Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.
Formerly: Libertarian Party of Citrus county

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Why Govt. trys to create Rights from Needs

Monday the SCOTUS confirmed our natural right to self defense, including the right to use a hand gun for that self defense. The court did not grant us a right, it merely recognized the natural right and that the government is prohibited from usurping that right.

Libertarian ideology is based on natural law or unalienable rights. The two basic principles to libertarian thought are property rights and non-aggression; Property rights being based on the foundation principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This means that you own yourself, and the product of your activities, and as such can use yourself and your property as you see fit, providing that use does not infringe upon the rights of another. Non-aggression ideology meaning nobody should be permitted to use force against another except to protect their rights.

The key point is no right ever confers an obligation on another. You have a right to freedom of religion; this does not obligate someone else to build you a church. You have a right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, this does not obligate another to broadcast, print, read or listen to your speech. You have an individual right to keep and bear arms, this does not obligate another to provide you with a gun.

Everyone needs food; this need does not give you the right to take food from another nor to require another to provide you with food. Everyone needs shelter and clothing, this need does not give you the right to take those from another, nor to require another to provide you with shelter and clothing. Without a doubt the single most life prolonging and health benefitting technology is modern plumbing. The clean safe delivery of water and fast efficient removal and disposal of human waste that modern plumbing has provided has done more to prolong and benefit everybody’s lives than anything in history. Everyone needs water and sewage services, you do not have a right to water provided by others. If you don’t pay your water bill and it can and will be turned off regardless of your individual need. Your need for water does not obligate another individual or the government to provide it to you.

Many totalitarian governments (and the UN) confuse needs and rights. Totalitarians want to classify individual needs as rights. They do this because in a society it is the government’s job to protect the rights of its citizens. If everybody has a right to something, the government tries to insure that the right is administered justly. So if you have a right to food, it is the governments job to ensure that everybody gets and equal share of all the food and no one person receives more or less than another. This gives the government control of all food its production and distribution. By making a need a right the government can justify taking liberty and giving more power to itself.

You have a right to your own property. Theft is the violation of that right. You therefore have the right to defend your property; this right does not obligate anybody else, or even the government, to protect your property. The SCOTUS as repeatedly ruled that the government is under no obligation nor responsible to protect any individual citizen or their property. You cannot sue the police for failing to protect you or your property.

Your right to life, does not and cannot obligate anybody else to provide for your life’s needs. The right to life means that your life is your own, and you are free to do with it as you see fit so long as you don’t infringe on another person’s rights. At times in your life you may need the services of a doctor, nurse, ambulance, etc. Your need for these services does not obligate somebody else to provide you with them. The only reason to change health care from a need to a right is to give the government control of 1/6th of the world’s most productive economy.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

SCOTUS Rules Second Amendment is Fundamental Individual Right

Monday June 28, 2010 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that Chicago’s blanket ban against owning handguns to be unconstitutional. Writing for the majority Justice Samuel Alito says, "The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."

The case, McDonald v. Chicago, challenged a 7th Circuit court ruling that said the Second Amendment applies only to federal regulation of an individual's right to guns and not in cases of restrictions by states and municipalities. The SCOTUS overturned this ruling agreeing with the plaintiff’s argument that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment is "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment and applies to both states and localities. This opinion confirms the historically liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruling that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition" and regarded as the "true palladium of liberty," so it therefore must be applied against state and local government weapon restrictions as well as federal gun limits.

The court’s 5-4 decision was split along its typical ideological lines: The conservative justices; John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, all voted to extend gun rights, the liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor voted to allow continued restriction on the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

This decision is going to make people like Chicago Mayor Daly unhappy. He promised new laws and said, "As a city we must continue to stand up and fight . . . for a ban on assault weapons . . . as well as a crackdown on gun shops." I believe it will also profoundly consternate liberals in congress and the White House. The statists temporarily in charge, who think ordinary people shouldn't be allowed to make our own health care choices, or decide which schools their children attend, will be apoplectic that the SCOTUS has ruled that the people can make decisions about how to defend themselves.

Quotes from the majority opinion:

The Court is correct in describing the Second Amendment right as “fundamental” to the American scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan v. Louisiana , 391 U. S. 145 , and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions,” Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U. S. 702 .

"It is clear that the Framers [of the Constitution]. . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,"

If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of handguns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.

President Obama’s first appointment to the SCOTUS, Justice Sotomayor, proved herself to be contemptuous of the Senate and the people. She ruled exactly the opposite of the way she intimated she would rule during her confirmation hearings last year. When asked about gun control during those hearings she said, “One of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized. . . . I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans.” Obviously she understands how important it is to many Americans, but does not believe that it should be it is a right fundamental right for all Americans regardless of how "important" it is to the people. Justice Sotomayor formally agreed with the minority opinion criticizing the ruling, including this statement by Justice Breyer, “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ in so far as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

Of interest is the pro-Tenth Amendment arguments presented by Justice Breyer in his dissenting opinion. Justice Breyer says "I find any justification for interpreting the Constitution as transferring ultimate regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms from democratically elected legislatures to courts or from the States to the Federal Government." He also says, "Private gun regulation is the quintessential exercise of a State’s “police power”— i.e. , the power to “protec[t] … the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and the protection of all property within the State,” by enacting “all kinds of restraints and burdens” on both “persons and property.” Slaughter-House Cases , 16 Wall. 36, 62 (1873). The Court has long recognized that the Constitution grants the States special authority to enact laws pursuant to this power."

Breyer’s strong Tenth Amendment words included, “In a nation whose constitution foresees democratic decision-making, is it so fundamental a matter as to require taking that power from the people?" Breyer wrote. "What is it here that the people did not know? What is it that a judge knows better?" Taken at his word you would think that Stephen Breyer, will side with Montana, Tennessee, and the 6 other states that have so far passed Firearm Freedom Acts, exempting from federal regulation the sale of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition manufactured and retained in the state. I’m sure that Justice Breyer will contradict himself and rule against his own opinion if any of the Firearms Freedom Act laws make it to the Supreme Court.

The right to keep and bear arms is the law of the land. The SCOTUS has ruled that “The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee.” If the government or the people want to change that it will and should require a constitutional amendment. We are a nation of laws, with constitutional restrictions on what the federal authority can do. If the statists currently in the majority of elected federal positions want to change that, then they can and must amend the constitution. It is neither impossible nor difficult; it was amended 4 times in 8 years between 1913 and 1920. The situation has changed, to amend the constitution in the era of new media in which the powerful elite no longer control all the news and information, the will of politicians to further restrict liberty knowing it could lead to their loss in the next election, does not exist. The people, not the statists in charge, believe in the rule of law. Monday’s SCOTUS ruling just confirms the plain meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, that the people have the right to Keep and Bear Arms.

