

Makes one loaf

To paraphrase an old line from a Humphrey Bogart movie, “Constitution? We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution!” — especially when every federal agency in our U.S. government has an extracurricular set of unconstitutional rules by which it operated.

During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting on March 8, Senator Cory Gardner asked if Congress approved the U.S. State Department’s diversion of $500 million to the UN’s Green Climate Fund. Deputy Secretary Heather Higgenbottom bluntly addressed the GOP senators’ accusation.

“Did Congress authorize the Green Climate Fund? No,” she replied.

Higginbottom also insisted they were not required to let Congress know about the transfer from the Economic Support Fund (ESF) saying, “We have reviewed our authorities and made a determination that we can make this payment to the Green Climate Fund. We do not believe we are in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, and clearly our lawyers and others have looked at our authorities and our abilities to do this.”

The ESF is a part of the U.S. Foreign Assistance program and has ranged from $2.5 billion in 2001 to $4.7 billion in 2015.  Yet the State Department managed to find half-a billion dollars to hand over to the UN without any accounting as to the monies use.

Garner then asked Higginbottom how the administration was able to divert and reprogram funds to meet Obama’s pledge.

“We reviewed the authorities and opportunities available to us to do that, and believe we are fully compliant with that,” she said. “I’ll be happy to follow-up with you and your staff.”

It’s clear that departmental rules are replacing the constitutional requirement that only Congress can appropriate money as stated in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1 which reads, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”

Of course, this isn’t the first time ‘the rules’ superseded the U.S. Constitution and it isn’t going to be the last.

Seventy-four-year-old Ralph Gilbertsen is not a felon or domestic abuser, and has never been ruled dangerous to others, despite being ‘mildly bipolar,’ but Richfield Police in Minnesota confiscated his firearms anyway. He also has a concealed carry permit holder, which means he passed the in-depth background check required to get such a permit.

The retired Marine believes in Bigfoot, UFOs and thinks the government is spying on him.

“A lot of people believe these things, but they don’t want to talk about it,” he said. “I could see people being skeptical if I was saying something really outlandish, like space aliens with big heads were visiting me every night. But nobody can believe the CIA is squeaky clean. The people who think these things can’t happen, I think they’re the ones living in Alice-in-Wonderland world.”

It’s a fact that the National Security Agency is collecting electronically transmitted data on the American people and storing it in Utah.

His belief’s came to the attention of authorities in 2015 after his apartment manager expressed concern to the Hennepin Community Outreach for Psychiatric Emergencies (COPE). Following a complaint, COPE called police to escort them to Gilbertsen’s apartment, where they confiscated a .40-caliber pistol, a .357 magnum and a .22 revolver.

His attorney Paul Baertschi says the police took away a citizen’s guns simply because of his beliefs.

“He’s what some people would say is a conspiracy theorist. It is an unusual situation,” Baertschi said. “But really, the police acted unilaterally in deciding that a person who has these beliefs can’t be trusted with a gun. And so they just took them, without a warrant.”

“Officers are often forced to make snap judgments about an individual’s mental health,” Richfield Police Department spokesman Lt. Mike Flaherty said, “The street cops nowadays have to be a psychologist. People don’t wear nameplates saying ‘paranoid schizophrenic.’ So the police have to go in there and make judgment calls.”

There is a huge difference between bipolar disorder and paranoid schizophrenia.

Minnesota law allows the seizure of firearms on mental health grounds only if an individual has been committed to a mental institution or has been ruled by a judge to be a public danger. That requires a legal finding that the person has tried to harm others or that there’s “a substantial likelihood” of harmful behavior.

Justice Antonin Scalia died February 13, 2016 and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts acted swiftly, waiting less than a day after the EPA’s response brief to side with the Obama administration dismissing an earlier 5-4 ruling SCOTUS ruling that President Obama’s global warming regulations are illegal. Worse yet, he acted unilaterally, electing to reject the request himself, and not take it to the full court, which may have led to a 4-4 split.

Roberts rejected the request of 20 states to stay the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards rule, adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency three years ago. This means the regulation remains in effect while a legal battle continues over whether the EPA properly weighed costs and benefits in drafting the controversial regulation.

The administration’s initiative, which is still in the planning stages, requires states to develop plans for shifting away from fossil-fuel power plants in favor of alternative forms of energy. It also aims at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide at existing plants by about a third by 2030.

