For those who think Conservative Tom just sits behind the computer screen while espousing his conservative opinions, we have a surprise for you. In July, we put our name on the ballot for a precinct delegate to the county convention and at the primary held this last Tuesday, yours truly was elected. It is not the Presidency but it is the first step. If all politics are local, then we are about to experience them first hand. We are looking forward to the event and will let you know our opinions. Conservative Tom
The Obama Administration continues its anti democratic, anti military ways. Now it has opted to sue Ohio's attempt to extend the days that military personnel have to send in their absentee ballots. This is not the way we do things in America, it is more reminiscent of the Soviet Union, Cuba or Argentina. Oh, I forget that is his goal! Time to send Obama to retirement and he can take Michelle along with him. Conservative Tom
Report: Obama Campaign Sues To Restrict Military Voting
August 02, 2012
President Barack Obama, along with many Democrats, likes to say that, while they may disagree with the GOP on many issues related to national security, they absolutely share their admiration and dedication to members of our armed forces. Obama, in particular, enjoys being seen visiting troops and having photos taken with members of our military. So, why is his campaign and the Democrat party suing to restrict their ability to vote in the upcoming election?
On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in Ohio to strike down part of that state’s law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is “arbitrary” with “no discernible rational basis.”
Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military are given three extra days to do so. While the Democrats may see this as “arbitrary” and having “no discernible rational basis,” I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women’s time and their obligations to their sworn duty.
The National Defense Committee reports: For each of the last three years, the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program has reported to the President and the Congress that the number one reason for military voter disenfranchisement is inadequate time to successfully vote.
I think its unconscionable that we as a nation wouldn’t make it as easy as possible for members of the military to vote. They arguably have more right to vote than the rest of us, since it is their service and sacrifice that ensures we have the right to vote in the first place.
If anyone proposes legislation to combat voter fraud, Democrats will loudly scream that the proposal could “disenfranchise” some voter, somewhere. We must ensure, they argue, that voting is easy and accessible to every single voter. Every voter, that is, except the men and women of our military.
Make no mistake, the Democrat lawsuit is intended to disenfranchise some unknown number of military voters. The
judge should reject it with prejudice.
In what we believe is a master stroke, Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney selected Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate. The Vice President candidate brings financial expertise, youth, and conservative stripes to a campaign that needs the latter two attributes. Of course, the Democrats are going to focus their attention on the Ryan Budget which passed the House but did not even get a hearing in the Senate. It is tough medicine, however, is that not what is needed? We believe so. The country cannot continue down the path it is currently on. If things are not changed, we will become the next Greece and our country will never ever be the same as it has been. Our economy is running out of steam, we have borrowed too much, provided too many benefits to those who do not work, and have tried to provide programs for every imaginable problem. This cannot continue. It will be the job of the Republicans to communicate the dire nature of the country's financial issues and to promote the necessity to make changes now before tragedy hits and not to wait until there are no options. We think they can do it. We wish the Romney-Ryan team the very best. Conservative Tom
If we were running the Romney campaign, we would be hammering the President on the Gulf oil spill every day. It is an example of his inaction, his attention to everything else including his golf game, while the oil kept spilling. This is how Obama leads or should we say follows. He is not a leader. People blamed President Bush for not getting to the Gulf after Hurricane Katrina but he was there within a couple days. It took Obama nearly 7 days before there even was a public statement on the problem and did not visit for weeks later. Yet, he seems to get a pass on this. Are we so enamored with Obama that we will not hold him accountable for things that happen in this country? The public does not seem to be concerned that we have unbelievable unemployment and underemployment, a housing crisis that has not been resolved, a foreclosure problem that will not go away and yet, he is still popular with the country. Are we so dumbed down that we cannot see what he is doing to this country? This election should be a cake walk for any challenger given the economy, Obama's ruling by administrative fiat, his constant campaigning and his lack of leadership. Yet, right now polls indicate that he is either ahead or tied with Romney. Either that says that the Republican is a poor candidate or that Obama has the best press coverage. It is very concerning. Conservative Tom Should you have forgotten what occurred during the gulf oil spill, the link below is a great encapsulation of it. http://vimeo.com/12933322