SCOTUS DOCS http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html

Monday, June 28, 2010

SCOTUS Confirms Second Amendment is an Individual Right

"It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty," ~ Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr

The Supreme Court ruled that the Second ...Amendment provides all Americans a fundamental right to bear arms, a long-sought victory for liberty advocates who have chafed at federal, state and local efforts to restrict gun ownership.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Why Don't I trust Government?

Why Don't I trust Government? The answer is simple. A large powerful government is not trustworthy. Power in the hands of a few is never safe or worthy; it is corrupt, and antithetical to liberty. Philosophers have recognized this for millennia.

“Our earth is degenerate in these latter days; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; and the end of the world is evidently approaching.” ~ Assyrian clay tablet 2800 B.C.

“The more corrupt the state, the more laws.” ~ Publius Cornelius Tacitus

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” ~ Lord Acton 1887

Modern communications and industry has allowed power to be concentrated into the hands of fewer people. The Ruler/Commoner ration has risen dramatically with the industrial age. The US has gone from about 1 federal ruler per 30,000 people in 1780’s to about 1 federal ruler per 600,000 people now. Power is 20 times more concentrated than when the country was started. It is plainly obvious that large modern governments with unlimited powers have been and are a far greater threat to people than virtually anything else. Never before in history have so few “elite” wielded so much power over so many people. At the direction of one man, actions can put into motion which will result in a nuclear holocaust that would destroy the majority of people in the world and possibly make the world un-inhabitable. The USA, Russia, and maybe China all have that huge concentrated power in a tiny number of people. The 20th Century is proof that concentrating more power into a tiny number of people is murderous to society.

The worst horrors of the 20th century were orchestrated by governments against their own people. The more concentrated a government power the more murderous it is. This technological concentration of power created a new historic phenomenon in the 20th century; Governments without limits murdering millions of their own people in pursuit of utopia. Pol Pot’s Cambodian genocide, Stalin’s purges and orchestrated famines, Mao’s own orchestrated purges and murderous Cultural Revolution, Hitler’s Holocaust, the Marxist Ethiopian regime’s orchestrated famines, the countless barbarities and mass murders of other post-colonial African dictatorships, not to mention hundreds of thousands killed by North Korea’s communists and by Saddam Hussein’s Baathists, along with many thousands murdered by Vietnam’s and Cuba’s communists. Governments in the 20th century killed more millions of their own peoples than all of man’s wars in prior history.
“The period known as the European Enlightenment was also known as the Age of Reason, a time when the full scope of human existence was carefully examined, with an eye toward trying to perfect human society as much as possible. It was felt that the full application of man's intellect could rescue society from the forces of despotism. Encompassing the years 1715 to 1789, the enlightenment was probably as important in America as was in Europe. In that age of classical thinking the European philosophers studied with great zeal the institutions of modern government with the same intensity with which scientists such as Newton had probed the mysteries of the universe and the worlds of physics and mathematics. . . The Enlightenment was important (in) America because it provided the philosophical basis of the American Revolution. . . While the locus of the Enlightenment thinking is generally considered to have been the salons in Paris and Berlin, the practical application of those ideas was carried out most vividly in the American colonies.” ~ Henry J. Sage

The one nation that created a government that guaranteed its citizens rights, including the right to arm themselves and overthrow the government if necessary, in a historically short period of time became the most powerful nation in the world. This Nation is the one that people from all over the world are willing to risk life and limb to come to. This nation is the one that privately provides more charity to the needy of the world than any other nation and has a vastness and diversity that no other nation can match. The United States, the most powerful nation in the world, did not murder millions of its own citizens like those totalitarian governments in the 20th century. It is different in that the power of its government is limited, dispersed, separated, and balanced. It is however deteriorating, the ideas and principles of enlightenment upon which it was founded on are no longer accepted or even talked about. The current president is usurping powers delegated to the legislature and judiciary at an alarming rate. We are, like the great totalitarian nations of the last century, allowing power to become more concentrated in fewer leaders. This is a recipe for tyranny as evidenced by history.

American Revolution was based on an enlightened concept of government whose most profound documents were the American Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution. The writings of Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Franklin, Washington, and those others committed to liberty, most of whose fortunes and lives were lost over signing the Declaration of Independence, all reflect the same enlightened ideology. That individuals prosper most, and society benefits most when people are self governed. They created a federalized republic with severely limited centralized power with a Bill of Rights which concludes with the promise that “all powers not specifically granted to the central government are reserved to the local state governments or to the people themselves.”

No provision was ever conceived or granted to the central government which would allow it to “spread the wealth” or force commerce on individuals. The central government was never instituted or purposed to provide for the needs of individuals. The federalist papers and the writings of early leaders (Including Davy Crocket) strongly proclaim that although difficult, charity should not come from the government but from the private sector and churches. Charity if allowed to be controlled and granted by the federal government would lead to tyranny and a loss of liberty for all. They’re predictions have proven to be accurate. Worse yet when Governments have concentrated power and near total authority in the name of providing the needs of and creating a better society, they have proven to be murderous and tyrannical beyond all historical precedent.

The atrocities of totalitarian governments like those listed above is proof, that we all need to fight for limited central government, with few powers, based on the self evident truth that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. A government instituted to supply the needs of all citizens, rather than to protect the rights of individuals, is a government instituted to the tyrannical control required to supply those needs. Such a government so conceived is not and cannot be trustworthy.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Are We Seeing the End of The Rule of Law?

This is a great country, unlike most its very foundation is based on people being free, and all people regardless of class being treated equally. The very fact that I can write this blog, and editorialize about current events is proof of that. Because this country was founded on the Rule of Law, everybody being equal, every citizen has the right in this country to freedom of the press. The government doesn’t get to determine who the press is, who can publish, or what ideas may be published. In this country if you have the means to publish you are allowed to publish. For generations that has meant that those who could afford to own or hire a printing press (or later radio and TV stations) were the only people who could exercise that right. Everybody for generations had the right, just not the means. Now virtually everyone with a cell phone is a TV reporter, and because every public library has computers with access to the internet there is literally nobody who doesn’t have the means to publish their ideas, views, and news. Truly today we have freedom of the press. Our rights as defined in the Bill of rights are extensions of the Rule of Law.

