tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83179562024-03-07T00:56:47.410-08:00Current Observations"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas PaineDon Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.comBlogger563125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-71493414999975690402013-03-07T06:38:00.001-08:002013-03-07T06:38:23.539-08:00Behavior Modification<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Behavior Modification: the use of behavior change techniques to increase or decrease the frequency of behaviors.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I believe behavior modification is being used now at schools all across this country to destroy America's "gun culture" in its infancy. When a child is automatically suspended for simply talking about a toy gun or allegedly chewing a breakfast pastry into the shape of a gun what else could it be? It's compliance through punishment. In a generation, our right to keep and bear arms will be gone because the system is making all things gun-related a painful experience at a very young age.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The evidence is there; you just have to look: <A href="http://tinyurl.com/akx6g8b">http://tinyurl.com/akx6g8b</A></FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-29413353997475523082009-10-03T09:24:00.000-07:002009-10-03T09:25:03.465-07:00Newsflash: Militia ≠ Army<DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>This just in... </FONT></DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thomas Jefferson, Father of the Declaration of Independence and Former President of the United States acknowledged there was a difference between the militia and a proper army.</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Washington DC, 1801. While giving his Inaugural Address, Thomas Jefferson wiped out all confusion created by gun control advocates surrounding the language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That amendment states,</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. </FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>The language of this one amendment has been the source of countless debates as to what a "well regulated militia" was and whether a militia was made up of common citizens or enlisted persons in a regular army. In his speech, Jefferson referenced the militia and its roll while explaining what the essential principles of government were and where his duty, as the newly elected president, lay. Of the things he listed, he declared,</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them... </FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>In one sentence, he cleared the fog of what the Second Amendment meant. A well regulated militia was nothing more than a well disciplined militia, or, if you will, a well practiced militia. And what of the militia? Where do these people come from? The army, or national guard, perhaps? No. Jefferson made the distinction perfectly clear when he remarked that the militia, or citizen soldiers, would hold the ground until the regulars, or members of a regular army, could be brought in to relieve them. How could one ever be confused with the other when stated that way?</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Notice, also, how closely worded both the Second Amendment and Jefferson's phrasing are. Pay particular attention to how both are structured the same, further evidencing the intent of the Second Amendment. Either could be interchanged without affecting the original intent of the Second Amendment.</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT face=Arial size=2> <DIV align=justify>"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state", the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.<BR>"a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV dir=ltr align=justify>To say the Second Amendment doesn't protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms or to say that it speaks to a "collective right" is to prove to all your ignorance of the English language.</FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-26725571876883515442009-08-11T07:19:00.001-07:002009-08-11T07:19:57.638-07:00Differences<DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>I heard this on the <A href="http://davechampionshow.com/">Dave Champion Show</A> a <A href="http://archives.davechampionshow.com/Champion_1_072809_150000.mp3">few days ago</A> and thought it was worth sharing:</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>What is the qualitative difference between a libertarian and a liberal?</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=justify> </DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>A libertarian trusts the average person to be decent, caring, generous and willing to do the right thing when needed.</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>A liberal expects the average person to be anything but, unless forced to.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-13721190650062072432009-05-28T21:39:00.000-07:002009-05-28T21:40:12.710-07:00Taking a Long Sip<DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>After reading about <A href="http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22727.htm">rape</A> and <A href="http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22728.htm">torture</A>, I figured it was time for a post to the ol' blog.</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV align=center><IMG alt="" hspace=0 src="http://www.currentobservations.us/images/Kool%20Aid%20Sippin%20Sam.jpg" align=baseline border=0></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Where's your outrage, America? What? Too busy sucking down the Kool Aid?</FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-69123527099732636762009-04-20T07:21:00.001-07:002009-04-20T07:21:39.664-07:00Idiocracy, the Documentary?<DIV align=center><IMG alt="" hspace=0 src="http://www.currentobservations.us/images/Obama%20-%20Idiocracy.jpg" align=baseline border=0></DIV> <DIV align=center><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV align=center><FONT face=Arial size=2>You decide.</FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-9851928697996329692009-04-12T08:07:00.001-07:002009-04-12T08:07:59.258-07:00Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics<DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>CommonDreams.org carried an article by Kristin Schall where she "explains" the results of a recent Rasmussen poll which asked, "which is a better system-capitalism or socialism?" Here's the <A href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/11-6">article</A>:</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG>Rasmussen Poll Indicates American Shift Toward Socialism<BR></STRONG>by Kristin Schall<BR><BR>In an April 2009 poll conducted by Rasmussen, respondents were asked "which is a better system-capitalism or socialism?" Just 53% of adult Americans prefer capitalism, 20% of respondents favor socialism and 27% responded not sure. These figures suggest that Americans' attitudes toward alternatives to capitalism may be shifting and that we are living in a time that holds the potential to mark a radical change in the landscape of American politics. <BR><BR>The Rasmussen poll was conducted during one of the greatest economic crisises in the history of capitalism. The resulting pressure is forcing Americans to begin to think critically about ideas that they had previously accepted as given. With more and more people facing the prospect of losing their jobs, houses, healthcare, it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the inequalities and injustices of capitalism. What this has translated to is people becoming more open to ideas about alternative visions for structuring society. In short, socialism is back.<BR><BR>In addition to the economic crisis, the right wing's accusation of Obama being a socialist appears to be backfiring. Conservatives were attempting to cash in on a well established strategy of 20th century American political life. These attacks have unintentionally served to get socialism into heavy rotation in the mainstream media, thereby increasing the public's interest and curiosity. Fear mongering and the paranoid style seem to be offering declining political returns.<BR><BR>Perhaps the most significant aspect of this poll is the response from people under thirty. The statistics indicate that 66% of this demographic are actively questioning capitalism as a system. This makes clear that the Cold War fear of socialism, created to shape the American mindset, is withering away. It is being replaced by a political openness to new ideas about how to organize society. This means there is a space for socialists where a serious dialogue can begin, which can connect Americans to grassroots organizing.