by Pete Blome, 3/10/2015
On March the 2nd, 2015, in a sparsely filled Collier County Florida Courtroom, Adrian Wyllie, the recent Libertarian candidate for Florida Governor, stood at the defense podium. He had no entourage or throng of supporters. This was his third appearance before judges on the matter of driving without a license. He refused to succumb to the invasive questioning required by the Real ID Act and have his personal information added to a national database without a warrant simply to get the privilege of a state issued driver’s license.
The details of Adrian’s civil disobedience did not impress the judge. He quickly cut short the defense presentation. The court would not listen to the violations of the U.S. and Florida Constitutions that inspired Adrian to stand alone, nor would it record the finely worded arguments of his lawyer. No one in the court would hear how the law robbed them of privacy or how the tentacles of surveillance were spreading throughout their lives. The recent years of sweat, worry, and sacrifice would come down to a few perfunctory words from a county judge.
He found him guilty. The judge said he applauded the defendant for his principles, and levied a $150 fine. Whether the judge was genuinely trying to enforce the law, victimize him, condescend to him, or simply following the path of legal least resistance, is anyone’s guess. It could have been worse. As a three time loser Adrian could easily have gone to jail.
A small matter in a small court about small people. It never would have happened at all except for Adrian’s persistent love of liberty. He thinks liberty is what makes living in the USA worthwhile. He wants others to feel as he does.
Unlike most of us, the cost of that love has been very real for him. Not having a driver’s license has limited his life in ways most of us do not even think about. He has court costs that he must pay out of pocket.
His business suffers. A simple trip to the bank becomes a convoluted task of proving one’s identity. Renting a vehicle becomes impossible.
Every drive to the store could result in trading in a comfortable night
at home for a cold cell in the county jail. Worry became a part of
his, and his family’s, way of life. He was jabbed by society in general in a dozen unseen ways every day for not having his papers. Still, he stuck to it.
To some, that was a foolish thing to do. Why suffer over this? Is defying the Real ID Act worth it? Since Adrian was active politically wouldn’t he do better moving as a free man than hobbled by self-imposed restrictions? The comfortable would say there are better ways of getting the point across without sacrifice. For them, we can live our lives, and can go home feeling secure in the knowledge we are free and have value. However, the contrast between the national myth and the reality is getting greater. What Adrian Wyllie shows is that we have the protection of the Bill of Rights, it seems, until we actually want to use them.
He still faces an uncertain future with real consequences. The legal penalties for defying the law will only become greater from this point on, and he has to decide what his next step will be. For every “Patrick Henry” that actually affects change there are dozens of unknown names that stood alone in courtrooms, like Collier County, and were consumed by the legal system no matter what protections citizens are supposed to have. Do the comfortable really know, or care, what happens to these people? Probably not. It’s not right, but that is just the way it is.
Good on you, Adrian, for going through all of this for the sake of
liberty. As Churchill once said, success is never final, and failure
never fatal, it is courage that counts.
Pete Blome is Chair of the Northwest Florida Libertarian Party and attended the trial of Adrian Wyllie 2 March.
Showing posts with label stupid laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stupid laws. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Friday, April 26, 2013
Most Absurd Legislation Ever
By Tom Rhodes, 4/26/2013
It's no surprise that the most absurd legislation ever proposed is from California. Long referred to as the land of fruits and nuts, AB 460 proves the point. In total disregard to biological science, and any semblance of reality, the fruits and nuts of California have proposed forcing insurance companies to pay for fertility treatments for gay people. This is nuts, well . . . not if their lesbians.
Reality has no place in the gay agenda, the rundown on AB 460 says is that insurance companies are required to provide infertility coverage to a couple if the couple says that they have been engaging in sexual relations regularly for a period of one year and have not been able to become pregnant or bring a child to live birth, even if that couple is homosexual.
This isn't about approval or disapproval of homosexuals, this is about biology and reality. Gay people can't make babies, period. We are a bisexual species not a homosexual species. You must have a person who has testes and a penis mating with a person who has ovaries and a uterus to procreate. No law is going to change that fact. Call me extreme for pointing out the obvious.
Ignoring reality, California State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano claims that somehow when an insurance company denies to a male-male couple infertility coverage they are "discriminating" based on sexual orientation. I mean who'd a thunk that after a year of sex with each other two lesbian women trying to get pregnant, that they would fail? You'd think that by now fundamental biology would have changed to accept the fact that if two people are in "love" it doesn't matter that they don't have the necessary physical equipment to produce a child. Obviously the Assemblyman didn't go far enough, and should have proposed changes to biologic and physiologic laws.
Ammiano's legislature aims to stop these "discrimination" practices. So if an insurance company refuses to provide infertility treatments for a gay or lesbian couple, who cannot have a baby after a year of having sex and trying to get pregnant, that insurance company would be guilty of a crime. Holy Crap, this is such BS that only the complete disbelief of reality common to a Democrat could understand the rationale for such legislation.
Please explain how anyone would ever expect a female-female couple, or a male-male couple to ever get pregnant and conceive a child through sex. Homosexual marriage isn't the issue here, the queer life style isn't the issue here, the point is that some fundamental reality cannot be changed by legislation. Seriously can anybody explain how this topic isn't absolutely ridiculous and how it would serve any practical purpose?
A penis-penis relationship will never make a baby, any coupling that doesn't include one person with a penis and one without will never make a baby. Human physiology is not going to change to make things "fair" for homosexuals. Choosing to engage in homosexual behavior and expecting that behavior to have the same physical results as a heterosexual behavior is absurd. No amount of wanting a baby to come from the "love" Amanda and Eve (or Adam and Steve) have for each other will change the fact that it aint happenin. There is nothing discriminatory about it. The fact that this legislation was even considered is a testament to how insane political correctness has become.
It's no surprise that the most absurd legislation ever proposed is from California. Long referred to as the land of fruits and nuts, AB 460 proves the point. In total disregard to biological science, and any semblance of reality, the fruits and nuts of California have proposed forcing insurance companies to pay for fertility treatments for gay people. This is nuts, well . . . not if their lesbians.
Reality has no place in the gay agenda, the rundown on AB 460 says is that insurance companies are required to provide infertility coverage to a couple if the couple says that they have been engaging in sexual relations regularly for a period of one year and have not been able to become pregnant or bring a child to live birth, even if that couple is homosexual.
This isn't about approval or disapproval of homosexuals, this is about biology and reality. Gay people can't make babies, period. We are a bisexual species not a homosexual species. You must have a person who has testes and a penis mating with a person who has ovaries and a uterus to procreate. No law is going to change that fact. Call me extreme for pointing out the obvious.
Ignoring reality, California State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano claims that somehow when an insurance company denies to a male-male couple infertility coverage they are "discriminating" based on sexual orientation. I mean who'd a thunk that after a year of sex with each other two lesbian women trying to get pregnant, that they would fail? You'd think that by now fundamental biology would have changed to accept the fact that if two people are in "love" it doesn't matter that they don't have the necessary physical equipment to produce a child. Obviously the Assemblyman didn't go far enough, and should have proposed changes to biologic and physiologic laws.
Ammiano's legislature aims to stop these "discrimination" practices. So if an insurance company refuses to provide infertility treatments for a gay or lesbian couple, who cannot have a baby after a year of having sex and trying to get pregnant, that insurance company would be guilty of a crime. Holy Crap, this is such BS that only the complete disbelief of reality common to a Democrat could understand the rationale for such legislation.
Please explain how anyone would ever expect a female-female couple, or a male-male couple to ever get pregnant and conceive a child through sex. Homosexual marriage isn't the issue here, the queer life style isn't the issue here, the point is that some fundamental reality cannot be changed by legislation. Seriously can anybody explain how this topic isn't absolutely ridiculous and how it would serve any practical purpose?
A penis-penis relationship will never make a baby, any coupling that doesn't include one person with a penis and one without will never make a baby. Human physiology is not going to change to make things "fair" for homosexuals. Choosing to engage in homosexual behavior and expecting that behavior to have the same physical results as a heterosexual behavior is absurd. No amount of wanting a baby to come from the "love" Amanda and Eve (or Adam and Steve) have for each other will change the fact that it aint happenin. There is nothing discriminatory about it. The fact that this legislation was even considered is a testament to how insane political correctness has become.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
MAP-21 Scary Law
By Tom Rhodes 4/18/12
This is one scary law.S. 1813: MAP-21
This law is full of over reaching nanny state requirements, and protection for government, but big-brother tracking of you and your car.
New MPO's cannot be challenged in court, they do have to allow local comments, but no requirement to act on them. Other legal crap like "this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding" make it sound like they want a Metropolitan Planning Orginization(MPO) is not legally accountable for it's actions. They aren't even accountable for doing what the law says they must. "The failure to take into consideration 1 or more of the factors specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not be subject to review by any court under this title, chapter 53 of title 49, subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, or chapter 7 of title 5 in any matter affecting a metropolitan transportation plan, a transportation improvement program, a project or strategy, or the certification of a planning process."
It's just Bad Law!
Scary part is that they are now going to require every car to have a black box SEC. 31406. Mandatory Event Data Recorders-
You may own the data, but the government can get the data if it wants. I think restoring that 1973 VW Bug is more important than ever.
We have too much government, and even a cursory glance at MAP-21 is scary.
