Against The State

Voting

2008-02-26T09:29:00.005-07:00

The subject of voting has been coming up a lot recently as we inch closer to the general election. I have recently been having a long back and forth conversation with a self described libertarian, who sports a "Fuck the Republicrats: Vote independent" banner on his myspace page, who has been desparately urging me to vote for McCain.

His primary reason seems to be that I am underestimating the damage that a Clinton or Obama administration might inflict on us, so he has reasoned that we would be best to vote against them. He is also a bit of a war hawk, and is attracted to McCain's "follow Bin-Laden to the gates of hell" mentality.

I have been appealing to the libertarian non-aggression principle as a reason not to support a mainstream party, but to no avail. In full disclosure, I should point out that our state is sort of an anomoly in that we have the most restrictive ballot access laws in the nation, so we usually do not get the opportunity to vote for L candidates. Given this local state of affairs, I usually go to the polls to vote against bond issues, occassionally for politicians in local elections, and I default to non-voting in the general presidential election as a means of voicing my lack of a viable choice for president.

I brought this up today because I have a question for my anti-statist allies in the blogosphere. Do you plan on voting in the general election, and if so who for?

Police Brutality

2008-02-21T20:41:00.003-07:00

A police officer has been fired after an incident in which a female prisoner, who was taken into custody on suspicion of DWI, wound up lying on the police station floor in a pool of blood. Much of what happened was recorded on a videotape, but there is a gap of undetermined length. During that time, the woman was believed to have been injured. She said she was beaten up, the officer said she fell.

Warning. Both videos contain graphic images.

Raw video here:

ABC News version here:

John McCain

2008-02-15T08:20:00.004-07:00

I recently received an email message with a link to a Wall Street Journal article concerning John McCain on taxes. Looks like the Republicans are trying to quiet the fears of many fiscal consevatives in the party, and convice them to hold their noses and vote for McCain. I have posted my response below.

Thanks for passing along the article on McCain. I must admit that I
feel slightly less agitated by him knowing that his vote against the 2003
microscopic tax cuts was in protest of the bill not going far enough to reign in
spending at the same time. I have also spent the last few minutes studying
his votes and positions over the past 10 years, and I must say he appears to be
slightly more friendly to the low tax, more social freedom, issues that I hold
dear. However, I still find him light years away from someone I could ever
consider giving my stamp of approval via voting booth.

Although she is even further away from me on most issues,
I would probably feel more comfortable with Clinton in office than McCain for
the next four years. This would undoudtedly cause the Republicans to rally
once again and sweep congress to oppose her and we would return to that sweet
gridlock whereby the two parties spend all of their energies fighting eachother
and very little gets done in the way of tinkering with our economic and social
liberties. I look back on the 1990's and see that while Clinton was in
office, the Republicans as the opposition party were much more helpful in
fighting runaway government spending than they have been as the majority party
over the past 8 or so years. Honestly, the possibility of them regaining a
majority scares me. George Bush's compassionate conservatism has infected
the Republican party. It is like a disease that allows Republicans to grow
the size and scope of the government under another name, but it sure looks a lot
like modern day big government, bleeding heart liberalism to
me.

I don't like the direction our government has gone over the past 50
years, and I can't consciously, or morally support the controlling forces that
have been responsible for growing the state to its present form.

I can not as many on the right have said they would do, and hold their
nose and vote for McCain.

Speeding Ticket Tonight

2008-02-01T23:12:00.000-07:00

I was pulled over by a police officer on my way home from work tonight on the turnpike around 7:15 PM. The officer clocked my speed at 76 in a 65 mile per hour zone. I got out of my car and instinctively put my keys into my pocket while walking back to his car. He asked me why I "went to my pocket" as I was walking toward his car, and said that he had told me not to "go to my pockets." I told him that I must have been more concerned about making sure my license and insurance were secured in my hands on the windy highway road when I instinctively put my keys in my pocket. I must not have clearly understood him as he was speaking to me from practically inside his own car while my window was still only half way rolled down.

After I had been sitting in his car for a few minutes while he was writing the ticket, he asked me if I'd been drinking tonight. I figured that was probably a typical question. I told him that I had just gotten off work and that I had not been drinking. Then I started thinking about what I had just said when I realized that whether or not I had just gotten off work had nothing to do with my current sobriety at that moment. So I then followed up my last few words by telling him, "I don't drink."

After a few more seconds transpired the officer told me that I was going to receive a $220 ticket. He also asked me if I knew that $220 was the penalty for going 11 over. I told him I did not know and that it would hurt. Of-course I meant it would hurt figuratively speaking. A few seconds later he informed me that he was only giving me a warning. I could not believe I had gotten that lucky. I have only been pulled over for speeding half a dozen times in the past 10 years, and never, not once been lucky enough to have an officer deliver the mercy of only a warning. I had always heard of people getting off with only a warning, but never had I experienced such luck myself.

That is all it is, luck. The other human being sitting on the side of the road with flashing lights atop his vehicle who happens to be holding the badge and gun can decide whether or not to require me to drain my bank account by some arbitrary amount based on his own mood or whim of the moment on that particular night. I was driving on a lonely highway road 11 miles per hour above the arbitrary speed limit set by some government bureaucrat or panel of bureaucrats in some government office. Never mind that I was in no way endangering any other human being whatsoever. Never mind that even while traveling the roads closer to peak times, there is actual empirical evidence that driving slightly faster than the speed limit is safer than driving slightly slower than the set speed limit. The reason for this is simple. There is a natural flow of traffic so to speak. This natural flow can be quantified as the mean speed by all travelers of the road. The normal protocol for city engineers is to set the speed limit 1 standard deviation above the mean speed of the road. This is known as the 85th percentile rule. In reality this rule is often ignored though mainly for political reasons. Speed limits have very little to do with public safety, and a whole lot more to do with raising city revenues. If you believe otherwise then you haven't been paying attention.

To make a long story even longer here is how it ended. I thanked the officer for letting me off with the "warning" before exiting his vehicle, and he looked at me and he actually said, "remember that the next time you give me a pay raise." I just looked at him until a few seconds passed and he broke into laughter and said, "just kidding."

Can a Muslim be a 'Good American'

2008-01-17T23:15:00.000-07:00

I received an email forward recently titled "Can Muslims be Good Americans?" It was quite interesting to me and prompted a response from me to the sender that I thought would be of interest to readers. I believe that the claim about Barack Hussein Obama, as he is called by his full name, being a Muslim and asking to be sworn in on the Quran if he wins the election is a fabrication created by a far right 'bomb thrower' for the purpose of driving large numbers Christians into a frenzy of opposition to him. It saddens me that in the 21st century, religion is still the driving force to action or reaction for so many among us. I am not surprised about 'bomb throwing' in politics as I understand that this is a nasty, muddy sport, but I am still saddened by the kinds of ideas that seem to work best in motivating large segments of our population to action.

First is the email in its entirety, and then it is followed by my response to the sender.

Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out
about any atrocities.....Can a good Muslim be a good American?

This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20
years.The following is his reply:

Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God
of Arabia ..

Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by His
Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) (Koran)

Scripturally - no. . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of
Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - no . . . Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he
turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him To
makefriends with Christians or Jew s.

Politically - no. . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual
leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the
great Satan. Domestically - no. . . Because he is instructed to marry four Women
and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 )

Intellectually - no. . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution
since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be
corrupt.

Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran donot
allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Isla m cannot co-exist.
Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare "one nation under God," the
Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly
father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation.... Perhaps we should be very
suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both
"good" Muslims and good Americans.

* * * Call it what you wish..it's still the truth. * * * You had
better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our
country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
. . And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our President? You have GOT
to be kidding! Wake up America ! Obama even says if he wins the election,
he will be sworn in on the Quran---not a Bible!

My response:
This is very interesting, but I have just a few questions about it. Please help me to understand some of these claims.

I would be interested to see the source which claims that Obama has said that he will be sworn in on the Quran. By all accounts that I know of his religious views he is a Christian and claims to be a Christian.

"Intellectually - no. . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt."

Mike Huckabee has said in a speech in Michigan last week that he wants to change the Constitution to be more in line with God's standards. Actually he said this, "But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do, to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards." Is the Constitution really based on biblical principles? By his own statement above it does not appear that Huckabee believes so. Is it possible for Huckabee to be considered a "good American" since he can not seem to accept or reconcile the Constitution as it is written with his interpretation of the Bible?

"Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran donot allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic."

I have been arguing this point since the start of the Iraq war to my Republican friends, but to no avail. If one can accept this point then one can understand that our government is needlessly and carelessly wasting billions of dollars and precious lives in Iraq. Remember the name of the original mission: "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Warm regards,
Brewrunner

Soul Searching

2007-12-09T10:50:00.000-07:00

As any passersby of this blog well know, I have been under the influence of Ron Paul mania since May of this year. The reasons for this are simple. I have been an admirer of Dr. Paul's since I first saw him on a John Stossel ABC News special in early 2001. This was near the beginning of my discovery of the libertarian philosophy, and I was astounded to see that there was a congressman from Texas who advocated the same beautiful principles I had come to see as the truth and the way to a more just society. From that moment on I kept up with Congressman Paul's career via his articles and videos mainly by way of Lewrockwell.com.

Over the next few years my philosophy began to evolve into a more anarcho-capitalist, libertarian mixture, as is evident my choice of tagline for this blog. The most influential people that I give credit to for the evolution of my philosophy are the late Harry Browne and Lewellyn Rockwell Jr. Rockwell is the reason for my anarcho-capitalist leanings, while Browne is the reason I have still pursued change through politics.

Fast forward to May of 2007 when Ron Paul announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States. I was as excited and hopeful as the next libertarian that finally one of "our guys" who had already broken inside the system would be invited to the nationally televised debates. Ron Paul would be able to exert his influence from within to "save us" from the fascist, statist barbarians who have enslaved humanity for the past several hundred years. This just seemed like the opportunity we had been waiting for. Some on the web have even likened Paul to Neo in the matrix. This is the idea that Paul is the manifestation of some sort of prophecy that will finally wake millions of Americans up to the state of slavery that they have come to live under largely without even realizing it.

It was especially interesting when the writers over at Lewrockwell.com seemed to be trumpeting Ron Paul's campaign as loudly as any other libertarian news outlet. The reason I thought this interesting was that I can remember a statement by Lew himself during an interview a few years ago that contradicts his current support of Paul. During this interview Lew had stated that he did not think that politics was the way to bring about change in the direction of liberty. Any follower of Lew's philosophy knows that he has advocated that you can not bring about change unless you win the battle in the marketplace of ideas, which is largely outside the political arena. Lewrockwell.com has even elected to change the tax exempt status of its organization in order that it may publish columns endorsing and opposing political candidates for office. So has Lew abandoned his philosophy for Ron Paul? Perhaps Lew feels, as many others including myself up to this point, that Paul is our last best hope for real political change.

As for the main point of my post today, I have to recognize that I have compromised some of my own principles in support of Ron Paul. The first thing that initially bothered me about his platform was his stand on border security. I understand that he has always taken the Constitutionalist point of view, which requires that he advocate enforcing the law in this area. My conflict is that I can not reconcile this point of view with the non-aggression principle. Illegal immigrants have not initiated the use of force against anyone simply by walking across an imaginary line drawn up by the state. They are guilty only of violating political law, not natural law. Nevertheless, I let this disagreement of philosophy slide, as I found it to be a nice selling tool when talking to Republicans about voting for Ron Paul in the primary. The disappointing affect was that even with this selling tool, border security, which as been dubbed a wedge issue by pundits in the media, I have seen less than optimal success when looking at the disappointing low percentage of Republican support for Paul.

So where does that leave my current position of support for the Ron Paul campaign? I would say it is now less enthusiastic than it was a few weeks ago. The money raised and the media attention has been great if not for the libertarian philosophy specifically, but definitely for the idea that it is well past time to put the brakes on government growth. But is this going to work? In the end, are we going to look back and see this as the tipping point for the real moral change of values in the populace? I keep telling myself that this is that time in our history when it may well happen, but there is another point of view out there that has given me my new found less than optomistic hope for the Ron Paul Revolution, at least so far as a catalyst for putting the brakes on government growth.

This person is Stefan Molyneux of Freedomainradio. In one of his recent podcasts, Molyneux put forth the argument that throughout America's political history, libertarians have been attempting to infiltrate the system and make changes. This has resulted in ever increasing government growth, no matter how promising it may have looked through the lens of the current period in history. I will not recite Molyneux's whole premise on this post, but readers who are interested are encouraged to visit his website and download his podcast number 927.

Readers may be thinking that this is not anything new and profound, and I will be the first one to admit that. The fundamental question is whether or not expending so much time and energy campaigning for Ron Paul is the most valuable use our time in advancing libertarian moral philosophy. Molyneux proposes that there is an easier way to achieve personal freedom in ones own life, and that it can be found with the use of two words. These words are "against me." When conversing with friends and discussing government subsidies, redistributions of wealth, and so forth, libertarians need to stop speaking of the use of the initiation of force in the abstracts and start talking personally. That is, it is a lot easier for people to say that they support certain government subsidies for certain purposes and certain groups, but it is much harder for them to look you in the eye and say that you should be shot if you disagree. The question that you must ask your friends is, "do you support the use of force against me." If they can look you in the eye and answer yes to this question, then you ought to have no problem knowing what to do with them in terms of your relationship. Once you have figured out who your real friends are via this fundamental question, you will have real personal freedom in your life no matter what state is doing. The further implication of this idea is that if every libertarian lived by this philosophy, that is to say if every libertarian practiced what he preached, our society would be free very quickly. As of this point in time not enough libertarians are willing to practice what they preach according to Molyneux.

So I am now a cross roads with myself in both my personal life and my involvement in the Ron Paul campaign. I have always understood the concept put forth by Molyneux in the preceding paragraph, but I have never applied to my own life and friendships. I have never truly practiced what I preach.

Tea Party 'O7

2007-11-13T21:17:00.000-07:00

We've seen what the last money bomb did on November fifth. Let's do it again on December 16th, and show this country that November fifth was just the tip of the iceburg of support for Ron Paul.

Is the Ron Paul Campaign Dangerous?

2007-11-13T10:49:00.000-07:00

I have just finished reading J.B. Williams article, "Why The Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous" over at gopusa.com, and I have a few comments.

I find his claim that there are virtually no real Conservatives supporting Paul to be way out of touch with reality. I come from a very Conservative upbringing, but sadly I have been politically homeless for the past several years due to reckless spending and what I have come to view as a dangerous foreign policy out of step with that advocated by the founders of our country. I have studied the history of the Republican party, and I have observed an abandonment of most of the core principles over the past 8 years. Ron Paul has brought me back into the Republican party, as he has done with countless others here in my own city who are now working with me to get Mr. Paul elected.