I have a relatively famous friend, if you’ve seen an action movie in the past few decades and if you bother to read the credits, you’ve seen his name, Flint Eagle. Flint is a happy gregarious man who enjoys life, and in general makes everybody around him feel good. We we’re bussed from redneck orange groves to a high school situated in the middle of a Greek enclave located in the deep south. The grandson of a famous professional wrestler, Flint is a Native American half breed stunt actor and driver who has managed to earn a living at playing. Because we were friends in the past, I’ve made a habit of trying to watch movies he’s in. Just so I can say “I know that guy, I remember when he was a scrawny kid,” yada yada yada. So trying to catch up on all of Flint’s movies, some are very bad Zombie movies, others are summer blockbusters like The Hulk, I had to sit through the HBO John Adams mini-series where he did stunts. Even trying to escape the cares and worries of what’s going in the world, I’m lead back to US politics. Watching John Adams it struck me as odd how different John Adams was from our current President.

In his closing arguments defending British soldiers who shot into a rioting crowd killing 5 colonists, he said, ” "The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations and wanton tempers of men." None of the soldiers was convicted of murder. Thus setting up the foundation that regardless of class and circumstance, no man is above the law, and all men are to be treated equally before the law, even against popular condemnation. The US from its beginning was founded on the Rule of Law.

President Obama on the other hand “informed” BP, that they would forgo their rights to due process, and give the government billions of dollars to pay claims for damages due to the Gulf oil spill. BP has not been proven to cheat anybody, or evade its responsibility for the damages it’s caused. BP is not refusing to pay legitimate claims. They got caught taking shortcuts to save money and time, and appear to be willing to pay for the damages that their risky actions caused. They have made over 25,000 claim payments for over $63 million already and repeatedly insist they will pay all legitimate claims. Their actions to date have not shown any attempt to evade their liability. BP is a group of people (stock holders), and as such those people have rights. Including property rights as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution which says, "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Obama’s extortion of Billions of dollars of stock holder’s money clearly violates the Fifth Amendment, and puts Obama’s dictates above the rule of law.

Maybe if Obama like John Adams started every day with a flagon of hard cider, he’d mellow out a bit and like the lawyer he is, uphold the rule of law. How very different the lawyer presidents Obama and John Adams are. John Adams while fighting for self rule fought to defend British soldiers because he believed in the Rule of Law.

Rule of Law: Definition - Absolute predominance or supremacy of ordinary law of the land over all citizens, no matter how powerful. First expounded by the UK law Professor A. V. Dicey in his 1885 book 'Introduction To The Study Of Law Of The Constitution,' it is based on three principles that (1) legal duties, and liability to punishment, of all citizens, is determined by the ordinary (regular) law and not by any arbitrary official fiat, government decree, or wide discretionary-powers, (2) disputes between citizens and government officials are to be determined by the ordinary courts applying ordinary law, and the (3) fundamental rights of the citizens (freedom of the person, freedom of association, freedom of speech) are rooted in the natural law, and are not dependent on any abstract constitutional concept, declaration, or guaranty.

Obama by arbitrary official fiat took the property of citizens without due process(40% of BP shareholders are us citizens). If we the people allow this to continue, all of our rights are in jeopardy of being eliminated or overruled by arbitrary official fiat or government decree.

All of our unalienable rights are based on a very few very old principles, primarily the Rule of Law. Taking the property of another whether through theft, extortion, or fraud is wrong. Because we have lawyers we have to have lots of laws hammering down that principle. Based on the Rule of Law, a thief, whether rich or poor, whether black or white or brown or yellow or freckled, whether male or female or transgendered, whether politician or ordinary citizen is supposed to be treated the same. Why is Obama’s extortion of BP stockholders future and current earnings above the law? If the government deny the right to due process to one of the biggest corporations in the world what’s to stop it from denying any right to anybody? Obama, like Don Corleone, made an offer; BP couldn’t refuse. I wonder what “horse’s head” ended up in BP’s Bed?

The press, be it a little read blog, or CNN, under the rule of law should be treated the same legally. The government is actively trying to eliminate citizen journalism. A “free press” was good and grand when only the rich could afford to publish and the voices and ideas of “small people” were just a little background buzz. Like the Industrial revolution which made complex machinery, indoor plumbing, and luxury products affordable to virtually everybody, the information revolution has made publishing and the press affordable to everybody. This means the elite no longer have access and means to control the press, and to what information the public at large is exposed. “Great” journalists like Dan Rather and Helen Thomas have been put to pasture because rich elites no longer control the press. Before the information revolution, the recording of Helen Thomas’ anti-Israel rant would have been squelched and used by powerful elite to sway her writings. Matt Drudge is proof of what one person free from the editorial control of the rich elite can do. President Clinton was impeached because of freedom of the press and all publishers of the press, be they large or small, being treated equally under the law. Because of the Rule of Law, a nobody pounding away on a computer in the public library is now free to expose government and corporate abuses, no longer is the news limited to what editors, beholding to the powers who pay them, say is the news.

If we ignore the rule of law, as Obama is with BP and did with GM, then all of our rights, like freedom of the press, freedom from unreasonable search and seizures, free speech, and freedom of religion can be taken away without due process or accountability. I mean, if the rule of law is ignored, we’d start seeing people arrested and locked up for talking about religion in public and the police seizing their video cameras so the government can hide or lie about what happens. (oops that happened in Michigan over the weekend CLICK HERE)

Our leaders are very frustrated over the Rule of Law, free press, and the Constitution in general. It keeps getting in the way of their dictates. The free press is keeping Pelosi from pushing through legislation to squelch political speech. Obama while campaigning lamented that the constitution gets in the way of making significant changes. Because a free press, free speech, and a liberty minded populace is making it difficult to create “law”, the elitists are resorting to arbitrary government fiat, and granting bureaucracies wide discretionary powers, to avoid accountability and constitutional restrictions. By ignoring the Rule of Law, Obama is abusing the rights of all citizens, not just BP. He is our president not our King, he is not above the rule of law.

The end of the Rule of Law is happening in the USA, why are we tolerating it?

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Alex Snitker at Candidate Forum In Citrus Hills On Fri 6/25

Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:46:03 -0400
From: mattosedna@embarqmail.com
Subject: Alex Snitker on the Dave McCoy Show Friday 3PM

As a result of our email "Editor's and Publisher's Forum Drama Rules in Senate Race", Radio host Dave McCoy contacted me to invite Alex Snitker, Candidate for U.S. Senate 2010, to speak on his radio show. Alex will be on his show this Friday at 3:00PM. I encourage everyone to tune in if you have the opportunity. It is important for us to learn how the media, political groups, special interest groups and money pick and chose our candidates for us. We the voters, sometimes end up with sterilized candidates that do not represent our interests, but instead represent the interests of those supporting them.

