Current Observations

Newsflash: Militia ≠ Army

2009-10-03T09:24:00.000-07:00

This just in...

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.

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,

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.

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,

a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them...

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?

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.

"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.
"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.

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.

Differences

2009-08-11T07:19:00.001-07:00

I heard this on the Dave Champion Show a few days ago and thought it was worth sharing:

What is the qualitative difference between a libertarian and a liberal?

A libertarian trusts the average person to be decent, caring, generous and willing to do the right thing when needed.

A liberal expects the average person to be anything but, unless forced to.

Taking a Long Sip

2009-05-28T21:39:00.000-07:00

After reading about rape and torture, I figured it was time for a post to the ol' blog.

Where's your outrage, America? What? Too busy sucking down the Kool Aid?

Idiocracy, the Documentary?

2009-04-20T07:21:00.001-07:00

You decide.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

2009-04-12T08:07:00.001-07:00

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 article:

Rasmussen Poll Indicates American Shift Toward Socialism
by Kristin Schall

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Kristin Schall is the chairperson of the Socialist Party USA, NYC Local.

Ms. Schall FAILS! 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. Here's the rest of what Rasmussen said:

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.

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.

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.

The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism

It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. 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.

Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

Fifteen percent (15%) of Americans say they prefer a government-managed economy, similar to the 20% support for socialism. Just 14% believe the federal government would do a better job running auto companies, and even fewer believe government would do a better job running financial firms.

Most Americans today hold views that can generally be defined as populist while only seven percent (7%) share the elitist views of the Political Class.

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.

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.

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.

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 "We are all Socialists Now." What they described in their article was fascism.

As always, the devil is in the details.

Geithner Wallpapers America

2009-04-06T07:27:00.001-07:00

Irony

2009-03-31T07:36:00.000-07:00

North Carolina Nursing Home Shooting

2009-03-30T07:29:00.001-07:00

I just had a quick thought about the recent shooting at the North Carolina nursing home. While reading this article, I ran across this quote:

The injured included a police officer hailed as a hero for shooting the gunman before more people could be killed.

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.

At the end of the linked-to article was this parting statement:

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.

In the Alabama shooting spree, the shooter was brought down by himself, apparently after realizing that he was finished when the police began shooting back at him.

McLendon ... shot himself after engaging in a shootout with law enforcement officers.

The rampage in Germany also ended the same way:

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.

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.

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?

This Year's Tax Terrorism Season

2009-03-24T08:38:00.001-07:00

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.

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:

Judge Rules: Not Filing Since 1999 Is No Crime!

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 no criminal act.

(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 they decidednot a courtthat he's broken some law. Innocent until proven guilty? The Florida Bar can't be troubled with that fanciful notion.)

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, Truth Attack's Tom Cryer, had plenty to say about that in his response.

(Ed Note: Including "Constitutionalists" in its list of anti-government groups fits nicely with what we're seeing in other arenas where these groups are being demonized for their positions against what they perceive as government run amok.)

In his cross examination of the Bar's "expert" witness, Cryer was able to force the witness to admit that he could not cite any specific authority making Behm liable for the income tax (Emphasis added), 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."

(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 here.

In addition, note that the "expert" could not:

cite any specific authority making Behm liable for the income tax,
the absence of such a statute is not among the official list of "frivolous" arguments, and
he did not really have a clear definition of "income."
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.)

Chuck Behm then testified that his research into the code (USC Title 26) and Supreme Court authorities forced him to conclude that he is not liable for the federal income tax and, therefore, not among those required to file returns, that he had no income within the meaning of the Constitution and the Sixteenth Amendment, and that he is engaging in no activity within the federal government's power to tax (Lots of emphasis added). 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.

(Ed Note: A quick recap of Behm's testimony:

he had no income within the meaning of the Constitution,
he had no income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment, and
he is engaging in no activity within the federal government's power to tax

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. Cryer rebutted that argument by contending that people do not depend on attorneys to support the government, but to support the Constitution, to protect their rights, and to stand up to the government when it abuses either. (Emphasis added)

Judge Boyer ruled that Behm had committed no criminal act by refusing to file federal income taxes, but the case is far from over. He also ruled that the failure to file was unlawful although he could give no specific basis for that finding. 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. (Source)

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.

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.

Eric Holder Montage

2009-02-27T07:02:00.001-08:00

Back in November, the Second Amendment Foundation sent out this warning when Holder was up for nomination...

NEWS RELEASE

Second Amendment Foundation

12500 NE Tenth Place Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 454-7012 FAX (425) 451-3959 www.saf.org

HOLDER NOMINATION SIGNALS OBAMA'S
TRUE ANTI-GUN RIGHTS AGENDA

For Immediate Release: 11/19/2008

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

"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.

"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."

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) 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.

-END-

(Source)

Then there's this post from The Volokh Conspiracy:

[David Kopel, November 20, 2008 at 7:41pm]

Eric Holder on firearms policy:

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 brief 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.

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.

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 only if one counts 18-year-old gangsters who shoot each other as "children."(Sources: Holder testimony before House Judiciary Committee, Subcommitee on Crime, May 27,1999; Holder Weekly Briefing, May 20, 2000. One of the bills that Holder endorsed is detailed in my 1999 Issue Paper "Unfair and Unconstitutional.")

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 Issue Paper 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.)

After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the D.C. handgun ban and self-defense ban were unconstitutional in 2007, Holder complained that the decision "opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets."

Holder played a key role in the gunpoint, night-time kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez. The pretext 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 claimed 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.

And finally, Holder's view (pdf) of what the Second Amendment really means:

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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 David Koresh at Waco, Texas and Randy Weaver 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.

No Taxation Without Representation, Redux

2009-02-26T08:10:00.001-08:00

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.

From this AP article:

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - County officials want the Legislature to let them raise some taxes without a public vote.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Voters in Thurston County have twice rejected similar tax proposals.

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.

"You're now asking us to change the rules?" Orcutt asked.

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.

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.

"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?"

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.

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.

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:

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.

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."

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. (Source)

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.

Choosing Their Weapons

2009-02-22T19:44:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

2009-02-15T19:49:00.001-08:00

"I believe in education of the mind over legislation by force."

~Pointman (my buddy from PNWRiders.com)

Can't Remember Sh... No Wait!

2009-02-15T08:25:00.001-08:00

CRS stands for Congressional Research Service. What is CRS and why am I bringing it up? Here's why:

Wikileaks releases thousands of CRS reports

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.

By Julian Sanchez | Last updated February 9, 2009 4:28

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 Congressional Research Service. 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 2007 annual reportaren'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.

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.

The Center for Democracy and Technology has been doing its best to pierce that veil of confidentiality with OpenCRS, a repository of all the reports that have been released or leaked. This weekend, they got a treasure trove of fresh documents 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 DTV transition, the powers of the Director of National Intelligence, economic stimulus, the Fairness Doctrine, consumer privacy legislation, and the future of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

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 BitTorrent the whole cache from, believe it or not, The Pirate Bay. (Source)

That's just awesome! So much so that it inspired the following:

Newsweek: We Are All Socialists Now

2009-02-11T08:37:00.001-08:00

This Newsweek article states:

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.

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,

A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)
(American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957).

Whereas socialism is defined as,

"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).

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.

Other People's Money (Revisited)

2009-02-06T07:00:00.001-08:00

Other People's Money or OPM (pronounced "opium".)

OPM: it's a drug that most politicians seem to get hooked on the moment they get voted into office.

Is you politician an OPM addict?

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.

OPM addiction signs may include:

Increase in appetite; changes in eating habits, unexplained expenditures.
Traces of OPM in bills, briefs, or promises.
Extreme hyperactivity; excessive talkativeness.
Paper cuts on fingers.
Change in overall attitude / personality with no other identifiable cause.
Changes in friends: new hang-outs, avoidance of old crowds, new friends are OPM users.
Change in activities; loss of interest in things that were important before.
Changes in habits at home; loss of interest in family and family activities.
Difficulty in telling the truth, even when the truth would serve them best.
Lack of moral integrity, self-esteem, discipline. Displays a "What's in it for me?" attitude.
Defensiveness, temper tantrums, resentful behavior (everything is a threat to his re-election).
Unexplained moodiness, irritability, or nervousness when questioned on spending.
Violent temper or bizarre behavior when presented with budget cuts.
Paranoia -- suspiciousness.
Excessive need for privacy; keeps door locked or closed, won't let people in.
Secretive or suspicious behavior.
Car accidents, fender benders, household accidents. Quits paying taxes.
Chronic dishonesty; trouble with police; lies constantly. Makes outlandish promises.
Unexplained need for money; can't explain where money goes; stealing.
Unusual effort to cover his own ass at the expense of others.

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.

Right to Know

2009-01-24T08:38:00.001-08:00

As to the question of whether Obama can keep his blackberry or not...

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:

RCW 42.30.010
Legislative declaration.

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.

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.

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 always 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."

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.

Continuity We Can Believe In

2009-01-15T07:38:00.000-08:00

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...

Thanks go to Mark for his inspiration. Feel free to share!

Thought for the Day

2009-01-12T08:31:00.000-08:00

Quote for Today

2008-12-31T12:17:00.001-08:00

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.

~ Edward Zehr

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.

As Mark likes to say, "~~Change~~ Continuity You Can Believe In."

Boot to the Head

2008-12-30T07:37:00.001-08:00

You Asked For A Flat Tax...

2008-12-08T08:32:00.001-08:00

You got a flat tax. 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 article. This, of course, is absolutely preposterous and anyone connected with its proposal should be laughed right out of their jobs.

False Flag Operations

2008-12-04T08:53:00.001-08:00

...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.

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.

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 news headline 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.

Pakistan sits between Afghanistan and the Arabian Sea. This would allow oil-based exports 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 Strait of Hormuz and Iran. Strategically it makes perfect sense.

Supreme Court Upholds Bill Of Rights In 5-4 Decision

2008-11-18T08:15:00.001-08:00

November 14, 2008 | Issue 4446

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. (Article Source)

Bwahahahaha!!!

It's Decision Time

2008-11-03T06:49:00.001-08:00

It's time, once again, to cast our votes. The question was asked, "Why are you voting for the person you're for?" Here's my answer...

I believe the government's job is to provide society protection from invaders. I believe its job is to secure our borders. I believe its job is to coin money and regulate its value. I believe government's job is make laws which are proper and just and constitutional. I believe its job... I could go on, but you get the point. I have a certain understanding of what out government's job is and now the question before me is, "Is there a candidate that has the same understanding of what government's job is?"

Hmmm... McCain? On some points, yes. Not all, though. Obama, same thing. On down the list I go. Ron Paul (even though he's no longer listed on my ballot), yes. Too bad he got washed out be the machine. But, wait! Who's this? Chuck Baldwin. The Constitution Party's candidate. A little too religious for me, but at least I know he's got a moral compass. And his beliefs of what our government's job is matches almost exactly with mine. Hell ya! I think I found my candidate.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how it's done. Vote for the candidate that intends to use your government in the way you think it's meant to be used. Remember, government is just a tool. How it's used is up to you.

Feeling A Bit Deleveraged?

2008-09-21T14:39:00.000-07:00

There's been much talk lately about the financial markets unwinding. On one particular forum I participate with, it has been asserted by some that the ones responsible for the gathering storm are the architects of the mortgage and financial products scheme, while others claim that the blame should be placed on the shoulders of the ignorant buyers of their products. That's like saying that the drug problem is caused by drug dealers, not drug addicts (or vise versa). Pure BS, of course! They both share in the blame. You can't have one without the other. But, risky mortgages themselves aren't the real problem. It's much more complex than that. It seems the problem stemmed from creating commodities from debt instruments and selling them. It came from placing bets on whether borrowers would default on their loans and then not being able to cover those bets when they did. It came from putting book value in something of no value, then borrowing against it to lend to others. It was a house of cards just begging to be kicked over.