<BR><BR>The limitation of the poll is that it does not define socialism. Socialists themselves need to carry out this task. The Socialist Party-USA is interested in finding out how people conceive of socialism and in meeting them where they are. Our conception of socialism is a democratic society where people have access to what they need in order to live a full life. Human needs are always put before private profits. This includes healthcare, education, access to jobs, and a clean environment. Socialists hope that the moment for polling will soon be past, and we will find ourselves in a moment of action for radical social and political change. <BR><BR><EM>Kristin Schall is the chairperson of the Socialist Party USA, NYC Local.</EM></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ms. Schall <I>FAILS!</I> I went and found the Rasmussen poll she used for her piece [of shit] and discovered she conveniently omitted several key points. I'm sure they weren't relevant to the point she was so obviously trying to make. <A href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism">Here's the rest of what Rasmussen said</A>:</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better. <BR><BR>Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism. <BR><BR>There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism. <BR><BR>The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism <BR><BR>It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which <A href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/voters_champion_free_market_but_want_more_regulation" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy</FONT></A>. The fact that a "free-market economy" attracts substantially more support than "capitalism" may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets. <BR><BR>Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, <A href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/ideology/55_of_americans_are_populist_7_support_the_political_class" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors</FONT></A>. <BR><BR>Fifteen percent (15%) of Americans say they prefer a government-managed economy, similar to the 20% support for socialism. Just <A href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/auto_industry/just_14_say_federal_government_will_run_big_three_better" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>14% believe the federal government would do a better job running auto companies</FONT></A>, and <A href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/just_11_say_government_can_run_financial_institutions_better" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>even fewer believe government would do a better job running financial firms</FONT></A>. <BR><BR>Most Americans today hold views that can generally be defined as populist while only seven percent (7%) share the elitist views of the <A href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/ideology/55_of_americans_are_populist_7_support_the_political_class" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>Political Class</FONT></A>. </FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>As it has always been, the young, have-nothings tend to favor a system that redistributes wealth. The older one gets, the more they acquire through hard work, the less likely they are to favor a system that takes from their pile to put in others. No surprise there, really. And when they've worked their entire lives to build nest eggs, guess what? The vast majority tend to guard them very closely.<BR><BR>The only thing that has changed here is the question they asked. The sentiment of the people is still the same. If anything, this poll should be greatly discounted because, "the question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism." I strongly suspect that very few could accurately define what either were.<BR><BR>I suspect that when asked whether people preferred capitalism to socialism, people conjured thoughts of big, faceless corporations trampling little businesses and workers. Some may have even pictured those same evil corporations in collusion with government, as Rassmussen's findings suggest, hurting the marketplace. But that's not really capitalism. It more closely resembles corporatism or perhaps the beginnings of fascism or communism.<BR><BR>I think this goes back to understanding what capitalism, socialism, fascism, corporatism, or any other kind of -ism means. Hell, even Newsweek magazine got it wrong when they declared "<A href="http://donsobservs.blogspot.com/2009/02/newsweek-we-are-all-socialists-now.html" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>We are all Socialists Now.</FONT></A>" What they described in their article was fascism.<BR><BR>As always, the devil is in the details.</FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-21097227746483548602009-04-06T07:27:00.001-07:002009-04-06T07:27:54.117-07:00Geithner Wallpapers America<DIV align=center><FONT face=Arial size=2><IMG alt="" hspace=0 src="http://WWW.currentobservations.us/images/Timothy%20Geithner.jpg" align=baseline border=0></FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-1462221777527827082009-03-31T07:36:00.000-07:002009-03-31T07:37:22.585-07:00Irony<DIV align=center><FONT face=Arial size=2><IMG alt="" hspace=0 src="http://www.currentobservations.us/images/Irony.jpg" align=baseline border=0></FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-36353640523123156312009-03-30T07:29:00.001-07:002009-03-30T07:29:19.446-07:00North Carolina Nursing Home Shooting <FONT face=Arial size=2> <DIV align=justify>I just had a quick thought about the recent shooting at the North Carolina nursing home. While reading </FONT><A href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/nursing_home_shooting;_ylt=AqYeITi0PMafDDYze.i.X9as0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFpM29kajlwBHBvcwMyNQRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX21vc3RfcG9wdWxhcgRzbGsDcG9saWNlZ3VubWFu" target=_blank><FONT face=Arial color=#1b5891 size=2>this article</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>, I ran across this quote:<BR></DIV></FONT> <DIV class=align_l style="MARGIN: 5px 20px 20px" align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV> <DIV class=quotebox_tr style="MARGIN: 5px 20px 20px" align=justify> <DIV class=quotebox_bl> <DIV class=quotebox_br> <TABLE class=quotebox_tbl cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD class=quotebox_body><FONT face=Arial size=2>The injured included a police officer hailed as a hero for shooting the gunman before more people could be killed. </FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></DIV></DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Did you get that? The gunman was stopped. How? By being shot... with a gun. The news always focuses on the shooter and how terrible his actions were--and that's alright--but they never mention with any kind of praise that it was the exact same tool that ended his rampage. It's like they're saying, "Look, this monstrous thing called a gun created all this death and destruction. It is a terrible instrument." But when it comes to mentioning how his reign of terror ended, it's almost a footnote. <BR><BR>At the end of the linked-to article was this parting statement:<BR></DIV></FONT> <DIV class=align_l style="MARGIN: 5px 20px 20px" align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV> <DIV class=quotebox_tr style="MARGIN: 5px 20px 20px" align=justify> <DIV class=quotebox_bl> <DIV class=quotebox_br> <TABLE class=quotebox_tbl cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD class=quotebox_body><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sunday's rampage happened just weeks after a man killed 10 people, including his mother and several other relatives, in the worst mass shooting in Alabama's history on March 10. On March 11, a teen killed 12 people at his former high school in Germany. </FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></DIV></DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>In the </FONT><A href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_re_us/south_alabama_shootings_44" target=_blank><FONT face=Arial color=#1b5891 size=2>Alabama shooting spree</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>, the shooter was brought down by himself, apparently after realizing that he was finished when the police began shooting back at him.