Alex Snitker, Jason Sager, Jimmie Smith, Rep. Ron Schultz, Sheriff Nugent and others will also speak at another Candidate Forum today starting at 7PM at the Citrus Springs Community Center.

The Citrus County Tea Party Patriots will sponsor a non-partisan 'Candidate Evening' debate in July. More information will follow shortly. We are currently seeking sponsors. Please contact me via e-mail if you are interested. Join our network of concerned citizens by visiting our website:
http://citruscountycitizens.ning.com - Citrus County Citizens - Connecting the Community.
More than ever it is important to stay informed, and engaged in our political process. Start a group and invite your friends, chat online, create forum discussions. We all need to participate in order to effectuate positive change. The movement is exploding, be a part of history by joining our movement today.

Remember, 3:00PM this Friday!


This is the link to 1390AM WFHT 'Talk with an Attitude' online - The Dave McCoy Show - Weekdays 3PM TO 4PM

If this link doesn't work use this link and click on 'Listen Live Now'

Other Favorite Programs on WFHT
Michael Savage
1pm to 3pm
6pm to 9pm

Mark Levin
9pm to midnight

Neal Boortz
10am to 1pm

Lou Doobs
4pm to 6pm

The Mancow Show
6am to 10am

The Phil Hendrie Show
1am to 5am

We are Teaching Our Youth to Accept Totalitarianism

It starts out the very first class in Kindergarten, because there are not unlimited funds, the kids are given a list of things the class needs, and everybody is expected to bring: safety scissors, crayons, etc. Now because not all kids can afford those things a note is added that asks if you can that you also buy enough for another student. Generously that happens and usually there is extra. So far so good, the kids see charity and voluntary caring for those less fortunate. Then the Kindergarten teacher gets all socialist. Rather than let each student keep and use the property they brought in, and give the extras to those who couldn’t afford any, demonstrating that Americans can and will voluntarily help those less fortunate, all the supplies get combined into individual tubs, all the scissors in one tub, crayons in another, they all become everybody’s community property. This way the kid who’s parents bought the best Crayola crayons doesn’t have something better than the kid who’s parents could only afford the cheap generic ones. It’s not “fair” that some have nicer things than others and we are trying to teach that community property is better than private property. In fact private property rights of children are suppressed and treated as evil.

Next year in first grade when the parents get the list almost all of them purchases the cheapest stuff they can, because since it all becomes community property, there is no reason to provide the best you can, your kid will probably not benefit from your added expense, since there is no ownership, there is incentive to provide the best. Since nobody will see that there is charity to those who are less fortunate, few parents provide extra for the community, and often there is not enough to go around, so some of last year’s old worn out supplies are recycled, or pleas for more support are issued. It’s not “fair” that some get better, or have more, etc. so right from the start the first lesson our schools teach is community property, and it’s not fair that some have more than others. Although not said our actions in school teach socialism.

When our children go to middle and high school, the Bill of Rights is barely mentioned, but the actions of the school are that the “Authority” has the right to search you whenever they want; force you to testify against yourself, you have no right to defend yourself, you have no freedom of speech, you have no right to privacy, you have no right to a fair hearing or trial, and due process is what the authorities say it is. Arbitrary rules with no basis in fact can and are abusively enforced. If at lunch you use a plastic knife to spread peanut butter on your crackers; you’re expelled for having a knife on campus. Imagine a 15 yr old girl expelled for having a Mydol to relieve cramps from her monthly friend. Or an 8 year old boy suspended for drawing a soldier with a gun (his dad’s in the National Guard). How about throwing both the bully and the victim out of school for fighting, doesn’t matter who started it if you hit back and defend yourself your suspended or expelled, you have no right to either due process or self defense.

When two Norview High School teachers distributed classroom materials to a 12th grade government class, which gave advice on how to deal with police if stopped, they were placed on paid administrative leave because the materials where “unauthorized.” They’d shown a video from Flex Your Rights which explains how legal rights apply to police searches of vehicles, homes or individuals and how people can cite those rights during encounters with police. Clearly it’s unauthorized to teach students when and how they can tell authorities no. (Watch the Video)

The results are that our students know that the authorities can abuse them and that bucking authority has swift arbitrary punishment without due process, and although they may have “rights” the reality is they are subjects to authoritarian rule. Worse is the fact that they are ignorant of their rights and how our government works. In a national survey of high school students it was revealed that only:
  • 2% can identify the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
  • 35% know that "we the people" are the first three words of the U.S. Constitution
  • 1.8% know that James Madison is considered the father of the U.S. Constitution
  • 25% know that the Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy and self incrimination, among other legal rights.

    Think it gets better in college, visit http://www.thefire.org and review the legal cases they have fought. Look at all the cases they have exposed where due process is denied and the arbitrary dictates of University Leaders are the law, and students have no rights except not to be offended. They give most Florida Universities a red light on protecting individual rights. Just note that at the University of Florida examples of Prohibited Conduct Include, but Are Not Limited To:

  • Writing or displaying letters, notes, or e-mails which are derogatory toward any individual's race, color, marital status, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or military status.
  • Making comments, slurs, or jokes which are derogatory toward any individual's race, color, marital status, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or military status. ...
  • Making gestures or displaying pictures, cartoons, posters, or magazines which are derogatory toward any individual's race, color, marital status, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or military status ....

    I guess if you’re a college student at UF, you have to watch South Park in secret. The First Amendment at this publicly funded university is not even a consideration. Again we teach that the authorities have the right to control what you say and do.

    Is it a wonder that since from the day kids start school until the graduate college the actions of our schools hammer into them the fact that those in power can control you, and we don’t teach by action or word what unalienable rights are, or the founding principles of our country and government, that there is no outcry when our President acts like a third world despot. Due process and the rule of law are not discussed and definitely not demonstrated by our schools to our children.

    Look at our public elementary and secondary schools, they look like prisons, bared doors, armed polices wandering the halls, and nearly constant surveillance. Our student’s time in school is marked by overreaching zero tolerance policies, heightened security and surveillance and a greater emphasis on conformity. The result is the acceptance of destruction of privacy and freedom. In fact I believe we are now in The War on Kids www.thewaronkids.com

    Maybe that’s been the goal all along, to change the education system to teach the people to accept totalitarianism. It is the results.

