Cass Sunstein is Barack Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar". He advocates a "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period.
Sunstein has argued that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information they don’t want to see.
"A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name." Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness with Richard Thaler (Yale University Press, 2008).
He wants to put a “Civility Check” into the internet that restricts how and when you can send email that may be considered to be angry. He believes that everything we read online, right down to our personal e-mail communications, should be inspected and approved by the federal government prior to posting on the net.
Sunstein’s basic political philosophy is sometimes described as libertarian paternalism. This philosophy believes the state can “help you make the choices you would make for yourself—if only you had the strength of will and the sharpness of mind.”
This is a sick philosophy which inherently considers people as too weak willed to know what’s best for themselves, and stresses that the government knows best how people should live their lives. So through government coercion, he espouses that the government manipulate the populace to do what the government thinks is best. Right down to forcing you to being exposed to whatever ideas the government wants you to be exposed to, rather than let you filter what you want through the internet. Compare this philosophy to the Philosophy of Liberty.
Since he is Obama’s nominee obviously Obama wants his ideas in our government. Obama must also believe that everything we read online, right down to our personal e-mail communications, should be inspected and approved by the federal government. His Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has been quoted as saying we have too much Freedom of Speech, and there should be a “Gatekeeper” to news and information. It is obvious that Obama is a fascist, and believes the government knows what’s best for us, and should be in control of the press, private industry, even individual opinions and ideas.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Prohibition - an excues for big government and taking away our liberties.
Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, Dion O'Banion, "Bugs" Moran (AKA Jack "Legs" Diamond), and "Dutch" Schultz, "Pretty Boy" Floyd, "Babyface" Nelson, Elliot Ness, Speakeasy, revenuers, G-men, The Coton Club, The Godfather, Flappers, all everyday names, places, styles. and ideas from some of our most popular action movies - Gangster movies.
Chicago - when you hear the name of that city do you think of honesty, integrity, liberty, or do you think of gangsters, crooked politics, graft and greed?
The roaring 20's where alcohol consumption was illegal, this had the following results: alcohol related deaths rose dramatically; arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent; arrests for drunk driving increased 81 percent; organized crime grew into an empire; disrespect for the law grew; and the per capita consumption of the prohibited substance (alcohol) increased dramatically.
People flagrantly violated the law, drinking more of the substance that was originally prohibited. The problems prohibition intended to solve, such as crime, grew worse and they never returned to their pre-prohibition levels. Not only was prohibition ineffective, it was also damaging to the people and society it was meant to help. Prohibition should not have gone on for the thirteen years it was allowed to damage society.
You would think that prohibition would enhance the difficulty of obtaining alcohol. The opposite was true, liquor was actually very easy to acquire. The bootlegging business was so immense that customers could easily obtain alcohol by simply walking down almost any street. Today it's easier for a teen to get a joint than a beer. Pot's available at high school, and the local dealer doesn't card you.
FBI statistics show that in 2007 Police arrested an estimated 872,720 persons for cannabis violations, more than ever recorded in the USA. That's only the ones the police caught, many more never get caught. Even our last 3 presidents have admitted to doing pot. Well Clinton didn't inhale, so he might not count.
My grandfather born in Italy, living in Detroit, never paid any taxes from 1922 'til 1931 when for health reasons he moved to St. Louis and got a different job. (He was told to get out of town, as an independent Winsor to Detroit boatman, some people from the Purple Gang advised him that his health was in danger if he remained in Detroit.) This means that although he earned enough money to fully pay for a house, and was never without a new Oldsmobile every two years since leaving his independent delivery business, he also never paid a dime in income taxes over that same period of time. The government lost significant revenue for the 13 years of Prohibition because of the number of people earning a living "off the books".
How many of our inner city entrepreneurs currently earning a living selling a product their neighbors and friends obviously want, but happens to be illegal, are paying income taxes on their income?
Pot is a gateway drug to harder drugs. This is the argument for keeping it illegal. Beer prior to prohibition was the drink of choice for most, but because beer had to be transported in large quantities, which became difficult, the price of beer went up and thus Americans began to drink less of it. Instead, they began to drink more hard liquor, which was more concentrated and easier to transport and thus less expensive. Because of prohibition, Americans began to drink more potent drinks and so became more drunk by drinking less. This sounds exactly like what's happened to the drug business, coke, crack, designer synthetic drugs, etc. all now available because there is more punch in smaller volume. In fact it can be argued that because of prohibition pot, and cocaine became more popular (they were still legal). Hence our war on drugs can be attributed to our failed war on demon alcohol.
Two good things did come from prohibition. Sweet mixed drinks, to cover the bad taste of bootleg liquer, it was mixed with sweet fruit juices to make it more palatable. Now we have fuzzy navels, bloody marys, Harvey Wallbangers, in fact an entire industry based on making hard to pallet strong liquors taste better. We also have the most popular and most watched sport in the nation due to prohibition. Nascar, started out with fast cars that were made from everyday transportation to out run government agents, and now it's watched by millions every weekend. And the drink most associated with Nascar... Beer, gotta love the irony.