I concede Mr. Williams' point that many Democrats and Independents are jumping parties to support Paul, but shouldn't the Republican party be celebrating this. I thought that when large numbers of people switched parties for any reason that it was called growth, something the GOP has sadly seen little of recently. Paul represents a unique opportunity in our history to return to the true Conservative Republican values of self reliance and true self government. Not the kind of self government that Pres. Bush speaks about when he speaks of "liberating" third world countries and subsequently imposing his idea of self government on them by occupying them for seemingly the rest of time. When I see the now small remaining base of the Republican party refusing to embrace a candidate who has managed to persuade millions of of Americans of all political and social backgrounds that our current direction of more and bigger government is the wrong direction, I remember why I ceased supporting the GOP back in 2001.

A New Hope

2007-10-31T19:13:00.000-07:00

I had long believed that we were between the apathy and complacency stages of our Republic. I had about given up hope that most of my fellow Americans had the courage to be vigilant to defend our Constitution and our liberties. Jefferson told us that we must hold our government officials back by the chains of the Constitution. Most Americans seem to care more about the winner of American Idol than the winner of the presidency of the U.S., much less what he is doing at the current moment to our Constitution.

I now have a new hope for my generation though. I have seen thousands across the country standing up in defense of our Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Ron Paul seems to be bringing that trait out in record numbers among my generation. He said last night on Jay Leno, that he may have flaws as a person, but the message does not. It is the message of liberty that has been revived. Yes. I have a new hope.

Victory Delayed is Victory (and Honor) Denied

2007-10-02T20:17:00.000-07:00

Victory Delayed is Victory (and Honor) Denied

by Brady Wright

In a recent debate in New Hampshire, former Governor Mike Huckabee told Congressman Ron Paul that bringing the troops home from Iraq now would be a dishonorable homecoming. But Gov. Huckabee did not explain when exactly our troops will have the honor of victory they so deserve.

Regardless of one's opinion of the Iraq War, the truth is that our brave men and women have completed every objective they have been given. Let us recall all they have done and then consider whether they have earned an honorable homecoming.

● They quickly and decisively defeated the military of Iraq in one of our nation's largest and fastest military victories. Yet we are told they cannot come home with honor.

● They were asked to depose the brutal despot Saddam and they achieved that objective within days. Yet they cannot come home with honor?

● They were then asked to track down Saddam and his flunkies so that they could be brought to justice. Done.

● They were then told that we needed only to set up an Iraqi government to take the place of the one we had toppled. Mission accomplished.

● They were told that they needed to stay until democratic elections could be held in Iraq. Objective achieved.

All of these goals were met some time ago, and still our brave men and women are told they cannot come home with the honor they have most assuredly earned for themselves. It is an egregious affront to the service and valor of our fighting men and women that they are told that after all they have fought for, after all they have achieved, after all the battles they have won, that their coming home would be dishonorable.

Yes, there are still some who oppose us in and around Iraq, but this is a fact that is not likely to change no matter how long or hard we fight in the region. For example, Israel has been established for almost sixty years and has not yet exhausted the region of those who oppose her.

The war in Iraq has long since been won and it has been our mistake not to declare this victory. It is therefore time for us to openly declare the victory that our troops have won time and again. Every day we let go by without this declaration cheats them of their hard-won victory. Let us stop moving the goal posts, because victory delayed is victory – and honor – denied

A Meme - 8 Things You Didn't Know About Me

2007-08-26T14:07:00.000-07:00

I have been tagged by TG.

Here are the rules of engagement:

People who are tagged need to write these rules in their own blogs & share eight things about themselves that others might not know. At the end of the their blog post, they need to tag six people and list their (blog) names. Leave a comment on the blogs of the people they’ve chosen telling them they’ve been tagged and encouraging them to come over and read the eight things you’ve written on your blog.

1. My Ron Paul for President '08 yard sign was stolen from my yard one week ago during the night while I slept. The hellions!

2. I recently attended a local GOP County meeting where I heard a speech by someone from a group called Americans for Prosperity. I was unsure about attending this meeting at first, but it turned out to be quite worth my while. I recommend others visit this website and see if your state has a branch. Their mission is basically a grass roots way to fight lobbyists, taxes, and the ever growing state.

3. When I was in the 9th grade, I was a member of a group called the Teenage Republicans. Had I known then what I know now, I would have started my own group called the Teenage Libertarians, but I doubt then if I would have had the opportunity to meet our states Governor. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything else, just stating an observation.

4. I never have been fond of chocolate in a fanatical way like so many others seem to be. In fact I don't even really like chocolate in a small way.

5. On the contrary, I am fanatical about keeping my yard nicely cut and edged. Emphasis on the edging.

6. If Thomas Jefferson never existed, then Martha Stewart would be my hero.

7. I was never a jock in highschool, but I do enjoy watching and following pro football a great deal.

8. I advocate Drew Carey's philosophy of looking out for and taking care of those around you on a personal level.

I will now tag James Wilson, Vache Folle, Allen, The Liberty Belles, Bob Sakowski, Adem

Aaron Russo RIP

2007-08-26T13:58:00.000-07:00

I have just read that Aaron Russo recently passed away. This information comes from Ron Paul Dailey.

He was a true freedom fighter, and his contributions to the freedom movement will be long lasting. His most notable work was his documentary America: Freedom to Fascism, which exposed the abuses of the IRS.

We lost a great one.

Ron Paul Donation Pledge

2007-08-09T19:13:00.000-07:00

Someone has started a nice little pledge that gives everyone a chance to give Ron Paul a nice birthday gift this August. The pledger states, "I will donate $500 to the Ron Paul presidential campaign fund, but only if 200 liberty loving people will donate at least $20 to the Ron Paul presidential campaign." If this pledge is successfull then we will have raised at least $4,500 for Dr. Paul's campaign.

As of this writing, 41 more pledges are still needed to hit our target goal of 200 people. The pledge closes on August 20th, so I strongly encourage all patriots reading this blog to contribute to the pledge if you can. The cause of more freedom and less government is within our grasp, but Ron Paul needs to be able to get his message out. The crucial Iowa straw poll is coming up this weekend, and it would be nice if we could keep Ron's campaign going strong throughout.

Viva La Resistance!

The arrogance of some

2007-08-03T21:45:00.000-07:00

So I recently received an email from someone who I usually respect for her strong opinions and stimulating conversation. The message I received today just about made my head explode. Here is a copy of the email message I received in response to an email I had sent in reference to the recent Ron Paul NPR inteveiw.

You know, this guy (Ron Paul) is a big time loser!! Popular on the Internet? Who cares? A Democrat, a Libertarian, a Republican, then a Libertarian, and now a republican again...Yikes, too many stripes for one suit to wear. Can you envision this guy in 1943 with any voice at all? " No Hitler is fine, let's just leave him alone, he won't invade more than 5 or 6 countries." It's people like this that wouldn't care if you spoke German or Japanese today, just so long as we don't "rock the boat".

He needs to wake up and realize that America is the greatest country on earth for all times. We are the envy of the entire world and we have a moral responsibility to the rest of the world not to let Hitler, Aminadinajad,
Hussein, or any other nut case enslave any part of the planet. We are not the aggressor in any sense of the word, in the past or now. We need someone who can lead this nation with courage, and if Ron Paul has any courage in him I just don't see it. I think he talks big, but would don a sheik robe and a turban to keep from upsetting the world. It's time for us to stop making excuses and say we are not the problem, we are the answer that the world is seeking...And I will never apologize for this great nation. I hope he get's some balls, (pardon me) if only for your sake.
Love U,

Of-course I had to respond to this nonsense as it can not be allowed to linger un-answered. The following is what I had to say. I wonder what my readers would have said differently?

Ron Paul was never a democrat. He ran for the libertarian nomination for president over 20 years ago, but he has always served in congress as a Republican. One really can't accuse him of any flip flopping on the issues like one can with the other candidate such as Rudy like he has on gun control. Ron Paul's position on foreign policy and any other issue has been more consistent over the past 30 years than any other candidate's position. He is as principled as they come, and he does not spew vicious rhetoric and make exagerated claims like most politicians do just to get votes.

As for his foreign policy positions, he is of the old right's belief that we should stay out of the internal affairs of other nations and not attack unless we are first attacked. Americans today are waking up to this notion as they have seen the problems when we violate the Christian doctrine of a just war. I'm speaking of the neocons plans for more Iraq style invasions of pre-emptive wars that arguably make us less safe from terrorism as they provide the fuel for al-qaeda recruiters around the world. The 911 commission report supports this argument. Ron Paul is not suggesting that we apologize for being who we are, but he is suggesting that there are consequences to our actions. A notion of personal responsibility that most in Washington would not recognize if it bit them in the behind. I might add that Ron Paul is the only candidate advocating a strict defense of our borders here at home. I saw on the news the other day that President Bush recently removed many of our National Guard troops from the Mexican border. Why would he do that? Why would anyone vote for someone who is going to get into office and give us more of the that kind of nonesense. Do you know about the FTAA, or any other number of groups seeking to unite the U.S., Mexico, and Canada like the European Union. They want us to have one currency and call it the Amero. I believe that Bush would not stand in the way of that from happening as is evidenced by his stance on our borders. I signed a petition several years ago asking Bush to add the phrase, "sovereign and independent" to our pledge of allegiance, and we got no support from him. If there ever was a candidate who believed in protecting the sovereignty of our great nation, that candidate is Ron Paul. He would protect our borders as the president should. A Ron Paul adminstration would end the flow of illegal tresspassers over our border with Mexico.

Ron Paul has said that we have a lot of goodness in this country and we need to promote it around the world, but not with the barrel of a gun. It seems that there is an element within the Republican party these days that has managed to convince many good people that as long as we are fighting terrorism abroad that is is perfectly fine for the government to run roughshod over our economic and personal liberties here at home. This really must stop!

If the only difference between republicans and democrats is the war on terror, which is a small difference in fact, then where will we be in ten our twenty years? We can keep on believing that we are free while we work until mid July, and beyond as the years go by, just to pay taxes to fund government so that it can continue intruding on our liberties. Ron Paul wants real freedom here at home, and this can only be achieved when we decide what the role of govenment ought to be. If you think the government should support us from cradle to grave, while taxing us to no end to pay for it, then go ahead keep supporting the establishment Republicans who will not change a thing in Washington. Just make sure that you do it with a clear conscience.

Brewrunner

I sit here wondering how many others are up against this arrogant point of view from their own close friends and family members.

Help Ron Paul with the critical Straw Poll by writing letters to Iowans!

2007-08-03T21:42:00.001-07:00

It’s time to convert our internet energy into real political power. Success in the Straw Poll will catapult Congressman Paul into the national spotlight. Though candidates who fail to perform adequately there, often remove themselves from the race shortly after. Show your support. Help write letters to Iowans asking them to show up and vote.

read more | digg story

Elderly Couple's House gets sold at tax auction after dispute over $1.63

2007-07-16T22:13:00.000-07:00

In 1996, the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office mailed a paltry $1.63 property tax bill for the Slidell-area home of Kermit and Dolores Atwood that never reached its destination. The seemingly innocuous, misaddressed bill was the start of a bizarre legal ordeal that threatens to leave the couple homeless...

Read the article titled Fighting for their Home here.

Ron Paul Vaulting towards 1st Tier - has more Cash on Hand than John McCain

2007-07-06T22:08:00.001-07:00

Ron Paul surprisingly takes John McCain's spot as the #3 declared candidate. He has $2.4 million Cash on Hand, to John McCain's $2 million. The freedom movement is on the rise. Dr. Ron Paul is the #1 Republican on youtube, facebook, myspace, eventful, meetup, and Digg! He is the only Republican who is opposed to the war in Iraq.

read more | digg story

Support the Troops: Bring them Home

2007-06-26T09:41:00.000-07:00

I received a video from a friend today that has supposedly had over 3,000,000 hits as of whatever morning the original email had been sent. It was made by a young lady, purportedly fifteen years old, and shows a series of stills of U.S. troops in various situations while somber music plays in the background. In between each image is a line of text that asks various quesions and makes various statements about the troops, the war, and so forth. Questions that seem to be aimed at making those in the anti-war movement feel bad for criticizing the interventionist policies of the U.S. government. I sent a response back to my friend that I felt was worthy of this blog.

That is a good video, but I don't see how regular people like you and me can watch that and not wonder why so many more will have to die over there. I don't know anyone in the anti-war movement who hates the troops or who wishes them some kind of harm, but I do know that it is the dangerous, interventionist policies of our government that have put the troops needlessly in harms way. I wish that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with 911, or even that it (Iraq) was some kind of threat to our nation, but that just is not the case. Even Colin Powell now feels like we went to war for the wrong reasons (the non-existence of WMD in Iraq), and that given what we know now he would not have supported invading Iraq in the first place.

Why are we still there?

Here is the link
if you like to see the video.

Post–Constitutional America

2007-06-11T21:27:00.001-07:00

Vache Folle at St. George Blog recently commented on my previouse post about the people who do not see the state for what it is. He stated that, "To problematize the state is to call into question their basic assumptions about social reality. They have to be reprogrammed." I think by using the word reprogrammed, he meant what Harry Browne used to mean by saying that people need to un-learn certain things about history in order to have a clear view of the current state of things.

That being said, Joe Sobran has written a piece titled How Tyranny Came to America that I think does a fine job of explaining how we got from a society with a relatively small and insignicant central government to one of massive size and scope. While I'm sure most of the readers of this blog have already un-learned most of their American history, this article makes for a good refresher course in constitutional chaos.

read more | digg story

Why Aren't Your Views Mainstream?

2007-06-03T20:12:00.000-07:00

I recently forwarded a link containing clips of Ron Paul from the first Republican debate to a friend of mine. He in turn forwarded the same email on to his step father with a bit of his own words in the body. He stated that the ideas that Ron Paul put forth were simple, logical, and made about as much sense as anything that he had heard coming out of a politician’s mouth.

My friends step father responded to the email with one point. The response simply stated that if Ron Paul's ideas made so much sense, then why do the majority of our fellow Americans not agree?

I have been thinking about this response for the better part of the day, and I have come up with only one conclusion about it. My conclusion is simply this: how can someone respond to such a position with such a weak and hollow remark? It is exactly this type of thinking that advances the mindlessness of the American citizenry today. Rather than rationally and coherently respond with rebuttals and ideas of their own, those who come to the table with the statist point of view have no real coherent thoughts when it comes to thinking outside the statist box. My friend's father used the same hollow logic that Rudy Giulliani used when he labeled Ron Paul’s views about possible reasons why we were attacked on 9-11 as absurd. Ron Paul listed several sources, including the 9-11 Commission report, as backing for his rationale, but all the apologists of the welfare-warfare state can come up with is, "That is absurd, not in the mainstream!"

Where is the intelligent debate on the statist side? It seems that most of the time someone challenges their conventional way of thinking, all they can do is dismiss that persons views as “outside the mainstream.”