Here at Conservative Musings, we call them like we see them. When we agree with someone on their stand, we say so and the opposite also applies. Such is the case of Romney saying that the Boy Scouts should allow homosexual Scouts and Leaders. We strongly disagree with this stand and if he were here we would say it to his face. This organization takes young boys age 10 to 18 and takes them into adulthood. During that time they learn life skills and are allowed to explore all sorts of career fields through the merit badge system. It teaches them follower as well as leadership skills. It is a well rounded program based on sound principles. We can see no greater danger to young impressionable boys than a gay Scoutmaster using his power and authority to force these young people into uncompromising positions. This is not to say that all gays would sodomize their Scouts as most probably would not. However, if only 1% would, that would be too high a cost to pay. What parent would allow their young child to go on a camp out with a gay leader? The risk would be too great. Romney is wrong on this issue. The Boy Scouts are a 100 year plus old organization with few if any negatives. Many of our leaders (Presidents, Astronauts, politicians and business leaders) have been Eagle Scouts (including two sons of ours) and millions have participated in their programming. We say, leave them alone and let them continue to train leaders of our country. The Boy Scouts does not need to be in the job of social engineering. Conservative Tom
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney at the Western Wall in Jerusalem on July 29, 2012. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
(CNSNews.com) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney this week reiterated his view that the Boy Scouts of America should admit homosexuals as Scouts and Scout leaders. He also supports the right of the Scouts to decide their own policies.
Currently, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) does not admit homosexuals as Scouts or Scout leaders.
Romney first expressed his view that the Boy Scouts should admit homosexuals in 1994. When Romney was running for the U.S. Senate that year against Democrat Sen. Ted Kennedy, he said “all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
Tovia Smith of WBUR radio in Boston asked Romney during an October 1994 debate, “Mr. Romney, you say you’re a moderate on social issues, one who will defend abortion rights, equal rights for women, for blacks and for gays -- in fact, you say you will do more to promote gay rights than Senator Kennedy.”
Smith continued, “You also sit on the national Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America, which has an exclusionary policy banning gay members. Do you support that policy and, if not, have you ever done anything as a board member to oppose it?”
Romney said, “I believe that the Boy Scouts of America does a wonderful service for this country. I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
When asked for direct confirmation that Gov. Romney maintains the same position he held in 1994, the Romney campaign referred CNSNews.com to several past quotations regarding Romney’s opposition to the ban, including that of the 1994 debate.
“I think more generally, if you look at the fact that both President Obama and his opponent in the presidential election are on the record together in this incredibly polarized political climate, I think it really speaks to both the moral validity and also the critical importance of ending this policy,” Wahls told CNSNews.com.
“There aren't a whole lot of areas in the American political sphere where you see this kind of overlap, and I think it really does speak volumes about how important this is,” he said.
As reported by CNSNews.com, the Boy Scouts of America came under scrutiny after a petition was released by ousted Cub Scout den leader and lesbian Jennifer Tyrell on Change.org, urging the Scouts to change the policy on openly gay members.
Although the petition has been signed by 320,000 people across the country, including Hollywood celebrities, the Scouts have not changed the policy.
“Contrary to media reports, the Boy Scouts of America has no plans to change its membership policy. The introduction of a resolution does not indicate the organization is ‘reviewing’ a policy or signal a change in direction,” according to an official statement from the Boy Scouts of America national office on June 7.
“The BSA is a voluntary, private organization that sets policies that are best for the organization,” reads the statement. “The BSA welcomes all who share its beliefs but does not criticize or condemn those who wish to follow a different path.”
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
In June of 2000, the Boy Scouts of America went to the Supreme Court to preserve their right not to admit homosexuals after the New Jersey Supreme Court had ruled that the Scouts policy was in violation of New Jersey’s anti-discrimination law.
The Boy Scouts in that state had been sued by a former Eagle Scout who came out as a homosexual after becoming a Scoutmaster, and was consequently removed from that post.
One question before the court was whether homosexual behavior comported with a Scout's pledge to be “morally straight."
However, the Court ruled in the Scouts’ favor and, in the majority opinion, the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist rejected the argument that homosexual behavior could constitute “morally straight” behavior, by citing the Boy Scouts’ statements to the contrary.
“And the terms ‘morally straight’ and ‘clean’ are by no means self-defining. Different people would attribute to those terms very different meanings. For example, some people may believe that engaging in homosexual conduct is not at odds with being ‘morally straight’ and ‘clean,’” Rehnquist wrote.