Violence of the "Roaring 20's" was legendary. The violence of today’s drug gangs is just as legendary. There are as many modern gangster movies as those set in the 20's. When was the last time you heard a shooting over a "beer deal gone bad"? When was the last time you saw the door of a winery busted down on Cops? Doesn't happen, want to end violence related to gangs and drugs, then end drug prohibition. Because it's forced into the black market, the profits from drugs are extraordinarily large. A risk/profit analysis results in many people participating in illegal businesses. If there were not extraordinary risks, then there wouldn't be huge profits. The risks are there because drug suppliers, dealers, and purchasers can't avail themselves to the court system to settle disputes, they have to settle disputes themselves. This makes people who are willing to use violence and have violent skills employable, as these skills are necessary in the absence of being able to use a judiciary. End prohibition and the need for violence will disappear, just as it did in the alcohol business.
This is all common knowledge, in fact I've been collecting data like this forever from the net, for references just use Google on prohibition, gangsters, roaring 20's etc. all this and more is out there. We know that prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and was a total disaster. We know this yet we cling to our war on drugs. Why?
Short answer is money. $19 billion federal dollars spend on the war on drugs in 2007. People running law enforcement, prisons, courts, selling law enforcement equipment, etc. all depend on the money from the war on drugs for their livelihood. Most of these are government workers or contractors. They don't want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. If we ended the war on drugs we would only need a fraction of our prisons, law enforcement officers, and government employees. The government is protecting it job and power, not its citizens.
The stupidity of the failed war on drugs has got to stop. More illegal drugs are used in the US than anywhere in the world, the violence associated with drugs being illegal in the world has created international cartels, unstable governments, and the death and destruction of hundreds of thousands of people. We know that prohibition leads to gangs, violence, crime, stronger chemicals, more addiction, and more use. Please work at ending prohibition, it doesn't work; all it does is give the government an excuse to further erode our liberty and freedom.
Chicago - when you hear the name of that city do you think of honesty, integrity, liberty, or do you think of gangsters, crooked politics, graft and greed?
The roaring 20's where alcohol consumption was illegal, this had the following results: alcohol related deaths rose dramatically; arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent; arrests for drunk driving increased 81 percent; organized crime grew into an empire; disrespect for the law grew; and the per capita consumption of the prohibited substance (alcohol) increased dramatically.
People flagrantly violated the law, drinking more of the substance that was originally prohibited. The problems prohibition intended to solve, such as crime, grew worse and they never returned to their pre-prohibition levels. Not only was prohibition ineffective, it was also damaging to the people and society it was meant to help. Prohibition should not have gone on for the thirteen years it was allowed to damage society.
You would think that prohibition would enhance the difficulty of obtaining alcohol. The opposite was true, liquor was actually very easy to acquire. The bootlegging business was so immense that customers could easily obtain alcohol by simply walking down almost any street. Today it's easier for a teen to get a joint than a beer. Pot's available at high school, and the local dealer doesn't card you.
FBI statistics show that in 2007 Police arrested an estimated 872,720 persons for cannabis violations, more than ever recorded in the USA. That's only the ones the police caught, many more never get caught. Even our last 3 presidents have admitted to doing pot. Well Clinton didn't inhale, so he might not count.
My grandfather born in Italy, living in Detroit, never paid any taxes from 1922 'til 1931 when for health reasons he moved to St. Louis and got a different job. (He was told to get out of town, as an independent Winsor to Detroit boatman, some people from the Purple Gang advised him that his health was in danger if he remained in Detroit.) This means that although he earned enough money to fully pay for a house, and was never without a new Oldsmobile every two years since leaving his independent delivery business, he also never paid a dime in income taxes over that same period of time. The government lost significant revenue for the 13 years of Prohibition because of the number of people earning a living "off the books".
How many of our inner city entrepreneurs currently earning a living selling a product their neighbors and friends obviously want, but happens to be illegal, are paying income taxes on their income?
Pot is a gateway drug to harder drugs. This is the argument for keeping it illegal. Beer prior to prohibition was the drink of choice for most, but because beer had to be transported in large quantities, which became difficult, the price of beer went up and thus Americans began to drink less of it. Instead, they began to drink more hard liquor, which was more concentrated and easier to transport and thus less expensive. Because of prohibition, Americans began to drink more potent drinks and so became more drunk by drinking less. This sounds exactly like what's happened to the drug business, coke, crack, designer synthetic drugs, etc. all now available because there is more punch in smaller volume. In fact it can be argued that because of prohibition pot, and cocaine became more popular (they were still legal). Hence our war on drugs can be attributed to our failed war on demon alcohol.
Two good things did come from prohibition. Sweet mixed drinks, to cover the bad taste of bootleg liquer, it was mixed with sweet fruit juices to make it more palatable. Now we have fuzzy navels, bloody marys, Harvey Wallbangers, in fact an entire industry based on making hard to pallet strong liquors taste better. We also have the most popular and most watched sport in the nation due to prohibition. Nascar, started out with fast cars that were made from everyday transportation to out run government agents, and now it's watched by millions every weekend. And the drink most associated with Nascar... Beer, gotta love the irony.