It's passed the Senate, Contact your Represenative before the house votes and tell them to vote now on MAP-21
This is one scary law.S. 1813: MAP-21
This law is full of over reaching nanny state requirements, and protection for government, but big-brother tracking of you and your car.
New MPO's cannot be challenged in court, they do have to allow local comments, but no requirement to act on them. Other legal crap like "this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding" make it sound like they want a Metropolitan Planning Orginization(MPO) is not legally accountable for it's actions. They aren't even accountable for doing what the law says they must. "The failure to take into consideration 1 or more of the factors specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not be subject to review by any court under this title, chapter 53 of title 49, subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, or chapter 7 of title 5 in any matter affecting a metropolitan transportation plan, a transportation improvement program, a project or strategy, or the certification of a planning process."
It's just Bad Law!
Scary part is that they are now going to require every car to have a black box SEC. 31406. Mandatory Event Data Recorders-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015, that new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part.
You may own the data, but the government can get the data if it wants. I think restoring that 1973 VW Bug is more important than ever.
We have too much government, and even a cursory glance at MAP-21 is scary.
It's passed the Senate, Contact your Represenative before the house votes and tell them to vote now on MAP-21
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Watch the Watchmen
Editor's Note: I hope Mr. Stossel doesn't get mad, I reprinting his article in total here. This particular subject is a huge problem in the USA, and one I think and am working on having the Libertarian Party attack. You will note that there is a specific plank about filming government officials, including law enforcement, in the Proposed Platform which should be adopted at the end of the month at the Libertarian Party of Florida State Convention. Thank you Mr. Stossel for bringing this problem into the spotlite.
Watch the watchmen
John Stossel © 2011
April 20, 2011
I believe in the right to privacy.
Yet I can think of someone who deserves very little privacy – a policeman making an arrest. Unfortunately, in some states it's a crime to make a video of a policeman doing just that. People recording police have been threatened, detained or arrested. Some were jailed overnight.
That's wrong. Police work for the public, they're paid with tax money, and most importantly, they have tremendous power. They've got the legal right to pull guns, detain us, lock us up and, in some cases, shoot us. The potential for abuse is great. So it's a good thing that modern video cameras are now so commonplace. Any abuse of police power in a public place is likely to be recorded. Why should that be a crime in some states?
I asked Radley Balko, an editor at Reason magazine who keeps an eye on issues like this: What's happened to the people who were arrested for videotaping cops at work? Balko will be a guest on my Fox Business show this week.
"In most of these cases, the people aren't actually prosecuted," Balko said. "The charges tend to get dropped before these cases get to trial – I think because the people prosecuting these cases and the people who make the laws don't want the laws to actually get challenged. But it's a night in jail."
On what charge?
"In states that have these two-party consent laws, they rely on the old wiretapping laws. The claim is that police officers have a right to privacy while they're on the job in public exercising some pretty powerful responsibilities that we give them. I think that claim is ridiculous."
He says some authorities now claim that people who record the police while being arrested are "interfering with arrest or ... refusing to obey a lawful order, if they tell you to turn the camera off and you don't."
How does it interfere with the arrest?
"It's a ridiculous argument. But here's the thing: You may not go to jail for these charges. But they're going to take your camera, going to arrest you, you're going to be handcuffed, put in the back of a squad car. And nothing is going to happen to the police officers who illegally arrest you – usually."
Occasionally a cop caught abusing his power is arrested or fired. But that's rare.
In Maryland, motorcyclist Tony Graber got in trouble for recording a cop who pulled him over for speeding. Graber didn't know it was a cop. He was just a guy in plainclothes with a gun. The cop eventually identified himself.
"Graber didn't get arrested until he posted that video on YouTube," Balko explained. "Once he posted it ... the state police raided his home – came into his home early in the morning, guns drawn – confiscated a bunch of computer equipment, held him and his parents at gunpoint, arrested him. He spent several nights in jail. He had felony charges hanging over his head until the case finally got to court."
Fortunately, a state judge threw out the charges and wrote a strong opinion:
"Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation."
He ended by asking, "Who watches the watchmen?" – a question Plato raised in "The Republic." Good for the judge. But Balko points out that no one punished the authorities who abused their power.
"The prosecutor who charged him, the cops who raided him and arrested him – they were all wrong about the law and did real harm to him, and none of them are going to suffer any consequences."
Most police officers told us that they're fine with cameras, and some were happy they were recorded when they were vindicated of misconduct charges thanks to a video made by a bystander. The cops who object tend to be problem cops.
That little phone with a camera is a good thing. Now it's even a weapon against tyranny.
But, Balko added, only if the laws "ensure that we can continue to use it that way."
Watch the watchmen
John Stossel © 2011
April 20, 2011
I believe in the right to privacy.
Yet I can think of someone who deserves very little privacy – a policeman making an arrest. Unfortunately, in some states it's a crime to make a video of a policeman doing just that. People recording police have been threatened, detained or arrested. Some were jailed overnight.
That's wrong. Police work for the public, they're paid with tax money, and most importantly, they have tremendous power. They've got the legal right to pull guns, detain us, lock us up and, in some cases, shoot us. The potential for abuse is great. So it's a good thing that modern video cameras are now so commonplace. Any abuse of police power in a public place is likely to be recorded. Why should that be a crime in some states?
I asked Radley Balko, an editor at Reason magazine who keeps an eye on issues like this: What's happened to the people who were arrested for videotaping cops at work? Balko will be a guest on my Fox Business show this week.
"In most of these cases, the people aren't actually prosecuted," Balko said. "The charges tend to get dropped before these cases get to trial – I think because the people prosecuting these cases and the people who make the laws don't want the laws to actually get challenged. But it's a night in jail."
On what charge?
"In states that have these two-party consent laws, they rely on the old wiretapping laws. The claim is that police officers have a right to privacy while they're on the job in public exercising some pretty powerful responsibilities that we give them. I think that claim is ridiculous."
He says some authorities now claim that people who record the police while being arrested are "interfering with arrest or ... refusing to obey a lawful order, if they tell you to turn the camera off and you don't."
How does it interfere with the arrest?
"It's a ridiculous argument. But here's the thing: You may not go to jail for these charges. But they're going to take your camera, going to arrest you, you're going to be handcuffed, put in the back of a squad car. And nothing is going to happen to the police officers who illegally arrest you – usually."
Occasionally a cop caught abusing his power is arrested or fired. But that's rare.
In Maryland, motorcyclist Tony Graber got in trouble for recording a cop who pulled him over for speeding. Graber didn't know it was a cop. He was just a guy in plainclothes with a gun. The cop eventually identified himself.
"Graber didn't get arrested until he posted that video on YouTube," Balko explained. "Once he posted it ... the state police raided his home – came into his home early in the morning, guns drawn – confiscated a bunch of computer equipment, held him and his parents at gunpoint, arrested him. He spent several nights in jail. He had felony charges hanging over his head until the case finally got to court."
Fortunately, a state judge threw out the charges and wrote a strong opinion:
"Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation."
He ended by asking, "Who watches the watchmen?" – a question Plato raised in "The Republic." Good for the judge. But Balko points out that no one punished the authorities who abused their power.
"The prosecutor who charged him, the cops who raided him and arrested him – they were all wrong about the law and did real harm to him, and none of them are going to suffer any consequences."
Most police officers told us that they're fine with cameras, and some were happy they were recorded when they were vindicated of misconduct charges thanks to a video made by a bystander. The cops who object tend to be problem cops.
That little phone with a camera is a good thing. Now it's even a weapon against tyranny.
But, Balko added, only if the laws "ensure that we can continue to use it that way."
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Crime, Punishment and Justice
On November 15, 2010 the Associated Press reported the following:
The Constitution of the United States, includes a Bill of Rights, which doesn’t grant rights to anybody, but assumes people have the rights and severely limits the government from infringing on those rights. The US Constitution is not politically correct and does not place the ideas and speech of some people’s values over the ideas and speech of others. Wanting to instill a value of “tolerance” does not give the government or any of its agents, the right to stifle speech they don’t approve. That is exactly what Jay McDowell did when he threw the student out of class because he didn’t like the “where the discussion was going.”
It is a shame that a teacher was so intolerant and thought he had the right to punish a student for exercising his right to free speech. What is good is that he was rightly reprimanded and punished proportionately.
Far too often do we see disproportionate punishment for "crimes." The reason for a fine or punishment is to deter future bad behavior and offer restitution to the victim. In this case Justice was served; the minimal punishment did both. It affirmed that student's right to free speech, it sent the message to other students that the school would protect their basic civil rights, and deterred not only the McDowell but other teachers from infringing on the rights of other students in the future. More severe punishment would have been counterproductive, costly, and unjust.
Compare that to the punishment another student received when she had a plastic butter knife in her lunch box. The typical punishment for that offence is expulsion from school for having a weapon. This zero tolerance nonsense is not proportionate to what reasonable people would not even consider a crime. Whereas McDowell, as an agent of the government, clearly violated the civil rights of the student, in the other case a powerless minor committed no crime. It seems the punishment associated with zero tolerance government rules for minors is to instill a fear, and belief that the government has the authority and right to force you to obey any rule or regulations they want, and failure to obey will be severely punished.
We must as citizens all try to hold our government accountable, even the petty tyrants in our public school systems. We can and did hold our government officials accountable as reported in the news this week in the story of a middle school boy who was ordered to remove an American Flag he put on his bike to honor veterans.