I wonder if these same people would have responded with these same hollow words towards people of pro-abolitionist views during the early 19th century. I can only imagine someone trying to persuade another that slavery is morally wrong and must be abolished, and the other person’s only line of reason for the continuance of slavery being, “If you are so right, why doesn’t the mainstream agree with you?”

Ron Paul on Real Time

2007-05-27T18:10:00.000-07:00

One week after calling Ron Paul his new hero, Bill Maher invites Ron Paul back on Real Time to discuss his growing popularity for his non-interventionist position on foreign policy. The audience seemed to go crazy for Ron, causing Bill Maher to comment that that was the most applause his audience has ever given to a Republican. The icing came towards the end of the interview when Ron threw in a nice little jab back at Rudy for his lack of understanding of the unintended consequences of decades of intervening in the foreign affairs of other nations.

The Neocon Moment is Over

2007-05-23T14:41:00.000-07:00

Great article by Paul Mulshine on the fallout of the Paul / Giuliani feud.

Ron Paul vs. Rudy Giuliani

2007-05-22T21:19:00.000-07:00

I found this one over at Brad Spangler's blog. Credit for producing the image goes to Scott Bieser.

Bill Maher on Ron Paul: "He is my New Hero"

2007-05-22T20:05:00.000-07:00

So I just finished watching last Fridays rerun of Real Time on HBO, and was pleasantly surprised to hear Bill Maher defending Ron Paul's comments at the last Republican debate on Fox.

Maher was interviewing Chris Dodd (D-CT) at the beginning of the show when he made his comments about a man running for the Republican nomination named Ron Paul who has no chance of winning and can therefore speak the truth. He posed Paul's argument about America's foreign policy of interventionism that has served to drastically irritate much of the mid-east to a point where a 9-11 type attack became imminent. Dodd first disagreed on the grounds that he did not believe that 9-11 was a provoked attack, but host Maher quickly interjected by not allowing Dodd to in Maher's words, "do what the Republican's did to Paul." Maher told Dodd that Paul's words had been twisted. He explained that Paul's point was not to say that we were asking for the attack, but that we intervened to a point where someone was eventually going to respond.

Towards the end of the show Maher put together a stringed clip of the candidate's statements on the war on terror. Each candidate from Romney and Giuliani to McCain and on down the line repeatedly called for more use of torture to fight the war on terror. Romney actually suggested doubling the size of Guantanamo Bay. The clip ended with Ron Paul speaking of the Republican Party's tradition of being anti-war in the past. This was followed by the sound of crickets and dumb "dear in the headlights" looks on all of the other candidates faces.

After I finished writing this post, I noticed that Titanium Girl has posted the video clip from Real Time on her blog Titanium Thoughts. Check it out.

Cheating Dental Students

2007-05-10T16:52:00.000-07:00

John Gibson at Fox News has written a story about some dental students at the Indiana University dental school. These students reportedly were involved in a cheating scandal and suspended from the school. The reason according to the professors is that President Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, therefore students now believe that lying and cheating is morally acceptable.

Of-course Gibson is contending that anyone who uses this type of rantionale has, in his words, "come off the rails." Now don't get me wrong, I believe strongly in a philosophy of personal responsibility, therefore I sympathize with Gibson's point of view. I only wonder if Gibson would have applied this same standard to the social conservative right who blamed President Clinton for the supposed rising rates of sexual activity among the nations youth.

Radicals for Capitalism

2007-05-08T22:28:00.000-07:00

I have been reading Brian Doherty's new book, "Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement." Mr. Doherty is a senior editor at Reason magazine, which is to say one of the fine libertarian publications of our time.

I have thoroughly enjoyed Doherty's history and commentary on the movement. He has basically put together an outline encompassing all of the known and not so well known characters that have contributed to libertarian philosophy over the past couple of centuries.

Albert Jay Knock's contributions have been of particular interest to me. Doherty writes in his book that "Knock was an anarchist, though he carefully distinguished the state, to which he was bloodily opposed, from government-the necessary functions for an orderly civilization historically usurped by the state."

I recommend this book to any students of libertarian thought and history.

I'm Back

2007-05-07T22:23:00.000-07:00

After a long hiatus from this blog, I have finally come back to this space where I can enjoy advocating my random anti-state pontifications.

So much has happened over the past few months that I don't know where to begin. I suppose the most exciting news of the past few weeks has been Ron Paul's recent frenzy of media publicity. I haven't been this excited about someone running for a political party nomination since, wait - never have I been this excited about anything happening within the realm of politics.

Ron Paul's presence at the GOP debate was absolutely remarkable. I could not believe I was watching someone of Paul's consistent, hard hitting libertarian ideology actually espousing his views upon the stage at the Reagan library on a nationally televised debate. Good times.

Ron Paul has been able to capitalize off of the internet in a big way in 2007. He must have mobilized and army of hardcore activists, as is evidenced by his placing first or second in most of the major media "Who won the GOP debate" polls. I was stunned by the results of many of those polls.

I only wish like the editors of Reason magazine do that it would be nice to live in a world where Ron Paul could actually win. I believe that for now, candidates like Ron Paul mainly serve as a stabilizing factor to keep the other Republican candidates from falling too far to away from small government libertarian principles. One of my favorite parts from the debate happened when host Chris Matthews asked the panel if they supported or opposed a national ID card for Americans. Almost all of them said that they supported it, until Ron Paul explained that a national ID card was inconsistent with a free society. He went on to place the proper role of government to protecting the privacy of the people, not protecting the privacy of government. At this point McCain and Giuliani had to backtrack and stumble around explaining that they only supported if for foreigners, not Americans. I loved it.

To those few who actually read my blog, I'm sorry to have fallen off the face of the earth for so long. I look forward to continuing this blog and interacting with others once again.

GOP Sex Scandal – Big Distraction with Glimmer of Hope

2006-10-04T22:41:00.000-07:00

I have to say something about this story given the current high level of intensity it has snowballed into at this point. I usually find this type of story very irritating when it comes out of Washington. It seems to serve as a big distraction from the real goings on of Congress. By that I’m referring to the plundering, regulating, dominating, intimidating, and controlling of the citizenry vis-à-vis new taxes and regulation – the usual activities of Congress.

This story is vaguely reminiscent of the big stink that was made of Trent Lott’s comments in praise of Strom Thurmond on his birthday back in 2002. Reminiscent because of the giant distraction in the form of national headlines it has created over nothing but a few words transmitted from one person to another.

Trent Lott caught all kinds of hell from his comments back then that many people including the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Gore viewed as racist at the time- big surprise. Now it seems the Republicans in general are going to pay a pretty price at the polls for the recent revelation that one of them is gay- and a sexual predator to boot! It seems that Rep. Mark Foley has been sending sexually explicit messages to a 17 year old page. Then the honorable Rep. Foley immediately checked into some kind of alcohol rehab program to avoid the firestorm that has come crashing down on him. A spokesperson for him stated that he was drunk when he sent the messages, but added that he was never intoxicated during official congressional business- right.

Speaker Hastert, who is responsible for oversight of the page program, has already been compared to the likes of Cardinal Law of the Catholic church for his role in allegedly ignoring allegations of sexual harassment sent his way from a 2005 page incident.

I suppose the most ironic aspect this whole story is the fact that Mr. Foley has been “credited with writing the sexual-predator provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which Bush signed in July.”

The only good thing to come out of this mess I suppose is that it has further undermined the credibility of the incumbent party, which happens to be the GOP. The public seems to be withdrawing support in larger numbers now of our current foreign policy and of Republicans in general.

Hopefully this time some of those people who are fed up will not go out and pull the lever in favor of the other big government party instead of looking for third options like the libertarians.

Minimum Wage

2006-09-03T16:33:00.000-07:00

I was reading the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal today when I stumbled across an article titled Grappling Over Minimum Wage Builds as Republicans Disagree. The opening premise of the article is whether Republicans should try to pass an increase in the minimum wage after returning to the hill after Labor Day, or to let the issue pass and risk facing voters in November.

Apparently some Republicans in tough races are chomping at the bit for another chance to raise the minimum raise in order to "deprive democrats of a major campaign talking point." Where are their principles I say? Chris Shays-R Connecticut was quoted as saying, "I think it should be passed under our watch." The usual petty, party politics game in Washington is being played simply to maintain power, much to the dismay of low skilled workers who face potential job loss or work time reductions if such a measure is to pass.

Mr. Shays was also quoted saying, "... it’s not like we're increasing it in a way that would cause unemployment." I wonder how come Mr. Shays doesn't understand that the current minimum wage is causing unemployment. Of-course raising it would only serve to increase the unemployment that it is already causing. This is yet another example of a politician who does not understand simple economics.

This reminds me of the massive prescription drug plan the GOP passed in 2002 that pilfered the pockets of younger workers to line the wallets of the wealthiest group of Americans in our countries history. All the republicans cared about at that time was that they passed it first. Not much has changed.

A possible strategy for the Dems is to wait out the issue until a spending bill comes up that would provide for pay raises for legislators. The author of the article proclaims that the Dems would then be able to slam the Republicans for raising their own pay, while failing to do so for minimum wage earners.

Of-course no one in the mainstream media is going to point out the truth that law makers have no natural, legal authority to intervene in the affairs of private business in the first place.

The Da Vinci Code

2006-07-09T22:33:00.000-07:00

Is this stuff for real?

I have been reading this book by Dan Brown called The Da Vinci Code, perhaps you heard of it. I am really enjoying learning about Da Vinci's art and all of the alleged hidden clues he left to tell the world the truth about the Church. I had up until now never heard of the sacred feminine or that Mona Lisa's name came from the fusion of the names of an Egyptian god and goddess of fertility, Amon and Isis which was once written as the pictogram for Lisa- Amon'Lisa.

All of this is new to me and I have not done any research for myself to find out how much of this novel is historically accurate, but I found one of Mr. Brown's premises quite telling. In chapter 55, one of the characters explains what he calls the fundamental irony of Christianity. This irony is said to be that the bible as we know it today was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great. He claims that Constantine simply declared Christianity as Rome’s official state religion to take advantage of Christianity’s growing popularity in order to stop the conflict between the Christians and pagans. Apparently Constantine foresaw Christianity’s rise, and fused it with pagan customs and symbols, which can still be found today, in order to appease and unite the two warring groups. It seems historians ever since have marveled at Constantine’s sales and marketing skills which allowed him to pull this off.

As I have stated, I do not know how much of this story is historically accurate, but it would not surprise me at all if in fact the head of one of the once most powerful governments on Earth altered the customs, symbols, and history of an entire religious movement in order to carry out his vision for Rome.

Help Aaron Russo

2006-06-21T20:23:00.000-07:00

We can all do something very simple right now to help get the preview for Aaron's new movie America: Freedom to Fascism in front of more eyes.

Simply go to Veoh where you can watch a 3 minute clip of the movie to help get the viewer rating up. Then register with Veoh so you can give the clip a 5 star rating and also leave a comment about the clip.

All of this only takes a few minutes and for what better cause is there?

I've Been Tagged

2006-06-12T22:41:00.000-07:00

One of those blog memes has passed my way due to my getting tagged by Titanium Girl

Four Jobs I’ve Had

K-Mart employee
Freelance Lawn Mower
Albertsons employee
West Teleservices CSR

Four Movies I can Watch Over and Over
The Matrix
V for Vendetta
Office Space
Equilibrium

Four Places I’ve Lived
Tulsa
Broken Arrow
yeah, pretty much just Tulsa

Four TV Shows I love
Greys Anatomy

I don't know if these count:
The O'Reilly Factor
Squawk on the Street
Mad Money

Four highly regarded and recommended TV shows I haven't seen (much of)
huh?

Four places I've vacationed
Utah
Hawaii
Missouri
Florida

Four of my favorite dishes
Salmon Patties
Beer Brats on the grill
salad wraps
hamburgers, (my recipe)

Four sites I visit daily
Lew Rockwell
Morningstar
Myspace
Yahoo

Four places I'd rather be right now:
nowhere

Four new bloggers I'm tagging
Titanium Girl
James Leroy Wilson
VACHE FOLLE

America: From Freedom To Fascism

2006-05-29T23:31:00.000-07:00

Everyone needs to check out Aaron Russo's new movie titled "America: From Freedom to Fascism." Learn all about this eye opening project at this website url: http://www.freedomtofascism.com/index.html. Aaron Russo is not like Michael Moore who plays to the Left to increase polarization in America. He presents a truly American call to arms to wake up and take back our stolen liberties. He has already put up 100% of his own money just to make this film, now he needs the help of all those who still care about freedom to support the advertising and promotion of this project in any way you can. Pass this message along to everyone in your address book and tell everyone you know about the movie and website. If you can spare some extra money, then donate to this project. As I have said, Aaron has already put up his own money and given the last two years of his life to make this film, but it will take a lot more money to advertise and actually get the film to open in theatres all across America. Let's help Aaron open his movie this July with a bang all across America. This might be the best opportunity to come along ever to wake America up to the reality of what our government has done to our freedoms over past hundred years.

The Power of Now

2006-05-29T21:02:00.000-07:00

I have been reading this interesting book on spiritual enlightenment by Eckhart Tolle titled The Power of Now.

The main premise seems to be that most humans are too caught up in worring about the past and the future. On the future side of things we seem to create this mental projection of different "what if" scenarios thas create fear inside us. We spend too much time dwelling and living in the past that we can do nothing about. According to the author the past and future do not exist, and the only thing that matters is this moment right now. To realize the present and discover Being is the ultimate achievement of true happiness and freedom from all forms of pain and suffering.

The author spends a few moments discussing what he calls psychological time in a section called "The Insanity of Psychological Time" that I thought would be appropriate for this blog.

You will not have any doubt that psychological time is a mental disease if you look at its collective manifestations. They occur, for example, in idealogies such a communism, national socialism, or any nationalism, or rigid religious belief systems, which operate under the implicit belief system that the highest good lies in the future, and that therefore the end justifies the means. The end is an idea, a point in the mind-projected future, when salvation in whatever form - happiness, fulfilment, equality, liberation, and so on - will be attained. Not infrequently, the means of getting there are the enslavement, torture, and murder of people in the present.

For example, it is estimated that as many as fifty million people were murdered to further the cause of communism, to bring about a "better world" in Russia, China, and other countries. This is a chilling example of how belief in a future heaven creates a present hell. Can there be any doubt that psychological time is a serious and dangerous mental illness.

When I bought this book I was not at all looking for material of political nature, but it appears to have found me. Funny how that works.

Myspace.com hate Walmart Group

2006-05-29T20:50:00.000-07:00

I have now left two separate posts in the group called "Walmart is the Devil" on Myspace.com, which I have also posted to this blog. It has been over 15 days since my last post, and not a single person has responded to it. I guess these people do not desire to debate the merits of their beliefs, and that is fine, I just thought that my comments would elicit some type of reponse from at least someone in this group. I was wrong.