Violence of the "Roaring 20's" was legendary. The violence of today’s drug gangs is just as legendary. There are as many modern gangster movies as those set in the 20's. When was the last time you heard a shooting over a "beer deal gone bad"? When was the last time you saw the door of a winery busted down on Cops? Doesn't happen, want to end violence related to gangs and drugs, then end drug prohibition. Because it's forced into the black market, the profits from drugs are extraordinarily large. A risk/profit analysis results in many people participating in illegal businesses. If there were not extraordinary risks, then there wouldn't be huge profits. The risks are there because drug suppliers, dealers, and purchasers can't avail themselves to the court system to settle disputes, they have to settle disputes themselves. This makes people who are willing to use violence and have violent skills employable, as these skills are necessary in the absence of being able to use a judiciary. End prohibition and the need for violence will disappear, just as it did in the alcohol business.
This is all common knowledge, in fact I've been collecting data like this forever from the net, for references just use Google on prohibition, gangsters, roaring 20's etc. all this and more is out there. We know that prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and was a total disaster. We know this yet we cling to our war on drugs. Why?
Short answer is money. $19 billion federal dollars spend on the war on drugs in 2007. People running law enforcement, prisons, courts, selling law enforcement equipment, etc. all depend on the money from the war on drugs for their livelihood. Most of these are government workers or contractors. They don't want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. If we ended the war on drugs we would only need a fraction of our prisons, law enforcement officers, and government employees. The government is protecting it job and power, not its citizens.
The stupidity of the failed war on drugs has got to stop. More illegal drugs are used in the US than anywhere in the world, the violence associated with drugs being illegal in the world has created international cartels, unstable governments, and the death and destruction of hundreds of thousands of people. We know that prohibition leads to gangs, violence, crime, stronger chemicals, more addiction, and more use. Please work at ending prohibition, it doesn't work; all it does is give the government an excuse to further erode our liberty and freedom.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Real Science - Ethanol is a loser
Currently the environmental extremists in Tallahassee and Washington and other places have pretty much forced us to use ethanol as a fuel to be "green". Promoting ethanol as "green" fuel is based on bad science. In most vehicles ethanol is a loser.
Most modern cars are manufactured so that they can run on up to 15% ethanol without hurting the car. That doesn't mean that they are designed to efficiently use ethanol as a fuel, just that they are designed so that if ethanol enriched gasoline is used it won't hurt the car. Ethanol as a fuel poses problems that the government and environmentalists fail to acknowledge.
In most cars ethanol enriched gasoline decrease efficiency by a greater percentage than the ethanol in the fuel. Using typical 10% ethanol enriched gasoline will result in greater than 10% decrease in fuel efficiency. This results in zero gasoline saved plus the burning of ethanol creating more pollution not less. Here's what Dr Mark Jacobson of Stanford University said based on the results of his study. “Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution, but our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage.”
I'm a professional chemist and a car/motorcycle nut. I have always kept track of my vehicles' efficiencies. My everyday transportation is a 2007 Suzuki DL650 motorcycle for economic and personal reasons. Prior to the mandated ethanol in our fuel it averaged 60mpg and did quite well on regular grade gasoline. Now with the addition of 10% ethanol to the fuel, it runs poorly on regular and now requires premium to prevent detonation, and only gets 53 mpg. I had 12% better millage with cheaper fuel before ethanol was introduced into the fuel. My pickup, other motorcycles saw similar decreases in fuel economy. The 1992 Geo Metro I recycled as cheap transportation for my college boy had its fuel mileage drop from a wonderful 44mpg to 38mpg. It gets 16% better fuel efficiency without ethanol.
Before ethanol was added to our fuel in order to drive the Metro 1000 miles it consumed 22.7 gallons of fuel (22.7 gallons of gasoline + zero gallons ethanol). Now with 10% ethanol enriched gasoline to drive the same 1000 miles it uses 26.3 gallons of fuel (22.7 gallons of gasoline + 2.6 gallons of ethanol). That's just plain sick, not only do I use just as much gasoline, but I also burn 2.6 additional gallons of ehtanol, and the ethanol creates additional pollutants that the gasoline doesn't. To top it off the Metro needed higher grade fuel to run right. Where's the savings? Unless everybody purchases a new vehicle designed specifically to run on ethanol, things are worse.
In addition, to create a gallon of ethanol, it takes the equivalent approximately .9 gallons of gas in the form of fossil fuels like coal/diesel/pesticides/fertilizers/etc. used in ethanol production. So the total fuel used to Drive 1000 miles in my metro since ethanol has been added is actually 26.8 gallons of fuel (22.7 gasoline + 2.6 ethanol + 2.3 fossil fuels used to create the ethanol).
California Environmental Protection Agency has evidently concluded that corn ethanol will not help the state implement Executive Order S-1-07, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Jan. 18, 2007, mandating a 10 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of the state's fuels by 2020.
The science is clear, ethanol as motor fuel is a loser. Now what makes this worse is the fact that using a food source for motor fuel has resulted in a significant increase in the cost of feeding ourselves.