    How else do you explain the people of this country accepting the third world like despotism of Obama extorting 20 billion from BP without due process? When did Obama become Judge and Jury and get granted the power to adjudicate crime and pass sentences on private corporations? He’s not a judge. When did Obama get the power and authority to create laws that allows the federal government to take the assets of a private company and determine how best to distribute them to people the private company may have hurt without a trial? He’s no longer a Senator. What law granted Obama the power and authority to deny BP due process? When did the USA become a totalitarian state with the President having the powers to dictate the actions of private companies? When we took teaching civics and the bill of rights out of our schools and taught socialism and totalitarianism by example.

    Obama is acting like a King not a president. Our schools have taught our children to accept totalitarianism. Imagine if they were teaching what a few decades ago was common. We must change what and how our schools teach our children about civil rights and government. Graduating high school students don’t even know as much as kids who watched Saturday morning TV did in the 70’s. When was the last time you heard or saw a School House Rock video? I’ll close with the lyrics of the School House Rock song No More Kings (Watch Here)

    Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashin',
    Over the horizon, what can it be?

    The pilgrims sailed the sea
    To find a place to call their own.
    In their ship Mayflower,
    They hoped to find a better home.
    They finally knocked
    On Plymouth Rock
    And someone said, "We're there."
    It may not look like home
    But at this point I don't care.

    Oh, they were missing Mother England,
    They swore their loyalty until the very end.
    Anything you say, King,
    It's OK, King,
    You know it's kinda scary on your own.
    Gonna build a new land
    The way we planned.
    Could you help us run it till it's grown?

    They planted corn, you know
    They built their houses one by one,
    And bit by bit they worked
    Until the colonies were done.
    They looked around,
    Yeah, up and down,
    And someone said, "Hurray!"
    If the king could only see us now
    He would be proud of us today.

    They knew that now they'd run their own land,
    But George the Third still vowed
    He'd rule them till the end.
    Anything I say, do it my way now.
    Anything I say, do it my way.
    Don't you get to feeling independent
    'Cause I'm gonna force you to obey.

    He taxed their property,
    He didn't give them any choice,
    And back in England,
    He didn't give them any voice.
    (That's called taxation without representation,
    and it's not fair!)
    But when the Colonies complained
    The king said: "I don't care!"

    He even has the nerve
    To tax our cup of tea.
    To put it kindly, King,
    We really don't agree.

    Gonna show you how we feel.
    We're gonna dump this tea
    And turn this harbor into
    The biggest cup of tea in history!

    They wanted no more Mother England.
    They knew the time had come
    For them to take command.
    It's very clear you're being unfair, King,
    No matter what you say, we won't obey.
    Gonna hold a revolution now, King,
    And we're gonna run it all our way
    With no more kings...

    We're gonna elect a president! (No more kings)
    He's gonna do what the people want! (No more kings)
    We're gonna run things our way! (No more kings)
    Nobody's gonna tell us what to do!

    Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashin',
    Over the horizon, what can it be?
    Looks like it's going to be a free country.
  • Saturday, June 19, 2010

    Citizen Press embarasses Government Official

    Why Elected Officials are trying to curb, citizen journalism, free speech, and the internet? Watch this video of a polite high school student interviewing a state Senator, and you'll see why.

    Our elected officials really don’t like well educated, informed citizens, actually holding them accountable for their actions.

    Friday, June 18, 2010

    Press Actively Works To Suppress Libertarian Candidates Exposure

    When the Florida Press Association invited U.S. Senate candidates to speak to the media at the Ritz-Carlton on Thursday, They invited 4 US Senatorial candidates to speak, claiming that only those who reached 10% polling in a major pole were invited. Two problems, one it's a lie; Green hasn't reached 10%; and two since the press pays for the major polls, and won’t put any non-career politicians in the polls only those ordained by the press can reach 10%.

    Snitker has been claiming that the press won't cover them, and is trying to stop or hide coverage of those who are not career politicians, or billionaires. Evidence of it is clear. Yesterday in a bold move Alex Snitker crashed the Florida Press Association media event. He calmly and coolly requested a chance to be heard, he was escorted out by security. The press' response:

    In Fox News' Coverage never mentioned him or the fireworks from Snitker challenging the establishment. http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/sun_coast/top-candidates-for-senate-governor-meet-in-sarasota-061810

    The Associate Press coverage had no mention of the event. http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/17/1686686/fla-senate-candidates-talk-federal.html

    The New York Times Regional Media Group reporting in the Sarasota Ledger, says Nada, no mention of Snitker. http://www.theledger.com/article/20100617/NEWS/6175080/1001

    Sarasota ABC News Channel 7 has video's of the media event, but never even a mention that the historic first time ever on the state ballot Libertarian Candidate was there, and wasn't invited. http://www.mysuncoast.com/Global/story.asp?S=12668696

    Local news paper, the Sarasota Herald/Tribune also ignored it. http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100618/ARTICLE/6181031/2055/NEWS

    Obviously the main stream news not only doesn't want to cover the Libertarian Party, they appear to be suppressing it actively. It looks like the only way they will cover anything besides the Democrats and Republicans is if you’re a sitting governor, or a billionaire. If regular people try to become active in politics and government, the press is obviously against them.

    Official Snitker Press Release

    Snitker Crashes Press Event, Demands To Be Heard

    After being snubbed by the media, Alex Snitker crashes a candidate forum hosted by the Florida Press Association to speak to the assembly.

    (Press Release) – Jun 18, 2010 – SARASOTA, FLA - When the Florida Press Association invited U.S. Senate candidates to speak to the media at the Ritz-Carlton on Thursday, there was one name absent from the list. Charlie Crist, Republican Marco Rubio, and Democrat Kendrick Meek all made the list. Even long-shot Democrat billionaire Jeff Greene was included.

    However, Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate Alex Snitker was not invited.

    But that didn't stop him from crashing the event to ask the FPA why he was excluded. After Marco Rubio finished his 15-minutes at the podium, Snitker stepped to the microphone in the aisle and said, “I'd like to make a statement. I think denying a person who served eight years in the United States Marine Corps defending your right to have this today...is an atrocity.”

    Snitker admonished the assembled press, saying, “You keep saying that career politicians are the problem, and you're only going to allow career politicians and a billionaire on stage. You want to talk about the tea party candidate? It's not Marco Rubio – it's Alexander Snitker.”

    FPA President Dean Ridings told Snitker that he would not be granted the opportunity to speak and called for security. Shortly thereafter, Snitker was politely escorted from the event by security, with a flock of reporters in tow.

    Snitker is the first Libertarian ever to appear on the ballot for U.S. Senate in Florida. The Libertarian Party is fully recognized by the State of Florida, and is the third largest political party in the state.