Walmart Must Ask Someone First

2006-05-14T22:28:00.000-07:00

More comments from me in response to the current conversation taking place in the Myspace groupWalmart is the Devil. So far no one has responded to my previous comment in the forum, maybe this one will stir the pudding a little bit.

I agree that Walmart and Sams Club stores are large and zoo like, and I attempt to avoid them as much a possible for those reasons.

But I have a few questions for those who feel the same. Do we not live in a free country anymore? Can a business not purchase land and construct a building in which to sell goods to the local residents of the community in the free market without asking someone first?

Of-course they must ask someone first. Walmart, or Sams Club must ask the person or persons who they wish to purchase the land from (except in cases of local city councils abusing eminent domain) if that person or persons will sell them the land. Then they must ask or attempt to persuade the various individuals of the community to purchase items from their new store in order for them to stay in business. All of these various actions are voluntary on the part of all parties.

No ones natural rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness is being infringed upon by any of these aforementioned actions (once again, except in cases of eminent domain abuse on the part of local governments).

So I ask the members of this group, where is the tort? What has Walmart done to you that is worse than such programs as social security, which takes 14 percent of your income and gives it to someone else. When did you consent to this action? If you did not consent, which pretty much covers all of us, then that means this income redistribution program fell upon you by the use of deadly force.

What do I mean by Deadly Force? See what happens if you stop paying your taxes for a while. Eventually the IRS will contact you about the taxes you owe them. If you refuse to cooperate with them, a court date will be set to determine what to do about you not having paid your taxes. If you refuse to show up for court, eventually the guns will come out. Men with guns will come to your home to take away your liberty and pursuit of happiness.

That is called deadly force my friends.

Why can the government do all this without asking someone first? They did not ask me and they did not ask anyone else that I know if they could confiscate 14 cents of every dollar you and I earn to give to someone else.

The Hate Wal-Mart Mentality

2006-05-05T00:36:00.000-07:00

I was wandering around Myspace tonight when I discovered an anti-Wal-Mart group. I am not a Wal-Mart shopper and I do not own stock in the company, but the hate Wal-Mart venom was so staunch that I had to post a reply. Most of the people speaking their minds about Wal-Mart were young, and I just wish that they would find someting much more noble to speak out against. Perhaps something that actually has the power to use deadly force to accomplish its' goals. My response was as follows:

Even though so many of you all seem to hate Wal-Mart so much, I find it odd that it sounds like some of you frequent the place more than I do - which is not very much. Almost everyone here seems to be forgetting a vitally important concept. In America we still have a slightly quasi-free market capitalistic society, and it is the consumers (read: you, me, and everyone else) who get to decide if companies such as Wal-Mart live or die. If you have such a problem with them, then I have the perfect solution for you - don't shop there. If you disagree with anything they are doing, you have the ultimate power to decide for yourself that you will give them absolutely no economic support.

It would be really wonderful if all of this hate Wal-Mart venom could be redirected at putting a stop to something much more painful and unjust to the American consumer. I'm talking mainly about the 15 cents that is taken from every dollar you earn before you even realize it is gone. I am talking about the ponzi scheme being pulled on us by our government otherwise known as Social Security. None of us has a choice to peaceably abstain from participating in this draconian program, and all of us know that it will not be there for us when we reach that sacred age of eligibility - what is the age this year 65 or have they raised it to 67 yet. How can it be right for the government to confiscate 15 cents from every dollar you earn as part of a retirement program, and not even be required to pass that money on to your next of kin should you die before you reach a certain age? Any company competing in the free market could not survive running a retirement program such as the government's social insecurity scheme, but we let the government get away with it.

Why?

I can't wait to find out why all of the "hate Wal-Mart" people give the government a pass on its' tyrannical activities, but torch Wal-Malt everyday.

Rising Gas Prices

2006-04-27T07:57:00.000-07:00

As the prices at the pump continue to rise, the people seem willing only to point their fingers at those greedy oil companies, rather than the government that has created the problem and then exacerbated it with outrageously high taxes on the product. How can Exxon Mobil justify such high gas prices, all the while paying CEO Lee Raymond a $400 million retirement package? Tom Doggett of Reuters called this action a "shamefull display of greed." But is it shameful for a successful and profitable company operating in a quasi-free market to reward its’ CEO for a job well done? Most people do not realize that the profits collected on a gallon of gasoline are actually lower than the tax collected by the government on that same gallon of gasoline. And now the politicians are playing on the ignorance of the American people by calling for a “windfall profit tax” on the oil companies to off set these rising gas prices. It is too bad that corporations do not pay taxes; they pass them on to consumers via higher prices. So how does this help the situation?

The focus of anger towards the oil companies at the problem of rising gas prices has been wholeheartedly misdirected by the people. When reporters like Doggett along with many other members of the media, and both Republican and Democrat politicians speak out against the oil companies as the root of the problem they fan the flames of an anti-capitalist, anti-free market mentality. They are doing the U.S. a great disservice with their rhetoric.

People should realize that it has been the government’s environmental policies that have created this problem, not the oil companies. Mandates set forth that have not allowed a new refinery to be built in the last thirty years have stifled competition in this industry. Regulations that require so many different blends of gasoline depending on the region the gas is sold in also contribute to higher costs associated with producing and distributing the product. Since only certain blends can be sold in certain areas, shortages are created – thus we pay higher prices.

Environmentalists have blocked oil drilling in Alaska for many years now. Floridians do not want U.S. oil companies to be able to drill for oil of the coast of Florida because they are afraid there might be an oil spill of some kind so close to their homes. Many people are probably unaware of the fact that Fidel Castro has signed agreements with Spain, Canada, and China to explore offshore drilling northeast and northwest of Havana just about 50 miles from Key West. I wonder how the Floridians feel now. They have blocked U.S. companies from exploration of this area due to fears of oil spills, but U.S. oil companies are much better equipped to safely drill for oil than China and Spain.

Now I support protecting our environment, but there has to be a way to do it without creating virtual monopolies and oil shortages as unintended consequences. World wide oil demand has increased to a point that these reckless environmental policies are going to create a gasoline price disaster. Something must be done, or better yet undone, to allow for more competition, and easier production and distribution of gasoline.

But perhaps the vilest aspect of this whole debate lies in the hidden truth about the secret taxes paid on a gallon of gasoline. I say secret because this is the one product consumers purchase that they are largely unaware of the tax rate they are paying. Why is this so? The federal government takes 18.4 cents of every gallon of gas sold and the states take an average of 27.5 cents per gallon. This is taken from consumers at the pump before they even realize that it is gone much like the federal withholding tax from their paychecks. It just so happens that the average profit made on a gallon of gasoline by the companies that produce the gas is only about 8 cents per gallon. And then these same companies pay taxes on those profits.

It is time for the American people to wake up and understand what is really going on here. We need to hold our government accountable for its’ unjust actions that have put us in this position, not the oil companies who are only responding to market forces and unjust government policies.

Martha Stewart

2006-04-13T23:49:00.000-07:00

I know this is old news, but I was assigned a paper on this topic so I decided to put my preliminary thoughts here.

I was thinking about the Martha Stewart conviction tonight as a result of an assignment in my Business Law II class. The assignment requires the reading of several newspaper articles about the development and analysis of the trial, followed by several articles on business ethics. After having read the articles I am supposed to write my own analysis on business ethics as it relates to the Stewart case. The Prof. said that students may cite other articles if necessary. So I decided that perhaps I should cite one article I remember from Reason Magazine a year or so ago titled “Why Martha Stewart Should Go to Heaven and the SEC Should Go to Hell.” I think the title of that article alone might be enough to receive a grade of F on the assignment.

Before I even went back to reread that article from Reason for more information, I have written down my general thoughts on this case from over a year ago. I will use this assignment as an opportunity to argue that the government was the guiltiest party of ethics violations in prosecuting Stewart for allegedly lying about the reasons she dumped her stock in Imclone.

In the government’s never ending quest to punish people for crimes in which there is no victim, it created hundreds if not thousands of victims by calling out the dogs on Martha Stewart. How many stock holders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia as well as stockholders of K-Mart lost large percentages of their investments when those stocks tanked after news of the government’s prosecution and subsequent conviction of Stewart broke? A verdict based on the government’s contention that Stewart lied to federal agents about her reasons for selling her stock in Imclone.

Which action was the greater evil?

V For Vendetta

2006-04-02T15:06:00.000-07:00

I finally saw V For Vendetta last night. It was one of the best works of anti-state expressions Hollywood has produced in quite some time.

The hero V was not only a bad ass knife thrower and combat expert, but he was also quite the intellectual. One of my favorite lines from the movie came when V, played by Hugo Weaving, was explaining to Evey, played by Natalie Portman, the reasons for his mission to take the current government down. He spoke to her in terms of Newton's Third Law - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This was in reference to the physical and emotional scars the state had left on him and many others. He was merely the eventuality of such a tyrannical state that would rise up to lead a revolution.

I also enjoyed the references to “America’s war”, and the destruction that it had caused so many other people of the world. Of-course this movie being set some twenty years in the future, America had erupted into some kind of civil war. There was some mention of the war in Iraq, and the subsequent wars in several other Mid-Eastern countries that happened later on.

The opening scene takes place on the streets of Britain, and depicts Evey, being harassed by state thugs for being out after curfew. It is at this point that the audience is introduced to the hero V, who saves day. I know this movie was based on a graphic novel written in the 1980’s, but the opening scene really reminded me of the opening scene in Vin Suprynowicz’s novel, The Black Arrow. Now I know where Vin got his inspiration for his great tale of resistance.

I highly recommend readers check out The Black Arrow, as it is a similar tale of a revolution in the USA.

That Does It!

2006-03-29T20:42:00.000-07:00

I have got to break my streak of avoiding movie theaters for, I think about 19 months now, and go see this great anti-state masterpiece everyone keeps talking up. That movie would be V For Vendetta.

I told myself I was going to see it last weekend, but I foolishly destroyed several parts of my lawn mower, don't ask, costing me several hours of otherwise productive time and the unecessary use of certain choice swear words while attemping to fix the damn thing. I think this weekend is shaping up to be a little lighter on the work load, so I will once again put V For Vendetta on the weekend agenda.

Guantanamo Bay

2006-03-27T23:23:00.000-07:00

I was listening to Rusty Humphries today on my commute from work to school. He was talking about his recent visit to Guantanamo Bay where he interviewed a high ranking Army official about conditions there. Rusty's main point that he kept driving was about how much the mainstream media skews the picture of what is really happening at Gitmo. He kept telling the army officer that he wanted to see all the areas of the base including any secret rooms that might be there. At one point he asked the man if there were any secret rooms at gitmo, and of-course the man replied that there were not. He then asked if there were any "beatin' rooms" at the base, and if so he wanted to see them. I thought this was hilarious. I could just imagine the officer taking Rusty into a room at the base where large banner hangs on the wall displaying the words "beating room."

I am not alleging that there are definetely beating rooms at that base, however I do not discount the possibility that such secret rooms do exist. I just thought it was funny that Humphries was trying to prove to the listeners that said rooms do not exist based soley on the fact that his tour allowed him unfettered access to any room he wished.

I think the main point that we should be concerned about was not whether or not there are beating rooms, but that the people being held there are so held without being charged with a particular crime. For the U.S. Government to simply name someone an enemy combatant in the war on terror and hold them at Guantamano Bay indefinetely is not only unconstitutional, it is a blatant abuse of power. Our government needs to be held to account for its' actions, including those actions that violate the Constitution, the Two Laws, and basic human rights.

The Presidential Veto

2006-03-21T22:45:00.000-07:00

I was driving to work this morning listening to President Bush defend his policies on the radio on everything from Iraq to his lack of the use of the veto. My ears perked up when he mentioned the criticism from many conservatives on the veto.

Mr. Bush gave as his excuse for never having vetoed a single spending bill passed on to him from congress the fact that under current law, the president does not have the ability to use a line item veto. He actually said that many times he agrees with the size of the pie, but he just does not agree with the slices. So he is basically saying that he only has disagreed with the types of pork barrel projects contained within past appropriations bills, not that total amounts of the bills. This proves from his own mouth that he cares nothing about limited government conservatism.

Of-course he espoused the usual rhetoric about his tax cuts, and the great things they have done so all of the uneducated Republicans in the audience will feel good about having voted for him. He failed to mention that with his out of control spending habits his tax cuts mean nonthing, because we will still have to pay for all of these new government ventures through inflation.

I'm thinking about buying the book Getting America Right by Edward J. Feulner and Doug Wilson, which measures the performance of Washington politicians based on true libertarian, conservative values.

Happy St. Patricks Day

2006-03-17T07:54:00.000-07:00

It is friday and I don't have anything particularly intelligent to say today so I thought I would take this time to wish everyone a happy St. Patrick's Day. Today is one of my favorite days of the year, perhaps second only to Independence day, and the best part about this year is that St. Patty's day has fallen on a friday.

I hope any of you who plan on celebrating this evening have a safe and exciting time. Cheers!

Senator Bill Frist

2006-03-16T23:14:00.000-07:00

I just finished watching a Neil Cavuto interview of Senate majority leader Bill Frist on the current state of government. Neil began to take the senator to task by stating that the republicans have been spending like drunkin' sailors for several years now. Senator Frist responded like the typical poltician by rattling off excuses such as the war on terror. Of-course Neil failed to call him on the fact that non-defense spending is up at the highest levels since WWII.

The comment that Senator Frist made wich angered me the most had to do with his final comments on the "rebublican way." He actually had the gall to mention that the republicans were for limited government. I just about lost it when he said that. How much longer is their charade going to continue?

We have witnessed the largest growth in the size and scope of the federal government since World War II over the last six years under a Republican Congress and Executive branch, and Mr. Frist pulls out the limited government card. In the words of Senator Zell Miller, "I wish we lived in a time when you could challenge someone to a duel."

Shame on you Senator Frist.

Libertarian Reform Caucus

2006-03-16T21:05:00.000-07:00

I was reading my April, 2006 edition of Reason magazine when I stumbled upon an advertisement for somehting called the Libertarian Reform Caucus. Its' stated goal is to put together a new platform for the Libertarian Party to make the party more inclusive so that it may grow faster, which would allow the party to have more clout now rather than later. The caucus asserts that the current platform is too radical for some folks who might join if the party simply made a few changes.

After having visited the caucus's website, it seems that one of their main goals is to work on changing the party's pledge. They have ten proposals, each one a rewritten version of the pledge that members may vote for or against.

The site looks nice and seems to have a sizeable amount of information, but I just kept wondering to myself while I was sifting through the pages if these people are wasting their time.

My gut feeling tells me that most democrats, republicans, and independents who do not join the LP, choose not to join based mostly on other reasons that have nothing to do with the pledge or most of the platform. I believe that most democrats and republicans could not even tell you what their own respective party's platforms state.