“And others may believe that engaging in homosexual conduct is contrary to being ‘morally straight’ and ‘clean.’ The Boy Scouts says it falls within the latter category,” wrote Rehnquist.
The current BSA policy on sexual orientation reads as follows:
“While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to members who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.
Romney's refusal to release his tax returns has caused a feeding frenzy for Democrats starting with Harry Reed. According to the erstwhile leader of the Senate, the Republican candidate has not paid taxes for the past ten years. They say it is important to know how much the former owner of Bain Capital earned as if that would make a difference between a good leader and one like our current President. The demand for tax records is nothing but a search for damaging information that can hurt Romney's campaign and get Obama re-elected. It would be a mistake to release the records. Any return can be made to look nefarious by using words to describe perfectly legal tax loopholes which we are sure that Romney has used. Releasing the tax forms would be a campaign ending mistake. As far as the comment that Romney paid no taxes, the Senate leader is incorrect as there is a provision in the law called the "Alternate Minimum Tax" (AMT) which requires each taxpayer to pay at least a minimum amount to the government. The way the provision works is that it adds back items which are deductions on the return to get to a number on which you pay tax. The original idea was to prevent high income people avoiding taxes by using tax loopholes. Does that sound familiar? However, in recent years the AMT is hitting even middle class people who have certain income and investments. Romney definitely would be subject to AMT which makes Harry Reid's comments laughable. He is lying and he knows it. He is carrying the water for the Administration, being a "good" Democrat. The unfortunate thing is that many Americans are so unschooled in the tax code, they naively believe what he says. Here are some references to get up to speed on AMT: http://www.fairmark.com/amt/amt101.htm http://www.smartmoney.com/taxes/income/the-alternative-minimum-tax-9540/ http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_tips/tax_planning/amt.html http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/IRS-Tax-Return/Alternative-Minimum-Tax--Common-Questions/INF12072.html Conservative Tom
How many of us have asked the question posed by the title of this posting? We would expect many. Nonie Darwish explains the hatred and the rationale for it. If you have ever wondered, it is a great article. If you have not wondered but now are curious, read it. And even if you are not curious in the least, it is a great lesson in the fallibility of religious leaders. Please let us know what you think. Conservative Tom
Why Muslims Must Hate Jews
Nonie Darwish - American Thinker, August 3rd, 2012
Recently, a Pakistani religious leader, Pirzada Muhammad Raza Saqib Mustafai, said: “When the Jews are wiped out … the sun of peace [will] begin to rise on the entire world.” The same preaching is routinely done not only by clerics, but by politicians — in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere. This is not just Ahmedinijad; it is at the heart of Islamic theology that world peace will be established only when all the Jews are wiped from the earth. But few people in Western media are alarmed by this kind of rhetoric or care to expose this dreadful dark side of Islam's obsession with Jew-hatred.
I do not believe that one has to be an authority on human behavior or group thinking to find out the obvious pathology in Islamic Jew-hatred. It is time for all of us to uncover and expose this atrocity against the Jewish people. We owe that to humanity and the truth.
No true Muslim can see that such hatred is unbecoming and unholy for a world religion to focus on and that the credibility of Islam is tarnished by such hatred. No Muslim is allowed to go far enough to self-analyze or ask why such hatred. Muslims defend Jew-hatred by claiming that Jews betrayed Muhammad and thus deserve of this kind of treatment. Even when I was a Muslim, I believed that the one-sided story against Jews by Islam was enough to justify all the killing, terror, lies, and propaganda by Islamic leaders against Jews. To the average Muslim, routinely cursing Jews in mosques feels normal and even holy!