<BR></DIV></FONT> <DIV class=align_l style="MARGIN: 5px 20px 20px" align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV> <DIV class=quotebox_tr style="MARGIN: 5px 20px 20px" align=justify> <DIV class=quotebox_bl> <DIV class=quotebox_br> <TABLE class=quotebox_tbl cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD class=quotebox_body><FONT face=Arial size=2>McLendon ... shot himself after engaging in a shootout with law enforcement officers. </FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></DIV></DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>The </FONT><A href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-germany-schoolshooting12-2009mar12,0,5698266.story" target=_blank><FONT face=Arial color=#1b5891 size=2>rampage in Germany</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2> also ended the same way:<BR></DIV></FONT> <DIV class=align_l style="MARGIN: 5px 20px 20px" align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV> <DIV class=quotebox_tr style="MARGIN: 5px 20px 20px" align=justify> <DIV class=quotebox_bl> <DIV class=quotebox_br> <TABLE class=quotebox_tbl cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD class=quotebox_body><FONT face=Arial size=2>A 17-year-old gunman dressed in black opened fire inside his former high school in southwestern Germany today killing 15 people, 11 of them women and girls, before turning the gun on himself, authorities said. </FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></DIV></DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>What do I take from these three articles? What lessons do they contain? Crazy people exist and will do insane things with guns. They will continue on their rampage until they are stopped by a gun. In all the cases above, NONE were stopped by their intended victims. NO ONE in any of the situations was armed and prepared to defend themselves and others around them. The shooting only stopped after the police showed up with their guns and either shot the bad guy or the bad guy decided to shoot himself with his own gun. To me, that's just a sad commentary on how dependent we've all become on the state for our protection.<BR><BR>So, I ask you. Do you want to be the guy or gall hiding in the corner when the shooting starts, hoping the next bullet doesn't find you? Or do you want to be the guy or gall that takes cover behind a desk, waiting to place a well-aimed round into the center of some crazy bastard's chest? All the while knowing you'll be going home to your family and friends because you defended yourself? </FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-49487450030289183122009-03-24T08:38:00.001-07:002009-03-24T08:38:36.764-07:00This Year's Tax Terrorism Season<DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Taxes. It's a topic that most people don't even like to discuss, but not me. I find the subject matter fascinating. It's "legalized" extortion. Protection money, if you will. When the Mob does it, they get thrown in jail. When our government does it, we call it the price for living in civil society. Whatever.<BR><BR>Leaving that aside for the moment, I thought some might find this recent development a bit of food-for-thought, especial seeing as how April 15th looms just around the corner:</FONT></DIV> <DIV class=quotebox_b style="MARGIN: 5px 20px 20px" align=justify> <DIV class=quotebox_tl> <DIV class=quotebox_tr> <DIV class=quotebox_bl> <DIV class=quotebox_br> <TABLE class=quotebox_tbl cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD class=quotebox_body><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><B>Judge Rules: Not Filing Since 1999 Is No Crime!</B><BR><BR>After a February 24 trial on a Florida Bar Association complaint alleging that Charles "Chuck" Behm, a Florida attorney, had violated bar rules by committing a criminal act in refusing to file federal income tax returns since 1999, Judge Tyrie W. Boyer, a county judge in Florida's Fourth Judicial Circuit Court in Jacksonville, ruled that Behm had committed <I>no criminal act</I>.<BR></FONT></FONT> <BLOCKQUOTE><I><FONT face=Arial size=2>(Ed. Note: Keep in mind that Behm hasn't been convicted of any crime. This is just the Florida Bar bringing this case against him because <B>they</B> decidednot a courtthat he's broken some law. Innocent until proven guilty? The Florida Bar can't be troubled with that fanciful notion.)</FONT></I></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face=Arial size=2>The Florida Bar was obviously assisted by either DOJ, the IRS, or both because its presentation, right down to including the standard name calling and the stale half truths was DOJ SOP. From opening statement to close, the DOJ's fingerprints were all over the case. The only new twist was DOJ's latest slam against patriots, introducing a new name for what it calls anti-government groups like "tax protesters," "tax defiers," and now "Constitutionalists!" [Oh, the horror! Not that!] Behm's defense attorney, </FONT><A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthattack.org%2Fjml%2Findex.php" target=_blank><FONT face=Arial color=#1b5891 size=2>Truth Attack</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>'s Tom Cryer, had plenty to say about that in his response.<BR></FONT> <BLOCKQUOTE><I><FONT face=Arial size=2>(Ed Note: Including "Constitutionalists" in its list of anti-government groups fits nicely with </FONT><A href="http://pnwriders.com/hot-topics/98368-3rd-parties-militias.html?highlight=Missouri+Information+Analysis" target=_blank rel=nofollow><FONT face=Arial color=#1b5891 size=2>what we're seeing in other arenas</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2> where these groups are being demonized for their positions against what they perceive as government run amok.)</FONT></I></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face=Arial size=2>In his cross examination of the Bar's "expert" witness, Cryer was able to force the witness to admit that <B>he could not cite any specific authority <U>making Behm liable for the income tax</U></B> <I>(Emphasis added)</I>, and that the absence of such a statute is not among the official list of "frivolous" arguments. The witness also admitted on cross examination that he did not really have a clear definition of "income."<BR></FONT> <BLOCKQUOTE><I><FONT face=Arial size=2>(Ed Note: Frivolous arguments are what the IRS has established as arguments that have been brought repeatedly before the courts and have been ruled time and time again to be frivolous. IRS has a list of them on their website </FONT><A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irs.gov%2Ftaxpros%2Farticle%2F0%2C%2Cid%3D159853%2C00.html" target=_blank><FONT face=Arial color=#1b5891 size=2>here</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>.<BR><BR>In addition, note that the "expert" could not: </FONT> <OL style="LIST-STYLE-TYPE: decimal"> <LI><FONT face=Arial size=2>cite any specific authority making Behm liable for the income tax, </FONT> <LI><FONT face=Arial size=2>the absence of such a statute is not among the official list of "frivolous" arguments, and </FONT> <LI><FONT face=Arial size=2>he did not really have a clear definition of "income." </FONT></LI></OL><FONT face=Arial size=2>These are all important points in law and should make everyone reading this article question why it is they send a rather large portion of their paychecks to Uncle Sam every pay day.)</FONT></I></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face=Arial size=2>Chuck Behm then testified that his research into <I><B>the code (USC Title 26) and Supreme Court authorities forced him to conclude</B> that he is not liable for the federal income tax</I> and, therefore, not among those required to file returns, that <B>he had no income within the meaning of the Constitution</B> and <B>the Sixteenth Amendment</B>, and that <B>he is engaging in no activity within the federal government's power to tax</B> <I>(Lots of emphasis added)</I>. Chuck was very thorough and precise in describing his research and the authorities, making a very clear and convincing account of his command of the subject.<BR></FONT> <BLOCKQUOTE><I><FONT face=Arial size=2>(Ed Note: A quick recap of Behm's testimony: </FONT> <OL style="LIST-STYLE-TYPE: decimal"> <LI><FONT face=Arial size=2>he had no income within the meaning of the Constitution, </FONT> <LI><FONT face=Arial size=2>he had no income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment, and </FONT> <LI><FONT face=Arial size=2>he is engaging in no activity within the federal government's power to tax </FONT></LI></OL></I></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face=Arial size=2>In her closing, the Bar Counsel argued that people depend upon attorneys to set an example by following and supporting the government and its laws. <I>Cryer rebutted that argument by contending that people do not depend on attorneys to support the government, <B>but to support the Constitution, to protect their rights, and to stand up to the government when it abuses either.