The people who do not join the LP do so for the same reasons that consumers continue to shop at the same grocery store week after week, or purchase auto insurance from the same agent year after year. They do not believe that their lives have been affected enough by any external factors that would motivate them to exert the effort to make such a change, much less advocate for others to change. I believe the only solution to this problem is to wake these people up with a little history about the gradual decline of personal and economic liberty in this country. The movement is still in desperate need of people who will spread the ideas of liberty to others.

One point the group makes that I believe to be a good thing is the bottom up theory. This theory is based on the idea that unknown candidates who get involved in local politics have an easier chance of being elected, and therefore an area that can have a more immediate impact on our local lives.

I am not quite sure if this effort is going anywhere, but if is succeeds in bringing large numbers of people into the party, then best of luck to it. I just hope that they do not end up de-radicalizing the party so much that it no longer adheres to the founding principles.

Online Freedom of Speech Act

2006-03-14T23:25:00.000-07:00

James Wilson of Independent Country has made me aware of the House of Representatives upcoming vote on a very crucial piece of legislation. It is called the Online Freedom of Speech Act, and it will seriously affect our blogging lives.

It seems that the Federal Election Commission is under court order to impose campaign finance regulations on the internet. That means that political expression on blogs, webpages, and even possibly emails would be regulated for content. Of-course the mainstream media would be exempt from these regulations.

We need to urge our representatives in congress to support and pass this bill if our freedom of speech is to continue unabated from government in this country.

Visit this page at DownsizeDC.org to contact your congress person to urge their support of this bill.

The Evil Quiz

2006-03-13T23:49:00.000-07:00

I am apparently a little bit more evil than James Wilson of Independent Country.

You Are 34% Evil

A bit of evil lurks in your heart, but you hide it well.
In some ways, you are the most dangerous kind of evil.

How Evil Are You?

Agorism

2006-03-13T22:56:00.000-07:00

I have been reading about agorism, which is a, "...new ideology which asserts that the Libertarian philosophical position occurs in the real world in practice as Counter-Economics..." I would like to thank Brad Spangler for introducing me to this apparant new libertarian ideology, which attempts to bridge the gap between all persons who practice counter-economics. Counter-economics is basically the study and or practice of all human interaction not allowed by the state.

Agorism, as I understand it, is intended to help improve civilization through market processes as opposed to state institutions. Agorists recognize that every time the state intervenes in the free market, whether through tax increases or new regulations, civilization is harmed. This is true because all state imposed law is backed up by the threat and or use of deadly force.

Lew Rockwell has said before that he advocates radical changes in favor of more liberties and less government, but that he does not believe politics is the way to do it. I have wondered for a long time now how the task of achieving more liberties and less government could ever come about without the use of politics. This philosophy might be the way that it happens.

Cell Phone Blues

2006-03-12T19:48:00.000-07:00

I was working in my yard again the other day, because I'm on a never ending quest to have the best looking yard on the block. It was time for the first application of fertilizer on my "lawn care annual plan." Of-course the stuff is slightly dangerous when exposed to skin, so upon completion I emmediately threw my clothes in the washing machine and jumped in the shower.

It wasn't until the washer stopped and I went to pull my clothes from it when I saw what a stupid thing I had done. I had washed my cell phone. And not just my cell phone, but also my phone numbers list and daily planner that are contained in that amazing little digital device. I will have to wait a few days for my cell phone company to send me out a replacement.

Maybe I should have been smarter than this, but I did not have any of that information stored anywhere else. This really made me think how dependent I am on the digital world. Why is it such a big deal when I have to go without a cell phone for a few days?

Then that lead me to think how dependent our entire society is on modern civilization. What would most people do if this vast network of communications, electricity, running water, and all the other things we take for granted suddenly stopped working for even a few days.

I have been reading a book called Lucifer's Hammer, which is about a comet that hits the earth and wipes out civilization. The people who survive are challenged with the task of rebuilding everything from the ground up.

The book and the cell phone incident have really been making me think about how dependent I am on our modern civilization. When I think about these types of things I want to buy a generator, grow my own vegetable garden, and stock up on water. Will I act on any of those thoughts? Perhaps not any time soon, but I will continue to dream of a day when I might have a home on a larger piece of property with my own power generorating capabilities.

Beautiful Sunset

2006-03-08T17:52:00.000-07:00

I was on my way home from dining out tonight when I noticed the sunset looked so beautiful that I had to take a picture of it and share it here. I get such a strong inner feeling of peace from nature when it looks like this.

The Roe v. Wade Challenge

2006-03-06T20:30:00.000-07:00

South Dakota has recently made criminal the practice of aborting a fetus, except in cases where the mothers life is at risk. Instances of rare birth defects and incest will not be considered exceptions to the ban.

Of-course this type of state defiance to the Roe decision could have been foreseen with the recent nominations and subsequent confirmations of Justices Roberts and Alito. South Dakota and other states that might eventually follow suit are going to test the waters of the more conservitive Supreme Court.

Although it seems the religious right in this country would rather see abortions take place in dark alleys with coat hangers for forceps instead of in clinics with sterile instruments, I support their right to make decisions governing there own local geographic locations. Because when you get to the heart of the Roe decision, it was basically a slam against state's rights. I support the right of the states to make there own decisions, as stupid as they may be, about these matters. People of small local areas coming together deciding on laws that reflect their culture and values are exhibiting the kind of activity that contributes to a free society.

Of-course the ideal situation would be to have all the governing be done at a level even more local than the states. Back in 1993 Murray Rothbard wrote, "Pro-choice paleos should hope that Roe v. Wade is someday overthrown, and abortion questions go back to the state and local levels-the more decentralized the better." Perhaps this is the beginning of the overthrow of Roe that will bring about the decentralization of state power in Washington that we paleo and left-libertarians have been waiting for.

Voting in my state

2006-03-05T22:45:00.000-07:00

Every time there is an upcoming election I am reminded of how harsh and restrictive my state's ballot access laws are. There happens to be a mayoral race quickly coming up on the horizon, but of-course the choice is between big government and bigger government as usual.

The best part of this race so far has been that the most dominant news stories have centered around corruption and scandal.

On the democratic side we have Don McCorkle accusing opponent Kathy Taylor of voter fraud in voting in two states during the 2000 elections. McCorkle also accuses Taylor of tax fraud in applying for and receiving a homestead tax exemption for homes in both Florida and Oklahoma. Although, as a libertarian, I support Taylor's right to be exempt from any tax that may present istelf, I am not sure why she would have filed for exemtption status in both states if she knew she would be possiblly entering a political race in the future. If she is going to enter the nasty game of politics, then she better know that any law in existence will be used against her in her run for mayor.

On the republican side we have the incumbent Mayor Bill Lafortune. Now I'm not sure, but he may be the most loathed mayor by both the republicans and the democrats in the history of Tulsa politics. He is seen by many Tulsan's as being a nice man, but not necessarily a great leader - and that was sugar coating his reputation.

He has a challenger by the name of Chris Medlock, who is currently a city councilor. Mr. Medlock's views are probably the most liberty oriented in contrast with the rest of the candidates, but when tea comes to the price of China he is still a statist.

What is a Tulsa libertarian to do with his vote? Answer: NOTHING.

We Lost a Great One Thursday

2006-03-03T08:19:00.000-07:00

I was going about my life as usual yesterday, when I got this weird, fleeting feeling that lasted for only a few seconds. I thought to myself that it had been a while since I had visited Harry Browne's website to read any of his latest articles. I remembered that he sent out an email a few months ago announcing that he had developed Lou Gehrig's Disease, and then I got this really strong feeling about him and the state of his health. Then I went on with my daily activities not giving it a second thought.

Fastforward to friday morning when I was getting ready for work. I always have the TV tuned to Fox News in the morning before I leave the house. I was walking through my living room after having eaten breakfast when someting on the ticker at the bottom of the screen caught my eye. The line read that Harry Brown had died on thursday, March 1st after having struggled with Lou Gehrig's Disease. It really shocked me that I had just been thinking about him for the first time in a while just the day before. It felt like one of those supposed inter-connectivity moments that human beings might be capable of.

I have to give Harry Browne most of the credit for introducing me to the more in depth concepts of the libertarian movmenent. After having read his books "Why Government Doesn't Work" and "The Great Libertarian Offer," I joined the Libertarian Party. Although my membership has since lapsed, I will always remember the strong, postiive influence that Harry Browne had on my path to discovering the libertarian philosophy.

Harry will be missed.

Coercion in New Jersey

2006-02-21T23:51:00.000-07:00

Eminent domain strikes again, this time crushing the lives of residents living in Long Branch, New Jersey. The local authorities are attempting to remove, with force if necessary, the residents of Beachfront South, an ocean side neighborhood. City officials, including the slimy Mayor Adam Schneider have apparently been salivating like a pack of wolves for a few years now at the thought of higher tax revenues for the cities coffers. They plan on handing the 30 residential properties over to developers of luxury condominiums and other such endeavors. The condos will encompass five buildings totaling 350 units.

The repugnant Mayor Schneider was on the Sean Hannity radio show today slipping and sliding, like the venomous snake that he is, around Sean’s questions. Sean hammered at him for several minutes about his attempts to use the deadly force of the government to kick innocent people off of their property. The mayor just kept on repeating the same line about the progress of the city, and how that relates to his plan that has been in effect for the last ten years or so. I was very surprised and delighted to hear Sean Hannity giving this government official such a hard verbal thrashing for his disgusting behavior.

I suppose one good thing to come from the Kelo v. New London decision is the amount of national media attention it has fostered for this issue. It seems that states all over the country have begun to see proposed legislation limiting the government’s use of eminent domain. Hopefully rational thinking people all across the country will wake up and take a stand for private property rights as a result of this recent rash of government intrusion

To Vote or Not to Vote

2006-01-29T15:40:00.000-07:00

I wrestle with this topic in my mind on a somewhat regulare basis. The logical conclusion I always end up at is an outcome of not voting.

The idea that those who do not vote have not the freedom to complain is assinine and must be squashed out if society is to achieve progress. It is my position that those who do vote are the ones who have forfeited their rights to complain. The act of voting implies an endorsement of what the politicians are doing. It is a means by which a citizen can put his individual seal of approval on all the things that government is doing and will do.

The economic freedom that Americans are losing every year as government grows will not receive my approval through voting. The fact is neither the republicrats nor the demopublicans are actually working to restore our lost freedoms, whether they be economic or social in nature. Both parties love to talk a good game at election time, but they never cease to disapoint year after year as they continue to encroach on our wallets and private lives.

Most Americans are probably unaware of the Heritage Foundation's recently published 2006 Index of Economic Freedom, which ranks 161 countries of the world based on the amount of economic liberty enjoyed by the citizens of said countries. Those Americans who do become familiar with the index should not be surprised that the USA is no longer number 1. That spot currently belongs to Hong Kong. The USA is setting comfortably, or perhaps not so comfortably, at number 9.

It is time to wake up folks! We are losing our freedoms year after year, and you who vote for the two dominating parties in Washington year after year are responsible for it. If there is not an alternative option on your ballot when you step into the voting booth that offers a true change in the direction of more freedom, then by voting you are committing a disservice to liberty and the American way.

In my state, I have only the Republicans and the Democrats to choose from. Third parties, including the Libertarian Party, have been kept off of the ballot for years due to the most restrictive ballot access laws in the country. And since I strongly believe in the idea that if you do vote you should vote your conscience, I have only the option of non-voting at election time. It is the only choice I can make under the current system that truly reflects my beliefs. And as Tucker Carlson has said of this issue, "there is no shame in that choice."

Eminent Domain

2006-01-20T17:59:00.000-07:00

It appears that the Centennial Baptist Church of Sand Springs is the most recent victim of eminent domain. Sand Springs authorities are trying to develope the "keystone corner" area of town by booting out several small businesses and churchs. Sand Springs Centennial is standig up against emminent domain with the help of Oklahomansinaction.org through a petition that would put the issue of emminent domain on Ohlahoma in life support.

From what I understand of this issue, if enough signatures are gathered, the Representative who is sponsering the bill would not need the governor's signature to bring the initiative to a state wide vote.

This little church in Sand Springs is just the beginning if Okhlahomans do not demand back their lost private property rights. This is certainly an issue that if brought to a state wide vote, would certainly beg my conscience to vote for.

Natural Rights and the War on Terror

2005-11-25T20:08:00.000-07:00

This information comes from an email I recently received. It was written by someone named General Chong. I enjoyed reading it, but I found some of it a little misleading. I have cut out certain parts of it and put my responses in blue font.

This WAR is for REAL!

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country
is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it,
that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are
very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who
realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United
States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks…

This is incorrect. The General skipped a few minor details that go back a bit further. I would argue that the threat to us started when the U.S government got involved in the quarrels and eternal wars of Europe during the Barbary Wars of the 1800's. As historian Richard Maybury has explained in his book The Thousand Year War in the Mideast, America entered the thousand year war between the Europeans and the Moslems in the Mideast during the Barbary Wars. The following is an excerpt from the book of exactly how America really got involved in this mess.

“In those days Moslems living in the Barbary States of North Africa were refugees from the European Inquisition, or descendants of persons killed by the Crusaders. They were levying a tax on European vessels sailing along the African coast.

European merchants somehow convinced their governments to pay this tax for them, so the Moslems knew they could make the tax quite heavy.

Resentful of the crusades and Inquisition, the Moslems raised the tax frequently. Finally in 1801 the tiny American government could no longer afford to pay.
U.S. merchantmen continued sailing through the area anyhow, and the Pasha of Tripoli captured and imprisoned the tax evaders.

European rulers saw a golden opportunity. They called the Moslems pirates and said someone should teach the pirates a lesson.

Americans knew little of Europe’s continual war with the Moslems and they apparently believed this propaganda, never suspecting that in the minds of the Moslems this conflict was just the latest chapter in the Crusades."

So you can see that over the last thousand years western governments have had a constant stream of troops on the ground bearing arms in the Mideast. Western states have had troops over there ruling and propping up puppet governments causing all kinds of chaos and instability in that region for centuries. The countries over there today were not created and drawn up by the people living there.

The Mideast started off as a region of many different Arab tribes that have never been able to get along with each other. Over time European governments carved out the Mideast into different countries so that they could more easily rule over the territory. Until the American people see it from the other side they will not understand why the “terrorists” truly hate us.
This next part about giving up our liberties especially disturbed me.

Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the
duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have
become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to! lose some of our civil
rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

This is a very dangerous precedent to set. It is precisely a time like this that we should be as vigilant as possible in preventing our government from taking our liberties. This War on Terror is exactly the kind of thing that those in government who have wished for more power over us all along will use to grab up all they can get. Ben Franklin warned that those who are willing to give up some of their liberties in exchange for security deserve neither liberty nor security. Americans need not forget his advice or we will continue to slide into our own form of tyranny. Not the kind of tyranny like Hussein imposed on the people of Iraq, but the kind that actually convinces a man he is free while it takes almost half of the fruits of his labor each year.