People buying homes they couldn't afford was just the beginning. The whole system was built on the belief that tomorrow would be better than today and everyone would be able to pay their bills. Well, that didn't happen. Businesses will fall; big American icons will be consumed or disappear because they made bad business decisions driven by what? Greed, I'm sure. And who's to blame? Themselves, mostly. They short-circuited the home buying system that had worked so well in the past. It use to be that you had to have so much down, that you had a whole row of hoops to jump through before they'd even look at you. But, now? All you have to have is a pulse and a paycheck (and the paycheck was optional).

But why? Why would these companies hang themselves like this? Easy money. The Fed was practically giving away money to lenders. All they could want to lend. But what good is all the money in the world if those wanting to borrow it don't qualify for their home mortgages because the bar is set too high? Not to worry, they thought, we'll move the bar. Lower and lower until they finally tripped over it. So, who's to blame for this major financial F-up? Sure, "the party that wrecked America" carries some of it, as do the Democrats, but the real culprit in this story is the Fed. Yep, the entity that everyone is now running to--begging it to save us from the falling sky--is the very same entity that created this mess. And we're too blind to see it. We sit around here blaming the borrowers and lenders when we should be burning Bernanke and Greenspan on stakes out in front of the Federal Reserve building.

And, as for writers like Sally Kohn claiming that the government could have averted the current financial crisis by "creating affordable housing and good jobs, strengthening public education and providing health care and child care for all families, to help hardworking Americans thrive in the middle class instead of being pushed into poverty", I ask you, how do you plan to pay for all these social programs you've just listed? Where does the money come from? The government has no money. It only has two mechanisms for raising capital: to tax or to print. So, unless the already-working class is prepared to hand over a whole lot more of their measly paychecks to the government so that you can institute your social programs, they're going to have to fire up the printing presses. Which do you want, taxes now at probably 75% or taxes on your children at probably 80%? Either way, the government has got to come up with the money to pay for it.

Oh, and speaking of the middle class being pushed into poverty, I'll remind you that the rich don't make you poorer. How one ever came to that conclusion, I'll never know. What makes you poorer? Inflation. The stealing of your purchasing power makes you poorer. The poverty line today was upper class earning levels just a few decades ago. What changed? The value of your money. And what changed the value of the money we use. The Fed. That's right, them again. Inflation constantly nibbling away at the value of your earnings potential--like a cancer on society--is the leading cause of the middle class sinking into poverty. And now it's happening at an accelerated pace. Wages have not kept up with inflation and we're all a little poorer because of it. It's because the Fed has dumped billions and billions--if not trillions--of dollars on the market in the last ten-odd years trying to forestall the coming collapse of the marketplace.

Our current system is not sustainable. The piper must be paid. As The Mogambo Guru says, We're Doomed!

Confrontation Clause

2008-09-17T09:00:00.000-07:00

A discussion was brought up at a local motorcycle forum about speed cameras in construction zones. After reading several dozen posts I was inspired to create and post this:

I think one of the underlying problems inherent with speed cameras-or any sort of traffic camera-is that as Americans we have a right to face our accusers.

In this case, its a camera. How do you argue with a camera? The evidence it provides may be right. Then again, it may be wrong. How can you possibly cross-examine this witness? You can't, which automatically tips the scale of justice to favor the camera's owner.

Green Day's Holiday

2008-08-10T13:06:00.000-07:00

My wife was looking for and found the Green Day CD,
American Idiot. I had forgotten how much I liked this album. One song
in particular stands out for me...

style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ff6600 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3px; BORDER-TOP: #ff6600 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; BORDER-LEFT: #ff6600 1px solid; WIDTH: 310px; PADDING-TOP: 3px; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px">

type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='transparent' width='310'
height='259'>

width='318' height='181'
type='application/x-shockwave-flash'/>
href="http://www.lyricsmode.com" target=_blank>Song lyrics | href="http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/g/green_day/holiday.html"
target=_blank>Holiday lyrics

Good stuff!

The Folly of Government Lists

2008-07-08T07:29:00.001-07:00

Way back when, we civil libertarians tried to warn the general population about governments and their bad habit of list making. It never fails that whenever beaurocrats decide to make lists of people to prevent undesirables from doing a certain activity, the one's who usually end up hurt are innocent bystanders. The "bad guys" usually adapt and move around this preventative measure pretty quickly.

And so it is with E-Verify. This latest attempt at controlling the general populace seems to have ensnared an innocent man by the name of Fernando Tinoco. Here's a quote of what happened from this article by Christian Science Monitor:

Two hours after Fernando Tinoco started his new job at a meatpacking plant in Chicago, he was escorted by security guards to the office and fired.

The reason: Company officials had entered his Social Security number into the Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify system. It's a mostly voluntary program designed to give employers a fast, easy way to check a person's immigration status. Mr. Tinoco's information came back as a "tentative non-confirmation," meaning that he may not be a citizen. He was shown the door.

But Tinoco is a citizen and has been since 1989. Immediately after his firing a few months ago, he went to a Social Security office and got a letter confirming his legal status. It was too late

But, as it turns out, Mr. Tinoco did have eight whole days to become an expert on navigating his way through the Department of Homeland Stupidity's E-Verify program. It seems the federal government gives workers who are given a "tentative non-confirmation" eight days to sort out their immigration status... Eight days. Nothing in government gets resolved in eight days.

It's alright, though. You have nothing to fear from this new black list created by those people tasked with protecting you. It touts a 94 percent accuracy rate. That's right. Only six out of every one hundred people applying for a job will have eight days to dispute their immigration status. You just better hope you're not one of those six. You may get mighty hungry while you're waiting to prove who you are.

Oh, and ask yourself this little question: what government office would you first turn to when trying to prove you're "legal" to work in the United States? Social Security? Better try again. E-Verify's records are pulled from the SSA's database, which means if you're shunned by E-Verify you'll find no help at the SSA either. Good luck with that one.

Quote for Today

2008-06-25T07:22:00.001-07:00

[A]ll experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
~The Declaration of Independence

A universal truth. It was true the day it was written over 200 years ago and it is just as true today.

Wave[ring] Popularity

2008-06-24T20:03:00.001-07:00

Wrong Again

2008-06-18T06:56:00.000-07:00

"[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

~ James Madison (speech in the House of Representatives, 10 January 1794)

That's why we have the...

...because the federal government is not a charity.

The Value of Things

2008-06-15T05:54:00.001-07:00

Watch and learn...

Death and Taxes

2008-06-07T03:20:00.001-07:00

I opened this week's issue of my local newspaper, The Lake Stevens Jounal, and was delighted to read the following editorial:

What's that saying about death and taxes?

BY PAM STEVENS | EDITOR

Ah, taxes! One of the constants in life, something we can always count on. That and death and if things keep going like they are, taxes may be the death of us and you still won't be able to get away from paying taxes. Inheritance taxes anyone?

Did you know that in the last 100 years, the United States has added over 40 new taxes?

The irony of it is that the more taxes we pay, the more our country seems to go into debt and it turns into this vicious cycle of raising taxes, borrowing more money; raise the taxes and borrow more.

When will the madness stop?

How many of us can use this way of thinking in our home budgets before we go bankrupt? (There are probably taxes for that too.)

Now, Senator Obama is promising to raise teacher's pay, get everyone insured and he is even promising college incentives to up and coming college students.

While all of this sounds good in theory, when we are in a recession with record breaking gas prices, increasing food costs and many families hanging on by their fingernails, how can we promise more money going out without the reality of more money having to come in?

Granted, Obama isn't the only candidate making big campaign promises but what all of these promises come down to is money yours and mine!
When retired seniors are forced out of their homes, which are paid for, because they can no longer afford the taxes on them, it is a sad day in this country.

After changing cellular phone companies, it was a good time to really look at the charges. When we left the store we had been promised a certain price for the services we were going to receive. When we actually got the bill, the taxes on those services was pushed into a whole different ballpark. Over 18 percent of our bill was taxes.

Many of these new taxes are targeted to companies. Medicare tax, unemployment tax both state and federal, Inventory tax, all sorts of telephone usage taxes, just to name a few.

How are small businesses supposed to stay in business when they are taxed at every turn?

There are so many great companies here in Lake Stevens I would hate to see these small companies go under because of the taxes they are supposed to pay.

Yes, the costs are put into the goods and services provided so that the consumer actually pays for them but there comes a point when the consumer can no longer afford goods and services from some providers. Therefore, the company goes under and more people need the government's help (which they get through our taxes, of course).

The United States Congress has had talks in the past few weeks, with CEO's of oil companies, demanding to know why they have high profits and how much money they take home each year.

While these numbers are staggering, oil companies insist that their profits are in line.

So, whom does the government answer to? Why don't they quit charging us so much in gas tax (another tax that has been added in the last hundred years) and stay within the budget they have been given like the rest of us try to do each and every month?

I'm sure that if we Washingtonians knew how much gas prices were going to be we would never have approved the consistent gas tax hikes we have incurred.

Now is the time to look at every bill you receive and see what we really pay in taxes, add them up, talk to your state and federal lawmakers and let them know how you feel about it.

Almost every household has had to cut back somewhere, now it's the government's turn.

How refreshing to see that other people are starting to awake to what I've been saying for years.

Good News & Bad News on FISA

2008-05-29T06:01:00.000-07:00

The following is an email message I received from DownsizeDc.org about their work to quash Congress's latest attempt to "modernize" FISA. If you haven't already, I ask that you add your name to the growing list of those that would like to see this latest travesty of justice thrown straight in the dust bin where it belongs.

I have bad news and good news.

We devoted all last week to combating warrantless surveillance and retroactive telecom immunity. We had reason to believe the issue would be shelved if we could prevent a vote before the weekend. No vote was held, but the issue hasn't been shelved yet.

Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) says a deal is close. We don't know all the details. We only know what Bond and a couple of his Republican allies have chosen to share with the world. But what we do know isn't good. Here's what we're hearing about the proposed "compromise" . . .

* If the Executive Branch wants to spy on the private conversations of American residents and businesses with friends, family, colleagues, and service members abroad, MOST OF THE TIME the Executive Branch will need a general order, rubber-stamped by a Secret Court and certified by the Attorney General (AG). This will permit the Executive Branch to monitor and acquire international communications, by Americans, even if they have no ties to groups like al Qaeda.

* But if there are "exigent circumstances," then the standard will be lowered. The Senator didn't provide his devilish details. Perhaps no Secret Court would be required. Maybe all the Executive Branch will need is the AG certification of the surveillance.

* Who will define exigent circumstances? Apparently, under Senator Bond's proposal, the Executive Branch will do that.

This is a rogue prosecutor's fantasy.

Senator Bond considers his proposal to be a compromise on the subject of retroactive telecom immunity. So how would Bond handle the existing court cases against the telecom companies?

* If you believe the government is spying on you, and want to bring a court challenge, your case will be heard by a Secret Court.

* The primary concern of the Secret Court will be to confirm that the AG certified the surveillance.

* If the secret court determines that the AG did in fact certify the surveillance, your case will be dismissed.

This is what the Senate Republicans mean by "compromise!" The Executive Branch would decide what the Executive Branch should be allowed to do. The AG is, after all, a member of the Executive Branch. So the only role for the Judicial Branch would be to confirm that the Executive Branch really decided to do what it decided to do.