A Congressional Budget Office study concluded that 10 to 15 percent of the increase in food prices from April 2007 to April 2008 is attributable to the increasing demand for corn to produce ethanol, contributing adversely to the problem of world hunger.
So let's add up what ethanol as motor fuel really does:
Decreases vehicle efficiency, and uses more total carbon based fuels than it saves
Creates pollutants that increase public health risk
Creates increased food prices, and decreases available land for healthier crops
Why do we let our leaders create laws that increase our fuel costs, increase our food costs, increase our health risks, increase our taxes (subsidies for ethanol production come from tax dollars), and not hold them accountable. Let your elected officials in Florida and Washington knows that you don't want ethanol it's a proven loser.
Most modern cars are manufactured so that they can run on up to 15% ethanol without hurting the car. That doesn't mean that they are designed to efficiently use ethanol as a fuel, just that they are designed so that if ethanol enriched gasoline is used it won't hurt the car. Ethanol as a fuel poses problems that the government and environmentalists fail to acknowledge.
In most cars ethanol enriched gasoline decrease efficiency by a greater percentage than the ethanol in the fuel. Using typical 10% ethanol enriched gasoline will result in greater than 10% decrease in fuel efficiency. This results in zero gasoline saved plus the burning of ethanol creating more pollution not less. Here's what Dr Mark Jacobson of Stanford University said based on the results of his study. “Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution, but our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage.”
I'm a professional chemist and a car/motorcycle nut. I have always kept track of my vehicles' efficiencies. My everyday transportation is a 2007 Suzuki DL650 motorcycle for economic and personal reasons. Prior to the mandated ethanol in our fuel it averaged 60mpg and did quite well on regular grade gasoline. Now with the addition of 10% ethanol to the fuel, it runs poorly on regular and now requires premium to prevent detonation, and only gets 53 mpg. I had 12% better millage with cheaper fuel before ethanol was introduced into the fuel. My pickup, other motorcycles saw similar decreases in fuel economy. The 1992 Geo Metro I recycled as cheap transportation for my college boy had its fuel mileage drop from a wonderful 44mpg to 38mpg. It gets 16% better fuel efficiency without ethanol.
Before ethanol was added to our fuel in order to drive the Metro 1000 miles it consumed 22.7 gallons of fuel (22.7 gallons of gasoline + zero gallons ethanol). Now with 10% ethanol enriched gasoline to drive the same 1000 miles it uses 26.3 gallons of fuel (22.7 gallons of gasoline + 2.6 gallons of ethanol). That's just plain sick, not only do I use just as much gasoline, but I also burn 2.6 additional gallons of ehtanol, and the ethanol creates additional pollutants that the gasoline doesn't. To top it off the Metro needed higher grade fuel to run right. Where's the savings? Unless everybody purchases a new vehicle designed specifically to run on ethanol, things are worse.
In addition, to create a gallon of ethanol, it takes the equivalent approximately .9 gallons of gas in the form of fossil fuels like coal/diesel/pesticides/fertilizers/etc. used in ethanol production. So the total fuel used to Drive 1000 miles in my metro since ethanol has been added is actually 26.8 gallons of fuel (22.7 gasoline + 2.6 ethanol + 2.3 fossil fuels used to create the ethanol).
California Environmental Protection Agency has evidently concluded that corn ethanol will not help the state implement Executive Order S-1-07, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Jan. 18, 2007, mandating a 10 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of the state's fuels by 2020.
The science is clear, ethanol as motor fuel is a loser. Now what makes this worse is the fact that using a food source for motor fuel has resulted in a significant increase in the cost of feeding ourselves.
A Congressional Budget Office study concluded that 10 to 15 percent of the increase in food prices from April 2007 to April 2008 is attributable to the increasing demand for corn to produce ethanol, contributing adversely to the problem of world hunger.
So let's add up what ethanol as motor fuel really does:
Why do we let our leaders create laws that increase our fuel costs, increase our food costs, increase our health risks, increase our taxes (subsidies for ethanol production come from tax dollars), and not hold them accountable. Let your elected officials in Florida and Washington knows that you don't want ethanol it's a proven loser.
Thought Crime legislation scheduled to be voted in the US House.
H.R. 1913 - Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009
This is a sick piece of legislation, and more evidence that Obama and the Democratic party are pushing the USA to a fascist state. It is illegal to mug, rape, murder, assault, and liable people. This law clearly violates the Fourteenth Ammendment to the US Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law. Based on how the victim perceives the thoughts and motivation of the perpetrator, the punishment for the crime will be enhanced.
If somebody mugs you, they should be punished for the act of mugging you. It shouldn't matter their motivation for mugging you, it is a violation of your rights, and their actions that are punished. What's worse is if your words can be conscrued to encourage others to commit crimes then you can be prosicuted for a "Hate Crime" under HR1913.
Translation, if you quote certain verses of the bible which condem homosexuality, and somebody who heard you assaults a GLBTG person then you can be convicted of a hate crime. This will shut down religous discussion and discourse and silence anybody who doesn't agree with the radical homosexual agenda. This law clearly violates not only the Fourteenth, but also the First Ammendment to the US Constitution.