For how long does the General believe that we had better give up some of our rights? Does he think we should hand over our God given rights until the last “terrorist” is killed? Who will decide when the world is safe enough for us to have our natural born rights back?

Well I have some news for all who subscribe to the General's theory. It really doesn’t matter that the General thinks we should hand over our right to privacy, which is backed up by the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment prohibits the federal government from performing searches of our person or property without probable cause. It doesn't matter because the right of law abiding citizens to privacy is a right we are born with. It is not something that is granted by the government. Once the principle of natural rights is understood then everything else falls into place logically. If the government did not give us our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then it can not take those things away from us without due process of law of-course.

Too many Americans forgot, or never learned in the first place, why the government was instituted in the first place. It was to protect those fundamental rights.

But even if the fourth amendment did not exist, the government would still not have the right to perform “sneak and peak” searches of our homes. A “sneak and peak” search is an action congress gave to the federal government vis-à-vis the U.S.A. Patriot Act, whereby the government enters your home, rummages through your things, and copies your computer hard drive without your consent or knowledge. If the government chooses not to prosecute you they do not even have to tell you they were there.

Even if the fourth amendment did not exist government agents working in airports would still not have the right to molest our bodies and rummage through our carry on bags every time we choose to board a commercial airplane.

The reason is simple really. We as individuals do not have the right to search the homes or personal belongings of others without their voluntary consent. Since we as individuals do not have that right, we can not give that right to others, or government agents in this case, to perform for us. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

That point is asinine. What is this, we gave up plenty of civil rights, business. I don't recall reading in the history books about people lining up to sign away their civil rights. These rights were taken at the point of a gun, and by virtue of natural law, the government has no authority to take the rights of any person not encroaching on some other persons natural rights. I don't remember the part about the estimated 112,000 people of Japanese decent, most of which were U.S. citizens, agreeing to pack up and move their families into concentration camps. I can't seem to find it written anywhere on the agreement of the some 6,000 people, a majority of which were Jehova's Witnesses, to be imprisoned because they morally objected on religious grounds to being dragged off to war.

The government does not have the authority to simply remove and restore the natural rights of the people when it sees fit. The fact that most Americans do not see this as tyranical and outragous is beyond my comprehension.

My Beliefs

It is my belief that the only way to be safe from the “terrorists” is to do like the Swiss. An immediate withdrawal of our troops from foreign lands and a declaration of neutrality by our government would send a strong message to the rest of the world that we will no longer meddle in the affairs of others. I do not believe this plan will solve all our problems. But I do believe we will be safer and freer as a result. If we cut our entangling political alliances with other countries and encourage trade with all, we will be much better off. History proves that quite well. Political alliances are good for one thing and that is making enemies.

We should deploy our troops to action only when there is a clear and present danger to this country, and only this country. It is not our responsibility to fight for the freedom of other sovereign nations. I’m sorry to break this news, but Iraq has not ever posed a clear and present danger to the U.S. President Bush believed that Iraq posed a danger back in March of 2003. He was wrong! As soon as the army discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq the President should have pulled them out. It is not the job of United States troops to build sewer systems and schools in Iraq. It is not the responsibility of U.S. troops to secure Iraq from any danger it might be in as a result of the President’s invasion and current occupation. If Iraq can not defend itself by now then it does not deserve freedom. Anyone who is not at least slightly suspicious of the fact that Iraq does not have a ready and able army by now should read I Have a Question for You by Charley Reese.

But as far as our great country is concerned, we should follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and engage in trade with all nations and entangling political alliances with none. Nations that trade with each other typically do not fight each other.

City Permits

2005-10-15T20:16:00.000-07:00

What an asinine joke!

I get this tiny two page newsletter with my monthly water bill that communicates information to me from my wonderful public servants, aka the mayor and the city council. There was a particularly interesting feature in last months issue entitled "Test Your City I.Q...."

It reads as follows:

"If you’re going to be 'dressing up' your back yard with a deck, storage building, concrete patio or a swimming pool, do you need to get a City permit first? Yes, Yes, No and Yes! You can add a concrete patio without a permit, but any of the other three require a permit first. Don't start building a feature that's going to have to be removed! And it’s easy. Contact the City's One Stop Center at 25*-**** for information on how the process works."

I could not believe my eyes, but at the same time I was not the least bit surprised. I had been recently contemplating two of the four things listed there, and was not at all thinking about going before the local magistrate and begging for permission to build a deck. I was especially taken by the part about not starting to build a feature that is going to have to be removed. I can just imagine agents of the city demanding that someone remove a small backyard deck, which is visible to no one but the property owner from his back yard. Where is the outrage?

Where is the anger at this insane behavior of our local law makers all across the United States?

Private property rights are one of the key ingredients for a free society to prosper. The ability for one to buy property and do with it as he sees fit was one of the main points of the vision of our Founding Fathers in 1776. It gives people something to work for. Private property can be used to either build a store on to earn a living or to build a home on in order raise a family. The vision of our current public leaders is to give you the illusion that you actually own the property, but to control every aspect of that property you supposedly "own."

So I ask you my fellow Americans, where is the outrage? When are we going to say to our power hungry politicians that enough is enough, they have taken too many of our rights and they will not take any more! How much longer will we let this nonsense go on?

Katrina

2005-09-03T21:22:00.000-07:00

"Katrina came and went with far less damage than anyone expected. It was the failure of the public infrastructure and the response to it that brought down civilization," wrote Lew Rockwell yesterday on his great website.

My heart goes out to the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama who need our support during this time of hardship. Especially to those who were herded into the Superdome like cattle and stripped of their right to self defense, thereby resulting in murders, rapes, and the mass devastation that inevitably ensues on a defensless population. For those who do not follow, I'm talking about gun grabbing. Some of the murders were committed directly by the very government personnel sent to help out.

The government's ineptness in this situation should not have suprised anyone. Of-course the usual finger pointing partisan hackery has begun. It amazes me that most people do not see this for what it is, a full scale government failure to successfully perform its number one job, protect the citizenry from large scale threats.

Katrina should be viewed as a learning experience. Government is not only the worst possible option to handle crisis management, it is the worst choice for crisis prevention. The faulty levees that could not hold the flood waters back were maintained by none other than the Army Corps of Engineers. Now I can not say with 100% certainty that the levees would have held up against the waters had they been in private hands, but we do know that the government failed us. The government does not have to be accountable for massive breakdowns such as this. Private companies must answer and be accountable for this kind of scenario. If they do not follow through with the services that their customers are demanding, they will lose that economic incentive and be replaced with some other entity that will. For a much more intelligent and in depth article on this topic I suggest reading Walter Block's most recent article about hurricane Katrina on Lewrockwell.com.

I pray that the American people wise up in the years to come and realize that government in general is to blame for the bulk of the devastion that is still occuring down there in New Orleans. Both the Bush administration and the democrats are to blame for the devastation going on down there. Our only hope is in private enterprise, which is ironically our method of choice when it comes to handling almost every other aspect of our lives. The areas of our life that are in the worst condition have the most government involvment, i.e. government schooling and health care. That is no coincidence.

Let us learn from this tragedy that government, no matter who is running it, is not competent enough to handle this kind of situation.

"The Traveler" by John Twelve Hawkes

2005-08-11T23:00:00.000-07:00

I bought this book in an airport on my vacation not quite knowing what to expect. Having heard nothing about it, and not being in to science fiction, I almost passed it up.

I'm certainly glad I did not. I thoroughly enjoyed just about every page of this book, which I consider to be a quasi-science fiction, quasi-realistic fiction story.

Even though the heroine, Maya, can have a rather cold personality at times, I found myself smitten with her. There is probably a character in this book that almost every reader will be able to identify or connect with.

The sci-fi element falls more in line with the ways of the travelers, while the realistic parts encompass the actual changes that have taken place in our post-911 world vis-à-vis the Patriot Act and the Total / "Terrorist" Information Awareness program.

The author writes with a clear understanding of the evils that accompany power and corruption that always fall hand in hand with the state or organizations which have a connection with the state. The underlying tone, that those who crave freedom will always triumph over those who wish to dominate, intimidate, and control, is one of hope for a world which desperately needs it.

I anxiously look forward to the next part in this trilogy.

Good News

2005-07-05T18:06:00.000-07:00

I listen to some form of talk radio or news program everyday and I never seem to hear good news. Until today. I was listening to the new local guy on the drive home and was informed that a few of our Republican state senators are attempting to introduce a bill that would stop my state's local municipalities from abusing eminent domain. This comes after the Supreme Court's recent assault on private property rights which rendered most private property in this country vulnerable to seizure by city government's to be handed over someone else.

Only eight other states have a law that says city government can't use eminent domain to steal private property from someone and turn it over to a private developer. I was happy to hear that some members of an otherwise destructive Republican party are actually acting to put some limits on state power.

I can't remember the last time the republicans attempted to do something consistent with the vision our founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution. That is to do something that actually puts limits and constraints on the state and not on the private affairs of the people. We shall see if this bill gets anywhere after it has been tossed to the wolves in the state senate.

Fire Cracker City Shenanigans

2005-07-01T22:55:00.000-07:00

I have recenlty written commentary on my home town's recent decision to allow the public the legal use of fire crackers this Independence Day so long as they obtain the proper city issued permit. I thought that they just wanted the extra cash since they knew that individuals all over the city would have engaged in the fire works tradition anyways. I hoped that this would go down on the books as yet another unenforced piece of useless code like so many other laws. I was wrong.

In the last several days I have spotted more police patrol units traveling down my quiet little neighborhood street than I have seen in the last ten months. Oh how I feel so much safer. The boys in blue will keep those sparkler wielding criminals at bay.

On the radio tonight I heard something new to me about the fireworks permit. Apparantly the permit expires at 11:00 pm, after which point violaters will be fined 300 dollars.

Have fun this year friends and make sure you have your permits on hand to present to the patrol officer when he commands, "citizen, your papers!"

Happy Independence Day to all those out there in the land of the free.

The End of Private Property Rights in America

2005-06-23T18:10:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court delt a lethal blow to private property rights in this country today. In a 5 to 4 decision they have come down on the side of local city governments to have the right to kick property owners off of their property in order for private developers to come in and take it. Many have fought imminent domain abuse in this country for years, but this decision delivers the knockout blow to the individual in this fight. No matter where you live in this country now your property is not safe. This is truly a sad day for liberty.

Typical Government

2005-05-18T10:55:00.000-07:00

As Independence Day comes closer, a day most Americans have forgotten the true meaning of, people begin to think about fireworks. My home town government has done something I find extremeley laughable, yet holding true to typical government logic. Setting off fireworks within the city limits has been illegal up to this point. My local city government has decided that from now on, setting off fireworks will be legal. Of-course there is a catch to this change in the law. Whoever would like to participate in the American pastime of lighting black cats and roman candles must first go to the city and obtain a permit for a token fee of twenty dollars. That's right, a $20 permit makes an act which was previously deemed too dangerous to be legal now acceptable. I literally laughed out loud when I read this. A hand full of city council members and bureaucrats somewhere decided that if people are going to set off fireworks regardless of the law, they might as well legalize the acitivity and just make people pay them to do it. Visions of police officers patrolling the neighborhood demanding to see little Timmy's permit for his lit sparkler come to mind. It's disgusting. This is just another example of the abuse of power that comes with the state. They say jump and we say how high.

Christians. You love the state more than God, admit it.

2005-05-08T23:03:00.000-07:00

I am constantly wondering how so many of my Christian conservative friends and family are so blindly loyal to the GOP. I don't understand how they can give so much support to a party that supports the welfare-warfare state. They have no objection to the omnipotent state that crushes Christian values to no end. It is that persuasion that has prompted many libertarian Christians to ask of their fellow Christians whether they have more love for the State or for God. I have been thinking about the concept of being saved by God's salvation and how it relates to who we vote for in political elections. Any devout christian will tell you that if you have had the chance to accept Christ in your heart and have not done so that you will not go to heaven. I contend that if my Christian friends have been exposed to the principles that would bring about a libertarian society and still insist on supporting Republicans, then they deserve exactly the type of anti-Christian society that they will get.

The GOP supports an overbloated government that believes stealing the wealth of one class and giving it to another is the proper way to help the needy. Now I'm no Bible scholar, but I think I would remember a passage in which Jesus proclaimes that theft is the way to help those in need.

My fellow Christians are often worried, and with good reason, about the anti-Christian values being espoused in the government schools. Libertarians and Christian libertarians have argued for years that the solution is to take the education of your child out of the hands of the government. As long as we keep sending our children off to the government for education, they will be subjected to the values and indoctrination of the anti-Christian, politically correct crowd. Of-course the best alternatives are either home-schooling or private schools where parents have ultimate control over the situation. Many have cited the expense of private schools and fear they could not afford to send their kids to one. The solution would be for the government to completely get out of the education business and hand it back to the free market. In such a society parents would not be forced to pay for a "one size fits all" type of education whether they chose to send their children their or not, as is the case today. If schooling were completely privatized there would be all kinds of choices with many price ranges of pruducts to choose from just as there are in a supermarket. Parents as customers could really hold schools accountable to the kind of teachings they aim for their children to have. If the school failed to deliver the kind of product the parent wanted, there would always be a competing school to switch to.

The state will never be accountable for the lousy education it delivers. When any government agency begins failing the government usually rewards it with more money. What kind of incentive is that? The free market would deliver much better results and would be much more accountable to the values and demands of parents.

The Rockwell Rule

2005-04-15T12:19:00.000-07:00

When it comes to taxes, the Rockwell rule is the right approach: Does it reduce or eliminate an existing tax? That is the issue. Changing to a flat tax, a national sales tax, a value added tax, a consumed income tax, or, as was recently proposed in Chronicles magazine by David Hartman, the chairman of the board of directors of The Rockford Institute, a business transfer tax, is useless if it doesn't reduce or eliminate the taxes that feed the federal leviathan's multi-trillion dollar spending orgy.

(from misis.org)

The Fair Tax

2005-04-11T22:50:00.000-07:00

I have been do much thinking on the fair tax lately. As someone who comes from an anti-statist point of view, naturally I am skeptical of anything called a "fair tax." I just don't see how this idea proposed by Rep. John Linder, R-Ga, would actually help to increase personal liberty. This idea merely changes the way in which the government is funded. If passed, the fair tax would still extract just as much money from the American people as the current progressive income tax does, albeit in a much different way.

The only good thing I can ascertain from this proposed idea of a national retail sales tax is that it would seem to reward savers and punish spendors. As I consider myself more of a saver than a spendor, I get a little bit excited about that idea. Those of us who don't spend as much may realize more personal prosperity. I like the idea of being able to have more control over the taxes that I pay to the imperial federal government of the United States.

So what is not to like about this grand plan that probably has a snow ball's chance of passing through congress? It does nothing to address the size and scope of the federal government. It will do nothing to shrink the overbloated, spending machine that enslaves us all.