This has an "Alice in Wonderland" quality to it. It leaves the fox in charge of the hen house. It throws the "separation of powers" out the window. This so-called compromise is still warrantless surveillance, and it's still a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

House Democrats have stood strong against warrantless spying -- so far -- but they're afraid of being labeled as soft on terrorism. They're feeling pressure from the Republicans -- who are running media campaigns in some of their districts. We must continue to urge the Democrats to NOT be afraid and continue to stand strong.

It's worked so far, and it can continue to work, if we can maintain the pressure.

The good news is that we've been fighting these proposals for two years, and we've won every battle but one. The battle we lost was the rushed vote on the "Protect America Act." It only passed because it was considered a temporary measure, with a six-month sunset. The PAA was allowed to sunset out of existence, thanks to pressure from folks like you.

Let's be clear about this: the existing FISA law doesn't need to be "modernized." It's already been updated more than 50 times, including 8 times during the current administration. Under the existing FISA law surveillance can begin 72 hours BEFORE a FISA warrant request is filed, and the FISA court approves 99% of all warrant requests. The President already has everything he needs to respond to emergency threats.

The only reason the President and the Republicans are asking for more is because the President, members of his administration, and the telecoms broke the law and violated the Constitution. They want retroactive cover for their criminal actions in order to protect their allies from going to jail or paying big fines.

They want to violate your rights in order to save their own skins. This must not be allowed. The Republican's self-serving scare mongering must be opposed. The Democrats must continue to stand firm. They must not chicken out and allow themselves to be intimidated.

Congress returns to Capitol Hill next week. They should be greeted by an overwhelming response. They should feel that moving this bill forward would be like touching an electrified rail. Please send Congress another message. Use your personal comments to tell them that you know how the existing FISA law works, and that nothing else is needed -- tell them to reject Senator Bond's so-called "compromise."

You can send your message here.

An Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore

2008-04-21T07:25:00.001-07:00

While watching the History Channel yesterday, they showed a program about the top ten catastrophes facing our planet. Coming in at the number 1 spot was global warming. As part of their segment, they interviewed Al Gore. It was at this point the show lost virtually all credibility with me. I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening. But, the science they're relying on is garbage. And for them to trot out Al Gore as the universal spokesman shows what a circus it is.

Here's an excerpt from an article titled Global Warming - Science or Politics as Usual?, that sums it up pretty well:

Bill Hobb's goes on to tell us where Mr. Gore buys his [carbon] offset's:

But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe
Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

And it is not clear at all that Gore's stock purchases - excuse me, "carbon offsets" purchases - actually help reduce the use of carbon-based energy at all, while the gas lanterns and other carbon-based energy burners at his house continue to burn carbon-based fuels and pump carbon emissions - a/k/a/ "greenhouse gases" - into the atmosphere.

Gore's people tout his purchase of "carbon offsets" as evidence that he lives a "carbon-neutral" lifestyle, but the truth is Gore's home uses electricity that is, for the most part, derived from the burning of carbon fuels. His house gets its electricity from Nashville Electric Service, which gets its from the Tennessee Valley Authority, which produces most of its power from coal-burning power plants. Which means most of the power being consumed at the Gore mansion comes from carbon-emitting power sources.

It is very convenient (no pun intended) that the spokesman for global warming also owns a company which sell carbon offsets. As Opinion Journal sums it up:

So, let's sum this up: Here we have a major American politician who is calling for policies that would impose huge costs on society but appears to be profiting handsomely himself; who is leading an extravagant lifestyle while demanding sacrifices from ordinary people; and who is calling on the media to suppress the views of those with whom he disagrees, while at the same time urging more government regulation in the name of "fairness" to his partisan and ideological allies.

How can you take seriously anyone who stands to make a lot of money off of something he's trying to persuade you to buying. But Gore is the worst kind of salesman. He's not man enough to suffer doors being slammed in his face. He's working with governments to get them to kick down your front door and rifle through your purse forcing you to by his product whether you want it or not. He's the lowest kind of salesman.He's a shyster.

An Utter Failure

2008-04-17T07:41:00.001-07:00

I was reminded of a couple of campaign promises made by our fearless leader, Christine Gregoire, by a friend, so I went looking to see how those were coming along. As I searched, I ran across the following article at Dino Rossi's website that really drives home what an absolute failure she has turned out to be for this state:

Christine Gregoire's Broken Promises as Governor

Redmond, WA Christine Gregoire made many promises during her 2004 gubernatorial campaign, many of which have not been kept. From stem-cell research and a "Jobs Council," to not raising taxes and eliminating tax loopholes, the governor has failed to act on some of her most prominent pledges of four years ago.

Here are some of Gregoire's '04 promises and their current status:

Promise: Invest in a Life Science Discovery Fund that will help create thousands of jobs and start the Washington Institute of Stem Cell Research.

Reality: One of the centerpieces of Gregoire's 2004 campaign, Gregoire dumped the idea of a "Washington Institute of Stem Cell Research" after a month in office.

Since then, the University of Washington established the Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine (ISCRM) thanks to private funding. In fact, Governor Gregoire sent the message that the state wasn't going to lead any efforts to provide funding.

And what about job creation due to the Life Science Discovery Fund? Minimal, if any. To date, the Life Science Discovery Fund has given six grants which were all fully funded through private donations.

Promise: Not raise taxes. "I said 'no' when I was pressured during the primary to support higher taxes."

Reality: The day she was certified as governor, Gregoire quickly backpedaled on this promise. Since then, she raised taxes by nearly $500 million, including the Estate (aka "Death") Tax, and pushed through the largest gas tax increase in state history.

Promise: Eliminate tax loopholes and look at more than 430 tax exemptions.

Reality: Gregoire has not eliminated one tax loophole in her three-plus years as governor.

Promise: Nurture small businesses, so there will no longer be more small businesses that fail than are created.

Reality: According to a study from the U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington has the third highest small business failure rate in the nation.

Promise: Cut red tape and blast past the bureaucracy.

Reality: We're not sure what red tape or bureaucracy Gregoire has eliminated. However, she's added 6,000 new state employees and more than doubled the size of the Governor's office.

Promise: Establish a cabinet-level "Jobs Council."

Reality: Christine Gregoire said she'd take on the task of chairing this department herself. No such council was ever created.

Promise: Make affordable healthcare available to everyone.

Reality: There are estimated to be over 600,000 uninsured people in Washington state, and a large portion are young adults ages 19-34 or small business employees. Christine Gregoire has done nothing to make health care more affordable for them, despite recommendations to do so by her own bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission on health care.

Promise: Take a "Fix it First, Fix it Right," approach to transportation infrastructure.

Reality: Despite Governor Gregoire pushing through the largest gas tax increase in state history, the same major transportation needs from 2004 still exist in 2008 with no specific replacement or funding plans. A few of the major problems that haven't been fixed:

520 bridge replacement

Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement

North-South Corridor in Spokane

Highway 2 in Snohomish County

Promise: Do not support a gas tax increase until taxpayers are convinced that the nickel-per-gallon increase approved in 2003 is being well spent.

Reality: During her first legislative session as governor, Christine Gregoire pushed through the 9.5 cent gas tax increase. This was the largest increase in state history.

Promise: Create an online, public searchable database of transportation projects, their timetables, their budgets, and their contractors.

Reality: No such transportation database exists.

Promise: Improve freight mobility. The constantly increasing rates of congestion in the Puget Sound and Spokane area are further limiting the efficient movement of goods and products.

Reality: Congestion has gotten worse and Gregoire refused to make congestion a transportation priority. Work on high profile, vital transportation projects such as the Viaduct, the 520 bridge, and the North South Corridor have been put off.

Promise: Modernize the funding system of Washington's Public Education system.

Reality: No funding plan exists. The Gregoire administration commissioned a Washington Learns taskforce, but 18 months and $1.7 million dollars later, they recommended further studies. The state is now being sued.

Promise: End the high school dropout crisis.

Reality: The high rate of high school dropouts continues. In several high schools across the state, up to 40 percent of those enrolling as freshman are not graduating.

Promise: Provide financial incentives to cope with the shortage of math teachers and address the "math gap" in our public schools.

Reality: There have been no major steps to offer financial incentives to all math teachers in Washington. Under Gregoire, the state is still struggling to put together an incentive structure to improve the teaching of math.

Reforms to the state's math standards under Gregoire have been reviewed, re-reviewed and delayed. Meanwhile, math scores in this state have fallen farther behind.

Keep in mind that this comes from her competition, but if even half of the claims were true, she'd still get a big, fat FAIL in my book. Christine, do yourself and all Washingtonians a favor and stay home when it comes time to run for reelection.

Photo-Op

2008-04-06T17:58:00.001-07:00

While watching a video on KomoTV.com, I saw something that seemed, well, odd. The video was about recent legislation Gov. Gregoire signed into law concerning safety on school campuses. Because of the subject matter, they showed some file footage of the Virginia Tech shooting. As the video played out, they showed a head shot of the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho.

In the space above the photo was a attribution saying, "Courtesy Dept. of Homeland Security". That, frankly, surprised me. I'd have figured the image would have been provided by the State of Virginia or maybe the FBI, but Homeland Security? Wikipedia states that, "The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), commonly known in the United States as "Homeland Security", is a Cabinet department of the federal government of the United States with the responsibility of protecting the territory of the United States from terrorist attacks and responding to natural disasters.*" I guess that means Seung-Hui Cho must be a terrorist. Who'd-a-thunk?

I wonder what my picture on file at DHS looks like?

Horsey Nails It, Again

2008-03-26T07:46:00.001-07:00

I've posted David Horsey cartoons here in the past. This one, like the previous ones, has it right on the money (no pun intended...).

Ben Sargent, Cartoonist

2008-03-18T06:13:00.000-07:00

While clicking through the political cartoons at Yahoo!News I ran across this little gem by Ben Sargent:

I thought you might like it. It says a lot about our current state of affairs and how much information this administration has deemed not for public consumption. I think Charley Reese had it right when he said,

"Recent governments, however, have gone overboard and promiscuously classify practically any piece of paper that comes across their desk. Usually the only thing they are protecting is our own government from embarrassment or possibly criminal prosecution."

I tend to think they're trying to avoid criminal prosecution, myself.

Too Much Theft

2008-03-17T06:44:00.001-07:00

Funny story, this.

I was working the other day when I gal came in to purchase a few quarts of oil. She inquired about the price of our various brands as the oil wasn't marked on the shelf. I apologized for the inconvenience, but explained that the oil prices change so rapidly that it's almost impossible to keep them accurately priced so we just quote as needed off the computer.

She gathered up what she needed and came to the counter to pay. While standing there, she remarked that the price of oil--and gasoline--had gotten way out of hand. She wondered what she was going to do, as she was a minimum-wage worker and wasn't sure how she was going to continue to afford going to work. She said she had to work about an hour and a half just to pay for the fuel she used to go to her job. I held a dollar bill up and, while showing it to her, said the problem wasn't that the oil or gasoline was so expensive, it was the money she was using to buy it with was worth less, i.e. it didn't buy as much as before. I then expressed my concern for her plight and left it at that.

Apparently, she didn't like my explanation and went into a tirade about how the oil companies were making so much money off selling oil and that it wasn't fare and the government should do something about it. Being of the mindset I am, I asked what she had in mind knowing what her answer was probably going to be. She replied that the government she put a price freeze in place, take the oil profits, and give those profits to the poor. Those that know me know that this woman's ignorant statement pretty much hit my go button dead-center.