How adults stimulate and pleasure one another is strictly their business, and there obviously should be no laws restricting what consensual adults do to each other. That’s part of individual liberty and regardless of the lifestyle a person chooses to live, so long as they don’t force it upon others they should be frees to live it. But just as homosexuals or any other group of people should be free to promote their lifestyle and ideas there should be NO LAW silencing viewpoints that they don't agree with. This law would make it illegal to disagree with virtually anybody. If you believe in liberty you have to not only put up with the KKK’s racist crap, but defend their right to say it, regardless of how distasteful their opinions and words are.
HR1913 as written could allow federal prosecutors to target Christians who teach that homosexual behavior is sinful and that Islam is a false religion. It is a backdoor tool from the far left and radical homosexuals to shut down legitimate free speech from people who oppose their lifestyle. This law criminalizes thought because they demand enhanced penalties due to the "perception" of the victim by the perpetrator. It appears to be on group of people forcing others to accept their beliefs. It is no different than if they passed a law making it illegal to speak out against gun ownership, or criticizing the Federal Government.
Wait a minute didn’t the Dept. of Homeland Security just put out a document claiming that people who: oppose illegal immigration, support the literal meaning of the Second Amendment, believe in constitutionally limited government, oppose the killing of unborn babies, support U.S. sovereignty and independence, to be “dangerous” and send out a memo to local and state law enforcement to be on watch for “right-wing extremism”.
If HR1913 passes, if you speak, or worse yet, think in a manor not approved by the government, you can be charged with a crime. 1984 is here, just a couple decades later than Orwell predicted. With this law people can be jailed for what they say.
Congress, Obama and the people he has put into power are bringing us closer and closer to a fascist state.
This is a sick piece of legislation, and more evidence that Obama and the Democratic party are pushing the USA to a fascist state. It is illegal to mug, rape, murder, assault, and liable people. This law clearly violates the Fourteenth Ammendment to the US Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law. Based on how the victim perceives the thoughts and motivation of the perpetrator, the punishment for the crime will be enhanced.
If somebody mugs you, they should be punished for the act of mugging you. It shouldn't matter their motivation for mugging you, it is a violation of your rights, and their actions that are punished. What's worse is if your words can be conscrued to encourage others to commit crimes then you can be prosicuted for a "Hate Crime" under HR1913.
Translation, if you quote certain verses of the bible which condem homosexuality, and somebody who heard you assaults a GLBTG person then you can be convicted of a hate crime. This will shut down religous discussion and discourse and silence anybody who doesn't agree with the radical homosexual agenda. This law clearly violates not only the Fourteenth, but also the First Ammendment to the US Constitution.
How adults stimulate and pleasure one another is strictly their business, and there obviously should be no laws restricting what consensual adults do to each other. That’s part of individual liberty and regardless of the lifestyle a person chooses to live, so long as they don’t force it upon others they should be frees to live it. But just as homosexuals or any other group of people should be free to promote their lifestyle and ideas there should be NO LAW silencing viewpoints that they don't agree with. This law would make it illegal to disagree with virtually anybody. If you believe in liberty you have to not only put up with the KKK’s racist crap, but defend their right to say it, regardless of how distasteful their opinions and words are.
HR1913 as written could allow federal prosecutors to target Christians who teach that homosexual behavior is sinful and that Islam is a false religion. It is a backdoor tool from the far left and radical homosexuals to shut down legitimate free speech from people who oppose their lifestyle. This law criminalizes thought because they demand enhanced penalties due to the "perception" of the victim by the perpetrator. It appears to be on group of people forcing others to accept their beliefs. It is no different than if they passed a law making it illegal to speak out against gun ownership, or criticizing the Federal Government.
Wait a minute didn’t the Dept. of Homeland Security just put out a document claiming that people who: oppose illegal immigration, support the literal meaning of the Second Amendment, believe in constitutionally limited government, oppose the killing of unborn babies, support U.S. sovereignty and independence, to be “dangerous” and send out a memo to local and state law enforcement to be on watch for “right-wing extremism”.
If HR1913 passes, if you speak, or worse yet, think in a manor not approved by the government, you can be charged with a crime. 1984 is here, just a couple decades later than Orwell predicted. With this law people can be jailed for what they say.
Congress, Obama and the people he has put into power are bringing us closer and closer to a fascist state.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Supreme Court makes decision for individual liberty
Today in Arizona vs. Grant the SCOTUS ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not permit police to conduct a warrantless search of a car unless the search is immediately necessary to safeguard the arresting officer's safety or to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence.
The decision means that police cannot rely on a mere traffic violation to authorize a general search for guns, drugs, or other contraband. Such searches created "a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion.
"The character of that threat implicates the central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment – the concern about giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person's private effects."
So once you’re out of your car for a traffic violation, they have no reason to search your car as you can’t reach anything in it that could hurt them, and they have no probable cause to look for any other crime. The smart thing to do would be to exit your car with your registration and proof of insurance when stopped, and lock the car. If all they stopped you for is a traffic violation then anything they find in your car if searched it is not admissible in court.