How did this country get to the government that thinks it can silence citizens who express non politically correct ideas? It is hard to fathom how and why we accept a government that punishes a child who is threatened rather than hold accountable those who do the threatening.
We are teaching our children that their rights are not important, and that the government can take them away at will, without due process, without proof, without cause, just because zero tolerance and other stupid school rules make it easier for the school to maintain order. Contrary to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law which says you have a right to defend yourself, the general rule in most schools that if you are caught fighting you are suspended. So if a high school bully with failing grades who doesn’t care about learning decides to pick on a good kid and the kid defends himself (or worse yet steps in to defend a smaller weaker kid from the bully), the victim (or defender) gets punished along with the bully. If you’re a white middle class kid, who’s only hope at college is an academic scholarship, then that 5 day suspension could cost you your GPA and thousands of dollars of scholarship funds and the bully gets what he wanted, out of school. The victim is assumed guilty and there is no due process, and no defense. The zero tolerance for fighting policy of most Florida schools punishes victims, and violates the civil rights of students. We are teaching our children: that they don’t have basic civil rights, that they must be cowards, they must never stand up for themselves or others, and meekly obey the government tyrants, or be punished. Regardless of what our Constitution says, our actions and the actions of our government are teaching our youth that the government does not protect individual civil rights, and that punishments are drastically disproportionate to the crime, if the crime is failure to obey the government.
This zero tolerance policy has but one purpose, to teach our children that they never have the right to use force for any reason and that the government (school) has a monopoly on the use of force, and that there are no limits to what authority can do. This zero tolerance policy also teaches that justice does not exist, and can be denied for the convenience of the authority. This is contrary to the US and Florida constitutions and laws but is exactly what the ruling elite what the public to believe. The idea that no individual has the right to use force for any reason is contrary to the Constitution, Declaration of Independents and even the Libertarian Party Platform; which states “The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. . . . and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of selfdefense.”
There is a need for legitimate authority, our children should be taught to respect those in authority, and obey all legitimate requests of that authority, BUT they should also be taught there are limits to government authority, what those limits are, how to respectfully stand up to the illegitimate exercise of authority, and when if necessary to use force to defend themselves or others. As citizens and parents, we must stand up for the rights of our children against the tyrannical excess of authority. If we want our future to have liberty, not an all controlling socialist nanny state, then this is where we start. Educating our children and protecting their rights. If students now coming of age and future generations believe that only the government has a legitimate claim to the use of force, that the government can silence ideas and speech they don’t like, and that it can deny justice for convenience, then we are no longer the home of the free and the brave, but the home to slaves.
I’m encouraged by the national uproar that forced one small government school district to uphold the civil rights of one boy. That uproar should be happening in every school district across the country. We must end the systematic attacks on civil rights, end stupid zero tolerance rules and insist that our schools teach the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the true meaning of Liberty and Justice for all.
DETROIT -- Michigan high school teacher Jay McDowell says he didn't like where the discussion was going after a student told his classmates he didn't "accept gays."
So McDowell kicked the boy out of class for a day.
In return, the teacher was suspended for a day without pay for violating the student's free speech rights...
The Constitution of the United States, includes a Bill of Rights, which doesn’t grant rights to anybody, but assumes people have the rights and severely limits the government from infringing on those rights. The US Constitution is not politically correct and does not place the ideas and speech of some people’s values over the ideas and speech of others. Wanting to instill a value of “tolerance” does not give the government or any of its agents, the right to stifle speech they don’t approve. That is exactly what Jay McDowell did when he threw the student out of class because he didn’t like the “where the discussion was going.”
It is a shame that a teacher was so intolerant and thought he had the right to punish a student for exercising his right to free speech. What is good is that he was rightly reprimanded and punished proportionately.
Far too often do we see disproportionate punishment for "crimes." The reason for a fine or punishment is to deter future bad behavior and offer restitution to the victim. In this case Justice was served; the minimal punishment did both. It affirmed that student's right to free speech, it sent the message to other students that the school would protect their basic civil rights, and deterred not only the McDowell but other teachers from infringing on the rights of other students in the future. More severe punishment would have been counterproductive, costly, and unjust.
Compare that to the punishment another student received when she had a plastic butter knife in her lunch box. The typical punishment for that offence is expulsion from school for having a weapon. This zero tolerance nonsense is not proportionate to what reasonable people would not even consider a crime. Whereas McDowell, as an agent of the government, clearly violated the civil rights of the student, in the other case a powerless minor committed no crime. It seems the punishment associated with zero tolerance government rules for minors is to instill a fear, and belief that the government has the authority and right to force you to obey any rule or regulations they want, and failure to obey will be severely punished.
We must as citizens all try to hold our government accountable, even the petty tyrants in our public school systems. We can and did hold our government officials accountable as reported in the news this week in the story of a middle school boy who was ordered to remove an American Flag he put on his bike to honor veterans.
Thank God for the uproar of the American people. The uproar forced the California school board to reverse its decision. I read in one account where a US Soldier in Afghanistan called the school board to complain. It was absurd for the government agents to think that they can deny a boy his civil rights because others didn’t like his expression. This is the so called hecklers veto. The first action should have been to focus on those students who made threats, not take away the rights of the student who violated no laws, nor rules, nor rights of another. But the government now says that because your exercise of your civil rights may upset others, and those others may do criminal things, you are responsible for the criminal actions of people who don’t want you to express an opinion or idea they don’t like.
Friday, 12 Nov 2010, 5:05 PM EST
SACRAMENTO - A boy in California is now allowed to ride to school with an American flag. Earlier this week, a middle school told 13-year-old Cody Alicea to take the flag off his bike. He was carrying the flag to honor veterans, like his own grandfather. He had been riding his bike with the flag for about two months.
The school district says the boy was asked to remove the flag because some students complained about it and apparently made threats.
School officials worried students would come to school with flags from other countries, sparking racial tension and possible violence. . .
How did this country get to the government that thinks it can silence citizens who express non politically correct ideas? It is hard to fathom how and why we accept a government that punishes a child who is threatened rather than hold accountable those who do the threatening.
We are teaching our children that their rights are not important, and that the government can take them away at will, without due process, without proof, without cause, just because zero tolerance and other stupid school rules make it easier for the school to maintain order. Contrary to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law which says you have a right to defend yourself, the general rule in most schools that if you are caught fighting you are suspended. So if a high school bully with failing grades who doesn’t care about learning decides to pick on a good kid and the kid defends himself (or worse yet steps in to defend a smaller weaker kid from the bully), the victim (or defender) gets punished along with the bully. If you’re a white middle class kid, who’s only hope at college is an academic scholarship, then that 5 day suspension could cost you your GPA and thousands of dollars of scholarship funds and the bully gets what he wanted, out of school. The victim is assumed guilty and there is no due process, and no defense. The zero tolerance for fighting policy of most Florida schools punishes victims, and violates the civil rights of students. We are teaching our children: that they don’t have basic civil rights, that they must be cowards, they must never stand up for themselves or others, and meekly obey the government tyrants, or be punished. Regardless of what our Constitution says, our actions and the actions of our government are teaching our youth that the government does not protect individual civil rights, and that punishments are drastically disproportionate to the crime, if the crime is failure to obey the government.
This zero tolerance policy has but one purpose, to teach our children that they never have the right to use force for any reason and that the government (school) has a monopoly on the use of force, and that there are no limits to what authority can do. This zero tolerance policy also teaches that justice does not exist, and can be denied for the convenience of the authority. This is contrary to the US and Florida constitutions and laws but is exactly what the ruling elite what the public to believe. The idea that no individual has the right to use force for any reason is contrary to the Constitution, Declaration of Independents and even the Libertarian Party Platform; which states “The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. . . . and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of selfdefense.”
There is a need for legitimate authority, our children should be taught to respect those in authority, and obey all legitimate requests of that authority, BUT they should also be taught there are limits to government authority, what those limits are, how to respectfully stand up to the illegitimate exercise of authority, and when if necessary to use force to defend themselves or others. As citizens and parents, we must stand up for the rights of our children against the tyrannical excess of authority. If we want our future to have liberty, not an all controlling socialist nanny state, then this is where we start. Educating our children and protecting their rights. If students now coming of age and future generations believe that only the government has a legitimate claim to the use of force, that the government can silence ideas and speech they don’t like, and that it can deny justice for convenience, then we are no longer the home of the free and the brave, but the home to slaves.
I’m encouraged by the national uproar that forced one small government school district to uphold the civil rights of one boy. That uproar should be happening in every school district across the country. We must end the systematic attacks on civil rights, end stupid zero tolerance rules and insist that our schools teach the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the true meaning of Liberty and Justice for all.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Obama's Character
President B.H. Obama in the State of the Union Address, January 2010:
How could he say that with a straight face?
Look at his actions in the first year.
Obama promised transparency during his campaign, but his modus operandi is to do everything behind closed doors.
He promised healthcare negotiations on C-Span, but did the negotiations in secret. He cannot blame congress, when they asked his administration to come to committee hearings, etc. all he had to do was say “only if they are on C-Span”.
He said if someone has another idea he’ll listen, but he the Republicans were not even allowed in the process.
He told us that the Supreme Court overturned 100 years of law, but according to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito it's “Not true.”
He promised that lobbyists wouldn't run his White House, but hired more than 40 lobbyists to work in his administration.
A year of openly and contemptuously doing exactly the opposite of what he has told us he would do. He obviously believes the people deserve a lying, un-accountable, arrogant, and elitist government, because that is exactly the administration he has created to govern this country.