</B> (Emphasis added)</I><BR><BR>Judge Boyer ruled that Behm had committed <I>no criminal act</I> by refusing to file federal income taxes, but the case is far from over. He also ruled that the failure to file was unlawful <I>although he could give no specific basis for that finding</I>. Now the case goes to the Florida Supreme Court for its ruling, and in that process the court will be challenged to show what law subjects Behm to liability and, hence, a lawful duty to file returns and pay income taxes. (</FONT><A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fyannone.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F03%2Fnonfiling-is-no-crime-confirms-judge.html" target=_blank><FONT face=Arial color=#1b5891 size=2>Source</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>) </FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Did you catch that? The judge holds that Behm had committed no criminal act, but then rules that his failure to file an income tax return was unlawful even though he could give no specific basis for his findings.<BR><BR>Now, I ask you, does this not sound like terrorism? Terrorism is defined as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Their "expert" could not cite any specific authority making Behm liable for the income tax, could not prove his position was frivolous (as defined by the IRS), and couldn't even give a clear definition of "income." Even after all their failings, the judge still had the gall to tell Behm that he's still afoul of the law for failing to file even though no one could tell him where his duty to file was mandated. Coercion, indeed. Pay up or else! The Mob would be proud.</FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-14913249710856202922009-02-27T07:02:00.001-08:002009-02-27T07:02:56.719-08:00Eric Holder Montage<DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Back in November, the Second Amendment Foundation sent out this warning when Holder was up for nomination...<BR></DIV> <DIV class=align_l style="MARGIN: 5px 20px 20px"> </DIV> <DIV class=quotebox_b style="MARGIN: 5px 20px 20px"> <DIV class=quotebox_tr> <DIV class=quotebox_br> <TABLE class=quotebox_tbl cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD class=quotebox_body><FONT face=Georgia> <DIV align=center><IMG alt="" src="http://saf.org/images/PREagle.gif" border=0><FONT size=8>NEWS RELEASE</FONT><BR><BR><FONT size=6>Second Amendment Foundation</FONT><BR><BR>12500 NE Tenth Place Bellevue, WA 98005<BR>(425) 454-7012 FAX (425) 451-3959 <A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.saf.org" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>www.saf.org</FONT></A><BR><BR><FONT size=6>HOLDER NOMINATION SIGNALS OBAMA'S <BR>TRUE ANTI-GUN RIGHTS AGENDA</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=justify><BR><B>For Immediate Release: 11/19/2008</B><BR><BR>BELLEVUE, WA The nomination of Eric Holder for the post of attorney general of the United States sends an "alarming signal" to gun owners about how the Barack Obama administration will view individual gun rights, as affirmed this year by the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.<BR><BR>"Eric Holder signed an amicus brief in the Heller case that supported the District of Columbia's handgun ban, and also argued that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right," noted SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "He has supported national handgun licensing and mandatory trigger locks. As deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, he lobbied Congress to pass legislation that would have curtailed legitimate gun shows.<BR><BR>"This is not the record of a man who will come to office as the nation's top law enforcement officer with the rights and concerns of gun owners in mind," he observed.<BR><BR>Holder's nomination, like the appointment of anti-gun Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff, tells American gun owners that Obama's campaign claims supporting the Second Amendment were "empty rhetoric," Gottlieb stated. <BR><BR>"America's 85 million gun owners have ample reason to be pessimistic about how their civil rights will fare under the Obama administration," Gottlieb said. "Mr. Obama will have a Congress with an anti-gun Democrat majority leadership to push his gun control agenda. Gun owners have not forgotten Mr. Obama's acknowledged opposition to concealed carry rights, nor his support for a ban on handgun ownership when he was running for the Illinois state senate. <BR><BR>"Barack Obama vigorously portrayed himself on the campaign trail as a man who supports gun ownership," Gottlieb concluded, "but now that he has won the election, he is surrounding himself with people who are avowed gun prohibitionists. What better indication of what to expect from Barack Obama as president than the people he is selecting to lead his administration? This isn't a roster of devoted public servants. It's a rogue's gallery of extremists who have labored to erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights."<BR><BR>The Second Amendment Foundation (<A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.saf.org" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>www.saf.org</FONT></A>) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.<BR><BR></DIV> <DIV align=center><B>-END-</B></DIV> <DIV align=justify>(<A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fsaf.org%2Fviewpr-new.asp%3Fid%3D282" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>Source</FONT></A>) </FONT></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></DIV></DIV> <DIV align=justify>Then there's <A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fvolokh.com%2Fposts%2F1227228105.shtml" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>this post</FONT></A> from The Volokh Conspiracy:<BR></DIV> <DIV class=align_l style="MARGIN: 5px 20px 20px" align=justify> </DIV> <DIV class=quotebox_b style="MARGIN: 5px 20px 20px" align=justify> <DIV class=quotebox_tl> <DIV class=quotebox_tr> <DIV class=quotebox_bl> <DIV class=quotebox_br> <TABLE class=quotebox_tbl cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD class=quotebox_body>[David Kopel, November 20, 2008 at 7:41pm]<BR><BR><B>Eric Holder on firearms policy:</B><BR><BR>Earlier this year, Eric Holder--along with Janet Reno and several other former officials from the Clinton Department of Justice--co-signed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller. The <A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gurapossessky.com%2Fnews%2Fparker%2Fdocuments%2FBriefforFormerDOJOfficialsasAmiciCuriae.pdf" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>brief</FONT></A> was filed in support of DC's ban on all handguns, and ban on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home. The brief argued that the Second Amendment is a "collective" right, not an individual one, and asserted that belief in the collective right had been the consistent policy of the U.S. Department of Justice since the FDR administration. A brief filed by some other former DOJ officials (including several Attorneys General, and Stuart Gerson, who was Acting Attorney General until Janet Reno was confirmed)took issue with the Reno-Holder brief's characterization of DOJ's viewpoint.<BR><BR>But at the least, the Reno-Holder brief accurately expressed the position of the Department of Justice when Janet Reno was Attorney General and Eric Holder was Deputy Attorney General. At the oral argument before the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson, the Assistant U.S. Attorney told the panel that the Second Amendment was no barrier to gun confiscation, not even of the confiscation of guns from on-duty National Guardsmen.<BR><BR>As Deputy Attorney General, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called "assault weapons" (cosmetically incorrect guns) by anyone under age of 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, national gun registration, and mandatory prison sentences for trivial offenses (e.g., giving your son an heirloom handgun for Christmas, if he were two weeks shy of his 21st birthday). He also promoted the factoid that "Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence"--a statistic is true <A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fdavekopel.org%2F2A%2FLawRev%2FGuns-Gangs-Preschools.htm" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>only if</FONT></A> one counts 18-year-old gangsters who shoot each other as "children."