Some may say this makes it harder on police. It may, but then the constitution limits the government not the people, it should be harder for them. The government shouldn’t be able to rummage through the private effects of a person without a warrant.
The decision means that police cannot rely on a mere traffic violation to authorize a general search for guns, drugs, or other contraband. Such searches created "a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion.
"The character of that threat implicates the central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment – the concern about giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person's private effects."
So once you’re out of your car for a traffic violation, they have no reason to search your car as you can’t reach anything in it that could hurt them, and they have no probable cause to look for any other crime. The smart thing to do would be to exit your car with your registration and proof of insurance when stopped, and lock the car. If all they stopped you for is a traffic violation then anything they find in your car if searched it is not admissible in court.
Some may say this makes it harder on police. It may, but then the constitution limits the government not the people, it should be harder for them. The government shouldn’t be able to rummage through the private effects of a person without a warrant.
Obama aims to make reloading ammo illegal
Just got this from Gun Owners of America.
Scarry problem, Obama using treaties etc, to circumvent legislature etc. to get limits on guns he can't get because of congress and supreme court. The ramifications on individual liberty are staggering.
| Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading -- Even BB guns could be on the chopping block Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org Tuesday, April 21, 2009 Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama? The guy who "wasn't going to take away our guns"? Well, guess what? Less than 100 days into his administration, he's never met a gun he didn't hate. A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn't have the political power to take away our semi-automatics. Nevertheless, that didn't keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun owners. It's called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really nasty piece of work. First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the "illicit" manufacture of firearms, what does that mean? 1. "Illicit manufacturing" of firearms is defined as "assembly of firearms [or] ammunition... without a license...." Hence, reloading ammunition -- or putting together a lawful firearm from a kit -- is clearly "illicit manufacturing." Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be "illicit manufacturing." And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy definition of "illicit manufacturing." 2. "Firearm" has a similarly questionable definition. "[A]ny other weapon" is a "firearm," according to the treaty -- and the term "weapon" is nowhere defined. So, is a BB gun a "firearm"? Probably. A toy gun? Possibly. A pistol grip or firing pin? Probably. And who knows what else. If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama administration could have a heyday in enforcing them. Consider some of the other provisions in the treaty: * Banning Reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to adopting "necessary legislative or other measures" to criminalize illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms. Remember that "illicit manufacturing" includes reloading and modifying or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the basis of this treaty -- just as it is currently circumventing Congress to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases. * Banning Gun Clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized acts should include "association or conspiracy" in connection with said offenses -- which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership. * Extraditing US Gun Dealers. Article V requires each party to "adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention" under a variety of circumstances. We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its streets are flowing with blood. And we know it is possible for Mexico to define offenses "committed in its territory" in a very broad way. And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of the proposed treaty. So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty to demand to extradition of American gun dealers. Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute through "other means of peaceful settlement." Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision in a pro-gun manner? * Microstamping. Article VI requires "appropriate markings" on firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition -- a requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are not technologically possible or which are possible only at a prohibitively expensive cost. * Gun Registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records, for a "reasonable time," that the government determines to be necessary to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a national registry or database. ACTION: Write your Senators and urge them to oppose the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm |
Scarry problem, Obama using treaties etc, to circumvent legislature etc. to get limits on guns he can't get because of congress and supreme court. The ramifications on individual liberty are staggering.
Monday, April 20, 2009
DHS declares you to be dangerous
By now you've probably heard that you are a person of interest who should be scrutinized by your local, state, and federal law enforcement. If you believe in liberty, then you have been labeled as dangerous and should be watched.
DHS document here
Go read the Dept. of Homeland Security's (DHS) assessment which declares anyone who opposes abortion, gun control, illegal aliens, or supports Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin is defined as a violent right-wing extremist. If you’re a member of or support the Libertarian party, or the Constitution Party, or are even a Republican with conservative views, the Secretary of DHS has identified you as a dangerous and notified law enforcement that you should be watched.
There was palpable exuberance in Jeane Garofalo, as she spoke with Keith Olbermann, stating that tea party protests weren't about taxes or spending at all, but the protestors were white racists. She justified the undocumented, unsupported DHS assessment and claimed that conservative political views were dangerous, and those holding them should be watched.
Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., wrote a biting letter to Secretary Napolitano. He was "dumbfounded" that such an "assessment" had been sent out. He asked the secretary for a review and whether the civil liberties section of Homeland Security had approved the "assessment." It turns out that the civil liberties section was overruled by Secretary Napolitano, who ordered the "assessment" sent to local and state law enforcement agencies.
Thus the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, under the authority and approval of President Obama has declared people critical of the current admin, or people who voice opinions promoting liberty and libertarian or conservative ideas to be dangerous. As such the Obama administration and has asked local and state law enforcement to “scrutinize” it’s own people, while shaking hands with and making friends with the dictators of the world. What does this say about the current administrations and the fact that in writing it doesn’t trust you and is willing to have law enforcement “scrutinize” you if you don’t agree with him?