Obama’s arrogance is without question; his contempt for the average citizen has become legendary, think “bitter clinging”. There is no doubt than he is a liar of eminent caliber and would make P.T. Barnum proud.
I’ve tended to think that Obama has evil intent for the USA, but alas I do believe I have been wrong and he has no evil intent. Thinking of him having fascist Machiavellian plans gives him too much credit. While trying to ascertain a logical explanation for his actions and proposals, of which history has repeatedly proven to be ineffective and detrimental to society, my ideas on Mr. Obama tended to attribute to him evil intents, trying to purposefully weaken and destroy our country. Reviewing my and others numerous writings on the stupid things government does, and putting in context of Obama being the ultimate government bureaucrat, I no longer think he has evil intent. As a science fiction reader I should have instantly remembered the sage words of the author of Callahan’s Cross Time Saloon Spider Robinson, “Never attribute to malice, that which can be reasonably explained by stupidity. “
Stupidity definitely explains his and the government’s actions. The inherent stupidity of government must of course be lead by somebody of arrogant stupidity. The press constantly told us of Bush’s stupidity, why should we doubt them? Obama won’t even allow anybody to see his high school, college, or grad school grades. Obviously he is worried that it will expose his stupidity as a tested fact, rather than an observable phenomenon. Stupidity explains his actions and words.
According to George Gissing, “It is because nations tend towards stupidity and baseness that mankind moves so slowly; it is because individuals have a capacity for better things that it moves at all.” Maybe the reason the Tea Party movement has been so successful is because it is made of individuals, as soon as it gets “organized” it too will become stupid. Let’s face it, the Tea Party movement is allowing itself to be co-opted by the Republicans, and they are no more protectors of liberty and freedom than the Democrats.
My last blog entry noted the stupidity of the government continuing a program that their own research demonstrates a failure. Not that the early childhood intervention is a bad idea, just the federal government implementation of that idea in the form of Head Start is a demonstrable failure. This is example of Robertson Davies quote “There is no nonsense so gross that society will not, at some time, make a doctrine of it and defend it with every weapon of communal stupidity.”
The Democrats will tell us that even though the data shows that Head Start makes no difference in student performance by the end of first grade, the reasons to keep spending $4billion per year are nuanced, the idea and purpose for the Head Start program are good, even noble. Evan Say was right when he said, “What Democrats call 'nuanced,' most people refer to as 'stupidity.'”
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you’re in debt up to your eyeballs, that borrowing for a new car, and continuing to use credit cards is not the way to get out of debt. There is only one explanation for believing and implementing a program of extreme spending will help a serious debt situation – Stupid.
Right now the government needs to increase revenue. John F. Kennedy, Ronald Regan, and Bill Clinton all were leading the government when it was in need of more revenue and succeeded in increasing government revenue by cutting taxes. Bush while fighting wars in two theaters managed to reduce unemployment to historic lows near 5% by reducing taxes on those who create jobs (the rich). Only sheer stupidity would ignore history and the numerous real world examples to ever think that increasing taxes on the people who supply jobs will lead to more jobs and increased government revenue.
Back to president Obama, his presidency proves that Chris Lowe was right when he said, “Stupidity combined with arrogance and a huge ego will get you a long way.”
“We face a deficit of trust—deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap, we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue—to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve.”
How could he say that with a straight face?
Look at his actions in the first year.
Obama promised transparency during his campaign, but his modus operandi is to do everything behind closed doors.
He promised healthcare negotiations on C-Span, but did the negotiations in secret. He cannot blame congress, when they asked his administration to come to committee hearings, etc. all he had to do was say “only if they are on C-Span”.
He said if someone has another idea he’ll listen, but he the Republicans were not even allowed in the process.
He told us that the Supreme Court overturned 100 years of law, but according to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito it's “Not true.”
He promised that lobbyists wouldn't run his White House, but hired more than 40 lobbyists to work in his administration.
A year of openly and contemptuously doing exactly the opposite of what he has told us he would do. He obviously believes the people deserve a lying, un-accountable, arrogant, and elitist government, because that is exactly the administration he has created to govern this country.
Obama’s arrogance is without question; his contempt for the average citizen has become legendary, think “bitter clinging”. There is no doubt than he is a liar of eminent caliber and would make P.T. Barnum proud.
I’ve tended to think that Obama has evil intent for the USA, but alas I do believe I have been wrong and he has no evil intent. Thinking of him having fascist Machiavellian plans gives him too much credit. While trying to ascertain a logical explanation for his actions and proposals, of which history has repeatedly proven to be ineffective and detrimental to society, my ideas on Mr. Obama tended to attribute to him evil intents, trying to purposefully weaken and destroy our country. Reviewing my and others numerous writings on the stupid things government does, and putting in context of Obama being the ultimate government bureaucrat, I no longer think he has evil intent. As a science fiction reader I should have instantly remembered the sage words of the author of Callahan’s Cross Time Saloon Spider Robinson, “Never attribute to malice, that which can be reasonably explained by stupidity. “
Stupidity definitely explains his and the government’s actions. The inherent stupidity of government must of course be lead by somebody of arrogant stupidity. The press constantly told us of Bush’s stupidity, why should we doubt them? Obama won’t even allow anybody to see his high school, college, or grad school grades. Obviously he is worried that it will expose his stupidity as a tested fact, rather than an observable phenomenon. Stupidity explains his actions and words.
According to George Gissing, “It is because nations tend towards stupidity and baseness that mankind moves so slowly; it is because individuals have a capacity for better things that it moves at all.” Maybe the reason the Tea Party movement has been so successful is because it is made of individuals, as soon as it gets “organized” it too will become stupid. Let’s face it, the Tea Party movement is allowing itself to be co-opted by the Republicans, and they are no more protectors of liberty and freedom than the Democrats.
My last blog entry noted the stupidity of the government continuing a program that their own research demonstrates a failure. Not that the early childhood intervention is a bad idea, just the federal government implementation of that idea in the form of Head Start is a demonstrable failure. This is example of Robertson Davies quote “There is no nonsense so gross that society will not, at some time, make a doctrine of it and defend it with every weapon of communal stupidity.”
The Democrats will tell us that even though the data shows that Head Start makes no difference in student performance by the end of first grade, the reasons to keep spending $4billion per year are nuanced, the idea and purpose for the Head Start program are good, even noble. Evan Say was right when he said, “What Democrats call 'nuanced,' most people refer to as 'stupidity.'”
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you’re in debt up to your eyeballs, that borrowing for a new car, and continuing to use credit cards is not the way to get out of debt. There is only one explanation for believing and implementing a program of extreme spending will help a serious debt situation – Stupid.
Right now the government needs to increase revenue. John F. Kennedy, Ronald Regan, and Bill Clinton all were leading the government when it was in need of more revenue and succeeded in increasing government revenue by cutting taxes. Bush while fighting wars in two theaters managed to reduce unemployment to historic lows near 5% by reducing taxes on those who create jobs (the rich). Only sheer stupidity would ignore history and the numerous real world examples to ever think that increasing taxes on the people who supply jobs will lead to more jobs and increased government revenue.
Back to president Obama, his presidency proves that Chris Lowe was right when he said, “Stupidity combined with arrogance and a huge ego will get you a long way.”
Monday, February 8, 2010
Stupid Stuff the Government Does II
If your doctor wanted you to get a treatment for your child that cost you a lot of money, and presented you with a study that showed it offered no real benefit, would you still get the treatment for your child? Your doctor says, “Even though our own research shows this program is ineffective, but at least we’re doing something.” What would you do?
What would you say to a government program that has cost about $4billion a year for the past 45 or years and had zero, none, nada lasting benefit what so ever. Would you want the government to keep doing it, or do you think that reducing the amount the government borrows every year by $4billion would be better?
The department of Health and Human Services released a new study on the effectiveness of a federal program started in 1965. The results show that the program has had no impact. This program is aimed at getting low-income, preschool children prepared for school. You've probably heard of it, it is the Head Start program.
Over $166 billion of federal funds has been poured into Head Start. The governments own study shows that first graders who have been through the program perform essentially the same as those who haven't.
The government has now documented the fact that Head Start is of no lasting benefit. What do you think the government should do with this program that doesn't work? It is a waste of taxpayers’ money, for a feel good program that has no significance, other than being able to say were "doing" something to help the poor. If the government is smart, it will say “this hasn’t worked, were going to end the program.” The government is stupid, so expect to see this proven waste of money either to be continued or expanded.
What would you say to a government program that has cost about $4billion a year for the past 45 or years and had zero, none, nada lasting benefit what so ever. Would you want the government to keep doing it, or do you think that reducing the amount the government borrows every year by $4billion would be better?
The department of Health and Human Services released a new study on the effectiveness of a federal program started in 1965. The results show that the program has had no impact. This program is aimed at getting low-income, preschool children prepared for school. You've probably heard of it, it is the Head Start program.
Over $166 billion of federal funds has been poured into Head Start. The governments own study shows that first graders who have been through the program perform essentially the same as those who haven't.