(Sources: Holder <A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usdoj.gov%2Farchive%2Fdag%2Ftestimony%2Fdagcrime052799.htm" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>testimony</FONT></A> before House Judiciary Committee, Subcommitee on Crime, May 27,1999; <A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.talkleft.com%2Fstory%2F2008%2F11%2F18%2F202950%2F27" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>Holder Weekly Briefing</FONT></A>, May 20, 2000. One of the bills that Holder endorsed is detailed in my 1999 Issue Paper "<A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fdavekopel.org%2F2A%2FIP%2Funfair.htm" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>Unfair and Unconstitutional</FONT></A>.") <BR><BR>After 9/11, he penned a Washington Post op-ed, "Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists" arguing that a new law should give "the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale." He also stated that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret "watch lists" compiled by various government entities. (In an <A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fdavekopel.org%2F2A%2FIB%2FNew-McCarthyism.pdf" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>Issue Paper</FONT></A> on the watch list proposal, I quote a FBI spokesman stating that there is no cause to deny gun ownership to someone simply because she is on the FBI list.)<BR><BR>After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the D.C. handgun ban and self-defense ban were unconstitutional in 2007, Holder <A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fseattletimes.nwsource.com%2Fhtml%2Fnationworld%2F2003611216_gunban10.html" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>complained</FONT></A> that the decision "opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets."<BR><BR>Holder <A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2Fstories%2F0608%2F11295.html" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>played</FONT></A> a key role in the gunpoint, night-time kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez. The <A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fdavekopel.org%2FNRO%2F2000%2FIs-Miami-Another-Waco.htm" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>pretext</FONT></A> for the paramilitary invasion of the six-year-old's home was that someone in his family might have been licensed to carry a handgun under Florida law. Although a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo showed a federal agent dressed like a soldier and pointing a machine gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, Holder <A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsbusters.org%2Fblogs%2Ftom-blumer%2F2008%2F06%2F13%2Fobama-vp-committe-member-helped-enable-2000-elian-gonzalez-seizure" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>claimed</FONT></A> that Gonzalez "was not taken at the point of a gun" and that the federal agents whom Holder had sent to capture Gonzalez had acted "very sensitively." If Mr. Holder believes that breaking down a door with a battering ram, pointing guns at children (not just Elian), and yelling "Get down, get down, we'll shoot" is example of acting "very sensitively," his judgment about the responsible use of firearms is not as acute as would be desirable for a cabinet officer who would be in charge of thousands and thousands of armed federal agents, many of them paramilitary agents with machine guns. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV> <DIV align=justify>And finally, <A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gurapossessky.com%2Fnews%2Fparker%2Fdocuments%2FBriefforFormerDOJOfficialsasAmiciCuriae.pdf" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>Holder's view</FONT></A> (pdf) of what the Second Amendment really means:<BR></DIV> <DIV class=align_l style="MARGIN: 5px 20px 20px"> </DIV> <DIV class=quotebox_b style="MARGIN: 5px 20px 20px"> <DIV class=quotebox_tr> <DIV class=quotebox_br> <TABLE class=quotebox_tbl cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD class=quotebox_body> <DIV align=center><B>INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE</B></DIV> <DIV align=justify><BR>Amici curiae are former officials of the United States Department of Justice.1 In their official capacities, amici curiae were responsible for enforcing the laws of the United States, including federal laws that regulate the possession, use, ownership, and sale of firearms. They submit this brief to express their view that federal, state, and local gun control legislation is a vitally important law enforcement tool used to combat violent crime and protect public safety. <B>Amici disagree with the current position of the United States Department of Justice that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for purposes unrelated to a State's operation of a well-regulated militia.</B> That position, which was adopted in the fall of 2001, reversed the Department's longstanding position that the Second Amendment is not implicated by firearms regulations that are designed to protect public safety and do not interfere with participation in a well-regulated militia. <B>The Department's current position runs against the great weight of federal appellate authority, which has rejected the view that the Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms for private purposes.</B> Amici believe that the Department's original position reflects the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment and that the current position, if adopted by this Court, will place vitally important gun-control legislation at risk of invalidation, to the detriment of effective law enforcement and public safety. </DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></DIV></DIV> <DIV align=justify>How Eric Holder ever became AG is beyond me. I must conclude that those that gave him their stamp of approval were either idiots or just didn't give a shit... or both. His view of the Second Amendment--as well as Janet Reno's as her name is attached to the amicus brief as well--raises quite a few questions as to the motivation behind DOJ's pursuing both <A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Frds.yahoo.com%2F_ylt%3DA0geu5mY_KdJdSIBGm9XNyoA%3B_ylu%3DX3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--%2FSIG%3D11tck3hvr%2FEXP%3D1235832344%2F%2A%2Ahttp%253a%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDavid_Koresh" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>David Koresh</FONT></A> at Waco, Texas and <A href="http://pnwriders.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Frds.yahoo.com%2F_ylt%3DA0geu.LB_KdJwF4AAyFXNyoA%3B_ylu%3DX3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--%2FSIG%3D11ts06ri9%2FEXP%3D1235832385%2F%2A%2Ahttp%253a%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRandy_Weaver" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>Randy Weaver</FONT></A> at Ruby Ridge in Idaho. If they were acting under the belief that neither party had the Right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms for private purposes, it would explain their heavy-handed approach to disarm them.</FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-13548860218111961842009-02-26T08:10:00.001-08:002009-02-26T08:10:53.199-08:00No Taxation Without Representation, Redux<DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>It seems the county governments in our fine state don't want to do what every taxpayer in their position is being forced to do, tighten their belts and cut spending to bring their budgets under control. No, they'd rather force the people into paying higher taxes by going to the state legislature asking their permission to bypass the voter to raise taxes.</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>From <A href="http://www.komonews.com/news/40260557.html">this AP article</A>:</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - County officials want the Legislature to let them raise some taxes without a public vote.<BR><BR>The House Finance Committee held a public hearing on two bills Tuesday, one that would only apply to King County, and the other that would apply to the state's 38 other counties.<BR><BR>The News Tribune of Tacoma reports that the bills would let local county council members raise sales taxes by themselves and give counties the same ability to impose a 6 percent tax on water, sewer and electrical utilities that cities now have.<BR><BR>Currently, counties are allowed to raise the local sales tax by 0.3 percent with a public vote as long as the money is used to pay for public safety programs. Forty percent of that new money goes to cities.<BR><BR>In 2003, Pierce County tried to raise the sales tax to hire 100 law enforcement officers in the county and its cities, but voters overwhelmingly rejected it.<BR><BR>Voters in Thurston County have twice rejected similar tax proposals.<BR><BR>State Rep. Ed Orcutt, R-Kalama and a member of the committee, noted that these bills would let council members impose taxes that voters already have rejected.<BR><BR>"You're now asking us to change the rules?" Orcutt asked.<BR><BR>Scott Merriman, deputy director of the Association of Counties, and Jim Justin, his counterpart with the cities' association, said they just want the option of having either a public vote or a council vote.