After a lot of thinking, analysis, research, and writing, I discovered that Jew -atred in Islam is an essential foundation to the Islamic belief system that Muslims cannot seem to be able to rid themselves of. Jew-hatred masks an existential problem in Islam. Islam is terrified of the Jews, and the number-one enemy of Islam is the truth, which must be constantly covered at any cost. It does not matter how many Muslim men, women, and children die in the process of saving Islam's reputation. The number-one duty of Muslims is to protect the reputation of Islam and Mohammad. But why would a religion burden its followers like that? This is why:
When Mohammed embarked on his mission to spread Islam, his objective was to create a uniquely Arabian religion, one created by an Arab prophet, which reflected the Arabian values and culture. Yet to obtain legitimacy, he had to link it to the two previous Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Christianity. He expected the Jewish tribes who lived in Arabia to declare him their Messiah and thereby bring him more legitimacy with Arabs, especially with his own tribe in Mecca, the Quraish. Because his own tribe had rejected and ridiculed him, Mohammed needed the approval of the Jews, whom he called the people of the book. But the conversion of Jews to Islam was part of the scenario that Mohammed had to accomplish in order to prove to Meccans that they had made a mistake by rejecting him.
That was one of the reasons Mohammed chose to migrate to Medina, a town that had predominantly been settled by Jewish tribes and a few impoverished Arabs who lived around the Jews. The Jews allowed Mohammed to move in. At the beginning, the Koran of Mecca was full of appeals to the Jews, who were then described as “guidance and light” (5:44) and a “righteous” people (6:153-154), who “excelled the nations” (45:16). But when the Jews rejected the appeasement and refused to convert to Islam, Mohammed simply and completely flipped. The Quran changed from love to threats and then pure hatred, cursing, and commandments to kill Jews. Rejection by the Jews became an intolerable obsession with Mohammed.
Not only did the Jews reject him, but their prosperity made Mohammed extremely envious. The Jewish Arabian tribes earned their living from legitimate and successful business, but Mohammed earned his living and wealth through warfare — by attacking Arab tribes, some of whom were from his own tribe — and trade caravans, seizing their wealth and property. That did not look good for a man who claimed to be a prophet of God. The mere existence of the Jews made Mohammed look bad, which led Mohammed to unspeakable slaughter, beheading of 600 to 900 Jewish men of one tribe, and taking their women and children as slaves. Mohammed had the first pick of the prettiest woman as his sex slave. All of this senseless slaughter of the Jews was elaborately documented in Islamic books on the life of Mohammed — not as something to be ashamed of, but as justified behavior against evil people.
One does not have to be psychiatrist to see the obvious: that Mohammad was a tormented man after the massacre he orchestrated and forced his fighters to undertake to empower and to enrich himself and his religion. To reduce his torment, he needed everyone around him, as well as future generations, to participate in the genocide against the Jews, the only people whom hecould not control. An enormous number of verses in the Koran encouraged Mohammed's fighters to fight, kill, and curse Muslim fighters who wanted to escape fighting and killing Jews. The Quran is full of promises of all kinds of pleasure in heaven to those who followed Mohammed's killing spree and curses and condemnation to those who chose to escape from fighting. Muslims were encouraged to feel no hesitation or guilt for the genocide because it was not they who did it, but rather “Allah's hand.”
Mohammed never got over his anger, humiliation, and rejection by “the people of the book” and went to his grave tormented and obsessed that some Jews were still alive. On his deathbed, Mohammed entrusted Muslims to kill Jews wherever they found them, which made this a “holy commandment” that no Muslim can reject. Muslims who wrote sharia understood how Mohammed was extremely sensitive to criticism, and that is why criticizing Mohammed became the highest crime in Islam that will never be forgiven even if the offender repents. Mohammed's message on his deathbed was not for his followers to strive for holiness, peace, goodness, and to treat their neighbors as themselves, but rather a commandment for Muslims to continue the killing and the genocide against the Jews. Killing thus became a holy act of obedience to Mohammed and Allah himself.
Mohammed portrayed himself as a victim of Jews, and Muslims must avenge him until judgment day. With all Arab power, money, and influence around the world today, they still thrive at portraying themselves as victims. Sharia also codified into law the duty of every Muslim to defend Mohammed's honor and Islam with his own blood, and allowed the violation of many commandments if it is for the benefit of defending Islam and Mohammed. Thus, Muslims are carrying a huge burden, a holy burden, to defend Mohammed with their blood, and in doing so they are allowed to kill, lie, cheat, slander, and mislead.
Mohammed must have felt deep and extreme shame after what he had done to the Jews, and thus a very good reason had to be found to explain away his genocide. By commanding Muslims to continue the genocide for him, even after his death, Mohammad expanded the shame to cover all Muslims and Islam itself. All Muslims were commanded to follow Mohammed's example and chase the Jews wherever they went. One hundred years after Mohammed's death, Arabs occupied Jerusalem and built Al Aqsa mosque right on top of the Jewish Temple ruins, the holiest spot of the Jews. Muslims thought they had erased all memory of Jewish existence.