The government has now documented the fact that Head Start is of no lasting benefit. What do you think the government should do with this program that doesn't work? It is a waste of taxpayers’ money, for a feel good program that has no significance, other than being able to say were "doing" something to help the poor. If the government is smart, it will say “this hasn’t worked, were going to end the program.” The government is stupid, so expect to see this proven waste of money either to be continued or expanded.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Stupid Stuff the Legislature is Doing
I can’t believe it, consider the mess we’re in, the economy is in the tank and like FDR’s New Deal, the obscene spending by Obama is driving us into depression. Jobs are still going away, and my paycheck is worth a lot less. If I were getting paid in gold not dollars I receive 33% less than I did before I ever head of Obama. So what are our legislatures doing? They are wasting time, and costing us all money, creating regulations to control the volume of TV commercials. The House bill is H.R.1084 and the Senate bill is S.2847. The stupidity and arrogance of the people in Washington is beyond ludicrous.
Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., said "It's an annoying experience, and something really should be done about it." Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., created the bill when she heard that the FCC had been getting complaints about commercial volumes being louder than program volumes for year. Don’t think that this is just more of the Democrats trying to regulate everything we do, the Republicans are just as guilty. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., when asked a reasonable question on why Congress is involved said, "You can say, 'Well, that's fine. Just turn it off, but it's constantly an irritant when you have to do it. And we've got all the new bowl games coming up."
Now Congress can and is regulating anything that’s “annoying” or irritating. It’s annoying that I have to wait in line at the grocery store because there are only 3 checkout clerks when the store has registers for up to 10, it’s irritating that I can hear children playing in a nearby park at 8am on Saturdays when I’m trying to sleep in, it’s really annoying having to watch and listen to airplanes flying over the beach towing signs advertising drink specials at Joe’s Bar and Grill. You don’t have a right to not be annoyed, my desire to not wait in line doesn’t create a reason for the federal government to force a private business to hire more clerks, nor to make kids soccer games start after 10am on weekends, nor does my desire to have a serine day at the beach uninterrupted by advertising allow the federal government to limit others to expressing their views in that public place (even commercial views).
If you don’t want commercials louder than the rest of the TV show, then use PPV for your games, use the internet for your TV, etc. If you want free convenient, inexpensive TV entertainment, you have to put up with commercials, they pay for it not you, so the guy paying the bills should be able to determine how the commercial he wants his commercial displayed and heard. Your non-right not to be “annoyed” does not supersede his real first amendment right of freedom of speech. In as much as watching TV is truly a voluntary thing, and nobody is forced to watch commercial TV, and you are free to choose PBS or other non-commercial TV venue, or any of the for pay TV channels via cable or satellite, what possible justification can there be for congress passing a law abridging the freedom of speech, and it is abridging the freedom of speech of the advertiser.
This is another example of Too Much Government and very stupid legislation and clear disregard for constitutional limits to the federal government. It is obscene for or federal government to be doing stupid stuff like this.
Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., said "It's an annoying experience, and something really should be done about it." Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., created the bill when she heard that the FCC had been getting complaints about commercial volumes being louder than program volumes for year. Don’t think that this is just more of the Democrats trying to regulate everything we do, the Republicans are just as guilty. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., when asked a reasonable question on why Congress is involved said, "You can say, 'Well, that's fine. Just turn it off, but it's constantly an irritant when you have to do it. And we've got all the new bowl games coming up."
Now Congress can and is regulating anything that’s “annoying” or irritating. It’s annoying that I have to wait in line at the grocery store because there are only 3 checkout clerks when the store has registers for up to 10, it’s irritating that I can hear children playing in a nearby park at 8am on Saturdays when I’m trying to sleep in, it’s really annoying having to watch and listen to airplanes flying over the beach towing signs advertising drink specials at Joe’s Bar and Grill. You don’t have a right to not be annoyed, my desire to not wait in line doesn’t create a reason for the federal government to force a private business to hire more clerks, nor to make kids soccer games start after 10am on weekends, nor does my desire to have a serine day at the beach uninterrupted by advertising allow the federal government to limit others to expressing their views in that public place (even commercial views).
If you don’t want commercials louder than the rest of the TV show, then use PPV for your games, use the internet for your TV, etc. If you want free convenient, inexpensive TV entertainment, you have to put up with commercials, they pay for it not you, so the guy paying the bills should be able to determine how the commercial he wants his commercial displayed and heard. Your non-right not to be “annoyed” does not supersede his real first amendment right of freedom of speech. In as much as watching TV is truly a voluntary thing, and nobody is forced to watch commercial TV, and you are free to choose PBS or other non-commercial TV venue, or any of the for pay TV channels via cable or satellite, what possible justification can there be for congress passing a law abridging the freedom of speech, and it is abridging the freedom of speech of the advertiser.
This is another example of Too Much Government and very stupid legislation and clear disregard for constitutional limits to the federal government. It is obscene for or federal government to be doing stupid stuff like this.
Socialism in Stages: Governments Produce Poverty
Note: This is a great article on the influence of socialism on our capitalistic society and a good basic document on economics.
Enjoy
2Bfree
Socialism in Stages
Even soft, incremental expansions of government produce poverty.
By Dan Oliver Jr.
America debated three strategies during the Cold War. The Right wanted “roll back” — dreams of Patton driving his tank into Red Square. The Left wanted détente — which is French for “surrender.” The country loosely followed containment, a program outlined by George Kennan in 1946, which argued that the political contradictions of the Soviet state would eventually cause its own demise. America had but to be patient.
Kennan may have been the first to realize that a society based on Communism would not survive politically, but it was Ludwig von Mises, in his 1922 work Socialism, who demonstrated that any such society could not survive economically.
When a collection of free individuals — the market — is willing to pay a price for a product that creates “excess” profits, it signals producers to provide more of that product. If the market does not support a given price, producers are forced to redeploy their assets for more pressing social needs. Similarly, if a factor of production, such as labor or capital, changes in price, producers instantly react, sending signals — through the prices of intermediate goods — down to the consumer. Prices effortlessly allocate society’s assets to reflect consumer preference and adjust to accommodate the ever-changing availability of scarce resources.
Mises argued that governmental interference in prices, through taxation, subsidies, and regulation, complicates this process — affecting not only the consumption of final goods, but also the economic calculations that are necessary to provide intermediate goods and services. Higher-order division of labor fails. Poverty results. For example, while Chinese and Russian central planners were busy setting quotas for steel mills, there was no method for consumers to signal that they preferred food — and millions starved to death.
If the hard socialism of Communism produces economic and societal collapse quickly, Mises theorized, the soft, incremental socialism of the West — popularized again recently as the “Third Way” by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton — would produce poverty in stages. Every bureaucratic intervention in the market reduces long-term wealth creation, even if it provides a temporary boost to the economy. In time, this reduction of wealth is blamed on the inefficiencies of the remaining “unfettered” market, which provokes calls for greater intervention, ad infinitum.
Health care is a perfect example of the incremental socialization process. Government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid began by providing limited assistance to the old and the indigent. As health-care costs rose, these programs were expanded and new ones, such as S-CHIP, were added. The government now pays 32 percent of all non-military health-care bills, up from 6 percent in 1960. The remaining private expenditures are heavily regulated, resulting in the anticipated economic chaos. Under Obamacare, the situation can only grow worse. As P. J. O’Rourke quipped: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”
Housing provides another example. Today, 71 years after Fannie Mae was founded, the central government provides a stunning 90 percent of the liquidity in the mortgage market, enabled by the Federal Reserve’s repurchase of 85 percent of new mortgages with freshly printed money. Banking is next.
Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election was the zenith of the conservative movement’s attempt to defeat Communism and limit government. Internationally, deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe and military support of anti-Communist movements gave teeth to containment. Nine years later, the Soviet Union fell. Domestically, Reagan promised to get government off our backs by reducing taxes to starve Leviathan. Instead, politicians made up the shortfall with deficits, which soared as government grew relentlessly under both political parties. Twenty-nine years after Reagan’s election, the federal government spends 37 cents of every dollar in the economy. Operation Rollback as applied to the federal government has failed.
The economic laws described by Mises that brought down Communism apply equally to the American brand of soft socialism. Market forces will soon lay waste to American central planning just as surely as they did to the Soviet version two decades ago. The crises in housing, health care, and banking, the inevitable results of government intervention, are but harbingers of greater instability in our way of life. If Republicans wish to stay relevant, they must return to their conservative roots.
— Dan Oliver Jr. is Founder of Myrmikan Capital, LLC. He has a J.D. from Columbia Law School and an MBA from INSEAD.
Original Article
Enjoy
2Bfree
Socialism in Stages
Even soft, incremental expansions of government produce poverty.
By Dan Oliver Jr.
America debated three strategies during the Cold War. The Right wanted “roll back” — dreams of Patton driving his tank into Red Square. The Left wanted détente — which is French for “surrender.” The country loosely followed containment, a program outlined by George Kennan in 1946, which argued that the political contradictions of the Soviet state would eventually cause its own demise. America had but to be patient.
Kennan may have been the first to realize that a society based on Communism would not survive politically, but it was Ludwig von Mises, in his 1922 work Socialism, who demonstrated that any such society could not survive economically.
When a collection of free individuals — the market — is willing to pay a price for a product that creates “excess” profits, it signals producers to provide more of that product. If the market does not support a given price, producers are forced to redeploy their assets for more pressing social needs. Similarly, if a factor of production, such as labor or capital, changes in price, producers instantly react, sending signals — through the prices of intermediate goods — down to the consumer. Prices effortlessly allocate society’s assets to reflect consumer preference and adjust to accommodate the ever-changing availability of scarce resources.