<BR><BR>They told the committee that local elected officials would discuss taxing options with their constituents before taking any action, but they need options to replace some of the money that cities and counties have lost because of lower tax collections in the economic downturn.<BR><BR>"Are you considering at all that revenues are down because consumer revenues are down and consumers cannot afford to take any more money out of their pockets?" Orcutt asked. "How can you sit here and say you want to change the rules without letting them have a vote on it?"<BR><BR>Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina, finance committee chairman and prime sponsor of the measure for King County, said he wants to help keep the county from making drastic cuts to its human services programs.<BR><BR>That bill also contains a provision to help cities collect more money if they annex a portion of unincorporated King County that has a very small tax base and whose residents don't pay enough taxes to cover all the city services they get.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>So, in many cases, the voters have already told county councils that there's just no more money to be had. Not content with hearing no, the councils have decided to do what governments are really good at: forcing the people to pay up regardless of their wishes. But this has all been done before:</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>In 1765, the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which placed a tax on newspapers, almanacs, cards, legal documents, and other paper documents. Although this was not the first tax that Parliament had put on the American colonists, it was the first tax to affect everyone, not just merchants or other special groups of people. As a result, many people in the colonies were angry. They believed that it was unfair to have Parliament make the Americans pay taxes when they had no say in the decision. Most colonial governments were headed by governors appointed by Britain, rather than people elected by Americans. Many felt that they should not be taxed unless they had a representative in Parliament.<BR><BR>Most members of Parliament were convinced that Britain ought to be able to collect taxes from the colonists. Thus, they did not bother with the colonists complaints. This made the American protesters even angrier. Groups like the Sons of Liberty started to organize demonstrations against unfair British policies. People like Patrick Henry in Virginia and Samuel Adams in Massachusetts spoke out against British taxes. The Americans who didn't like Britain's taxes started using this slogan: "no taxation without representation."<BR><BR>In 1765, delegates from nine out of the thirteen colonies met in New York City at the Stamp Act Congress. On October 19, 1765, they signed a resolution which stated that it was their right to have "no taxes imposed on them ... [except] with their own consent, given personally or by their representatives." In reply to all the colonial demonstrations, the British Parliament got rid of the Stamp Act, but passed a law called the Declaratory Act, which stated that Parliament had "full power and authority to make laws and statutes ... in all cases whatsoever," including taxation. The argument over this issue was one of the major causes of the Revolutionary War. (<A href="http://www.historycentral.com/revolt/stories/taxation.html" target=_blank><FONT color=#1b5891>Source</FONT></A>)</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>It's like a game of chess where the state is surrounding us with their pieces. We're at the point where we realize that unless we do something drastic, our king piece will be lost and the game will be over forever. They are forcing us to do that which all free men will eventually have to do to remain free. We will be forced to fight to defend ourselves, our property, and our way of life. We already know their next move. History tells us what it is. They will declare that they have "full power and authority to make laws and statutes ... in all cases whatsoever, including taxation." And we know our next move... Revolution.</FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-59440915209468243712009-02-22T19:44:00.000-08:002009-02-22T19:45:49.804-08:00Choosing Their Weapons<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><IMG alt="" hspace=0 src="http://www.currentobservations.us/images/Differences.jpg" align=baseline border=0></FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-28478608753009963892009-02-15T19:49:00.001-08:002009-02-15T19:49:47.019-08:00Quote of the Day<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"I believe in education of the mind over legislation by force."</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>~<A href="http://pnwriders.com/hot-topics/95444-guilty-association-blast-past-maybe-present.html#post1554338">Pointman</A> (my buddy from <A href="http://pnwriders.com/">PNWRiders.com</A>)</FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-4507372930162618322009-02-15T08:25:00.001-08:002009-02-15T08:25:34.930-08:00Can't Remember Sh... No Wait! <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>CRS stands for Congressional Research Service. What is CRS and why am I bringing it up? Here's why:</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV align=justify><FONT size=+0><FONT face=Arial><STRONG>Wikileaks releases thousands of CRS reports</STRONG></FONT></FONT></DIV> <P class=news-item-teaser align=justify><STRONG><FONT face=Arial size=2>Wikileaks releases a massive cache of unpublished reports from Congress' $100 million think tank, covering timely topics ranging from intelligence reform to the DTV transition.</FONT></STRONG></P> <DIV class=news-item-byline align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>By </FONT><A href="http://arstechnica.com/authors/julian-sanchez/"><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Julian Sanchez</FONT></A><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial> | Last updated <ABBR class=datetime title=2009-02-09T16:28:20-06:00>February 9, 2009 4:28</ABBR></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV class=news-item-byline align=justify><ABBR class=datetime title=2009-02-09T16:28:20-06:00><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></ABBR> </DIV> <DIV class=news-item-byline align=justify><ABBR class=datetime title=2009-02-09T16:28:20-06:00></ABBR><FONT face=Arial size=2>You'd be hard-pressed to tell sometimes, but the United States Congress actually maintains its own in-house think tank, staffed by a seasoned team of lawyers, economists, and policy experts: the </FONT><A href="http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/aboutcrs.html"><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Congressional Research Service</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>. Founded in 1914 as the Legislative Reference Service, CRS now commands an annual budget in excess of $100 million. But while its funding is public, the reports CRS producescovering 150 distinct issue areas, according to its </FONT><A href="http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/CRS07_AnnRpt.pdf"><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>2007 annual report</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>aren't. While members of Congress frequently choose to make reports they've commissioned public, CRS itself has resisted multiple efforts to amend the law to make its research public as a matter of course.</FONT></DIV> <DIV class=news-item-byline align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV class=news-item-byline align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>As that 2007 report puts it, CRS's "policy of confidentiality" is meant to reassure legislators that "that they can come to CRS to explore issues, and they can do so without question, challenge, or disclosure." The idea is to let members inquire into controversial topics without exposing themselves to controversybut the result is also that legislators get to pick and choose which findings they want to share with the rest of the world.