I asked her if she felt alright with someone breaking into her house at night and taking her stuff. She responded with an emphatic NO! I then asked how she could be alright with taking the oil company's profits as it was the exact same thing: stealing. She countered that it wasn't stealing because they had too much money. To which I replied that it would be alright then for someone to steal from her what they felt she had too much of. She again said no. I then explained that it doesn't matter how much someone else has. If it isn't your property and you take it from them--either by doing the taking yourself or by using the force of government--it's still stealing.

She got a little huffy but couldn't respond with a counter argument. After a short pause, she finally replied that she felt they still had too much money. With that she turned and headed for the door. As she left, I hollered after her, "That's fine, but it's still their money... and it's still stealing!"

Amazing!

Debasing the Dollar

2008-03-12T08:11:00.001-07:00

It's time once again to put on my tinfoil hat and make an observation about our failing economy. This is just an observation, so do with this as you please. Here goes...

At the end of the Clinton era, Bush took office and the economy to be in pretty good shape. After the terrorist attacks, however, things took a huge nosedive in part because the stock exchange was closed and the airline industry came to a screeching halt, not to mention rampant fear and paranoia fueled by our own creation: the color-coded fear-o-meter. Then our fearless leaders drug this country into a war with their most recent whipping boy, Saddam Hussein, and Iraq. That war has now lasted longer than World War II. And we've paid for that war mostly by borrowing money. Lots of money.

Now, what happens to a fiat currency when you borrow more and more money into existence? Anyone, anyone? That's right: inflation. And, boy, do we have inflation. Oh, if you ask the fed, they'll deny it. But, isn't it convenient that where the effects of inflation felt the most are those areas the fed doesn't look at when calculating its inflation figures? You know, like fuel and housing. How convenient, indeed! The price of both has doubled (or more) since 2000.

Anyway, I was going somewhere with this. Oh, yes, I remember. The Amero. There are those among us who believe the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican governments are working behind the scenes and without the consent of the governed to impress upon their citizens a new universal currency for the North American continent: the Amero. But, the problem with this plan is that the three countries, with their three unique currencies, are not on par. Or, at least they weren't in 2000. Now, we see that Canada and the U.S. or almost spot on. I wonder where Mexico is in relation to the other two?

So, how do you get several currencies all to equal out? One way, I imagine, would be to over-inflate the stronger currencies, driving their values closer to the weaker ones. But how? Oh, I know... Start a war that will be paid for by borrowing billions of dollars a day. See, I told you that you were going to need to dawn your tinfoil hat. But, then again... I'm not the only one who has noticed the almost deliberate devaluation of the dollar:

As I said this past November to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, "We're indeed between a rock and a hard place, and we don't talk about how we got here; we talk about how we are going to patch it up." The "solutions" proposed so far--stimulus packages, bailouts and interest rate cuts--just amount to printing more money, which will lead to greater currency devaluation, contribute to the rising costs of living, and further squeeze the middle class and our senior citizens. (Emphasis added)

~Dr. Ron Paul, Forbes Magazine (Source)

What better way to debase a nations currency than perpetual war with an invisible enemy? I've not researched the historical movements of individual currencies against each other. Like I said at the beginning, it was just an observation. There may be nothing to it at all.

National Security Letters

2008-03-06T09:07:00.000-08:00

So, to my chagrin, there seems to be a new report that the FBI abused its power, yet again, when it was issuing national security letters. Quoting from this AP article:

An audit by the inspector general last year found the FBI demanded personal records without official authorization or otherwise collected more data than allowed in dozens of cases between 2003 and 2005. Additionally, last year's audit found that the FBI had underreported to Congress how many national security letters were requested by more than 4,600.

But, what is a national security letter? Quoting again from the AP article:

National security letters, as outlined in the USA Patriot Act, are administrative subpoenas used in suspected terrorism and espionage cases. They allow the FBI to require telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit bureaus and other businesses to produce highly personal records about their customers or subscribers without a judge's approval.

It's basically a search warrant issued by the barer without the oversight of a third party to verify its legitimacy.

These are nothing new. In colonial times, they went by a different name, but had the same effect. In those days, they were called a Writ of Assistance. Quoting from Wikipedia:

A Writ of Assistance is a legal document that serves as a general search warrant.

Unlike the warrant, it is generally open-ended, and requires all parties to support the officer to whom it was issued. Its normal use is in support of customs and excise inspections. The writ authorizes an officer to search any person or place they suspect and it does not expire. They were legalized by the Townshend Act of 1767. While they were condemned in England in 1766, general writs of assistance continued to be issued until 1819.

If you keep reading down Wikipedia's page, you'll run into this very interesting paragraph:

In response to the much-hated writs, several of the colonies included a particular requirement for search warrants in their constitutions when they declared independence in 1776. Several years later, the Fourth Amendment also contained a particularity requirement that outlawed the use of writs of assistance (and all general search warrants) by the federal government. Later, the Bill of Rights was incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, and writs of assistance were generally proscribed.

Yep, you read that correctly. The issue and use of general search warrants by the federal government is specifically outlawed. So, here's my question for you: why are we reading about a federal agency violating the privacy rights of American citizens by issuing national security letters when they are illegal in the first place?

The Hillary Rodham Psalm

2008-03-03T05:52:00.000-08:00

Hillary is my shepherd, I shall not want.

She makes me to bow down to big government.

She leads me beside the abortion clinic.

She restores gun control.

She leads me in the paths of socialism, for her name's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of
the shadow of liberalism, I will fear no evil;
for Hillary is with me.

Her benefits and handouts, they comfort me.

Hillary prepares a health care system before me,
in the presence of my better judgment.

She fills my head with promises.

My welfare cup runs over.

Surely, higher taxes and illegal immigration will
follow me all the days of my life;
and I will dwell in the house of the Clintons' forever!

~A Patriot from Pahrump, NV

Napolitano on Telecom Immunity

2008-02-29T06:46:00.000-08:00

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano takes a look at the case being brought against telecom industry biggies for their aiding the government in illegal surveillance of Americans.

"Immunity doesn't enhance freedom; it rewards lawlessness. If the government and the telecoms had obeyed the law, there would be no need for immunity. Show me the legal justification for illegal spying on Americans, and I'll show you a government that just doesn't care about the Constitution."

Snuggly the Security Bear

2008-02-23T05:58:00.001-08:00

My Thoughts on Telecom Immunity

2008-02-14T07:54:00.000-08:00

Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution--you know, the one they swore to defend--says, "No ... ex post facto Law shall be passed."

How would it be constitutional for the Congress to pass a law that makes an illegal activity suddenly legal for a certain class of persons? And how can you do it without it becoming ex post facto the very instant you did it? And if they give a pass to this type of activity, what will they allow next time?

The last thing we want in this country is a precedent whereby the government runs roughshod over our rights by proxy through private companies. Right now, we're setting up a situation where when the you-know-what hits the fan, the executive branch gets their buddies in congress to pass a law granting immunity to private companies who did their dirty work for them. This, of course, strips the people of their expectation of accountability and equal justice under the law.

I only see chaos and tyranny down this road.

Who Won in Washington?

2008-02-10T08:07:00.001-08:00

I am proud to announce the winner of the Washington Caucuses is: Undecided!

Yes, that's right. King5 TV is reporting that John McCain has won 26% of the available delegates, Mike Huckabee has won 24%, and Ron Paul has won 21%. That's 26 + 24 + 21 = 71%. That means Undecided garnered 29% of the delegates in this state. Good for you, Undecided!

No, but seriously, I hear that the Republican Party has announced they will be recounting the votes later today to make sure they got it right. So, this one's not over yet.

Oh, and congrats to Ron Paul for his very strong showing in our state.

Garnish the Wages

2008-02-05T06:27:00.001-08:00

Quoting from this Associated Press article, dated Sunday, Feb. 3:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

This, dear reader, is pure socialism. She is saying that she wants to take from those who have and give it to those who don't and she intends to use the government to force you to fork over your money.

This is NOT why we have government.

UPDATE: I like this post reply found here about this subject:

I dont think this specific topic is the issue with her. It is more her thought process and belief that it is the governments right/responsibility to take what it wants for what it sees as the individuals own good.

About sums it up, no?

Highway LED Sign

2008-02-03T12:50:00.000-08:00

This is a huge LED sign belonging to Interstate AC Service in Nashville, TN. This sign overlooks I-40 westbound as it approaches downtown Nashville.

Another Horsey Cartoon

2008-01-24T07:05:00.001-08:00

You may have heard the new ACLU radio ad running lately imploring you to ask your senators to not renew the Bush administration's wiretap bill.

Funny, isn't it, that the ACLU wants us to ask them to not pass the wiretap bill but says nothing about asking for the impeachment of the President, the Vice-President, and their friends? I mean, the ad states very clearly that we now know the Bush administration conducted illegal wiretapping of Americans. They broke the law. Why do they get a pass on something so egregious as violating one of our most important rights: to be left alone by our government? This Horsey cartoon, I think, best exemplifies the feeling that there's simply no accountability in government.

I saw it in the Seattle PI

2008-01-22T07:59:00.000-08:00

People, not guns, are the problem

LAUREL S. BARTON
GUEST COLUMNIST

Body counts garner attention from the media like a flashy neon sign. They create buzz, such as Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' gun control stance that quotes the figure of 550 violent firearms crimes in 2005 ("Seattle weighs in on handgun ban," Wednesday).

Most people will be horrified and will fail to ask the crucial, underlying question: How many of those guns were purchased legally? After all, laws will affect guns legally acquired, not those from secondary sources. The answer: 15 percent of guns used in crimes are legally obtained. That leaves 85 percent unaffected by changes to gun control laws.

Consider how many violent crimes are thwarted around the country by guns. That's a statistic one rarely hears. The number officially reported to the police is roughly 64,615 yearly; the estimate can jump as high as 2.45 million if one factors in unreported cases. Compare those numbers to 30,000 gun-related deaths yearly and one can see the difference is, at the very least, 34,000 people saved by guns. Yet, since those people are not in a morgue, they apparently don't count.

The Second Amendment was not an invention by its author, James Madison. It has a long common-law history, a history that afforded this nation the ability to defeat the British during the Revolutionary War. Moreover, in 1856, almost 100 years after the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court affirmed the interpretation of the Second Amendment in the Dred Scott decision, stating every man has the right "to keep and carry arms."

The problem in this country is not gun control, it's the people. That's right: you. The foundational documents were written with faith in its people. That we were the safest reservoir for absolute power to reside in, and that, if we were not free-thinking enough to exercise that power correctly, the solution was not to take power away, but to educate.

It was this vision the Founders had for our country; education as the true corrective action for the exploitation of the Constitution. They did not envision us as toddlers to be coddled by mommy government with our rights slowly taken from us one by one for our "own good."

Mommy government is not always going to be there to protect you. Have you forgotten Hurricane Katrina? It took days for the government, state and federal, to seize control of the situation. That was not unexpected. We do not live in a police state and we should be able to take care of ourselves for a few days while the government mobilizes. Now consider Katrina was an act of nature; imagine an attack from an enemy. Do you think you will be protected immediately?

The Second Amendment is designed to treat us as adults -- adults who live in a world where there are bad people. If you want absolute protection from your government, move to a communist country and you will be protected.

You will be told what to think and stripped of individual rights. Liberty comes at price. That price is acting like educated adults and accepting the inherent risks of free choice.

The mayors of the 11 cities warning the Supreme Court about jeopardizing gun control should instead be warning their residents that if we do not use education as a corrective measure we will soon be captives to our own lackadaisicalness.

Laurel S. Barton lives in Seattle.

(Source)

A New Dr. Evil

2008-01-16T08:59:00.000-08:00

In case you missed it, there's a new Dr. Evil in town.