DHS document here
Go read the Dept. of Homeland Security's (DHS) assessment which declares anyone who opposes abortion, gun control, illegal aliens, or supports Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin is defined as a violent right-wing extremist. If you’re a member of or support the Libertarian party, or the Constitution Party, or are even a Republican with conservative views, the Secretary of DHS has identified you as a dangerous and notified law enforcement that you should be watched.
There was palpable exuberance in Jeane Garofalo, as she spoke with Keith Olbermann, stating that tea party protests weren't about taxes or spending at all, but the protestors were white racists. She justified the undocumented, unsupported DHS assessment and claimed that conservative political views were dangerous, and those holding them should be watched.
Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., wrote a biting letter to Secretary Napolitano. He was "dumbfounded" that such an "assessment" had been sent out. He asked the secretary for a review and whether the civil liberties section of Homeland Security had approved the "assessment." It turns out that the civil liberties section was overruled by Secretary Napolitano, who ordered the "assessment" sent to local and state law enforcement agencies.
Thus the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, under the authority and approval of President Obama has declared people critical of the current admin, or people who voice opinions promoting liberty and libertarian or conservative ideas to be dangerous. As such the Obama administration and has asked local and state law enforcement to “scrutinize” it’s own people, while shaking hands with and making friends with the dictators of the world. What does this say about the current administrations and the fact that in writing it doesn’t trust you and is willing to have law enforcement “scrutinize” you if you don’t agree with him?
Saturday, April 11, 2009
lighter stuff not politics
OK, so to tell the truth, as much as I like politics, I love airplanes, from paper planes to fighter jets. Saw this cool video which made me remember being a kid.
Flying from Sam Fuller on Vimeo.
Enjoy it as it's fun and light hearted, but rember to read below as the one of our forefathers sortof said "The price of liberty is vigulance"
Flying from Sam Fuller on Vimeo.
Enjoy it as it's fun and light hearted, but rember to read below as the one of our forefathers sortof said "The price of liberty is vigulance"
Friday, April 10, 2009
Ask a question Get Arrested
More evidence of US becoming Fascist State
Are you really free in your person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The 4th Amendment says you are, but apparently the TSA doesn't think so. You are expected to explain why, you have what you have, where your going, what your doing, and allow the government to look through your stuff when ever the want. Just having a legal possession can trigger arrest.
From dictionary.com
Arrest: the taking of a person into legal custody, as by officers of the law.
Here's a terrible story about the government arresting a man because he had the temerity to ask if he was legally required to answer questions about his possessions. The possession in question was cash.
Here's a question, by what constitutional authority does the government have to arrest a person for having any legal possession? Or by what authority does the government have to make cash illegal?
We are slipping into tyranny a little bit at a time, are you going to allow it to happen?
Are you really free in your person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The 4th Amendment says you are, but apparently the TSA doesn't think so. You are expected to explain why, you have what you have, where your going, what your doing, and allow the government to look through your stuff when ever the want. Just having a legal possession can trigger arrest.
From dictionary.com
Arrest: the taking of a person into legal custody, as by officers of the law.
Here's a terrible story about the government arresting a man because he had the temerity to ask if he was legally required to answer questions about his possessions. The possession in question was cash.
Here's a question, by what constitutional authority does the government have to arrest a person for having any legal possession? Or by what authority does the government have to make cash illegal?
We are slipping into tyranny a little bit at a time, are you going to allow it to happen?
April 18th - Tea Party
If your happy with government stay home. If not show your displeasure on April 18th at the Old Court House in Inverness at Noon. Not sure that the Tea Party Movement is real. Then check the hundreds of news articles, blogs, and web pages your self (CLICK HERE).
Can't wait until Sat April 18th, that's OK as you can go to two in Ocala on the 15'th, or any of hundreds across the state. For more information on tea parties and other ways to resist the socialization of America you can "Join the Resistance" at "The Patriotic Resistance" The network for idea-based resistance to Obama-led socialistic agenda.
I know this movement isn't part of the Libertarian Party, it's better than that. This is a movement starting with the people of the United States, not the parties, not the UN NGO's but the people. To quote Lew Rockwell I can assure you that at the heart of the movement is a largely spontaneous and genuine populist and even libertarian spirit.
Some interesting reads on Tea Parties.
Today’s Tea Party Movement Has A Lot In Common With the Sons of Liberty
Budget Debate Launches New Tea Party
Tea Parties in the News
Although we are not sponsors for or started the Citrus County Tea party. Look for me, Greg, and others of the Libertarian Party to be there Sat. April 18th.
Can't wait until Sat April 18th, that's OK as you can go to two in Ocala on the 15'th, or any of hundreds across the state. For more information on tea parties and other ways to resist the socialization of America you can "Join the Resistance" at "The Patriotic Resistance" The network for idea-based resistance to Obama-led socialistic agenda.
I know this movement isn't part of the Libertarian Party, it's better than that. This is a movement starting with the people of the United States, not the parties, not the UN NGO's but the people. To quote Lew Rockwell I can assure you that at the heart of the movement is a largely spontaneous and genuine populist and even libertarian spirit.