    According to Florida Division of Elections procedures, Snitker's name will appear above Charlie Crist on the ballot, because Crist is running with no party affiliation. In a May poll, Snitker received 12% support in among likely voters familiar with him, Rubio, Crist, Meek.

    “The mainstream media has intentionally ignored Alex, despite the groundswell of grassroots support, and despite all our efforts to reach out to them,” said Snitker campaign manager Kelly Lobean. “We've made the decision that we can no longer play by the status quo rules of politics.”

    The decision appears to have paid off. Within minutes of Snitker's impromptu speech, tweets were flying among media insiders. Several newspapers and 6-o'clock news programs were running the story, and even the Associated Press had weighed in.

    “We're just looking for a level playing field, that's all,” said Adrian Wyllie, campaign media director. “We have called press conferences, sent out dozens of press releases, and spoken with countless TV news producers. If they won't report the news, then we are forced to make the news.”

    Wednesday, June 16, 2010

    Jon Stewart on Obama's broken civil liberties promises

    The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
    Respect My Authoritah
    Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party

    Even liberals are now realizing Obama is not a man of the people.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010

    The Letter “P”

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    You should recognize those words as the preamble to the United States of America. Preamble is our first “P” word. Exactly what is a preamble and the Preamble. According to Dictionary.com:

    1. an introductory statement; preface; introduction.
    2. the introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows.
    3. a preliminary or introductory fact or circumstance: His childhood in the slums was a preamble to a life of crime.
    4. ( initial capital letter ) the introductory statement of the U.S. Constitution, setting forth the general principles of American government and beginning with the words, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. …”

    Like the Declaration of Independence sets forth and describes the purpose of our government, the Preamble to the constitution sets forth the general principles of out government.

    Purpose is our next “P” word. Exactly what is the purpose of our government? That is a very easy question to answer it was spelled out in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    Most people in government want more and more power have plainly persistently perverted the meaning of the constitution, and ignore the principles and purpose proposed and instituted by our forefathers for our government. They use the "general welfare" clause to validate social welfare and wealth re-distrubution. From the Preamble it is clear that government funded charity was never a principle espoused by our constitution or our forefathers. It was never a principle or duty or requirement of our government to provide for citizens, but always to promote their welfare by protecting individual rights.

    Lets go back to dictionary.com and look at our other two "P" words, both are found in the Preamble.

    –verb (used with object), -mot•ed, -mot•ing.
  • 1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.
  • 2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. ( opposed to demote).
  • 3. Education . to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.
  • 4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings).
  • 5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), esp. through advertising or other publicity.
  • 6. Informal . to obtain (something) by cunning or trickery; wangle.

    –verb (used with object)
  • 1. to make available; furnish: to provide employees with various benefits.
  • 2. to supply or equip: to provide the army with new fighter planes.
  • 3. to afford or yield.
  • 4. Law . to arrange for or stipulate beforehand, as by a provision or proviso.
  • 5. Archaic . to prepare or procure beforehand.
    –verb (used without object)
  • 6. to take measures with due foresight (usually fol. by for or against ).
  • 7. to make arrangements for supplying means of support, money, etc. (usually fol. by for ): He provided for his children in his will.
  • 8. to supply means of support (often fol. by for ): to provide for oneself.

    Obviously our forefathers knew the difference between promoting something and providing something. All the writings of our forefathers are consistent with the idea that the federal government was never given the power to provide charity. It is also obvious that they thought the government does and should have the authority to provide for the common defense, hence fund the military, which I believe includes providing for the health and well being of soldiers (even after they retire). Obviously they used the correct “P” word to indicate what they thought was the purpose and principles if government, and what government should promote and provide. Just because we have allowed our leadership over the past 70 years to slowly add more and more charitable provision for general welfare does not make it right.

    Promoting the General Welfare does not and should not include providing for the specific welfare of individual citizens.

    This message was brought to you by the letter “P”, which stands for preamble, principle, purpose, protect, promote and provide. If you understand the meaning of these words, you probably understand that we are in a mess because our elected leaders either don’t understand them, or choose to ignore them.
  • Monday, June 14, 2010

    Equal Justice For All

    Since a little kid I’ve been saying the pledge of allegiance, no doubt you have too; “I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the republic “… yada, yada, yada … “with Liberty and Justice for All.” Our elected leaders regularly reaffirm this pledge. The Supreme Court Building in DC has inscribed over its doors “Equal Justice Under the Law” Our Constitution starts out in the Preamble to “Establish Justice.” The Declaration of Independence is almost entirely based on the effect of the colonies not receiving equal justice from the King. When it was found that our constitution did not adequately provide equal justice for all we’ve added the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 24th, amendments. The people of this nation have not copied or tried to emulate other nations, but have set an example, worked and fought for Equal Justice for All.

    The concept of Equal Justice for All is not new, The earliest reference I can find to is it from the Bible, Leviticus 19:14-16 "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly". Unlike virtually every other nation in the world, our country has tried to create a system of governance that upholds the idea of Equal Justice For All, or "rule of law." B.H. Obama clearly does not believe in equal justice. The concept may be dead with the current majority of leaders in our formerly great nation. The USA appears to be moving away from its constitutional foundation and towards some bastardized oligarchy.

    Consider a regular person who’s made some bad financial decisions, too big a mortgage, racked up big credit card debts, and is paying for a car they can’t afford, so is forced into bankruptcy. The court sells off all the assets and repays the debts according to the law. Since the mortgage and car were secured by the assets in question they get paid off first, if there is any remaining the unsecured credit cards get what’s left. Consider GM’s bankruptcy, rather than follow the law, the Obama administration forced agreements which paid off the unsecured creditors (Trade Unions) first, and forced acceptance of minimal payments to the secured mortgage holders of GM property. This is not equal justice; this is political payback for union support. GM should have been held to the same standard every other person in debt in this country is held to.

    Our system has been perverted by both parties. Instead of equal justice for all, we are now seeing a different set of rules for the rich and powerful than for the people. Our elected leader in Washington, Democrat or Republican, no longer take their direction from the people, but from corporate benefactors whose wealth and access shape policy. The current administration has openly offered political jobs in order to sway elections. Corporations and the super rich have made a virtual science of manipulating the system to protect themselves from competition and regulation and our self interested politicians fight each other to accommodate them. We end up with a system where profits are privatized and the debts are socialized. For the ruling elite it’s a great system, if your decisions are profitable you get to keep the profits, if your decisions are not profitable you get to pass your losses to the tax payers. The whole concept of “Too Big to Fail” is antithetical to the concept of Equal Justice for All. The banks and Wall Street, should have been allowed to fail just like main street. Forcing Main Street (you and I) to absorb and take the debt of the banks and Wall Street is not Equal Justice; It’s not free enterprise, it’s not capitalism, it’s not even socialism. We are starting to look not like a Democracy or Republic but a Kleptocratic Oligarchy.