Watch the new Frontline episode, Cheney's Law. It's nice to see people are finally catching on to what's been going on for the last umpteen years.

Primaries Don't Matter (If You're a Democrat)

2008-01-08T06:16:00.000-08:00

I was looking for information on when and where Washington State's caucuses would be held when I stumbled onto this interesting bit of information from the Secretary of State's website:

Q: How will the political parties use the results of the Presidential Primary?

Political parties retain the authority to decide if they will use the Presidential Primary to allocate delegates to the national nominating conventions. The political parties may also use caucus results, or a combination of primary results and caucus results.

The Republican Party used the results of the primary to allocate all of the Washington delegates in 1992, half of its delegates in 1996, and one third of its delegates in 2000. The State Republican Party has decided that it will use the 2008 Presidential Primary to allocate 51% of its delegates. The remaining 49% of the delegates will be allocated based on caucus results.

The Democratic Party has never used the results of the primary to allocate delegates. The State Democratic Party will only use caucuses to allocate delegates in 2008. (Emphasis added)
(Source: Washington State's February 19, 2008 Presidential Primary (.pdf), Frequently Asked Questions)

I find it interesting that the Democratic Party, the party that professes to be the champion of the little guy, doesn't even recognize the little guy's vote when it comes to selecting their delegates. Those delegates, of course, will later go on to select their party's next presidential candidate. Interesting, indeed. It makes you wonder why Democrats even bother with primary elections.

The New Face of Political Discourse in Lake Stevens

2008-01-06T19:35:00.001-08:00

The last Lake Stevens Journal editorial writer asked the "big question" of why our "small community" needed presidential political signs before Christmas. As an example, he reported seeing several Ron Paul for President signs along Lundeen Parkway and on 20th St. NE. The writer then admitted to not being familiar with Ron Paul so he decided to Google him. He discovered Paul had recently collected over $18 million in political donations. The author thought that amount was staggering, "...especially for someone who really [had] little chance of winning the Presidential election." It was at that point the writer wondered what politicians, in general, were planning to do "with that much money in only 10 months time?"

What do politicians plan to do with that much money, you ask? They'll probably be spending it on replacing damaged political signs. Was it a coincidence this Ron Paul billboard was seen facedown the Friday after this editorial ran? Unfortunately, I'd be willing to bet these Ron Paul for President signs weren't paid for by the Ron Paul 2008 campaign, but by a private citizen who now has to cover the costs of repairing his damaged sign.

But why are these signs needed? The writer really answered his own question when he stated he Googled Ron Paul. How else can voters learn about the candidates running for office? It surely can't be in the editorial sections of their local newspapers where they read statements like Ron Paul "has little chance of winning the Presidential election."

As a reminder, the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 29A.84.040 states, "a person who removes or defaces lawfully placed political advertising including yard signs or billboards without authorization is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable under RCW 9A.20.021. The defacement or removal of each item constitutes a separate violation".

Bill Moyer's Journal featuring Ron Paul

2008-01-06T08:06:00.001-08:00

For an excellent interview with Rep. Ron Paul, I recommend Bill Moyer's Journal.

"In politics, it's usually the insurgent who carries the discontent of people who feel excluded from the mainstream. This campaign Ron Paul is the insurgent. Congressman Ron Paul from Texas placed fifth in Iowa with ten percent of the vote. But turn on your computer, and you'll find him at the top of the world's most watched video posting site."

~Bill Moyer's interview lead-in.

Season's Greetings

2007-12-24T05:40:00.001-08:00

Happy Holidays, everyone! I hear Santa's traded in his sled for a new ride...

Hearing Our Independence Declared

2007-12-19T05:58:00.001-08:00

A star-studded reading of the Declaration of Independence...

Claiming God's Endorsement

2007-12-13T06:31:00.001-08:00

I ran across the following political cartoon titled God's endorsement, in the Seattle PI yesterday...

Love it! Heeheeheehehehe Speaking of Ron Paul, I saw two rather large Ron Paul for President political signs at the corner of SR9 and Lundeen Park Way. If you look up on the hillside of the Northeast corner of that intersection, you'll see them prominently displayed. If I get a chance, I'll snap a picture for you to see.

Flooding at the Falls

2007-12-05T19:23:00.000-08:00

Those in Washington State are very aware of how much rain fell on the 3rd of December, but for those that live elsewhere I stopped by the local river at Granite Falls bridge and shot a few pictures and a short video to show the power of rushing water...

It was awesome!

Quote of the Day

2007-12-04T07:24:00.001-08:00

This quote was taken from an email I received from Ron Paul's campaign web site. Mr. Paul prefaced this quote with the observation made to him by Rudy Giuliani on how many supporters Paul had...

As I looked out at the crowd, I thought: the establishment has no idea of what they are facing. We have an army of freedom, prosperity, and peace. As the LA Times political blog noted the other day, the British also thought they had no problem with the Americans--until Yorktown.

The Ron Paul Revolution is strong and growing stronger every day.

Pasco v. Shaw

2007-11-24T06:31:00.001-08:00

There was a ruling recently by the Washington State Supreme Court, Pasco v. Shaw (.pdf), that centered around the question of whether it was a violation of both your right to privacy and to be free from unwarranted search and seizure to be forced to allow your home, which has been rented, to be searched by your landlord and/or someone he has chosen to inspect the premises.

Specifically, the city of Pasco, Washington, passed Pasco Ordinance 3231 which requires landlords to submit certification every two years ensuring that their rental units meet all applicable health, safety, and building code requirements. The certification must be signed by a city enforcement officer, a certified private inspector, or a Washington licensed private structural engineer or architect. The city passed this ordinance to help protect renters from landlords who were basically slumlords. It appears city officials felt they were facing a problem with building owners who allowed people to occupy unsafe units. To compel these businesses to bring their buildings up to a minimum safety standard, they passed this ordinance which requires a biannual building safety inspection.

Quoting from the court transcripts:

The ordinance provides that a landlord must obtain a current business license. As a condition for the issuance of a license, the landlord must provide a certificate of inspection ensuring that:the applicant's rental dwelling units comply with the standards of the Uniform Housing Code and do not present conditions that endanger or impair the health or safety of a tenant including:

(1) structural members that are insufficient in size or strength to carry imposed loads with safety;

(2) exposure of the occupants to the weather;

(3) plumbing and sanitation defects that directly expose the occupants to the risk of illness or injury;

(4) lack of water, including hot water;

(5) heating or ventilation systems that are not functional or are hazardous;

(6) defective, hazardous, or missing electrical wiring or electrical service;

(7) defective or inadequate exits that increase the risk of injury to occupants;

(8) violations that increase the risk of fire; or

(9) violations of other applicable codes, rules or regulations.

Leaving aside the argument about whether cities should rightfully require businesses to get licenses to operate within city limits, the city of Pasco placed upon rental businesses within its jurisdiction the requirement to meet building codes every two years to renew their business licenses. This is no different than the city fire marshal coming around to your business to make sure your fire extinguishers are up to date, your fire exits are clear, etc. If the marshal finds an infraction, guess what? You don't get to renew your occupancy permit until you remedy the infractions.

Continuing again with a quote from the transcript:

Landlords must provide a certificate of inspection during a preassigned three-month period every two years. The certificate must be based on the physical inspection of the dwelling not more than 90 days before the date of the certificate. Compliance must be certified by one of the following:

(1) a City of Pasco Code Enforcement Officer;

(2) inspectors certified by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for grant-required inspections;

(3) certified private inspectors approved by the City upon evidence of completion of formal training . . . ;

(4) a Washington licensed structural engineer;

(5) a Washington licensed architect;

The city knew that they would be treading on thin ice if they required the landlord's biannual inspections be performed only by the city code enforcement officers, so they allowed other qualified inspectors to perform this task. Furthermore, they did not place a requirement on whomever performed the inspections to notify the city if they found an infraction. This allowed the building owner a chance to remedy the problem without involving the city. If everything was up to standards, the landlord would get his certification and would be allowed to renew his business license.

The Supreme Court noted that the city, in fact, created no new requirements upon landlords or tenants as far as requiring inspections for certification. They only changed the time interval. Landlords have always had the right to enter into rented units, provided he met a few enumerated requirements. Citing RCW 59.18.150 (1):

(1) The tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter into the dwelling unit in order to inspect the premises, make necessary or agreed repairs, alterations, or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workers, or contractors.

It has been long standing law in this state, under the Residential landlord-tenant act of 1973, that landlords have a right to enter into a rented unit. He must, however, provide adequate prior notice to the tenant before entering and enter only at a reasonable time:

(5) The landlord shall not abuse the right of access or use it to harass the tenant. Except in the case of emergency or if it is impracticable to do so, the landlord shall give the tenant at least two days' notice of his or her intent to enter and shall enter only at reasonable times. The tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter the dwelling unit at a specified time where the landlord has given at least one day's notice of intent to enter to exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers or tenants. A landlord shall not unreasonably interfere with a tenant's enjoyment of the rented dwelling unit by excessively exhibiting the dwelling unit.

As you can plainly see, landlords have had the right under law to enter into a rented unit with proper notice. It is, after all, their property. They have a right to make sure their property is not being destroyed either by those paying to use it or by time and the elements. Think of it like this: in many of the Eastern states, they are required to submit to vehicle safety inspections once a year before they can renew the tags. The vehicle inspector has the right to inspect the exterior of the vehicle and only those places inside the vehicle that fall within the scope of his safety inspection. He does not have the right to rifle through your dufflebag in the back seat. Likewise, the building owner has a right to inspect or to have his building inspected by someone he hires. He does not have a right to search through his tenants personal belongings. Recognizing this need, the Residential landlord-tenant act was passed to make it clear what each others rights were.

This case is clearly addressed by RCW 59.18.150. Quite frankly, I'm surprised it was allowed to go as far as it did. The court, I feel, correctly summarized this case when it said:

We also note that RCW 59.18.150(1) already provides that a tenant cannot unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter into the rental unit in order to inspect the premises, and the act allows some third parties to accompany the landlord upon entrance. In Kalmas v. Wagner, 133 Wn.2d 210, 219-20, 943 P.2d 1369 (1997), this court reasoned that if the scope of a landlord's entrance does not exceed the legitimate purposes contemplated by the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 (RLTA), no unreasonable search has occurred. Of course, the RLTA provides some limitations to landlord entry. A landlord, accompanied by his or her chosen inspector, cannot enter without at least two days' notice to the tenant, and they must enter at a reasonable time. RCW 59.18.150(5). In addition, the inspection necessary to fulfill the requirements of the Pasco ordinance is limited to a survey for the ordinance's habitability requirements. Neither landlords nor their privately engaged inspectors are permitted to search a tenant's belongings or search for evidence of a crime. The ordinance contemplates no assistance to law enforcement in the form of uncovering any illegal acts on the part of tenants. See Swenson, 104 Wn. App. at 754. The inspection required by Pasco Ordinance 3231 does not exceed what is already allowed by the RLTA.

While I will be the first to admit our Washington Supreme Court Justices can be a little short-sighted when it comes to protecting the rights and civil liberties of Washingtonians, in this case I feel they got it spot-on.

(Un)Sound Politics?

2007-11-18T07:45:00.001-08:00

Occasionally I pop over to the Sound Politics web site to see what the locals are up to. It always amazes me what passes as 'conservative' nowadays. Our old friend Bruce Guthrie is a regular poster over there, but I think he's tolerated more than anything. If they could outright ban him (and other like him) without catching too much flack, I think they probably would. There are others like Bruce that post there, but the point is that those espousing a more libertarian viewpoint are not necessarily welcomed with open arms.