Mises argued that governmental interference in prices, through taxation, subsidies, and regulation, complicates this process — affecting not only the consumption of final goods, but also the economic calculations that are necessary to provide intermediate goods and services. Higher-order division of labor fails. Poverty results. For example, while Chinese and Russian central planners were busy setting quotas for steel mills, there was no method for consumers to signal that they preferred food — and millions starved to death.
If the hard socialism of Communism produces economic and societal collapse quickly, Mises theorized, the soft, incremental socialism of the West — popularized again recently as the “Third Way” by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton — would produce poverty in stages. Every bureaucratic intervention in the market reduces long-term wealth creation, even if it provides a temporary boost to the economy. In time, this reduction of wealth is blamed on the inefficiencies of the remaining “unfettered” market, which provokes calls for greater intervention, ad infinitum.
Health care is a perfect example of the incremental socialization process. Government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid began by providing limited assistance to the old and the indigent. As health-care costs rose, these programs were expanded and new ones, such as S-CHIP, were added. The government now pays 32 percent of all non-military health-care bills, up from 6 percent in 1960. The remaining private expenditures are heavily regulated, resulting in the anticipated economic chaos. Under Obamacare, the situation can only grow worse. As P. J. O’Rourke quipped: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”
Housing provides another example. Today, 71 years after Fannie Mae was founded, the central government provides a stunning 90 percent of the liquidity in the mortgage market, enabled by the Federal Reserve’s repurchase of 85 percent of new mortgages with freshly printed money. Banking is next.
Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election was the zenith of the conservative movement’s attempt to defeat Communism and limit government. Internationally, deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe and military support of anti-Communist movements gave teeth to containment. Nine years later, the Soviet Union fell. Domestically, Reagan promised to get government off our backs by reducing taxes to starve Leviathan. Instead, politicians made up the shortfall with deficits, which soared as government grew relentlessly under both political parties. Twenty-nine years after Reagan’s election, the federal government spends 37 cents of every dollar in the economy. Operation Rollback as applied to the federal government has failed.
The economic laws described by Mises that brought down Communism apply equally to the American brand of soft socialism. Market forces will soon lay waste to American central planning just as surely as they did to the Soviet version two decades ago. The crises in housing, health care, and banking, the inevitable results of government intervention, are but harbingers of greater instability in our way of life. If Republicans wish to stay relevant, they must return to their conservative roots.
— Dan Oliver Jr. is Founder of Myrmikan Capital, LLC. He has a J.D. from Columbia Law School and an MBA from INSEAD.
Original Article
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Liberal Lies on Firearms
The New York Daily News has a headline over a picture of a Mac-10 submachine gun that reads The MAC-10: The gun used in Time Square shooting, used by John Wayne, Bruce Willis in films.
It notes facts like:
If you actually read the very short article you’ll find that the criminal in question did not use the illegal submachine gun, but completely legal semi-automatic pistol called the Masterpiece Arms 9-mm. It shoots exactly One round every time you pull the trigger, just like a revolver. With the crappy trigger, and action of the cheap Masterpiece Arms 9-mm pistol, if well maintained, an expert might get off one round a second, as if you try to shoot it any faster it has a reputation for jamming. Except for its shape, it operates no differently and uses the same ammo as a common World War I pistols like German Luger, except that it’s less reliable, less accurate, and more poorly made. Luckily the Times Square shooter chose a scary looking weapon instead of a well made weapon, and the fine NYPD have ridded us permanently of this criminal.
In the article describing the shooting the Daily News says:
And
You just gotta love NYC sensationalism, it is fun to read, just not truthful. First the lie, as their other article reported it wasn’t a MAC-10. Second the “murder machine” quote, sensationalistic but not accurate, it’s no more a murder machine than a car (which kill far more people), or a knife, or rope, or a wrench, or a candlestick. The old board game, Clue, notes lots of tools that can be used to commit murder. Other reports note that the gun jammed after a couple rounds were fired (note: don’t buy, or even steal, cheap weapons for self defense just because they look scary). The obviously less than brilliant criminal, and rapper, because of choosing cool over reliable is now pushing up daisies. This is just the story of a stupid criminal rapper wannabe who thought a cheap scary looking pistol would make him a badass and he’d become famous like Diddy or Jay-Z.
Why isn’t the post noting that the law, which makes having an unpermitted pistol in NYC illegal, doesnt work. Obviously the 20,000 laws concerning guns didn’t stop this criminal from acquiring a weapon. How could more laws have made any difference, the criminal was willing to and did break a bunch of laws, more laws would make no difference. Mayor Bloomburg, predictably, is using this event to call for more restrictive gun laws.
I love this quote “Cops said they had recovered 26 high-powered guns, such as the MAC-10, this year”. Two lies in one short sentence, the gun in question wasn’t a MAC-10, and it isn’t a “high-powered” gun. A 9mm semi-automatic pistol is generally considered minimal for self protection, most police forces have either never used them or replaced 9mm weapons with the higher powered weapons because of the rounds ineffectiveness. They did note that the 26 "high-powered" weapons were of 5427, if you do the math you'll see that less than one half of one percent of the recovered guns are like the MAC-10. Criminals choosing this type of weapon is obviously not much of a problem.
The Daily News depends on the ignorance of the public for it's lies to go unnoticed. The left is again demonstrating that it is more than willing to use lies and scare tactics to restrict the liberty of citizens.
It notes facts like:
Some facts about the gun used in Thursday's Times Square shooting:
- The MAC-10 is a handheld submachine gun that weighs about 6 pounds, can hold 30 bullets in its magazine and fire more than 1,000 rounds a minute.
If you actually read the very short article you’ll find that the criminal in question did not use the illegal submachine gun, but completely legal semi-automatic pistol called the Masterpiece Arms 9-mm. It shoots exactly One round every time you pull the trigger, just like a revolver. With the crappy trigger, and action of the cheap Masterpiece Arms 9-mm pistol, if well maintained, an expert might get off one round a second, as if you try to shoot it any faster it has a reputation for jamming. Except for its shape, it operates no differently and uses the same ammo as a common World War I pistols like German Luger, except that it’s less reliable, less accurate, and more poorly made. Luckily the Times Square shooter chose a scary looking weapon instead of a well made weapon, and the fine NYPD have ridded us permanently of this criminal.
In the article describing the shooting the Daily News says:
Bullets whizzed through Times Square Thursday when a street hustler armed with a fearsome MAC-10 lost a gunfight with a veteran cop
And
He pulled the stolen semi-automatic murder machine
You just gotta love NYC sensationalism, it is fun to read, just not truthful. First the lie, as their other article reported it wasn’t a MAC-10. Second the “murder machine” quote, sensationalistic but not accurate, it’s no more a murder machine than a car (which kill far more people), or a knife, or rope, or a wrench, or a candlestick. The old board game, Clue, notes lots of tools that can be used to commit murder. Other reports note that the gun jammed after a couple rounds were fired (note: don’t buy, or even steal, cheap weapons for self defense just because they look scary). The obviously less than brilliant criminal, and rapper, because of choosing cool over reliable is now pushing up daisies. This is just the story of a stupid criminal rapper wannabe who thought a cheap scary looking pistol would make him a badass and he’d become famous like Diddy or Jay-Z.
Why isn’t the post noting that the law, which makes having an unpermitted pistol in NYC illegal, doesnt work. Obviously the 20,000 laws concerning guns didn’t stop this criminal from acquiring a weapon. How could more laws have made any difference, the criminal was willing to and did break a bunch of laws, more laws would make no difference. Mayor Bloomburg, predictably, is using this event to call for more restrictive gun laws.
I love this quote “Cops said they had recovered 26 high-powered guns, such as the MAC-10, this year”. Two lies in one short sentence, the gun in question wasn’t a MAC-10, and it isn’t a “high-powered” gun. A 9mm semi-automatic pistol is generally considered minimal for self protection, most police forces have either never used them or replaced 9mm weapons with the higher powered weapons because of the rounds ineffectiveness. They did note that the 26 "high-powered" weapons were of 5427, if you do the math you'll see that less than one half of one percent of the recovered guns are like the MAC-10. Criminals choosing this type of weapon is obviously not much of a problem.
The Daily News depends on the ignorance of the public for it's lies to go unnoticed. The left is again demonstrating that it is more than willing to use lies and scare tactics to restrict the liberty of citizens.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
US Constitution vs. Chicago
Eric Allie's cartoon sums up the upcoming Supreme Court case concerning Chicago's stance people having the means to protect themselves.
What part of "shall not be infringe", doesn't Chicago get. SCOTUS case District of Columbia v. Heller, where the desenting opinion of Justice Breyer states:
What part of "shall not be infringe", doesn't Chicago get. SCOTUS case District of Columbia v. Heller, where the desenting opinion of Justice Breyer states:
I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an "individual" right -i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Emperor Has No Clothes
The Emperor Has No Clothes is the famous fable by Hans Christian Andersen about an emperor who unwittingly hires two swindlers to create a new suit of clothes for him.
The basic plot is that an emperor of a prosperous city-state who cares more about clothes and looks than running his city-state. He hires two swindlers who promise him the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they tell him, is invisible to anyone who was either stupid or unfit for his position. The Emperor cannot see the (non-existent) cloth, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing stupid; his ministers do the same. When the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they dress him in mime. The Emperor then goes on a procession through the capital showing off his new "clothes". During the course of the procession, a small child cries out, "But he has nothing on!" The crowd realizes the child is telling the truth. The Emperor, however, holds his head high and continues the procession.