In short, lobbying for this so-called "fair tax" is a waist of time and energy. Those who care about liberty in our lifetime should concentrate their efforts on fighting statism, not cozying up to it and making friends.

We should fight any form of tax that will take the property of the productive class to fund the federal government. If the federal government were operating on a truly constitutional basis, it would only require the funds provided by small tariffs and excise taxes. It would not need to seize monies from wages, sales transactions, or estates of recently deceased Americans.

As Walter Williams has said, "taxation is a slightly less offensive form of slavery." We need to abolish the federal income tax and the IRS, and replace them with NOTHING if we are to achieve true liberty.

The Constitution Draws Breath?

2005-04-05T12:32:00.000-07:00

Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be "living"? Depending on "evolving standards," maybe my two pair could beat your flush.

Walter Williams

(from Townhall)

Err on the Side of Life?

2005-03-31T22:17:00.000-07:00

Let me begin by saying that I feel for the Schindler and Schiavo families for the loss that they have suffered and I pay them my full respects.

During these past two weeks I have heard President Bush say that since there are so many disputed facts of the Schiavo case, that if we are going to err, that we should err on the side of life. Every time I hear that speech replayed in the news, or when someone of the media quotes that statement, I can't help but think back to the President's decision to take us to war with Iraq based on U.S. intelligence reports that Iraq had stock piles of WMDs. The reason I am thinking of this is because the second biggest news item of today, ironically happens to be a new report claiming that U.S. intelligence information about Iraq's WMDs were DEAD WRONG. I wonder if Mr. Bush is lying in bed tonight wondering why he did not err on the side of life, and give the weapons inspectors more time to search for Iraq's alleged WMDs before he took our nation to war resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians?

Time to Draw the Line

2005-03-30T20:48:00.000-07:00

I think it is time for libertarians to draw the line between what we stand for and what the conservative movement in this country now stands for. As far as I am concerned the GOP has lost all credibility with any ties to limited government and individual liberty. They are now completely and devotedly attached in a romantic love affair with the welfare-warfare state. They have made their peace with big government central planning, whether through faith based initiatives at home or central planning abroad via the military industrial complex. This generation of conservatives a.k.a. the Bushites see government as tantamount to God, incapable of any feat, no rock immovable, and no mission too impossible. The limited government conservatives of the nineties have checked out, not in the physical, but in the mental. They are suffering from Bushitis. Our great leader, Saint George who is capable of doing no wrong, has cast some sort of spell that has blanketed the red states of the country. Well probably not a spell, but more of a satisfaction of carpe diem. Many conservatives were so elated to see Clinton leave the Whitehouse and one of "their guys" enter that they would have cheered no matter what policies he set forth. Bush has seized both the post 9-11 attitudes of the public at large, and the conservative, it's our turn now, mob in order to whip the masses into warfare fervor. As Lew Rockwell has put it:

Behind the rhetoric you find the iron fist of the state, forcing conformism and regimentation. Bush-style fascism has created a kind of cult of personality too, in which the public is led to believe through hints and nudges that the president has a direct line to God. More than any president in my living memory, he peppers his speeches with personal pronouns: "I will defend America."

It is time for libertarians to declare our differences with the conservative movement. We oppose the massive central state, and more importantly we oppose the welfare-warfare state. We favor personal liberty, private property, unrestricted commercial trade, and peace. Do not forget that last element. To be for peace is to be opposed to war. The GOP is the war party when war is the means to their desired ends. These days the conservative movement has myriad excuses to continue dragging this country though more wars. They speak of spreading democracy throughout the world and fighting Islamic-terrorism. They don't speak of the reality, which is spreading democracy at the point of a gun. No. Not just at the point of a gun, but at the firing of a gun towards other fellow human beings who have nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. The snuffing out of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilian lives, none of whom had anything to do with 9-11 is the obvious example. They further instilled a dangerous precedent with preemptive war. The precedent which many would argue had already been set. The late, great Murray Rothbard often spoke of the concept of perpetual war for perpetual peace.

Libertarians are lately finding themselves in odd agreement with the most unlikely of adversaries when it comes to the issues of peace. We should not shy away from this, but cheer on those who will stand with us in opposition to Bush fascism. I for one never thought I would support Michael Moore on any issue he might bring up, but I found myself last year cheering his expose of congress's passage of the Patriot Act without even reading it in his documentary Fahrenheit 911. Conservative friends of mine were surprised that I even went to see one of his movies. I of-course told them that although I almost always disagree with Moore's positions, he was right to question the government's motives during this post 9-11 power grab of our rights and liberties.

This is a call to arms among my fellow libertarians to distinguish your positions from those of conservatives. Continue to speak out against government atrocities at home and abroad. Don't give in to statist schemes that sound like steps in the right direction, but in reality would do virtually nothing to increase liberty and decrease statism. The so-called "Fair Tax" is still exactly that, a tax. The mere shuffling around of how the property is seized does nothing to legitimize the high levels taxation in any way. And a tax, to paraphrase revered columnists and economist Walter Williams, is nothing more than legalized theft. To quote Lew Rockwell again:

Libertarians have traditionally provided the side dishes that call for petty deregulatory measures and tax cuts. This really must stop.

The goal of libertarians should be to fight statism on all levels and on all fronts with no compromises. The hard work and dedication will one day pay off.

What is Socialism?

2005-03-23T13:34:00.000-07:00

Dadahead has posed a question to libertarians.

The GOP has made it clear: they stand against the right to privacy, to reproductive choice, to sexual autonomy. Is it really worth the tax cuts, libertarians? Is it really worth the rolling-back of regulations on big business? How long will libertarians continue to say to themselves, paraphrasing Krusty the Clown:

Well, the GOP is dedicated to eradicating civil liberties, destroying a 200+ year tradition of secular government, and imposing biblical law, but man ... I'm aching for that upper-class tax cut!

The dialogue has now shifted to a debate on socialism. My thoughts below are from my last comment on dada's blog and reflect my thoughts on socialism and who owns the means of production in this country:

I understand there are many different view points as to what is and is not socialism. But with the amount of government intervention taking place on the market today, I ask who does own the means of production. Who owns the water supply in most cities and towns? Who owned the steel mills in the U.S. during the Korean War? Answer: the U.S. government. Thankfully the Supreme Court rightfully put the brakes on that madness and returned them to private hands soon after. But that is neither here nor there. The time honored common law idea of ownership is defined by what an individual or entity can or can not do with his or her property. With that in mind, who issues you the deed to your home or business? If you stop paying your property taxes (read: rent) to the government (read: landlord) what happens? You will be asked to pay or to leave. If you choose neither, men with guns will come remove you from your property. Who owns the means of production in this country?

As for Social Security

2005-03-19T15:13:00.000-07:00

As for Social Security, the crisis is not that the government can't continue to fix it, i.e. raise the age of eligibility, lower benefits, increase the social security tax, etc. The crisis is that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. A system that would be illegal if any private company attempted to set up and administer the way the government administers social security. Don't get me wrong. I am no Bush apologist, but something must be done to give people better returns on their investment. Something must be done to allow people to pass their wealth on to their own families when they die. Something must be done to relieve the burden on all the young black men who will pay into the scheme all their lives and then sadly not reach the age of eligibility, thus not being able to realize any return for their selves or their families, since statistically a majority of black males die before the age of elligibility. Social Security is nothing more than 15 cents out of every dollar you earn being stolen from you and given to someone else. Social Security does not need to be fixed it needs to be abolished if there is to be any hope for real liberty and prosperity in the future.

Terri Schiavo

2005-03-18T22:48:00.000-07:00

protestors

Everyone is talking about Terri Schiavo today so I suppose I will weigh in my two cents here. The most important thing I think we all can take from this situation is what we would want our significant other to do with us, should we find ourselves in a persistent vegetative state. I have told mine that I would want to pass on from this life and on to the next stage with as little stalling and unnecessary pain and suffering as possible. It is probably important that this decision be in writing so as to avoid the current predicament the Schiavo's find them selves in today. Michael Schiavo claims his wife told him that she would not want to be left in such a state.

Michael Schiavo

IN RELATED NEWS

I happened to catch an MSNBC news story this morning which showcased a woman who had been taking care of her daughter in a similar condition for I think about 30 years now. When the reporter asked this woman if she thought it was okay for the government to intervene, as has been the case for Terry Schiavo, she said of-course not. She proclaimed something about freedom and a free country and that no one has the right to tell her what to do. She went on to say that this should be a family decision. Of-course she is right. It is a sad truth that the "family" as we know it has been little by little replaced by the state. As has we have seen in this case with the Republicans trying to politicize this issue in attempting to subpoena Terry Schiavo to testify befor congress in order to keep her alive.

Only In America

2005-03-14T18:36:00.000-07:00

Only in America.....do we use the word 'politics' to describe the process so
well: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking
creatures'.

Caller roasts Sean Hannity

2005-03-04T20:31:00.000-07:00

I was listening to the Sean Hannity show the other night on my way home from work and was quite pleased at the dialogue for once. I believe it was during the final hour that Sean was allowing only callers who wanted to criticize him on the air. One caller had just finished making his second point when Sean told the caller to give him the final blow. My ears perked up when the caller mentioned Abraham Lincoln. The man on the phone reminded Sean that he always speaks of the Republican party as being the party of Lincoln. He went on to say that he read Lincoln's presidential debate and pointed out that Lincoln was in no way concerned with freeing the slaves. That he only cared about putting economic strains on the South so as to stop them from seceding from the union. Sean mumbled a few things in response about some book that has information about Lincoln that may or may not be true. The caller reiterated to Sean that Lincoln himself proclaimed in his presidential debate that he cared not about freeing the slaves. Sean of-course dumped the call shortly after that last statement and took the next caller.

I wish that an ensuing dialoge over the great King Lincoln would have or even could have followed. But I was happy in the sense that at least for a few seconds Sean's 10 million listeners were exposed to some truth about honest Abe and his wreckless, destructive presidency. I was also happy that one of the biggest Republican party establishment apologists was made to look bad for statements about his party. It is nice to see that for the first time in history many of the misconceptions about Lincoln are being unraveled and that the public might know the truth.

As Charley Reese has put it, "Washington and Jefferson created the Republic; Lincoln destroyed it." Let us never forget that. Lincoln played a prominent role in crushing the capitalist experiment and we must not let a so-called great American such as Sean Hannity do any more damage.

The Sorters

2005-02-24T20:41:00.000-07:00

...But, when all is said and done, the truth about race and IQ means a lot more to liberals and to neocons than it does to paleos. For the liberals and neocons, being statist to the core, are obliged to seize control of resources and to alloocate them somehow among the various groups of the population. Liberals-neocons are "sorters," they aim to sort people out, to subsidize here, to control and restrict there. So, to the neocon or liberal power elite, ethnic or racial science is a big thing because it tells these sorters who exactly they should control, who they should restrict and limit. Should they use taxpayer funds to subsidize the "disadvantaged" or geniuses? Which is more socially productive, which dysgenic?...

(from The Irrepressible Rothbard)

Until You Host Again

2005-02-18T21:14:00.000-07:00

Jay Severan, I salute you! I don't have anything particularly important to comment on tonight, save for the end of Jay Severan's guest hosting of the Neal Boortz radio show this week. I will miss hearing what I have come to think of as a breath of fresh air on the radio. It simply does not happen enough that another libertarian voice has the attention of an audience of a few million strong. I was especially thrilled today when I heard him espousing his view of being opposed to the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. I love it when the large population of mostly right wing talk radio listeners are made aware of rational arguments against the President's dangerous and destructive occupation of Iraq. It is especially nice when the opposition view comes from someone who they feel is on their side, and not someone coming from a pure leftist point of view. This way many right conservatives might actually think about thier own postions and analyze the merits of those postions. Rock on Jay. Until you host again.

The Nation and the State

2005-02-16T19:19:00.000-07:00

While the State is a pernicious and coercive collectivist concept, the "nation" may be and generally is voluntary. The nation properly refers, not to the State, but to the entire web of culture, values, traditions, religion, and language in which the individuals of a society are raised. It is almost embarrassingly banal to emphasize that point, but apparently many libertarians aggressively overlook the obvious. let us never forget the great libertarian Randolph Bourne's analysis of the crucial distinction between "the nation" (the land, the culture, the terrain, the people) and "the State" (the coercive apparatus of bureaucrats and politicians), and of his important conclusion that one may be a true patriot of one's nation or country while- and even for that very reason- opposing the State that rules over it.

(from The Irrepressible Rothbard)

Freedom and Coercion

2005-02-07T23:00:00.000-07:00

Freedom is the absence of government coercion

~ Dr. Ron Paul

Every time congress passes a new law no matter how seemingly noble or necessary liberty is restricted as a result. Everytime the federal government strikes down the consitution and violates the 4th Amendment freedom is eroded at its core. Do airport security screeners (read: federal agents) rummaging through your personal belongings in your bags come to mind anyone? That's why the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights. To limit the power of the government so that it won't be dangerous to the preexisting natural rights of the people. The word preexisting is important here. Natural rights are something we are born with. The government does not give me the right to free speech, or the right not to have my home searched against my will. Those rights were given to me by my Creator when I was born into this world. The government was instituted to protect those rights, nothing more. When I think of the U.S. government the way it exists today I am reminded of a quote from Thomas Jefferson stating, "government, big enough to give you everything you need, strong enough to take away everything you have."

Obviously most American's aren't ready for a third party just yet, or they would have voted for the libertarian party presidential candidate in much larger numbers in 2004. I happen to believe that the road to freedom is going to be won through the spread of ideas. So spread the good news of what freedom really has to offer. It offers a world of liberty and peace unknown to the current generation of Americans who have been living in a state of siege under the big government Bush administration.

Deadly Force

2005-02-07T22:28:00.000-07:00

It occurred to me tonight that so many Americans still have absolutely no concept that government is backed up by deadly force. The government funds all of its activities through taxes. Taxes are not paid voluntarily by the people that fund the government. That money must be taken in the form of taxes. If the money that funds the government was paid voluntarily by the people then it would be called donations not taxes.

Now back to the deadly force part. This occurred to me when I was discussing the campaigning of politicians with a friend the other day. I told my friend that when a political candidate asks you for their vote, they are in fact asking you for the authority to use deadly force over the people to accomplish their goals. My friend laughed when I said the words deadly force. I asked my friend why they would laugh and explained that I was not joking. I don't know why most people just don't seem to understand the difference between the private sector, which is the voluntary sector and the public sector, which is the government sector, or the coercive sector.