</FONT></DIV> <DIV class=news-item-byline align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV class=news-item-byline align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>The Center for Democracy and Technology has been doing its best to pierce that veil of confidentiality with </FONT><A href="http://opencrs.com/"><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>OpenCRS</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>, a repository of all the reports that have been released or leaked. This weekend, they got a </FONT><A href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Change_you_can_download:_a_billion_in_secret_Congressional_reports"><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>treasure trove of fresh documents</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2> thanks to Wikileaks, which has passed along 6,780 CRS reportsthe vast majority of which weren't previously available. Almost 2,300 of them were produced or updated in the past year, and many address such timely issues as the </FONT><A href="http://opencrs.com/document/RL34165"><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>DTV transition</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>, the </FONT><A href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_Director_of_National_Intelligence_Statutory_Authorities:_Status_and_Proposals%2C_January_15%2C_2009"><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>powers of the Director of National Intelligence</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>, </FONT><A href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_Economic_Stimulus:_Issues_and_Policies%2C_January_16%2C_2009"><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>economic stimulus</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>, the </FONT><A href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_Fairness_Doctrine:_History_and_Constitutional_Issues%2C_January_12%2C_2009"><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Fairness Doctrine</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>, </FONT><A href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_Privacy_Protection_for_Customer_Financial_Information%2C_January_7%2C_2009"><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>consumer privacy legislation</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>, and </FONT><A href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_The_President%27s_Office_of_Science_and_Technology_Policy:_Issues_for_Congress%2C_December_24%2C_2008"><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>the future of the Office of Science and Technology Policy</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>.</FONT></DIV> <DIV class=news-item-byline align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV class=news-item-byline align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Congress, of course, could choose to make all this redundant by simply instructing CRS to publicly post its own reports. In the meantime, you can </FONT><A href="http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4713076"><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>BitTorrent the whole cache</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2> from, believe it or not, The Pirate Bay. (<A href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/wikileaks-releases-thousands-of-crs-reports.ars"><FONT color=#000000>Source</FONT></A>)</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV class=news-item-byline dir=ltr align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>That's just awesome! So much so that it inspired the following:</FONT></DIV> <DIV class=news-item-byline dir=ltr align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV class=news-item-byline dir=ltr align=center><FONT face=Arial size=2><IMG alt="" hspace=0 src="http://www.currentobservations.us/images/CRS%20Exposed.jpg" align=baseline border=0></FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-50280493923228359212009-02-11T08:37:00.001-08:002009-02-11T08:37:27.392-08:00Newsweek: We Are All Socialists Now<DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2><A href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663/page/2"><IMG style="WIDTH: 125px; HEIGHT: 165px" alt="" hspace=10 src="http://ndn2.newsweek.com/media/25/090207_COVER_small-thumb5.jpg" align=right vspace=10 border=0></A>This <A href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663/page/2">Newsweek article</A> states:</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>The answer [for fixing our faltering economy] may indeed be more government. In the short run, since neither consumers nor business is likely to do it, the government will have to stimulate the economy. And in the long run, an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more government taxing and spending. The catch is that more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment). Growth has always been America's birthright and saving grace. </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV align=justify>This, the authors claim, makes us more socialistic. I say they are wrong. If anything, the U.S. is well on its way to becoming a fascist state. Fascism is defined as,</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV align=justify>A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)<BR>(American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957). </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV align=justify>Whereas socialism is defined as,</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV align=justify>"a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means or production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole" (American College Dictionary). </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV align=justify>If anything, what with the eminent re-emergence of the Fairness Doctrine, the former definition is by far more correct. Bush, Jr. started the ball rolling down this path. Obama and the Congress are more than happy to pick it up and run with it.</FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-13158363727915555702009-02-06T07:00:00.001-08:002009-02-06T07:00:32.551-08:00Other People's Money (Revisited)<DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=4>O</FONT><FONT size=2>ther</FONT> <FONT size=4>P</FONT><FONT size=2>eople's</FONT> <FONT size=4>M</FONT><FONT size=2>oney or</FONT> <FONT size=4>OPM</FONT><FONT size=2> (pronounced "opium".)<BR><BR>OPM: it's a drug that most politicians seem to get hooked on the moment they get voted into office.<BR><BR>Is you politician an OPM addict? <BR><BR>There are many signs that a politician may have an OPM addiction. The OPM addiction signs listed below are cues to look for when evaluating this matter. Be aware that possessing several of these signs does not always imply that there is an OPM addiction present, but if one is suspected be supportive of the politician in their road to OPM addiction recovery. <BR><BR>OPM addiction signs may include: </FONT></FONT></DIV> <UL> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Increase in appetite; changes in eating habits, unexplained expenditures. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Traces of OPM in bills, briefs, or promises. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Extreme hyperactivity; excessive talkativeness. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Paper cuts on fingers. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Change in overall attitude / personality with no other identifiable cause. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Changes in friends: new hang-outs, avoidance of old crowds, new friends are OPM users. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Change in activities; loss of interest in things that were important before. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Changes in habits at home; loss of interest in family and family activities. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Difficulty in telling the truth, even when the truth would serve them best. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Lack of moral integrity, self-esteem, discipline. Displays a "What's in it for me?" attitude. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Defensiveness, temper tantrums, resentful behavior (everything is a threat to his re-election). </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Unexplained moodiness, irritability, or nervousness when questioned on spending. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Violent temper or bizarre behavior when presented with budget cuts. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Paranoia -- suspiciousness. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Excessive need for privacy; keeps door locked or closed, won't let people in. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Secretive or suspicious behavior. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Car accidents, fender benders, household accidents. Quits paying taxes. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Chronic dishonesty; trouble with police; lies constantly. Makes outlandish promises. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Unexplained need for <SPAN class=highlight>money</SPAN>; can't explain where <SPAN class=highlight>money</SPAN> goes; stealing. </FONT></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Unusual effort to cover his own ass at the expense of others. </FONT></DIV></LI></UL> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>If you feel that your politician is an OPM addict, the only cure is to either vote them out of office or--in the most extreme cases--outright revolution.</FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-32526360496131671412009-01-24T08:38:00.001-08:002009-01-24T08:38:57.703-08:00Right to Know<DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>As to the question of whether Obama can keep his blackberry or not...</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>I ran across the following while doing some research and I felt it codifies why no one that works for the people should be allowed to circumvent records-keeping measures:</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV align=justify><A href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.30.010" target=_blank><FONT face=Arial color=#1b5891 size=2>RCW 42.30.010</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Legislative declaration. <BR><BR>The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.<BR><BR>The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Pay particular attention to the second paragraph. It's saying that we are the masters and demand to be informed of the actions of our servant government officials. Notice that it makes no distinction between state public servants or federal public servants. This, as they say, is a universal truth: the people <I>always</I> have a right to know what their government is up to. Why? The last sentence above tells us, "so that [we] may retain control over the instruments [we] have created."<BR><BR>Obama can keep his blackberry, but it will be logged, tracked, recorded, traced--whatever--so that the people can have confidence they retain control over their servant government official.</FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-27731429723770118192009-01-15T07:38:00.000-08:002009-01-15T07:39:02.784-08:00Continuity We Can Believe In<DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>With the news that Timothy Geithner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick to head the Treasury Department, failed to pay $34,000 in taxes several years ago, I decided it was time to finish a poster I've been wanting to make...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV align=center><FONT face=Arial size=2><IMG alt="" hspace=0 src="http://www.currentobservations.us/images/Continuity%20We%20Can%20Believe%20In.jpg" align=baseline border=0></FONT></DIV> <DIV align=center><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thanks go to <A href="http://laceylibertarian.us/">Mark</A> for his inspiration. Feel free to share!</FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-36207941011077316652009-01-12T08:31:00.000-08:002009-01-12T08:32:09.518-08:00Thought for the Day<FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> <DIV align=center><IMG src="http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10275/TheConstitution.jpg"></DIV> <DIV> </DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-14332136499738185282008-12-31T12:17:00.001-08:002008-12-31T12:17:57.288-08:00Quote for Today<FONT face=Arial size=2> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>I wouldn't call it fascism exactly, but a political system nominally controlled by an irresponsible, dumbed down electorate who are manipulated by dishonest, cynical, controlled mass media that dispense the propaganda of a corrupt political establishment can hardly be described as democracy either.</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=justify>~ Edward Zehr </DIV> <DIV align=justify> </DIV> <DIV align=justify>This quote pretty much sums up the better part of the last eight years. Let's see what the next four years hold for us under Obama's leadership.</DIV> <DIV align=justify> </DIV> <DIV align=justify>As <A href="http://laceylibertarian.us/">Mark</A> likes to say, "<STRIKE>Change</STRIKE> Continuity You Can Believe In."</DIV></FONT><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-43686305421932888442008-12-30T07:37:00.001-08:002008-12-30T07:37:13.632-08:00Boot to the Head<DIV align=center><FONT face=Arial size=2><A href="http://www.aksalser.com/game.htm"><IMG alt="Boot to the head" hspace=0 src="http://www.currentobservations.us\images\Boot to the Head.jpg" align=baseline border=0></A></FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-23512864169150960582008-12-08T08:32:00.001-08:002008-12-08T08:32:34.148-08:00You Asked For A Flat Tax...<FONT face=Arial size=2>You got a <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax">flat tax</A>. Well, a flatulence tax, that is. It seems the idiots at EPA are considering imposing a tax on farmers who's livestock emit methane when they fart. Up to $175 a head, according to this <A href="http://www.nbc11news.com/home/headlines/35695074.html">article</A>. This, of course, is absolutely preposterous and anyone connected with its proposal should be laughed right out of their jobs.</FONT><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-31661122896324529442008-12-04T08:53:00.001-08:002008-12-04T08:53:43.415-08:00False Flag Operations<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>...are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>I was thinking about this mess in India the other day and decided to put on my tinfoil hat for a moment. By putting on this hat, my brain is allowed to make connections between events that reasonable people don't usually make. Anyway, there I was, brain a stewin' in its own juices when a scenario formed. Bing went the bell like a timer on a pop tart.</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>The shootings in India are a false flag operation carried out by [The United States or Great Britain]. The perps are reported to be from Pakistan, but I saw a <A href="http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/60507/Brit-terror-nuts-shoot-girl-I3-dead/">news headline</A> that said some of them were actually British-born Pakistanis from the same area that produced the 7-7 bombers. But why? Why a false flag operation to make it look like Pakistan was behind it? Well, the US lost its hold over Pakistan when the puppet dictator Musharref finally stepped down. The US has been looking for any excuse to get into Pakistan militarily. A link to terrorism would be ideal. A false flag operation would give them just that excuse. </FONT></DIV> <DIV align=justify> </DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Pakistan sits between Afghanistan and the Arabian Sea. This would allow <A href="http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/middle_east_oil_gas_products_pipelines_map.html">oil-based exports</A> to flow easily from the Caspian Sea Basin, through Afghanistan down to Pakistan, and onto tankers. The tankers would no longer have to go all the way up the Persian Gulf to Iraq or Kuwait. This would keep them from having to go through the <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz">Strait of Hormuz</A> and Iran. Strategically it makes perfect sense.</FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8317956.post-14588879476552867072008-11-18T08:15:00.001-08:002008-11-18T08:15:34.568-08:00Supreme Court Upholds Bill Of Rights In 5-4 Decision<DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=1>November 14, 2008 | </FONT><A href="http://www.theonion.com/content/index/4446"><FONT color=#003366 size=1>Issue 4446</FONT></A></FONT></DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>WASHINGTONIn a landmark decision Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled to uphold the Bill of Rights, the very tenets upon which American society is based. "After carefully considering the relevance of the 10 inviolable rights that comprise the ideological foundation on which our nation is built, the court finds that these basic freedoms remain important for the time being, and should not be overturned," read the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who cast the tie-breaking vote. "Until such time as it can be definitively proven that citizens no longer require the protections provided by the Bill of Rights, it shall remain the principal legal guidance for the United States of America." The Supreme Court's latest decision comes on the heels of last month's 6-3 ruling to abolish the pursuit of happiness from the three inalienable rights guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence. (<A href="http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_upholds_bill">Article Source</A>)</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bwahahahaha!!!</FONT></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer">"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
~ Thomas Paine</div>Don Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07693810630189913352noreply@blogger.com0