The difference between this Danish fable and today's reality is, that today when someone points out that the emperor has no clothes, the emperor his ministers and the press attack him as a "denier" trying to keep the people from seeing the obvious.
Alan Carlin a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency, submitted a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look at the science behind man-made climate change because the evidence was "inconclusive at best." The "Transparent" Obama administration has tried to bury this, and have been caught.
Unable to defend the EPA's actions, anonymous EPA officials are doing what they does best: ad hominid attacks on Mr. Carlin, decrying him as a "denier." The EPA tells us he is, "only" an economist, but the fact is that Carlin holds a degree in physics from CalTech.The EPA says that his study was full of sham science, but the fact is tThe majority of the science is from peer-reviewed studies. The EPA says it isn’t his responsibility to look at this issue, but the fact is that he works in an office tasked with "informing important policy decisions with sound economics and other sciences."
Because the Obama EPA's endangerment finding is a policy act, the EPA is required to make public those agency documents that pertain to the decision, to allow for public comment. Court rulings say rulemaking records must include both "the evidence relied upon and the evidence discarded." By not allowing Alan Carlin’s study to be circulated the Obama EPA has hidden the evidence from the people and decision makers. He, through the EPA, lied by omission. How does this sit with his April 2009 statement saying "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over." Hardly the “transparency in Government” he has promised.
It’s not one child that is calling the townspeople to notice that the emperor has no clothes, it is the brightest and best scientists of the world. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Princeton's Will Happer is leading a group of 54 noted physicists who are demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter. The world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, Joanne Simpson, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her non-belief. Japanese environmental physical chemist, Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a contributor to a U.N. climate report, declared that man-made warming is "the worst scientific scandal in history." Man Made Global Warming is the "new religion" according to Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics.
To quote Kim Strassel‘s recent WSJ article. "The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon. " It’s about Power not science. Obama and the Press want to ram Cap-and-Trade down our throats before we notice that the science doesn’t support their position.
The child is pointing out "Man Made Global Warming is a Lie". When will the crowd recognize the truth?
The basic plot is that an emperor of a prosperous city-state who cares more about clothes and looks than running his city-state. He hires two swindlers who promise him the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they tell him, is invisible to anyone who was either stupid or unfit for his position. The Emperor cannot see the (non-existent) cloth, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing stupid; his ministers do the same. When the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they dress him in mime. The Emperor then goes on a procession through the capital showing off his new "clothes". During the course of the procession, a small child cries out, "But he has nothing on!" The crowd realizes the child is telling the truth. The Emperor, however, holds his head high and continues the procession.
The difference between this Danish fable and today's reality is, that today when someone points out that the emperor has no clothes, the emperor his ministers and the press attack him as a "denier" trying to keep the people from seeing the obvious.
Alan Carlin a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency, submitted a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look at the science behind man-made climate change because the evidence was "inconclusive at best." The "Transparent" Obama administration has tried to bury this, and have been caught.
Unable to defend the EPA's actions, anonymous EPA officials are doing what they does best: ad hominid attacks on Mr. Carlin, decrying him as a "denier." The EPA tells us he is, "only" an economist, but the fact is that Carlin holds a degree in physics from CalTech.The EPA says that his study was full of sham science, but the fact is tThe majority of the science is from peer-reviewed studies. The EPA says it isn’t his responsibility to look at this issue, but the fact is that he works in an office tasked with "informing important policy decisions with sound economics and other sciences."
Because the Obama EPA's endangerment finding is a policy act, the EPA is required to make public those agency documents that pertain to the decision, to allow for public comment. Court rulings say rulemaking records must include both "the evidence relied upon and the evidence discarded." By not allowing Alan Carlin’s study to be circulated the Obama EPA has hidden the evidence from the people and decision makers. He, through the EPA, lied by omission. How does this sit with his April 2009 statement saying "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over." Hardly the “transparency in Government” he has promised.
It’s not one child that is calling the townspeople to notice that the emperor has no clothes, it is the brightest and best scientists of the world. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Princeton's Will Happer is leading a group of 54 noted physicists who are demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter. The world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, Joanne Simpson, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her non-belief. Japanese environmental physical chemist, Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a contributor to a U.N. climate report, declared that man-made warming is "the worst scientific scandal in history." Man Made Global Warming is the "new religion" according to Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics.
To quote Kim Strassel‘s recent WSJ article. "The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon. " It’s about Power not science. Obama and the Press want to ram Cap-and-Trade down our throats before we notice that the science doesn’t support their position.
The child is pointing out "Man Made Global Warming is a Lie". When will the crowd recognize the truth?
Friday, July 3, 2009
Gun Control = More Crime
Gun Control = More Crime
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents. Do some research yourself and you will find that in general the stricter a country is on its citizens guns generally equates to those same citizens being subjected to higher rates of violent crime.
When you read some article that tells you that for public safety we need more gun control, and they show you a murder statistic, ask them about rapes, robberies, assaults, and other violent crime. They either won't know or say those numbers don't matter. They do. Virtually every place that has allowed citizens the right to carry weapons (concealed or open) has seen a reduction in violent crime. Virtually all mass shootings occur in "gun free zones" like schools. I see a correlation do you?
Let your congressmen and senators know that if they vote to further restrict your right to keep and bear arms that you will vote to replace them.
Over a decade ago Great Britain confiscated the guns of private citizens in the name of public safety. They even made it a crime to use a weapon in self defense. Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
Here are the violent crime rates for top ten most violent industrialized nations (violent crime rate is measured as crimes per 100,000 residents).
Rate | |
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents. Do some research yourself and you will find that in general the stricter a country is on its citizens guns generally equates to those same citizens being subjected to higher rates of violent crime.
When you read some article that tells you that for public safety we need more gun control, and they show you a murder statistic, ask them about rapes, robberies, assaults, and other violent crime. They either won't know or say those numbers don't matter. They do. Virtually every place that has allowed citizens the right to carry weapons (concealed or open) has seen a reduction in violent crime. Virtually all mass shootings occur in "gun free zones" like schools. I see a correlation do you?
Let your congressmen and senators know that if they vote to further restrict your right to keep and bear arms that you will vote to replace them.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Barney Frank declares he believes in Liberty.
Hell must have frozen over - I can't believe it. I'm in full agreement with uber-liberal Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts.
The following quote as unbelievable as it sounds is not from Ron Paul but Barney Frank.
"Criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society," Rep. Barney Frank said in his new announcement about his plans for two bills.
One bill would remove federal penalties for using marijuana and the second would let people in states where "medical marijuana" is allowed use it freely.
The cosponsors on the bills include Reps. Ron Paul, R-Texas and Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y. This leads me to believe that Re. Frank's words may have been coached by libertarian Paul, but regardless they clearly espouse the libertarian ideas this country was founded on.
I also agree with his quote, "To those who say that the government should not be encouraging the smoking of marijuana, my response is that I completely agree," Frank's statement said. "But it is a great mistake to divide all human activity into two categories: those that are criminally prohibited, and those that are encouraged."
Just because the government through protecting liberty, doesn't infringe on an individuals right doesn't mean that the government approves of or encourages that specific action. Bungee Jumping is an great example.
Our "War on Drugs" is an total failure, and should be ended. So should thousands of other laws both here in Citrus County, in the great state of Florida, and in the entire USA. If all laws were reviewed with Rep. Barney Frank's remark we'd all have more freedom, and be better off. How can anyone logically argue with his statement?
"Criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society."
- Barney Frank (2009)
The following quote as unbelievable as it sounds is not from Ron Paul but Barney Frank.
"Criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society," Rep. Barney Frank said in his new announcement about his plans for two bills.
One bill would remove federal penalties for using marijuana and the second would let people in states where "medical marijuana" is allowed use it freely.
The cosponsors on the bills include Reps. Ron Paul, R-Texas and Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y. This leads me to believe that Re. Frank's words may have been coached by libertarian Paul, but regardless they clearly espouse the libertarian ideas this country was founded on.
I also agree with his quote, "To those who say that the government should not be encouraging the smoking of marijuana, my response is that I completely agree," Frank's statement said. "But it is a great mistake to divide all human activity into two categories: those that are criminally prohibited, and those that are encouraged."
Just because the government through protecting liberty, doesn't infringe on an individuals right doesn't mean that the government approves of or encourages that specific action. Bungee Jumping is an great example.
Our "War on Drugs" is an total failure, and should be ended. So should thousands of other laws both here in Citrus County, in the great state of Florida, and in the entire USA. If all laws were reviewed with Rep. Barney Frank's remark we'd all have more freedom, and be better off. How can anyone logically argue with his statement?
"Criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society."
- Barney Frank (2009)
Monday, June 15, 2009
My New Retirement Plan
I'm thinking of following in my Grandfather's Footsteps. He was rum-runner, bootlegger, independent boatman, or whatever else you call a man who purchased Canadian whisky in Windsor, and transported it across the Detroit river for resale in the 20's. Read my essay on Prohibition Here
Believe it or not the Republicans are calling for a ban on cigarettes (all tobacco products). If politics goes as Republican Tom Coburn plans all tobacco products will be illegal. I'm sure that if that happens I'll be able to retire in 2 or 3 years from running bootleg cigs. This is a cash plan that can't fail.
For all the same reasons that the above link to my discussion on prohibition mentions this will be a colossal failure for the government, hurt millions of citizens, but for a few willing to ignore the law, will be a very profitable enterprise.