I tend to watch my feedreader for posts about Ron Paul on their site. Generally, their posts are hit pieces to smear his name by associating him with some event he had nothing to do with, or belittling his presidential campaign. I get the impression that the majority of those that read and subscribe to Sound Politics and also call themselves conservative are more interested in keeping with the Statist quo (that's not a spelling error), than working towards more individual liberty and personal freedom and smaller government. Heck, I think some wouldn't recognize a true conservative even if they were shaking the hand of Thomas Jefferson, himself.

Which brings me to another topic: yesterday, I was listening to an internet radio show (don't remember which one) and they were talking about Ron Paul's bid for the White House. These guys claim to be Hard-Core Libertarians and one actually said he couldn't endorse Dr. Paul because Paul wasn't consistent on his non-aggression principle. Fine, I can respect that. So what? You're going to vote for the Libertarian candidate that has next to no chance of winning (let alone getting on every state's ballot)? Some movement in the direction of liberty is ALWAYS better than no movement at all.

But, it gets better. They then started to talk about some law (no, not that kind of law... the other kind) that says that all governments will collapse over time. By electing Paul as president, we're actually prolonging the inevitable. It would be far better, they said, to put in office the very worst candidate possible. That way, the end would be hastened by his recklessness. And, dammit-all-to-hell, that actually made sense! And I hate them for that ('hate' may be too strong a word). In other words, the end is coming no matter what you do. Just as death always follows birth, a constituted government will always eventually collapse over time. The best we could do is deliberately perpetuate its demise.

So, knowing this, where does that leave me with my Ron Paul for President signs and stickers? A little ticked off, I assure you, but me thinks I'll vote for him anyway. I don't have nearly enough provisions for when it gets "really bad", so if Ron Paul wins the Presidency, it'll give me at least four more years to stock up for the forthcoming doomsday. I will add that one of the talking heads on the radio did say that voting Ron Paul into office may actually be the catalyst that brings about the end to our failing democracy. He reasoned that if Paul follows through with his promise to drastically slash the size of government, he will in fact be kicking out the very foundation holding up this house of cards we call our government. Interesting logic, no?

On another note, Did you see where the GAO was able to sneak bomb-making parts past TSA screeners at 19 airports around the country? Another 'F' grade for the gate keepers. We've traded our freedom for security, and it seems we're getting exactly what we deserve in return!

British Motto Search

2007-11-16T06:10:00.001-08:00

It seems our friends on the other side of the pond have an image problem. Or, rather, a national identity problem. They've begun a drive to find a national motto. Quoting from this Christian Science Monitor article:

Remarkably, for a country with such a rich history and distinctive national traits, there have been no formal mottos to describe the British mission statement. Until now.

Keen to redefine an increasingly diverse nation and its values, the government has launched a quest for a national maxim. Meant to be "truly representative," the motto will be arrived at by 1,000 members of the British public. This week, the BBC and the Times newspaper jump-started the process by soliciting suggestions on their websites.

The article continues with some mottos that were submitted by the public that were a bit "not on" (...as the British would say):

Once Great: Britain
Americans who missed the boat
At least we're not French

Never one to pass up a great chance to poke fun at the lunacy of another country's government, I thought my submission would be "truly representative" and quite appropriate:

Any bets on whether the motto chosen by the British government will sound at all Orwellian? Something like "Security through Surveillance."

An Excellent Article

2007-11-13T08:20:00.000-08:00

Tom DeWeese has written an article that I highly recommend, PATRIOTS vs. POLITICIANS. He compares the current cadre of presidential candidates to past patriots to show why they are all bad choices, save one: Dr. Ron Paul.

Privacy Defined

2007-11-12T06:50:00.000-08:00

Oddly enough, I just happened to sit down at my computer this morning to begin work on a mini-treatise of sorts on privacy and what it means to me--and hopefully means to all other Americans, too--when I read the following headline: Government seeks to redefine privacy. The Associated Press article explained that,

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.

Our government, the one we've instituted to safeguard all our rights, is now insisting that Americans should redefine what privacy means to them. From Mr.Kerr's comments, we're suppose to believe that privacy's definition is somehow synonymous with our anonymity. I think you would be a fool to accept his definition. Anonymity, when speaking in terms of privacy, is merely a benefit of having privacy. I'll explain this statement in a moment, but first, let's look at what Mr. Kerr is inferring.

He is basically saying that you should allow businesses that have in their possession information about you, in this case your private communications and financial information, to give the government access to that information while putting in place proper safeguards. Sounds good in theory, but as history shows us time and time again, anytime you give government carte blanche access to your information without any third-party supervision, they will abuse that authority every time. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution demands that government officials seek permission from a judge, showing probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, to view your private communications and financial information. This amendment acts as a fundamental check on government to prevent it from arbitrarily abusing the people.

But what is privacy? We hear that word bandied about a lot recently, but have you ever really stopped to think about what privacy means to you? In my mind, privacy is nothing more than a description of a particular type of information. In other words, when it comes to information, your really only have two forms: public and private. Each form indicates who possesses control of the information. Information can, and rightfully should, be viewed as property, like you would view your home or your money or anything else you claim as your own. Who controls a particular piece of information determines if the information is private or public. So, to say that you want your privacy protected, what you're really saying is that you wish to remain in control of your personal information. Your personal information is your property and you have the right to control the use of that property just the same as you have the right to determine who can and cannot come into your home.

But what about anonymity? I mentioned that anonymity was a benefit of privacy. Actually, anonymity is derived from controlling who is allowed to know who owns a particular piece of information. As an example, let's say you see a wallet sitting on a table. From your vantage point, you can ascertain that it is a wallet, that it is sitting on a table, and that someone most certainly owns it. Somewhere, someone can claim the wallet as their property, but because they have chosen not to reveal themselves they can be said to have derived the benefit of anonymity from the control of their information. Now, you could probably walk over and open the wallet to discover who owns it, but in doing so you've taken unauthorized control of property that doesn't belong to you. And in doing so, you have violated their right to control who knows who owns the property, in this case the wallet. They loose the benefit of anonymity as soon as you learn who owns the wallet. Once they loose ultimate control of that knowledge, it can never be restored... short of killing you before you can tell someone else, that is.

The arguments being made that, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear," or, "I've done nothing wrong, so I don't care if they listen in on my phone calls or read my emails," falls flat when personal information is viewed from a property-ownership stand point. What proponents of unfettered government surveillance are really saying is that it's okay for government to enter and ransack their homes without permission because they have nothing to hide and are doing nothing illegal. Furthermore, they're okay with government doing this to all their neighbors and everyone else in the United States, too. Obviously, for the government to do this would most definitely require a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. Short of repealing the Fourth Amendment, there's just is no way to get around the requirement--and rightly so.

In conclusion, your personal information is your property, period. What happens to that information is entirely up to you. For anyone to take control of that information without your knowledge or consent is a violation of your property rights. It's not about privacy; it's not about anonymity; it's about retaining control over your property.

The 5th of November Remembered!

2007-11-06T06:01:00.000-08:00

As a follow-up to yesterday's fundraising drive for the Ron Paul campaign, I wanted to share with you how he did. It was an exciting thing to behold as the donation counter on Paul's campaign website steadily marching on all day. At one point, it was ticking off donations at over $5000 per minute. Another website, RonPaulGraphs.com, had a chart that was tracking donations all day for this event. The total haul for the day is shown below. I've colored in the 24 hour period (all times Eastern) to make it easier to read.

Almost immediately after midnight, the donations began pouring in. Then, around 7 am ET, things exploded and never really let up until just after midnight.

A heart-felt thank you goes out to all those who contributed and made this November the 5th a day that will not soon be forgot. I also wanted to thank the guys over at RonPaulRadio.com for bringing us their great play-by-play commentary on the day's events. I believe the official tally for the day was around 4.2 million dollars which broke several fundraising records. That's awesome!

The Ron Paul campaign had placed a fundraising goal of 12 million dollars by the end of December. In one day, financial supporters propelled them a third of the way to their goal. Combining those numbers with what's already been collected, and you've got a grand total of over 7.2 million dollars (as of this writing).

Again, well done!

The 5th of November

2007-11-04T18:59:00.001-08:00

In my opinion, one of the best action movies ever made has to be V for Vendetta. There's a scene in this movie where V takes over a television station to broadcast his message of freedom to the people of London. He does this on November the 5th.

I think the best part of his speech is when he says, "[I]f you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror." In other words, the problems with their government are mostly do to the complacency of the British people.

By the way, there's something else going on this 5th of November you should know about...

Why not help out the cause by making a donation.

UPDATE: The official Ron Paul campaign website it reporting over 3 million dollars raised for the cause. To show that I put my money where my mouth is, here's a snapshot of my confirmation email...

Remember, remember...

We're Freaking Doomed!

2007-11-03T08:10:00.001-07:00

In the latest installment by The Mogambo Guru, Richard Daughty explains how the price of oil will be going up, up, up because the supply of oil is going down, down, down. Some of you may better know this phenomenon as Peak Oil. Coupled with this supply side problem is that the demand for oil will also be going up. Of course, what we have here is the makings for one whopper of a doozy. But, I thought it would be prudent to hitch together his latest article, The Ticking of the Oil Clock, with his previous article, Painted Rock Predicts the Dollar Index, where he explains that the dollar's value is falling faster than ~~Bush's~~ ~~Congress'~~ the U.S. government's approval ratings.

What does this mean to you and me? Well, you know that gallon of gas you just paid $3.27 for? Imagine the price for that gallon of gas being put under ever increasing pressure because of supply-side problems, i.e. "there ain't no more oil in that hole we got it out of", coupled with a dollar that's worth less today than it was yesterday. $5 a gallon? $7 a gallon? What happens when it costs more to go to work than you make going to work?

Are we freaking doomed? You bet your bottoming dollar we are!

Fear

2007-10-31T19:42:00.000-07:00

If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.

~Marcus Aurelius

There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings.

~Dorothy Thompson

Homegrown Terrorists

2007-10-30T07:03:00.001-07:00

Here's an excerpt from the definitions section of H. R. 1955 which is better known as the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007:

'(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term 'violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

'(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term 'homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

'(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term 'ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

How far we've come from the belief that sometimes violent revolution is not only necessary, but our God-given Right, espoused in the Declaration of Independence, for changing our system of government. This language, my friends, is how dissent is quashed. This is how you make holding any idea that doesn't comport to groupthink illegal. This is the very foundation of a full blown dictatorship. The next step is to open the detention and re-education camps where you'll ship all your "homegrown terrorists".

Here's an interesting question: what happens when it's your own government that is trying to protect itself from the changing will of the people? What do you call it when your own government uses "ideologically-based violence" against its own people in furtherance of it's own political or social objectives? Imagine a government that has grown so large that it has created its own money supply and is no longer answerable to the People because it has cut the purse strings the people used to tie it down. Would it not surprise you to see laws passed by that government that would make any actions by the people which moves towards change of the government illegal? What better way to protect itself than to make "the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system" illegal? You wouldn't even be allowed to propose the possibility that if the ballot box doesn't work, you could turn to the cartridge box. It's about who has control. And in the end, it won't be you.

There is one last point I want to make. Missing from this bill's definitions section is one important term that this whole bill turns on: an "extremist belief system". Who gets to define what an extremist belief system is? How convenient that it was left out. Now, the beliefs and viewpoints of those in opposition to groupthink (or more to the point: governmentthink) can be used against them by those in control of government. All government would have to do is declare today's definition of an "extremist belief system" as whatever position their targeted opponent is espousing and they've just created the legal justification to silence them by force. No, my friends, this in my opinion was done deliberately.