Mohammed's genocide of the Jews of Arabia became an unholy dark mark of shame in Islamic history, and that shame, envy, and anger continues to get the best of Muslims today. In the eyes of Mohammed and Muslims, the mere existence of the Jewish people, let alone an entire Jewish state, delegitimizes Islam and makes Mohammed look more like a mass murderer than like a prophet. For Muslims to make peace with Jews and acknowledge that Jews are humans who deserve the same rights as everyone else would have a devastating effect on how Muslims view their religion, their history, and the actions of their prophet.
Islam has a major existential problem. By no will of their own, the Jews found themselves in the middle of this Islamic dilemma. Islam must justify the genocide that Mohammad waged against the Jews. Mohammad and Muslims had two choices: either the Jews are evil sub-humans, apes, pigs, and enemies of Allah, a common description of Jews still heard regularly in Middle Eastern mosques today, or Mohammad was a genocidal warlord not fit to be a prophet of God — a choice that would mean the end of Islam.
Then and now, Mohammad and Muslims clearly chose the first worldview and decreed that any hint of the second must be severely punished. Jews must remain eternally evil enemies of Islam if Islam is to remain legitimate. There is no third solution to save the core of Islam from collapsing; either Mohammed was evil, or the Jews were evil. Any attempt to forgive, humanize, or live peacefully with Jews is considered treason against Islam. How can Muslims forgive the Jews and then go back to their mosques, only to read their prophet's words, telling them they must kill Jews wherever they find them? It does not add up, if someone wants to remain Muslim.
That is why the number-one enemy of Islam is, and must remain, the truth. If the truth exposes Islam's unjustified Jew-hatred, Muslims will be left with an empty shell of a religion, a religion whose prophet was a murderer, a thief, and a warlord. Without Jew-hatred, Islam would self-destruct.
Everyone laughed at New York Mayor Bloomberg when he limited soft drink sales to 16 oz. With that insanity under his belt, his Honor believes that women should breast feed so he has pressured hospitals to take away baby formula. Does that make sense? We agree with the Mayor that it is always better for babies to have mother's milk, however, what happened to freedom of choice? Is this not the United States or have we gotten so far away from those principles that it no longer matters? Once again freedom of choice is under attack. Life in the United States is changing and before long, if things don't change, our heralded freedoms will be nothing more than a memory. Conservative Tom
New York Mayor Bloomberg wants to HIDE baby formula in hospitals to put pressure on new mothers to breastfeed
'Human breast milk is best for babies and mothers,' said health commissioner Thomas Farley when the campaign was launched in May.
'With this initiative the New York City health community is joining together to support mothers who choose to breastfeed.'
Breast is best: The Latch On program from the NY health department has seen an increase in the number of mothers breastfeeding newborns
However mother-of-two Lynn Sidnam, who formula-fed both her daughters, told the New York Post: 'If they put pressure on me, I would get annoyed.'
Some hospitals are already operating under the policy. NYU Langone Medical Center has seen breastfeeding rates soar to 68 per cent from 39 per cent.
Medical experts support the Latch On initiative. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that babies should be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of their life as it lowers risk of ear, respiratory and gastrointestinal infections and developing asthma.
It is also in the health interests of the mother. There has been a link established between breastfeeding and reduced risk of ovarian and breast cancer.
The supporters of ObamaCare promoted the idea that all Americans would have coverage. That idea has been blown away with a new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that says that in 2022 over 30 million (non-elderly) Americans will not have insurance. This should be a knife in the heart of the plan.
Should Obamacare still be the law of the land in 2022, we seriously doubt that there will be ONLY 30 million uninsured. Our guess is that the number will be closer to 100 million. First of all, we have the unrestricted admission of illegal immigrants will blow the doors off the numbers due to Obama's "Dream Act" administrative action. Secondly, unemployment will continue to grow due to the NAFTA effect of moving jobs off shore.
Thirdly and most important, those who obtained their insurance through their employers will find they have to purchase their own and will not do so. Their bosses will find it is economically better for the company to pay the fine imposed by ObamaCare than to continue to pay the premiums. Some businesses might add money into their employee's checks to help them purchase the coverage, however, many will not.