I further explained to my friend that when a car dealership for example sells cars it must persuade people to come give it money in exchange for a car. By contrast when the government wants to build a new road or create some new program, you do not have the ability to say, "no thanks, I don't think I'm going to pay for that." See what happens when you stop paying your property taxes for a while. Eventually an agent from the IRS will contact you either by phone or in person giving you deadlines as to when you need to have your back taxes paid. If you do not pay by the deadline then the government will take your house from you. If you refuse to leave your property then the guns come out. Men with guns will come forcefully remove you from your property. If you attempt to resist the invaders you will be shot and killed. This is no joke and it does happen in America.

Hardball

2005-02-05T00:20:00.000-07:00

Tonight I was watching Hardball with Chris Matthews who was discussing President Bush's so called privatization of social security plan. The guests were of-course two partisan political hacks, one from the right and the other from the left. The leftist fellow was of-course arguing that to allow workers to take a small portion of the burdensome 15 percent social security tax and to invest that privately in the stock market would be disastrous for our elderly people, but most of all dangerous for "society." My favorite point came when host Chris Matthews, and I must give him props for this question, asked the democrat to consider a hypothetical scenario. The question asked was whether or not the democrat would have, given the opportunity at the age of eighteen to twenty something, kept his social security tax in the current system only to receive a 3 percent return at best, or invest a portion in a stock market fund where over his working life he might average as much a 10 to 15 percent. His response started off by stating that if he only cared about himself, then of-course he would have invested privately. He then went on to scare the older generation again and mutter famous leftist mantras about the good of society.

The point here is this, leftists have zero respect for THE INDIVIDUAL. And when I speak of leftists I am speaking of 99.9 percent of politicians, republicans included. The new right is only right by name. They are very left according to historical standards. The politicians love to talk in terms of groups i.e.: blacks, women, minorities, upper class, lower class, white collar, blue collar, etc. The worst nightmare of the left would be for individuals to storm Washington demanding their lost individual rights back. The politicians have taken those rights and turned them over to the collective i.e.: social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, corporate welfare, etc. The politicians need for those various groups to be dependent on the state for their every desire. That is how they can ensure their reelection year after year after year. The reason the politicians classify people into groups is because groups are easier to control and lead than individuals. What the left, and 98 percent of the new right for that matter, fail to realize is that the more freedom individuals have to look out for themselves, the more prosperous most people will become. One important aspect about the new right is that they pay lip service to individual rights and smaller government during election season, but they never walk the walk once elected. As the dominant party in Washington they hardly talk of shrinking the size of government any more. Which goes to prove one point. They will say what they need to say to get elected, but once in power they will use that power to pursue their hidden agendas.

When people are free to pursue their own free will and do something that they do best, the division of labor is most balanced and resources are allocated in the best manner possible. Free will creates prosperity. That is how the U.S. became the most prosperous nation in the world. The government was very weak and small in the beginning of our history and it allowed people to conduct their lives in a manner consistent with their own beliefs and values.

Is the president's plan for social security good for the advancement of liberty? It appears to be a step in the right direction, but if it passes it will probably end up causing more destruction than prosperity simply because the government will be administering it. In order for people to be able to retire with true 10 to 15 percent gains on their investment the government needs to get out of the retirement business and leave free will alone to run its course. I simply can't see how, given its track record, the government can fix this broken, fraudulant program called social security. The government can't elliminate poverty no matter how much money it dumps on that issue in its massive war on poverty that gets bigger every year. The government can't stop illegal drugs from coming into this country no matter how much money it dumps into that wortlhess war it has created costing more than just millions of dollars per year, but also the loss of thousands of innocent lives per year due to gang disputes over drug turf.

Will some people invest poorly and not have a nest egg to retire on. Yes, some will make foolish mistakes. However, if government did not take so much from the productive individuals, charities and non-profits would easily be able to fill the needs of the few who found themselves in dire straits. Americans are already the most generous people probably in the history of the planet. If the average American did not have almost half of his income seized by the government each year, he would be free to help out his family members, friends, or neighbors in a time of need, or donate to his church or favorite charity in a way he has never been able to do before. That is the kind of America I am optomistic I will see in my lifetime.

Who or What is he?

2005-01-29T17:36:00.000-07:00

If he didn’t know that his plan to "liberate" people who hadn’t asked to be liberated, to bring democracy to people who hadn’t asked for democracy, would lead to the deaths of thousands of people, he is not only incompetent and unfit to hold office, he is surely psychopathic and needs to be incarcerated.

Only a psychopath would stand in the midst of thousands of security guards and speak of "the force of human freedom."

Only a man so insulated from the real world by palace sycophants, by little Napoleons filled with utopian fantasies, and by callous, ambitious schemers to whom the lives of others mean nothing – only a man so insulated could possibly speak of "the expansion of freedom in all the world."
Only a man with no link to reality could start a war that destroys lives and families and then say, "Every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth."

Only a snake oil salesman can rain missiles and bombs on other countries and then say that no "human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies."

Only a man divorced from human reason can imprison people – possibly for life – without due process of law and then say that "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."

Only a liar can proclaim that he will decide which countries must be remade and then say, "No one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave."

Only a devious schemer can announce a goal of "ending tyranny in our world" while he is imposing a new tyranny in his own country – our country.
So you tell me: what kind of a President do we have?
And what has he given us other than wars, fear, and a state of siege?

-Harry Browne

2005-01-27T19:39:00.000-07:00

Label for my beer coming this summer 2005!

2005-01-26T23:41:00.000-07:00

Beautiful Maui

2005-01-26T23:31:00.000-07:00

Deep sea fishing in Maui.

2005-01-26T23:29:00.000-07:00

NEO

2005-01-26T23:22:00.000-07:00

Government

Is there a problem with freedom?

2005-01-26T22:57:00.000-07:00

Should the fact that if I become injured by not wearing a seatbelt or sick from eating and smoking too much, and become a burden on taxpayers, determine whether I'm free to not wear a seatbelt or puff cigarettes and gorge myself? Is there a problem with freedom? I say no, it's a problem of socialism. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO MORAL CASE FOR GOVERNMENT'S TAKING ANOTHER AMERICAN'S EARNINGS, THROUGH TAXES, TO CARE FOR ME FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. Dosing so is simply a slightly less ofensive form of slavery. Keep in mind that the essence of slavery is the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes or benefit of another.

-Walter Williams

The Bush Tax Cuts

2004-11-24T20:56:00.000-07:00

Many conservative friends of mine support president Bush and the Republican party based on values and the tax cuts passed by the Bush administration. It really is sad that very few of the issues dealing with values, i.e. gay marriage will actually be dealt with this year by congress. What will happen this year will be the passage of more and more government programs and more and more spending to fund these new and bigger programs. To my conservative friends I say that the tax cuts MEAN NOTHING IF THE SPENDING DOES NOT STOP! Because the money for the spending must come from somewhere if not through direct taxes, then through the hidden inflation tax of the government printing press. When the government prints money to pay for its' boondoggles it devalues all the money held by everyone. This is one of the dirty little secrets of the new right. They will give a puny tax cut here and there, but they will continue to spend like a drunken sailor running up huge deficits and inflating the money supply so as to debase all the dollars held by everyone. This hurts primarily the poor and middle class. Yes, inflation is caused by government. They cause inflation simply by inflating the money supply. President Bush is no small government conservative, he is a big government, taxing conservative who thinks he can live your life for you better than you can. So I ask you who owns your body? You or presidend Bush? More on that later.

Government Schools

2004-11-19T02:07:00.000-07:00

I must say that the reason I claim to know what you were taught in government schools is because I was likewise educated in government schools. I don't know why my parents allowed me to be educated by the government, but they did and as a result I will try my hardest to keep my child or children out of the hands of the government for his or her education. Why in the world would anyone send their kids to the government to be educated? What type of marketing/survival skills could possibly be taught by an organisation that relys on force and fraud to survive? Answer: none at all. Since the government needs the people to be dependent on it in order to ensure its' own future, it needs people to be stupid and worthless when it comes to competing in the market place. Why in the world would the government want teach you that your can enter the market place and rise as high as your determination permits when the government has everthing to lose from that idea. Governments need a citizenry that is dependent upon them for their every need in order to remain legitimate in the eyes of the people. If the people realize that they can manage their own affairs without government infringement on their lives then they will withdraw their consent from the government and finally realize true liberty.

Thinking of Government

2004-11-19T01:48:00.000-07:00

A simple way to think of government is to consider government as any other business or organization. There is only one exception that separates the government from every other business. Can you guess what that exception that happens to be. FORCE. Yes, only the government has the ability to use force to accomplish its' goals. All businesses in the private sector must use different types of marketing techniques to persuade individuals to conduct business with them. Only government can use force in the market place to conduct its' business. Force to generate revenues through taxes imposed upon the individual whether he or she consents to the tax or not. This is a very important concept to graspt. The private sector is the voluntary sector, while the public (read: government) sector is the coercive sector.

This may be a point of view you have never heard of before. That is ok, this point of veiw is the non-statist view. Most of what you were taught in public (read: government) school was from a statist point of view.

"Constitutional Chaos"

2004-11-19T01:04:00.000-07:00

I bought a really wonderfull book by Judge Andrew Napolitano called, "Constitutional Chaos." Judge Napolitano presents story after story about government agents repeatedly and habitually breaking the law and getting away with it. Police officers lying under oath to convict innocent people to jail. Narcotics agents creating crime where crime was difficult to find by falsely posing as private citizens and finding others to start up meth labs with, then only to turn around afterwords and arrest the individuals they entered into agreement with. That's right. In one particulare story a government agent knocks on an innocent man's door posing as someone who has the connections to get ahold of a very hard to get ingredient of methamphetamine. The man agrees to start up a lab with the help of the agent, of-course not knowing the man is working for the government. The agent from the government actually at one point aides in the process of making the drug and then buys some of the drug for himself. After this lab has been going for a few weeks the agent returns with other government agents to arrest the man for illegally make meth in his home. The lengths the government will go to in order to create crime, to create reason for more of their intruding agencies to exist is outrageous and must be stopped.

I reccomend this book to all who do not fear the U.S. government simply because thier personal rights have not yet been violated. The time to rise up is now not later, because by the time they come for you there may not be anyone else left to speak out against their (government's) wrongfull actions.

2004-10-27T23:09:00.000-07:00

I think the population in the country lack character out of ignorance. They don’t know anything differently. They think what is, is what was supposed to happen. They think the government is supposed to take care of them. Give me a house if I need it. Give me food stamps if I need them. Give me medical care if I need it. They are not deliberately evil. They have lost their way, lost their concern and lost their character.

It is felt that if someone needs something, they can get help from government. They never ask the question who in thunder is the government! They assume that government has that money to give. They separate the government from where the source of the wealth comes from and that, of course, is the people who do things, and produce things. The government is nothing more than some group that is stealing from the producers. They are willing to use government to steal and think it is proper.

- Dr. Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/johnston6.html

The Republicrats and the Two party Monopoly

2004-10-14T18:35:00.000-07:00

My favorite line, and I'm paraphrasing here, "listening to President Bush talk about fiscal responsibility is like listening to Tony Soprano talk about law and order," said John Kerry. I got a great laugh out of that coming from the so called most liberal senator in Washington. Of-course he is absolutely, positively 100% right. Mr. Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill passed by congress. Government has grown about more under 4 years of the Bush administration than under all 8 year of Clinton. When is the GOP going to actually live up to its' failed promises if smaller government and stop wealing and dealing our rights away? When are they going to fullfill Ronald Reagons promise to abolish the Department of Education and the Department of Energy? Those are just a couple of examples of empty promises, bait and switch tactics, to hook the voters into supporting and endorsing them. Both parties are equally guilty of trying harder each year to run your life for you. They do not believe you are responsible enought to take care of your own affairs, to be free from your families biggest burdon... TAXES. The American people live in slavery disguised as freedom. Most Americans working the first four months of the year just to pay for our overbloated big government before they can beging working for themselves is all the evidence you need to know we are slaves of the government. Should you decide to not pay your taxes, you will see what happens. Eventually the guns will come out. Men with guns from the government will come to take you away. You are a slave. Don't get me wrong about America. We still live in the freest society perhaps in the world and we are all very lucky to be here, but what is going on in other parts of the world is not the stick with which I use to measure the freedoms we are losing over here.

On election day I see only two sensible choices. To send a message to the two party monopoly, a message that will really resonate with them. Vote libertarian or don't vote at all. Because if you vote for the two party monopoly, then you have no right to complain and the horrible things that they do will be done in your name with your stamp of apporval.

Debate Round 2: Who can best controll your life?

2004-10-09T01:23:00.000-07:00

I wish for one second that candidates would speak the truth. Just for one question I wish they would say, "Charlie, in this particular area I would be the best man to dominate, intimidate, and control the lives of the American people." Why don't they speak honestly to the viewers and forget about the same old mantras we keep hearing over and over again. If I was able to ask a question at that town hall style debate tonight, I would have simply asked either man what qualified him to run my life instead of me. By what right, by what standard does he claim ownership over my body? Too listen to George Bush talk about apointing justices that would uphold the Constitution was laughable. Mr. Patriot Act I and II. John Kerry came out swinging against the Patriot Act, then admitted to voting for it, then claimed it was necessary for our security all within the confines of the same thought. A little known fact among the sheeple is that all members of congress who voted for the Patriot Act voted for it before reading a single word in it. Of-course that kind of business in Washington has become commonplace. The Constitution has become a document that "lives and breathes" (read: doesn't really matter any more).

2004-10-01T20:57:00.000-07:00

My Honeymoon in Hawaii

Democracy

2004-10-01T10:34:00.000-07:00

We’ve been taught to believe democracy is synonymous with liberty; the truth is they aren’t always compatible. Democracy is based on majority-rule, which, ultimately, amounts to mob-rule. I can’t hope to explain this any better than Jonah Goldberg, who wrote that, “in its purest form,” democracy means “51 percent of the people can pee in the cornflakes of 49 percent of the people.”

In other words, majority-rule means the rights and opinions of those in the minority can be tossed in the garbage like so many hanging chads before them—all in the name of the greater whole. And when I refer to “those in the minority,” I don’t necessarily mean ethnic minorities, though that’s certainly one example. But I am also talking about economic minorities here—rich and poor alike. And I am talking about any other types of minorities you can think of. It doesn’t really matter which group you choose. When I say “those in the minority,” it even includes those in the majority who are forced to cater to those in the minority—which is where political correctness often comes in.

http://www.readjdm.com/main/jdm/more/195/

The Bush / Kerry Fake Debate

2004-09-30T23:32:00.000-07:00

The Bush / Kerry "debate" was held tonight. It's really a shame that millions of viewers were subjected to two men reciting memorized scripted lines instead of real live dialogue. The bigger shame is that the American people were not afforded the privilege of seeing the real debate that took place between Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik and the Green Party candidate David Cobb, which was held across the street from the Bush / Kerry debate in Coral Gables, Florida. Most Americans who no longer watch the presidential debates probably made that decision due to fact that debates are now scripted and boring. Viewership has dropped dramatically over that last 20 years. Or maybe people are just turned off with politics in general.