Today's Non Sequitur

2007-10-29T19:09:00.001-07:00

Referendum Measure No. 67

2007-10-24T07:01:00.001-07:00

It has been claimed--no pun intended--that this referendum would create an environment where every person who thought he got a bad shake from his insurance company would sue them for triple damages because he felt his settlement to be "unfair". I'm respectfully going to disagree with this assertion. I agree that the fairness doctrine is one that should be avoided at all costs, but in this instance, I think the label has been misapplied. Much like the SEC oversees stock trading, this referendum only allows the insurance commissioner the authority to promulgate rules for the conduct of insurance providers. Who determines what is "fair" in the realm of insurance providers? He does.

There are two parts to this referendum. Part one allows the insurance commissioner to make rules concerning how insurance companies conduct business in this state. Part two removes from the insurance companies the ability to deny claims without reason. The language* of the measure specifically uses the word "unreasonable" to describe what will not be allowed. To me, unreasonable, as used in the new code, means without reason.

*(7) An insurer engaged in the business of insurance may not unreasonably deny a claim for coverage or payment of benefits to any first party claimant. (Emphasis added)

I've talked to several people recently that have been denied their claims (one individual who's house burned down, another who was physically injured, to name a few) for no apparent reason. These poor people have been battling their insurance companies for well over a year just to get them into court where they can argue their cases before a judge. These people are who I believe the drafters of this measure were hoping to protect by legally expediting the process.

If a judge determines that the insurance company has denied a claim without reason they can then be penalized for up to three times the amount of the claimed damages. I really don't see where the claims for abuse are justified. Will people bring suit where they have no standing (claiming their insurance companies denied their claims without reason)? Sure, but I think their claims will be discovered to be untrue almost immediately and they will have to pay for all attorney's and court costs themselves. I think that that, in and of itself, would prohibit frivolous claims.

I feel pretty good with the way this measure is structured and will be voting for it. You can view the complete text of Referendum 67 here (.pdf document).

...But Gold Is Up

2007-10-19T17:07:00.001-07:00

The Dow is down 366 point; Nasdaq down 74. One U.S. dollar will buy you 96 cents Canadian. And now Caterpillar says the U.S. economy will be "near to, or even in, recession" by next year. Do you ever get the feeling that it's all going to hell-in-a-hand-basket? I feel sorry for those baby-boomers who were looking forward to retiring in the next few years. The fed is going to eat their lunch.

Just Joking

2007-10-18T08:34:00.001-07:00

A cowboy named Bud was overseeing his herd in a remote mountainous pasture in California when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him.

The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the cowboy, "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, Will you give me a calf?"

Bud looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, Why not?"

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.

The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe PhotoShop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany .

Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.

Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and turns to the cowboy and says, "You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves."

"That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says Bud.

He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

Then Bud says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?"

The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?"

"You're a Congressman for the U.S. Government", says Bud.

"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?"

"No guessing required." answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You tried to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don't know a thing about cows... this is a herd of sheep..."

"Now give me back my dog."

Wrong People Asking The Right Questions

2007-10-16T07:26:00.001-07:00

So, where were we? Oh, that's right... The Bush administration has been running roughshod over the Rights of the American people by conducting secret surveillance programs on American's communications without court order. To make matters worse, American telephone companies have either been complicit in aiding the administration, or were forced to help. Either way, they are both guilty of violating our Rights.

Fed up with what appears to be a blossoming soft dictatorship, the American people have called upon their representatives in Congress to put an end to this rampant surveillance state. To that end, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has begun inquiries into what roles the telecommunications companies played in spying on Americans without warrants. And, on cue:

Three of the largest U.S. telephone companies declined to answer lawmakers' questions about Bush administration efforts to spy on Americans' phone calls and e-mails, saying the government forbade them from doing so.
...

Verizon and Qwest said the Justice Department prohibited them from offering any substantive comment on their roles in the spy program. AT&T said Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell invoked the state-secrets privilege to prevent the carrier from commenting.

But that's not exactly right. You see, the telephone companies can talk, they just need to be asked by the right "people" in government. Those that are asking the questions of them right now are with the House Energy and Commerce Committee. They don't have the proper authority to receive the answers to the questions they're asking. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell's spokesman, Ross Feinstein, said the House and Senate Intelligence committees have the authority to oversee intelligence activities under the 1947 National Security Act.

It's a smokescreen. Our representatives can look like they're doing something about government run amok, but when they run into the inevitable brick wall, they can say to the American people, "We asked, but they refused to tell us. What more can we do? We can't make them talk." They knew from the outset that they had no authority to get answers to these types of questions from the phone companies. The whole thing is a circus to placate the people... and it's working.

Quote of the Day

2007-10-11T21:09:00.000-07:00

The problem is that the Constitution isn't nuanced enough; it's like the Ten Commandments unequivocal, straightforward and means what it says. Politicians, lawyers, judges and members of the media cannot abide clarity. It gives them no room to lie.

~Mark, South Puget Sound Libertarian - Message to Mitt Romney: Stay Away From Harvard Lawyers

A Little Clarification on Immunization

2007-10-11T06:55:00.000-07:00

Just to clarify what the president is saying, when you read his demand that:

[A]ny bill must grant retroactive immunity to U.S. telecommunications companies that allegedly helped conduct electronic surveillance without court orders.

What he's saying is that, yes indeed, U.S. telecommunications companies did break the law when they assisted the government in electronic surveillance without court order. How do I know this? Why else would you seek immunity? If you've done nothing wrong, why would you need immunity? He's basically admitting they're guilty of violating both federal law and the U.S. Constitution and now he's seeking congressionally-approved get-out-of-jail-free cards for tel-com companies.

"But, wait! It was done to protect us from terrorists!" you scream. I DON'T CARE. No one is permitted to run rough-shod over our laws and Constitution. We are a nation of laws, period. For Bush and his administration to ask--or even pressure--companies into breaking the law makes him no better than the terrorists he claims to be trying to protect us from. He's become a soft-dictator; nothing more. And he and all his friends need to be removed from office and criminal charges need to be brought against them for violating U.S. laws, international laws, and the Rights and Liberties of all mankind (not just Americans).

On a side note: I believe the reason Bush is looking for "immunity" is because he knows that to ask for anything else would be in direct violation of both federal law and the U.S. Constitution. Congress has no authority to authorize private companies to break the law and he knows it. Immunity is his only avenue... unless he pardons them as he leaves office. However, I would challenge any executive pardon that allows someone to infringe upon our Constitutionally protected Rights on the grounds that the Executive has no authority to pardon someone for violating the Constitution. If that were the case, then anyone could gain the presidency and act the tyrant for four years. Then he (or she) could pardon everyone on the way out the door and there wouldn't be a damned thing we could do about it.

What Rights?

2007-10-07T09:20:00.001-07:00

I received, in my Inbox, the following quote by Samuel Adams:

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."
~Samuel Adams (letter to James Warren, 4 November 1775)

It got me thinking about our Rights and how we really have no Rights other than those we claim and defend. That makes sense, right? We all claim to have the "Freedom of Speech", but as soon as the government comes along and says, "Shut up or go to jail", we comply. Now, I ask you, do we really have this Right? No. of course not. Why? Because we have to be willing to claim and defend our Rights no matter what the consequences.

I also had the thought that we, as Americans, have become, generally, ignorant of our Rights. Want proof? Here you go:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.

~Miranda warning

Here we have the government telling you what your Rights are if you happen to get stopped and questioned by law enforcement officers. People, let me tell you that if government has to tell you what your Rights are, you don't have any. Every American should know and claim their Rights and they should be willing to defend them, no matter what.

Maybe Alexander Hamilton's fear that an enumeration of some rights in the constitution might be taken to imply the absence of other rights. He tried to guard against it with an amendment:

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution. (Source)

This, of course, was the foundation for what later become the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Remember the Ninth? Seldom cited and hardly understood. Too bad. We really need to get back in touch with what made America so great: the individual, self-government, and the preservation and protection of our rights by our government.

Parroting Bush

2007-10-01T19:05:00.000-07:00

Laura Bush bought George a parrot for his birthday.

She told Dick Cheney, "The bird is so smart, George has already taught him to pronounce over 200 words!"

"Wow, that's pretty impressive," Cheney said, "But, you do realize that he just says the words. He doesn't really understand what they mean."

"That's okay," Laura replied. "Neither does the parrot."

Myanmar's Mirror

2007-09-27T07:42:00.001-07:00

I've been following the story as it unfolds in Myanmar. It fascinates me waiting to see if a full-fledged revolution will erupt where small groups of monks struggle to bring "democracy" to the people. Have you ever noticed that it is always small groups of people who bring about big change? The rest are merely spectators waiting for the tide to shift.

A small cadre of military men currently hold that nation's government hostage. The monks appear to want to return governance to the people where it rightfully belongs. Here's the interesting part for me: knowing that all governments are legitimate only when they are derived from the consent of the governed, to watch this government fire on protesters in an attempt to protect itself from change because the people no longer consent. The government is no longer--or really never was--legitimate.

The people it claims to protect have decided they're done with the charade and wish to replace the government with one of their own choosing. So, who are these faceless government actors who fire into crowds of peaceful demonstrators in an attempt to maintain the status quo? At what point do we recognize the fact that the government in Myanmar is no longer acting in a legitimate role as the people's protectorate and is now acting to defend itself like a cornered dog from the will of the people.

The age-old struggle between the people and those who mean to rule them seems to be a recurring theme in human history. And that is why the people's never-ending vigilance is so important. Tyranny and oppression are inevitable, even in this country, unless kept in check by the people. Revolution by the few, sometimes being violent, is also inevitable, because most people are content with the bread and circuses offered to placate them. It is only those few who hold to higher morals and principles that strive for what is right and what is just. They are the ones who foment righteous change. They are the ones that history will hold in high regard.

Long live Liberty!

Our Power, Our Responsibility Video

2007-09-25T07:33:00.001-07:00

While visiting Gordon's blog, I noticed he's got a YouTube video in the upper-right corner with a caption that says every American should watch it. Being an American, I did. And you should, too...

Awesome video! Ron Paul 2008!*

*Paid for by no one.

Firearms Refresher Course

2007-09-24T20:00:00.000-07:00

A few posts ago, I mentioned going into the local hardware store to look at their guns they had on sale. While browsing, I happened to notice a sign posted next to their gun case. I had the thought at the time to reproduce it here for you, but as things go, I forgot. Today, a friend happened to emailed me the same, so here it is...

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."

~ Thomas Jefferson

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms [concealed or otherwise].

8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer. [See Virginia Tech.]

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

h/t Norm

A Hard Look at Mortgages

2007-09-18T08:08:00.001-07:00

Gov. Christine Gregoire is itching to bail out home buyers who are finding themselves a little over their heads when it comes to their home mortgages. Of course if the state steps in to give financial aid to home buyers, they'll be using public funds. So, in light of that, lets take a look at our state constitution to see what it says about safety-netting Washington State homebuyers... Yep, just what I thought: not a damned word about it. In other words, they have no authority to go there. None, zip, zilch, nada. Unconstitutional!

Yeah, it's too bad that people will lose their homes. I really do feel bad for them, but I also know what the definition of 'responsible' is. Reading the fine print and looking at the life of the loan and making sure you'll have the money to pay for it--especially if it's an adjustable rate mortgage--is part of being a responsible homebuyer. It is NOT the responsibility of your neighbors and fellow citizens to bail your butt out if you're too stupid to understand a contract. Life sucks, then you die. Deal with it! Don't ask me to cover your bills.

Happy Constitution Day...