    Our tax funds which could have been used for hospitals, schools, roads, parks and the like were used to purchase GM and make it a government/union owned corporation at the expense of its investors and tax payers. Our tax funds which could have been used for hospitals, schools, roads, parks and the like were used to bail out banks which made very bad business decisions. Our tax funds which could have been used for hospitals, schools, roads, parks and the like were used to create a slush fund for the president to pay off political cronies. These are the actions of a Kleptocracy not a republic.

    From Wikipedia
    The effects of a kleptocratic regime or government on a nation are typically adverse in regards to the faring of the state's economy, political affairs and civil rights. Kleptocracy in government often vitiates prospects of foreign investment and drastically weakens the domestic market and cross-border trade. As the kleptocracy normally embezzles money from its citizens by misusing funds derived from tax payments, or money laundering schemes, a kleptocratically structured political system tends to degrade nearly everyone's quality of life.

    In addition, the money that kleptocrats steal is often taken from funds that were earmarked for public amenities, such as the building of hospitals, schools, roads, parks and the like - which has further adverse effects on the quality of life of the citizens living under a kleptocracy. The quasi-oligarchy that results from a kleptocratic elite also subverts democracy (or any other political format the state is ostensibly under).
    It’s scary how the effects of our current leadership resemble those Wikipedia describes as the effects of a kleptocracy.

    Saturday, June 12, 2010

    Elites hate Citizen Journalism

    The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

    People in power really don't like that whole freedom of speech and press thing, as it can be used to expose them and to sway public opinion in ways they can't control. Lucky for them the freedom of the press was very costly; few if any people could afford a printing press, or as technology advanced a Radio Station, or TV station. Because exercising your right to free press and free speech, was relatively expensive, the rich and powerful maintained control of the message to which the masses of people were exposed. About the most any individual citizen could do to print a very limited number of hand bills and try to hand them out. This is effective and can work for small local elections, but for state and federal elections the cost of the press pretty much makes upper levels of politics a domain for the rich ruling elite. They like it that way.

    The past 20 years have seen a revolution in information. The press, printing and disseminating information to large numbers of people has gone from being a hugely expensive undertaking to costing almost nothing. Now instead of a relative few people who can report news and opinion, anybody who wants to can. Virtually all of America walks around with cell phone that has instant access to free news, and includes a still or video camera in their pocket. This means that when the police or some other government agent days or does something, it can and is routinely reported by ordinary people, no longer does an “Editor” or somebody in charge decide to spike a story, or lie about it uncontested. With virtually everybody having the ability to almost instantly and for virtually no cost, verify the veracity of a news story, or politician’s claims, there is no question that the quality and truthfulness of news is better.

    Dan Rather, arguably the most influential reporter in history, had his career ended because he was playing by the old rules, where what CBS said was fact, was treated as fact, and nobody had enough voice to challenge those facts. When he used what he knew to be forged National Guard documents, to try and end the Rino president G.W. Bush’s second term election bid. It was the internet, and dogged research by people outside of the “mainstream” news that ended up killing his career. The 24 year CBS Veteran, is now relegated to reporting for HDNet News LINK. As of this writing his web page at HDNet does have 261 people who like it. Even the Libertarian Party (of which I’m an active member), the small party that the mainstream press tries to make irrelevant, has around 55,000 people who like it. Obviously either mainstream press is very much in error on the LP or Dan Rather is virtually nonexistent as a news reporter (could be both).

    The point is that the power elite people with money, be they Democrat or Republican can no longer dole out favors, bribes, and access, to control the press. The press is no longer just who can afford to Print a Paper, or Own a TV station. The Press is now anybody and everybody who wants to say “Look at what’s Happening!” Whether it’s a human interest story about a dog nursing a kitten, or the police violating civil rights or an established member of the “Mainstream” press spouting off anti-Semitic remarks, youtube, google, FaceBook, Yahoo, and the entire Blogosphere have given you and me a voice. The whole point of freedom of the press and free choice is that people are free to choose what news if any they want, where they get it, and what it’s worth both financially and credibly.

    The powers in government and big business really really really don’t like this. June 15th at the National Press Club the FTC is having a work shop titled "How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?" The FTC and the ruling elite seem to think that Journalism cannot survive without the help of Government. Because of this stupid internet the public, has been able to see their 47-page of draft recommendations titled, POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM . Since people read about it and started saying, “Woa, what about freedom of the press?” the FTC has had to release a press release saying that these are only “Ideas” and not really “recommendations” (LINK).

    Some of the proposed Recommendations include “Drudge Tax” and “Licensing the News” the major goal is to keep the old print press in business and power, and make news “Publicly funded”. Once the government funds the news, don’t you think that the guy with the purse strings might just influence news. Look at NPR, they do quality work, but there can be no argument that NPR is unbiased. NPR has a clear agenda against conservative ideas, and even more ardent agenda against Libertarian ideas. This is what publicly funded news will look like. If the FTC and the big business big government pro-dual party ruling elite get there way, this very blog, where I posted this editorial, will no longer be legal. If you look at history, and other countries, you see that freedom of the press is directly proportional to individual freedom. China and other repressive countries insist on controlling the news and access to news. Control of what information people have access, makes controlling the people easier. Ask yourself why our government is trying to limit and better control who can and can’t publish news?

    It really looks like politicians and rich communication business conglomerates wish the whole first amendment didn’t exist. The ruling elite do not want citizen journalism. They want to put news and opinion back in to the control of those with big money. All of the proposed “Policies” to “reinvent journalism” violate the 1st amendment. I don’t care if your Republican or Democrat (but I hope your neither), this is an issue that cannot go ignored, and I urge you to contact all your representatives and remind them that they shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

    Friday, June 11, 2010


    Libertarian Party of Florida
    Official News Letter


    Thursday, June 10, 2010

    An Apology to Liberals

    This is a hart felt apology to all my liberal friends and acquaintances. I have often in the past entered into heated debates on health care, property rights, taxes, welfare, and the like. I've consistently presented historical evidence and libertarian views. Whether or not they realize it; virtually all these debates center on economics. I'm sorry; the research has confirmed what others have written about, and I failed to accept. Liberals do not, and possibly cannot, understand basic economics. In the Buturovic and Klein article in the Econ Journal Watch, Economic Enlightenment in Relation to College-going, Ideology, and Other Variables: A Zogby Survey of Americans, it was shown that regardless of education level, liberals do not understand basic economics.