The Clean Power Plan is an essential part of Obama’s pledge to cut the country’s contribution to global warming, because the electric-power sector of the economy supposedly emits 30 to 40 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gases. Under the EPA plan, states can draw up their own plans or choose the agency’s plan.

Such action on the part of Roberts is exactly how you and I have lost control over our liberty. Rather than side with the States in this case, he sided with an unconstitutional agency of the federal government; the EPA in this situation.

The Tenth Amendment makes it very clear that the powers not given to the United States, belongs to the states or to the people. That means you and I are to be the final arbiters over our sovereignty, not the EPA, the SCOTUS or the state.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to C. Hammond, July 1821: “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated …“

In this case, Jefferson was talking about King George III and the arbitrary rules he forced upon the Colonies before the War for Independence. Sadly, the SCOTUS, and Roberts in particular, are operating under another set of ‘arbitrary rules’ aptly named “Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

And while not unconstitutional, they do deny the plaintiffs in this case their constitutional right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” as stated in the First Amendment. because should the states file again, the SCOTUS won’t hear the argument because Roberts has already ruled on it.

Here’s one of the many social media trolls I put up with on a daily basis. This guy recieves my postings on Facebook only because he’s a friend of a friend from high school — otherwise I don’t know him from Cain.

Abel Morris: Tom Darby yesterday your post mocked Trump before his rally! Now your (sic) knocking a moron who rushed at Trump while giving a speech. How about you make your mind up (sic.)

Me: How about you stop worrying about what I do or don’t do!

Abel Morris: Your stupid shit comes across my news feed! If you don’t want criticism don’t preach stupid shit!

Me: You can block my stuff if you don’t want it on your feed. Once again — worry about your shit — not mine.

Abel Morris: I’m not worried about it! I was pointing out how hypocritical you are! LOL have a nice day (sic.)

I ended up helping him avoid my ‘stupid shit’ on his ‘news feed; I blocked his ass.

It’s interesting that people find it easy to name call and be critical of others whom they don’t know, especially through social media. I doubt that even two-percent of those who are rude to me would do so in person.

Tyrone Williams and Chauntyll Allen entered a Joe’s Crab Shack restaurant in Roseville, Minnesota to have dinner in celebration of Allen’s birthday. In addition to its food, the seafood chain is known for the eclectic decor at its eateries.

But when Williams and Allen sat down at their table, they noticed this old photo that was laid under the glass tabletop titled “Hanging at Groesbeck, Texas on April 12th, 1895.” A text bubble above the man being hanged reads, “All I said was, ‘I didn’t like the gumbo!’”

My first thoughts were jokes as poor in taste as the text bubble: “Come in for the hoods and robes, stay for the crab legs,” or “Hang around for the seafood gumbo,” and “Get a healthy bowl of racism with every Southern Style Catfish served.” But then, even though it was 121-year’s ago, joking over the death of a man, whether a convicted murderer or not isn’t in very good taste.

Instead of moving to another table or going else where for their lunch Allen and Williams had to make a mountain out of a molehill.

“We will no longer be eating at any Joe’s Crab Shack that supports White Supremacy and racism,” said Williams.

“They are trying to make a joke out of our black bodies being lynched and I had a real problem with that,” said Allen of the picture.

Her opinion was shared by Austin, Texas’ Black Lives Matter affiliate in a Facebook posting, “They actually used a real lynching photo.”

Unfortunately, because ignorance (or perhaps stupidity abounds) it has to be pointed out this wasn’t a lynching. It was an execution.

On May 3, 1894, a pioneer resident of Groesbeck, James Garrett McKinnon, was beaten to death with a stone and robbed. Richard Burleson was arrested for murder, tried and convicted and on April 12, 1895 the 21-year old man was legally hanged.

A great-grandson McKinnon’s researched the case and said Burleson was a freed slave who robbed his grandfather of a $20 gold piece. The two had been seen together earlier in the day.

“James offered Burleson a ride in his wagon, Burleson accepted, then clubbed James over the head with a rock,” Tom McKinnon of Arizona wrote of his research.

Prior to his execution, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas even took up his case, upholding his conviction in the end.

Ignite, the Houston-based corporate parent of the Crab Shack chain, issued a written apology and the table removed: “We take this matter very seriously, and the photo in question was immediately removed. We sincerely apologize to our guests who were disturbed by the image.”