Some interesting reads on Tea Parties.
Today’s Tea Party Movement Has A Lot In Common With the Sons of Liberty
Budget Debate Launches New Tea Party
Tea Parties in the News
Although we are not sponsors for or started the Citrus County Tea party. Look for me, Greg, and others of the Libertarian Party to be there Sat. April 18th.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Fairness vs Liberty
Start of Ben Shapiro's article Titled The 2nd French Revolution
"Every old ideological conflict eventually becomes new again. So it is with today's battle between the forces of socialism, called "fairness" by its advocates, and the forces of capitalism, labeled "liberty" by its supporters. What we are witnessing is an ancient struggle between those who believe in the rights of the individual and those who believe in a sort of "general will." Those of conservative bent ardently hope for a second American Revolution; those of the left wish desperately for a second French Revolution.
This is not mere rhetoric. Look at the history of the first American Revolution, and you will see the fundamental principles that animate Rush Limbaugh; look at the history of the first French Revolution, and you will see the spirit that animates President Barack Obama."
Please go read all of Ben Shapiro's artilce, he clearly defines the battle between going on for the political future of this country.
I love the quote he uses in John Adams' Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ratified in 1780, provides the basic framework for American governing philosophy: ""All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness." The purpose of the government is to secure these rights.
Where do you stand on liberty vs fairness?
"Every old ideological conflict eventually becomes new again. So it is with today's battle between the forces of socialism, called "fairness" by its advocates, and the forces of capitalism, labeled "liberty" by its supporters. What we are witnessing is an ancient struggle between those who believe in the rights of the individual and those who believe in a sort of "general will." Those of conservative bent ardently hope for a second American Revolution; those of the left wish desperately for a second French Revolution.
This is not mere rhetoric. Look at the history of the first American Revolution, and you will see the fundamental principles that animate Rush Limbaugh; look at the history of the first French Revolution, and you will see the spirit that animates President Barack Obama."
Please go read all of Ben Shapiro's artilce, he clearly defines the battle between going on for the political future of this country.
I love the quote he uses in John Adams' Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ratified in 1780, provides the basic framework for American governing philosophy: ""All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness." The purpose of the government is to secure these rights.
Where do you stand on liberty vs fairness?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Wildlife Officer performs illegal search
A routine stop in the Richolm area of the Withalacoochee State Forest. Officer sees person. Officer turns on lights. Officer stops person (for no other reason than being in state forest). Officer smells pot. Officer searches vehicle and finds Pot. Officer officer arrests person.
For a long time the state wildlife officers have been working under the assumption that if your in a wildlife area they can search you. In a state-owned wildlife management area, officers regularly check to make sure people are obeying hunting and fishing regulations. Such stops are called "resource inspections."
The appellate judges wrote that the officer hadn't observed the suspect hunting or fishing and didn't see any guns or fishing poles, still believed he had the authority to detain anyone for a regulatory inspection in the wildlife management area.
Wildlife Commission rule authorizes its officers to do regulatory inspections. The problem is that Wildlife Commission rule is not law, and cannot supercede the state or national constitution.
2nd District Court of Appeal judges said such broad power conflicts with state law.
"We have found no statutory authority for a wildlife officer to stop a citizen for a regulatory inspection without any reasonable suspicion that the person is violating any law or wildlife regulation," the opinion says.
It's a shame that Pasco judge rejected this argument and it had to go the appellate court.
The good news is that the 4th amendment is valid and even wildlife officers have to have probable cause to stop and/or search people even in wildlife management areas.
Full court opinion here
For a long time the state wildlife officers have been working under the assumption that if your in a wildlife area they can search you. In a state-owned wildlife management area, officers regularly check to make sure people are obeying hunting and fishing regulations. Such stops are called "resource inspections."
The appellate judges wrote that the officer hadn't observed the suspect hunting or fishing and didn't see any guns or fishing poles, still believed he had the authority to detain anyone for a regulatory inspection in the wildlife management area.
Wildlife Commission rule authorizes its officers to do regulatory inspections. The problem is that Wildlife Commission rule is not law, and cannot supercede the state or national constitution.
2nd District Court of Appeal judges said such broad power conflicts with state law.
"We have found no statutory authority for a wildlife officer to stop a citizen for a regulatory inspection without any reasonable suspicion that the person is violating any law or wildlife regulation," the opinion says.
It's a shame that Pasco judge rejected this argument and it had to go the appellate court.
The good news is that the 4th amendment is valid and even wildlife officers have to have probable cause to stop and/or search people even in wildlife management areas.
Full court opinion here
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The moral dilemma of today's statists - by Walter Williams
I've created a new permanent Link section at the right which includes must read articles on liberty.
The first by Dr. Walter Williams is probably the best description of libertarian values I've read in a long time.
Here are the two questions he asks:
"Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him?"
How do you answer them?
.
The first by Dr. Walter Williams is probably the best description of libertarian values I've read in a long time.
Here are the two questions he asks:
"Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him?"
How do you answer them?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