    In his Wall Street Journal Opinion based on his research Klein writes
    Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

    Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.

    . . .

    In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.

    The huge disparity between liberals and libertarians cannot be ignored. Liberals do not understand economics. Now when faced with economic facts, not opinions, liberals dismiss the facts as irrelevant, because they desperately want a desired outcome, the will sacrifice freedom and liberty against all rationality to reach their desire. I found Buturovic’s and Klein’s conclusions about liberals in education to be compelling.

    I dismissed a 2007 book by Psychologist Dr. Lyle Rossiter, because I thought it may be politically not scientifically motivated, I must also apologize to Dr. Rossiter. I was wrong. His observations were exactly correct, the Buturovic and Klein confirm his observations.

    "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

    "A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

    "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

    Obviously hammering liberals with facts, and trying to hold them accountable to logic and historical evidence is pointless. They simply cannot understand economic reality because the very neurosis that makes them liberal makes it impossible for them to comprehend the results of their actions. A prime current example is the talk of another Stimulus Package from the government in the wake of the demonstrable failure of both TARP, from liberal Republican G.W. Bush’s administration, and the Economic Stimulus Package, by the Obama Administration.

    To all my liberal friends and associates, whose sensibilities and feelings I’ve hurt, I’m sorry, I didn’t accept the facts of your condition when they were presented to me. I now understand that it is beyond your ability to discern the normal responsibilities of adulthood, and accept individual responsibility and liberty.

    Tuesday, June 8, 2010

    111th Congress Assaults Civil Rights

    Former Libertarian Presidential Candidate Bob Barr points out how the current contress is assaulting Civil Liberties at an alarming rate.

    Pre-paid cell phones may be outlawed
    June 7, 2010, by Bob Barr

    This session of the 111th Congress has been one that will go down in infamy by virtue of its assault on privacy and other civil liberties. Several of these problematic provisions have not yet made it to President Barack Obama’s desk, but in today’s political environment, resisting them will be difficult. Many in the Congress still tremble as a result of the Times Square bombing attempt; even as many also remain gripped by the hysteria surrounding the as-yet unproven Toyota rogue acceleration problem.

    The latest civil liberties victim of Times Square Brainiac Faisal Shahzad’s feeble attempt at terrorism fame is the pre-paid cell phone. This innocuous device, available now to virtually anyone wishing to buy a cheap cell phone useable for a limited period, represents perhaps the last opportunity for a person to communicate anonymously. Yet, these devices are being targeted for extinction by a pair of United States Senators simply because the failed Times Square bomber used one in his preparatory activities; and law enforcement discovered this not because the purchase of the cell phone was recorded in an accessible database, but because Shahzad made at least one call to a number already on a government list of suspected terrorists.

    Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer now has teamed with his Republican colleague from Texas, John Cornyn, and introduced a bill that would employ the heavy hand of federal law to prohibit anonymous cell phones. Leaving aside the question of where the Congress finds authority in the Constitution to do this, it is certain that many of their colleagues will jump at this latest chance to prove they are as tough on terrorists as the next guy, whatever the cost to the rest of the citizenry.

    While Sens. Schumer and Cornyn may believe that the only people who purchase prepaid cell phones are terrorists, the fact is, many average, law-abiding citizens use such devices regularly. Some people do so because they may not have the funds or the creditworthiness to buy a cell phone with a network plan. Others may do so precisely because of the anonymity such phones offer; something especially important for journalists to be able to protect communications with their sources from being revealed.

    No matter to Schumer or Cornyn. To prevent one possible bad guy from purchasing a single prepaid cell phone, they’ll use their power as senators to prevent anyone from having one.

    The Times Square incident is not the only reason the Congress is seeking to curb the rights and privacy of all Americans. The hysteria resulting from last spring’s Toyota recall has energized the Congress to accelerate a move to require “black box” computers in every new car sold in America. This legislation, which was recently passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and is likely fast-tracked for an election-year floor vote, not only will add to the cost of a new vehicle but raises a host of privacy problems for the owners and drivers of such vehicles.

    In typical fashion, the House committee left it up to bureaucrats at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to decide what information the black boxes will monitor and record. The actual owner of the vehicle will not know what information about his car or his driving is being recorded, or who will have access to the data.

    In perhaps the most outrageous assault yet on Americans’ civil liberties this Congress, the House recently voted (with no Democrats and only 32 Republicans opposed) to greatly expand government’s ability to forcibly collect DNA samples from persons simply arrested for alleged criminal behavior. The measure does this by giving taxpayer monies to any state that passes a law doing the federal government’s bidding in this regard.

    One shudders to contemplate what the next Congress will do to match or exceed the anti-civil liberties record of this one.

    Sunday, June 6, 2010

    You Picked a Fine Time ......

    Patrick J. Michaels : More Political Climate Science - Townhall.com

    Just more evidence that Man Made Global Warming theory is about power not science and the politicization of academics. Of course that's not new ask Galileo.

    Patrick J. Michaels : More Political Climate Science - Townhall.com

    Wednesday, June 2, 2010

    Jail for Email

    Widely reported on the internet, but absent the Alphabet Media, we find that the first amendment is dead, no longer valid, and expressing your dissatisfaction with a duly elected federal government official can earn you an indictment.

    Bruce Shore, watching the Senate in inaction on C-Span, was angered when Bunning complained that, gosh, he has missed the Kentucky-South Carolina basketball game because he had to be in Congress to debate an unemployment-benefits bill. His Feb. 26 email in part said "Are you'all insane[?] No checks equal no food for me. DO YOU GET IT?"

    The results are that on May 13, U.S. marshals appeared at Shore's door and handed him a grand jury indictment. He was indicted because Shore "did utilize a telecommunications device, that is a computer, whether or not communication ensued, without disclosing his identity and with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, and harass any person who received the communication."

    Use a telephone, email, blog, tweet, etc. to "annoy" the person who receives the communications and you can go to jail. That's right send an email or fax to your duly elected official and if it annoys that official you too can be indicted by a grand jury.

    To quote the infamous commentator Earl Pitts, "WAKE UP AMARICA!"

    The government can make an example of one or two to try and shut up the American people, but 10 or 20 million of us will make it impossible for the government to do anything. Regardless of your political affiliation, this is an affront to your right to free speech. If they can send you to jail for an angry email to your congressman, then we have no freedom. We need to overwhelm the government, I urge everybody to send an email to all their federally elected officials saying "Are you'all insane?, DO YOU GET IT? What you’re doing effects me."