However, the apology is “not enough,” Minneapolis NAACP President Nekima Levy-Pounds said. She’s now pressuring the chain to make a donation to an organization focused on African-American youth.

So maybe a hefty cash infusion will wash away the ‘White guilt’ and the sins of the ‘White fathers,’ since James Garrett McKinnon life was only worth a $20 gold piece when Burleson caved his head in.

Secretive legislation ‘designed’ to help local law enforcement fight terrorism with the aid of the federal government has been introduced. H.R. 4401, the Amplifying Local Efforts to Root out Terrorism (ALERT) Act of 2016, allows “federal law enforcement to train and work closely with state and local law enforcement in using the most effective tactics and methods to counter terrorism.”

This legislation was passed by the House Homeland Security Committee on a voice vote, and has the support of 11 bipartisan cosponsors — including five Democrats and six Republicans.

But there’s more to this including terms within this bill that must be highlighted. For instance, the term “violent extremism” means “ideologically motivated international terrorism or domestic terrorism,” as defined in section 2331 of title 18, United States Code.

“International terrorism” reads the section, is “activities that involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State.” Furthermore, the term “domestic terrorism” means “activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State.

Both involve an act to “appear to be intended” (which means to give the impression of being in a certain way) to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.”  But then the federal government’s view of “ideology” as shown in the U.S. Air Force’s July 2011 ‘0910 Equal Opportunity and Treatment Incidents’ lesson plan remains questionable:

“As noted, an ideology is a set of political beliefs about the nature of people and society. People who are committed to an ideology seek not only to persuade but to recruit others to their belief. In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

Finally, there’s the 2012 document, “Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism,” produced by the ‘National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism,’ in which the following characteristics are used to identify (domestic) terrorists:

“Americans who believe their “way of life” is under attack; Americans who are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”; People who consider themselves “anti-global” (presumably those who are wary of the loss of American sovereignty); Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”; Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty”; People who “believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”

The report also lists people opposed to abortion and “groups that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers,” Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, or own gold and even people who fly a U.S. flag as terrorists. Oh, and don’t forget the FBI says using cash to pay for a cup of coffee is suspicious.

A case challenging ‘net neutrality’ is making its way through the courts, and it’s revealing some interesting information. For example documents show that while the Federal Communications Commission was creating the regulation — it was working with the Obama administration, keeping it abreast with where it was in the process.

As this continues, Senator and Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Ron Johnson released a report titled, “Regulating the Internet: How the White House Bowled over FCC Independence.”  In it, he highlights problems in the process by which the agency arrived at its net neutrality order, being litigated in federal court.

In 2014, after being overruled in court, the FCC had an open hearing to again consider how to carry out net neutrality.   However, shortly after the 2014 elections, President Obama urged the FCC to “implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.”

In particular, he wanted the FCC to unilaterally assert authority over Internet service providers (ISP) under Title II of the Communications Act, which allows for the regulation of “common carriers” as public utilities. The report points to evidence of a “pause” and a change in the FCC’s course after the President’s comments.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and staff were finishing work on a different approach in November 2014 before Obama’s comments. However, shortly afterwards, Wheeler instructed his staff to draft an order following the President’s proposal of a Title II reclassification.

This rule prohibits ISP’s from charging for legal content flow through their networks. To enforce this, the FCC reclassified broadband as a more highly regulated telecommunications service.

Obama appointed Wheeler, a Democrat, as FCC chairman. The agency’s Democratic majority pushed through the regulations by a 3-2 vote in February 2015.

Details of the report also include the fact that before the White House’s announcement in support of Title II reclassification, the staff worked over the weekend to provide Wheeler with a draft Open Internet Order, adopting a “hybrid approach,” to be considered on the FCC’s December 2014 Open Meeting, but after Obama’s statement there was confusion and the rapid timetable for completing the draft Open Internet Order was “paused.”

The FCC employees also raised concerns about following proper notice-and-comment rules, as required under the Administrative Procedure Act. They advised that the record to support Title II reclassification was lacking and needed more public comments, but despite this, the agency chose not to seek additional public comment, and proceeded with the president’s preferred policy outcome.

Finally, over the course of the committee’s investigation, the FCC refused to provide key responsive documents. Moreover, in the e-mails provided to the committee show there was an attempt by some to thwart transparency and avoid ex-parte filings.

In the end, net neutrality isn’t neutral at all. Instead it is a ‘play on words,’ meant to abridge free Internet commerce and a violation of the 10^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”