However, we suspect that Obamacare will be significantly changed if not completely abandoned by the time 2022 comes around. There are just too many costs associated with the plan, too many new government agencies, and too many new programs for the law to be unchanged.
President Barack Obama. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)
(CNSNews.com) -- A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report says that under the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, 30 million non-elderly Americans will remain without health insurance in 2022.
One of the main arguments the Obama administration made for passing the Affordable Care Act was that it would provide coverage for the uninsured.
Currently, accoriding to CBO, there are 53 million uninsured persons in the United States, including uninsured illegal aliens. The CBO estimates that in 2022--8 years after the Affordable Care Act has been fully implemented--30 million people will remain uninsured.
Moreover, under Obamacare, 8 percent of legal U.S. residents will remain without health insurance in 2022, according to CBO.
The report was done to assess the fiscal impact of the Supreme Court June Obamacare decision.
“CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] now estimate that the ACA, in comparison with prior law before the enactment of the ACA, will reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 14 million in 2014 and by 29 million or 30 million in the latter part of the coming decade, leaving 30 million nonelderly residents uninsured by the end of the period,” the report said.
“Before the Supreme Court’s decision, the latter number had been 27 million,” states the report.
As a result of the Supreme Court decision, states are no longer obligated under Obamacare to expand eligibility for their Medicaid programs.
“Some states will probably forgo the expansion entirely; some are likely to expand coverage to everyone whose income is below 138 percent of the FPL [federal poverty level]; and if the flexibility is allowed, some states may choose partial expansions. Further, states may be able to make those choices in any year after 2014,” the report said.
“The updated estimates by CBO and JCT represent their assessment of the middle of the distribution of the many possible outcomes arising from the Supreme Court’s decision,” states the CBO report.
On the same day the Supreme Court issued its ruling, President Barack Obama delivered a speech in which he said 30 million Americans presently without health coverage will now have the opportunity to obtain affordable health plans.
“If you’re one of the 30 million Americans who don’t yet have health insurance, starting in 2014, this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from,” said Obama.
However, as the CBO concludes, despite all the new government regulations and bureaucracies, taxes and subsidies created by Obamacare, there will still be 30 million uninsured people in the United States a decade from now
Looks like the "land of fruits and nuts" has moved north! Why would someone be convicted of catching rain water and snow melt on his own land? He is no criminal. It sounds like the government does not have much to do there in Jackson County, Oregon. We must be missing something, this is totally stupid.
Does anyone have other answers?
Man Sentenced to 30 Days for Catching Rain Water on Own Property Enters Jail
Gary Harrington reports to Jackson County (Ore.) Jail to begin serving a 30-day term for collecting rainwater on his property. (Photo: Gary Harrington)
(CNSNews.com) – Gary Harrington, the Oregon man convicted of collecting rainwater and snow runoff on his rural property surrendered Wednesday morning to begin serving his 30-day, jail sentence in Medford, Ore.
“I’m sacrificing my liberty so we can stand up as a country and stand for our liberty,” Harrington told a small crowd of people gathered outside of the Jackson County (Ore.) Jail.
Several people held signs that showed support for Harrington as he was taken inside the jail.
Harrington was found guilty two weeks ago of breaking a 1925 law for having, what state water managers called “three illegal reservoirs” on his property. He was convicted of nine misdemeanors, sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined over $1500 for collecting rainwater and snow runoff on his property.
Crowd of supporters outside Jackson County Jail, Wednesday August 8, 2012. (Photo: Gary Harrington)
The Oregon Water Resources Department, claims that Harrington has been violating the state’s water use law by diverting water from streams running into the Big Butte River.
But Harrington says he is not diverting the state's water -- merely collecting rainwater and snow melt that falls or flows on his own property.
Harrington has vowed to continue to fight the penalty, stating that the government has become “big bullies” and that “from here on in, I’m going to fight it.”
“They’ve just gotten to be big bullies and if you just lay over and die and give up, that just makes them bigger bullies, Harrington said in an interview two weeks ago with CNSNews.com.
"We as Americans, we need to stand on our constitutional rights, on our rights as citizens and hang tough. This is a good country, we’ll prevail,” he said.