Why doesn't our government learn that more liberty not less in virtually every instance is better for the people, the government, and society.
Believe it or not the Republicans are calling for a ban on cigarettes (all tobacco products). If politics goes as Republican Tom Coburn plans all tobacco products will be illegal. I'm sure that if that happens I'll be able to retire in 2 or 3 years from running bootleg cigs. This is a cash plan that can't fail.
For all the same reasons that the above link to my discussion on prohibition mentions this will be a colossal failure for the government, hurt millions of citizens, but for a few willing to ignore the law, will be a very profitable enterprise.
Why doesn't our government learn that more liberty not less in virtually every instance is better for the people, the government, and society.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Know Your Rights - what you can do when talking to the government
The 2010 census is coming up, and if your even the slightest bit cantankerous you might not fill out form they mail you. You might not fill out the second form they mail you. They will then send somebody to your door to ask you the questions.
Now that's not so bad but by law you are required to answer the census. Now the good news, the law also states that agents of the government can be required to provide you with information if requested, before you can be required to answer their questions.
The amount of info you can require, and ask about is extensive. You not only can use this form for agents like the Census takers, but any other government agent who is questioning you. Kind of cool, put them through what they put you through.
Some bright people have compiled an nice questionnaire you can have the government agent fill out. (at the bottom are links to several versions)
Search the net using:
Key Points:
Click Here for PSQ version 2
Now that's not so bad but by law you are required to answer the census. Now the good news, the law also states that agents of the government can be required to provide you with information if requested, before you can be required to answer their questions.
The amount of info you can require, and ask about is extensive. You not only can use this form for agents like the Census takers, but any other government agent who is questioning you. Kind of cool, put them through what they put you through.
Some bright people have compiled an nice questionnaire you can have the government agent fill out. (at the bottom are links to several versions)
Search the net using:
THE PUBLIC SERVANT QUESTIONNAIRE
Key Points:
- An American does not have to speak with a government agent unless the citizen has been arrested.
- Americans have a right to privacy, to be left alone.
- The PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 (Public Law 93-579), empowers citizens to require full, written disclosure from a government official who seeks information.
- You may insist on complete disclosure as a precondition to speaking with any government official.
- Law-abiding citizens are sometimes visited by agents of the Federal government for no apparent reason. It is helpful, at the time of these visits, to recall that unless a citizen has been placed under arrest (either because a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe the citizen has committed a crime or because the officer has in his possession an arrest warrant issued by a judge who believes there is probable cause the citizen has committed a crime, a citizen does not have to entertain the company of government agents.
- Citizens also have the right, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, not to testify against themselves. Thus, when "the government" comes knocking on one¹s door, you have the right to simply say, "Please go away." Unless the government officer places you under arrest (there must be probable cause, or an arrest warrant based on probable cause), the officer must obey your wishes.
- Of course, citizens also have a vested interest in assisting "the government" in its role of crime-solver. Most of us understand the need to help "the government" to apprehend criminals. But it is also helpful, when "the government" arrives at your place of employment or at your home, to know how to find out why government agents have appeared on YOUR doorstep.
- A handy little questionnaire that I came across years ago will do the trick. It¹s called the "Public Servant Questionnaire." A version following the link. The "PSQ" was developed by Lynn Johnston, author of Who's Afraid of the IRS? (Libertarian Review Foundation: 1983, ISBN 0-930073-03-7).
- The PSQ is based on the requirements placed upon the government by the Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-579), an amending law to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, and is included as Section 552a.
- If a citizen chooses to cooperate with government officials who are seeking information, BEFORE questioning begins, the citizen should politely inform the government agent or agents that a prerequisite for the citizen's cooperation with "the government" is the agent¹s cooperation with the citizen.
- The questions should then be put to each agent, and the citizen should enter the answers onto the questionnaire. Copies should be provided to each agent, either at the time of the questioning or by mail to the agent after the visit. The questionnaire informs the government agent that the citizen knows his rights and knows which limited powers the government agent has been granted by the people.
- Most probably some government agents will not want to fill out or sign the PSQ. That’s fine. They can then be sent on their merry way. They may need to explain to their superiors, and a court of law, and a jury, on another day, why they refused to cooperate with the reasonable questions of the highest officeholder in the land, a citizen.
Click Here for PSQ version 2
Saturday, May 9, 2009
HR2159 - Deprives you of your rights without Due Process
We have a very scary problem in Washington. If you don’t have a gun go buy one, NOW! In a very short time you may not be allowed to purchase a firearm.
HR2159 - GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.
The Summary says - `The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.'
As seen in previous posts on this blog the Department of Homeland Security says that right-wing extremists are our greatest danger. They define that as “groups or individuals who are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along the U.S. southwest border with Mexico”; who “are highly critical of the U.S. Government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend “rights” to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education”; who are “antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority”.
This law will enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being "dangerous." According to documents by DHS, dangerous right-wing extremists are people who are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.
What’s worse is you may not be able to fight the government if (when) they do deny you your second amendment right, because when you read the details of HR2159 you find that the AG can not only deny, an applicant the ability to purchase a firearm, but can deny showing the documentation and reasons for denial to the court based on “National Security”.
The government is trying to do away with silly notions like Innocent until proven guilty, due process, right to confront your accuser, etc. They are trying to find ways to do what they want and circumvent the Constitution of the United States of America.
It may be too late but don’t stand by and do nothing, contact your congressman and senator and let them know that you oppose HR2159, and any laws that deprive citizens of their civil liberties, especially those laws that deprive citizens of rights just because of their views.
HR2159 - GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.
The Summary says - `The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.'
As seen in previous posts on this blog the Department of Homeland Security says that right-wing extremists are our greatest danger. They define that as “groups or individuals who are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along the U.S. southwest border with Mexico”; who “are highly critical of the U.S. Government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend “rights” to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education”; who are “antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority”.
This law will enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being "dangerous." According to documents by DHS, dangerous right-wing extremists are people who are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.
What’s worse is you may not be able to fight the government if (when) they do deny you your second amendment right, because when you read the details of HR2159 you find that the AG can not only deny, an applicant the ability to purchase a firearm, but can deny showing the documentation and reasons for denial to the court based on “National Security”.
The government is trying to do away with silly notions like Innocent until proven guilty, due process, right to confront your accuser, etc. They are trying to find ways to do what they want and circumvent the Constitution of the United States of America.
It may be too late but don’t stand by and do nothing, contact your congressman and senator and let them know that you oppose HR2159, and any laws that deprive citizens of their civil liberties, especially those laws that deprive citizens of rights just because of their views.
Friday, May 8, 2009
IF HR1966 Passes, I'm a criminal
House Resolution 1966 states - Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
The purpose of this blog is to use electronic means to: convince readers to believe in and follow Libertarian principles, intimidate politicians who don’t believe in the constitution and libertarian principles (motivate others to petition and vote for politicians based on libertarian principles), to distress those who don’t believe in the constitution and libertarian principles (present challenging ideas and news that will distress those who don’t believe in liberty), to support severe and repeated and hostile (although never violent) behavior against those who don’t believe in the constitution and libertarian principles.
Therefore if HR1966 becomes law, this blog and all other blogs you read, or emails you receive, or Facebook entries, or MySpace entries that you use to express your opinion if it causes distress to others, is grounds to imprison you.
The purpose of this blog is to use electronic means to: convince readers to believe in and follow Libertarian principles, intimidate politicians who don’t believe in the constitution and libertarian principles (motivate others to petition and vote for politicians based on libertarian principles), to distress those who don’t believe in the constitution and libertarian principles (present challenging ideas and news that will distress those who don’t believe in liberty), to support severe and repeated and hostile (although never violent) behavior against those who don’t believe in the constitution and libertarian principles.
Therefore if HR1966 becomes law, this blog and all other blogs you read, or emails you receive, or Facebook entries, or MySpace entries that you use to express your opinion if it causes distress to others, is grounds to imprison you.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Unintended Consequences
What was seemingly a good bill to keep lead out of cheap Chinese toys imported by Wal-Mart and the like has put tens of thousands of jobs at stake. Motorsports industry blasted by new fed rule http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89516. Instead of keeping lead from the paint on your child’s or grandchild’s HotWheel, it’s being used to destroy an industry. Youth ATVs and dirtbikes can no longer be sold! A Consumer Product Safety Commission-related crisis regarding the huge consumer product law passed last August has had the unintended consequence of banning the sale of ATVs and dirtbikes for use by young people. Please go to the web page for Americans for Responsible Recreational Access http://www.arra-access.com/arra/home.html and take action. This may not personally concern you but if you don’t help when they come for your liberty who will be left to defend you. As an avid motorcyclist I’ve seen hundreds of families withchildren enjoying the outdoors on dirtbikes and ATVs, I’ve yet to see one kid knowing on a motorcycle. Seems a bit ridiculous doesn’t it. If it Walks Like a Duck….Patrice Lewis has an excellent article on the United States march to Socialism. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90946 “According to Dictionary.com, socialism is "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." She talks about many the Obama administration’s actions that are not only “extra constitutional” but classically socialistic. Socialists believe; in the use of force to gain their personal ends, the state owns the output of individuals, you have no right to self defense, etc. If it quacks like socialism, if it looks like socialism, if walks like socialism then it’s Socialism. This is an outstanding article that every liberty loving person should study.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