2007-09-17T07:06:00.001-07:00

...for what it's worth. For an enlightening look of how our courts view that most esteemed--but dead--document, see their educational page here. Pretty sad! I especially liked the discussion on the Fourth Amendment's protections against telephone eavesdropping:

Issue #2: Expectation of Privacy

Perhaps the "reasonable expectation of privacy" doctrine can be further circumscribed. For instance, in government terrorism investigations, the government does not randomly select phone lines to tap. Law enforcement chooses those lines it has a reason to believe are being used for terrorist activities. Since it would be absurd to argue that one has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when discussing terrorism strategies and tactics, eavesdropping on such telephone conversations is not unreasonable as long as the government ceases if it becomes apparent that the call has nothing to do with criminal or terrorist activity.

Notice how they expanded it from terrorist activities to all criminal activities in the last sentence. What they're saying is that the government gets a free pass to listen in on any phone calls just as long as they have a reason to believe they are being used for criminal activities. I love the way they justify their infringement of the Fourth Amendment: if we think you're plotting and planning terrorist activities, you don't have any rights until we can prove that you're not a bad guy. That, of course, stands the concept of inalienable rights on its head as well as the innocent until proven guilty doctrine. You have rights regardless of what you're doing. It's up the courts to decide if law enforcement is justified in violating those rights to prevent you from committing a crime. That's why a warrant is required.

Talk about putting the cart before the horse...!

To Protect and Serve...

2007-09-13T07:57:00.000-07:00

or to Intimidate and Harass? You be the judge.

In my own way of seeing society, there are really only three types of people: average citizens going about their daily business, law enforcement officers who make sure the citizens don't hurt each other, and criminals who feed off unsuspecting citizens all the while trying not to get caught by law enforcement officers. While I acknowledge that this is an extremely simplified view of society, it generally works in most situations.

So, we have a situation for you to decide on. But first, I need you to read an essay by LTC (RET) Dave Grossman titled On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs. This will make it clear in your mind what roles each participant plays in our society and why it so important that we do not tolerate wolves pretending to be sheepdogs. After you've finished his essay, come back and watch the following YouTube videos and decide for yourself what type of person this officer is. (WARNING: The following videos are somewhat disturbing and contain foul language that may be deemed offensive or inappropriate for some viewers.)

Bad Cop Gone Wild part 1 of 3

Bad Cop Gone Wild part 2 of 3

Bad Cop Gone Wild part 3 of 3

Feel free to leave a comment on what you think would be a fitting punishment, if any, for this officer's actions.

From the Science Desk

2007-09-12T06:45:00.000-07:00

I've been a member of a science forum that goes by the name, FreeNRG-L. It's a group of amateur experimenters that bounce ideas off each other. Anyway, the other day I received a message with a link to the following news article. If true, this news is pretty exciting:

Radio Frequencies Help Burn Salt Water

By David Templeton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Tue, 11 Sep 2007, 11:41AM

ERIE, Pa. - An Erie cancer researcher has found a way to burn salt water, a novel invention that is being touted by one chemist as the "most remarkable" water science discovery in a century.

John Kanzius happened upon the discovery accidentally when he tried to desalinate seawater with a radio-frequency generator he developed to treat cancer. He discovered that as long as the salt water was exposed to the radio frequencies, it would burn.

The discovery has scientists excited by the prospect of using salt water, the most abundant resource on earth, as a fuel.

Rustum Roy, a Penn State University chemist, has held demonstrations at his State College lab to confirm his own observations.

The radio frequencies act to weaken the bonds between the elements that make up salt water, releasing the hydrogen, Roy said. Once ignited, the hydrogen will burn as long as it is exposed to the frequencies, he said.

The discovery is "the most remarkable in water science in 100 years," Roy said.

"This is the most abundant element in the world. It is everywhere," Roy said. "Seeing it burn gives me the chills."

Roy will meet this week with officials from the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense to try to obtain research funding.

The scientists want to find out whether the energy output from the burning hydrogen -- which reached a heat of more than 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit -- would be enough to power a car or other heavy machinery.

"We will get our ideas together and check this out and see where it leads," Roy said. "The potential is huge."

___

Information from: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Obviously, he's not burning the saltwater. What appears to be happening is the hydrogen is disassociating from the oxygen atoms creating a burnable gas, Oxyhydrogen, when a certain radio frequency is introduced. If you've ever looked at how microwave ovens work, you'll understand what is happening in this experiment. Imagine being able to "burn" a tank of saltwater for heating your home, producing all your electrical needs, maybe even running your car. Pretty cool.

Three Articles

2007-09-11T06:44:00.001-07:00

I have on my desktop three articles that I find particularly disturbing. The first is titled Doctors decry Guantanamo treatment. It tells how U.S. doctors have turned a blind eye to prisoner abuses, putting their loyalty to the state above their duty to care for patients. Quoting from the article:

The letter compared the ongoing role of U.S. doctors working at Guantanamo, who have been accused of ignoring torture, to the South African doctors involved in the case of anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko, who died while being detained by security police.

"The attitude of the U.S. medical establishment appears to be one of 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil,'" the letter charged.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

~Edmund Burke

The next article has to do with those wonderful little implantable chips. Some have called them Spychips, others call them tracking chips. They're the ones that we have inserted into our pets to help them find their way back to us if they become lost. They're also the ones that VeriChip would like to see injected into every American's arm (for a fee I'm sure). Some people fear that this will be the direction government will go when it becomes apparent that the National ID cards can be forged. The article, Chip implants linked to animal tumors, explains that the chips have been shown to cause tumors in lab mice dating back to 1996. It then questions why the FDA failed to take those studies under consideration when it awarded approval. There's a twist at the end involving Tommy Thompson, GOP presidential candidate until bowing out in August.

"O, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!"

~Sir Walter Scott

The last article deals with the implementation of Martial Law here in the United States. NORTHCOM Plans 5 Day Martial Law Exercise describes the up-coming plans for an anti-terrorism exercise called Vigilant Shield 08. Quoting from the article:

USNORTHCOM also announced that they have been using the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina to better respond to crises. The response to Hurricane Katrina was essentially used as a test laboratory to implement martial law in a city. People were forced to relocate against their will and authorities stole people's firearms in the name of safety despite these actions being entirely unconstitutional.

"We're from the government and we're here to help"

~Unknown

RP in NH

2007-09-08T06:54:00.001-07:00

I just finished reading excerpts from New Hampshire's Republican Presidential Candidate Debate at James Bovard's blog. Jim thoughtfully compiled several Q&A's concerning Ron Paul to show how well he did. After reading through them, I must admit that if he's not careful he may end up winning the whole enchilada.

Ron Paul '08!

(And no, I wasn't paid to say that!)

Another Hole in the Head?

2007-09-07T19:17:00.001-07:00

It seems John Edwards, Democratic presidential candidate, has decided that we need yet another organization to fight terrorism. His new and improved organization would be different in that it would fight terrorism through shared intelligence and cooperation. Um, John... I hate to break this to ya, but we've already got one of those. We call it the Pentagon.

Help Wanted

2007-09-06T08:52:00.001-07:00

I need your help. I ran across this poster while searching the web the other day...

and I can't figure out what the URL in the lower left-hand corner says. Have you seen this poster? Do you know the URL? If so, leave a comment.

Nah, Nah, Nah... Redux!

2007-09-05T06:58:00.000-07:00

I see push is at it again. Except this time he's got Gen. David Petraeus's finger shoved in one ear and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker's finger shoved in the other. I must admit, I'm really not surprised.

Paper Trails

2007-09-01T08:43:00.001-07:00

While on the way home from the bike shop yesterday I noticed a sign on the roadside advertising a gun sale at the local hardware store. I've been wanting to pick up a semiautomatic pistol for a while and thought I'd stop in to see what they had to offer. After talking with the nice fellow behind the counter about 380's, 45's, and 9mm's, I asked what the LAW was concerning my taking home a pistol. He informed me that if I had a Concealed Weapons Permit, I could leave right then and there with it (after paying, of course). However, if I had not previously submitted to scrutiny by the State/Fed, I'd have to wait TEN days to acquire my property... a sort of pay-now-pick-it-up-later plan. The State apparently is assuming I'm planning on taking the gun from the store and shooting someone post-haste.

Needless to say, the hardware store will be keeping their pistols. I refuse to purchase a self-defense weapon where there's a paper trail. Those of us old enough to remember the movie Red Dawn may recall that one of the very first things the Cubans and Nicaraguans did after they landed on U.S. soil was to go to the local gun stores and collect the Federal Form 4473's so they can find out who owned firearms so they could confiscate weapons from the citizenry. Even in the early 80's--when that movie came out--the realization that licensing provided the State with the ability to keep track of who had guns and who didn't. I personally like to keep the element of surprise on my side.

I'll get my pistol. I just won't get it from someone who demands I ask the State for permission first.

Quote for Today

2007-08-30T07:30:00.001-07:00

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. "

~Unknown

My wife sent me the above quote. She saw it on a blog she reads and thought I'd like it.... I do!

Ron Paul Kaiser Family Foundation Interview

2007-08-29T06:06:00.001-07:00

A friend [who's also a co-worker] and I were discussing Ron Paul and his bid for the White House. I was talking up Paul's very libertarian approach to running government and how great it would be to get a true conservative in office that really believed in smaller government, lower taxes, etc. My friend then asked what Paul would do with Social Security as well as the other entitlement programs he was relying on for his retirement (which was coming in the not-to-distant future). He expressed his concern that, if elected, Ron Paul would eliminate his future retirement plans and would therefore be reticent to vote for him. Understandable. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to put my hands on any articles written by Ron Paul that explained in detail what his approach would be to deal with entitlement programs...

Until now, that is.

This morning, I pulled up the Strike-the-Root.com website and was perusing their latest batch of articles when I stumbled on an excellent article by Glen Allport titled "Health Care, Are Corporatist and Coercive-Socialist the Only Choices?" It's a candid look at what a mess our medical industry has become since the government began meddling with it in the 1960s. Here's a synopsis of the article:

The Illusion of Choice: When Every Option is Corrupt and Coercive

Our health care problems, like those of Cuba, Canada, England, Sweden, and almost every other nation on Earth, have been caused by government action. More government will make things worse, not better.

There are many ways to arrange economic life, but the two forms currently fighting for dominance in the West are corporatism and coercive-socialism. (Their proponents use different names, but I find these more accurate and descriptive). Both corporatism and coercive-socialism posit the need for a State with sole authority to initiate coercion against peaceful individuals. Democratic elections, combined with relentless propaganda during the school years and from the media, are the primary tools for making the system appear fair and legitimate in either form.

Glen Allport has done a fine job of exposing the problems that arise when government intervenes with the private medical industry and I highly recommend you read his article. At the end, he has a link to an interview with Ron Paul that is highly informative. Here's a final excerpt from his article that explains the premise for the interview:

We broke the system by letting our politicians get involved, and now the system is at a crisis point. Fixing the problem requires undoing the damage.

How would that work, exactly? Why not listen to someone with decades of experience as both a doctor and a congressman -- Dr. Ron Paul, for example. Paul is an OB-GYN and was a flight surgeon during the Vietnam War. You can listen to a detailed, highly-informed interview with Dr. Paul on the topic of health care by the Kaiser Family Foundation by clicking here; the page includes the option of podcast, transcript, or a terrific high-definition video (16 min 39 sec).

So, if you've wondered where Paul stands on the various entitlement programs that are bankrupting our government, have a watch/listen/read (your choice). I think you'll find the interview rather informative.

Aaron Russo's Passing

2007-08-26T07:28:00.000-07:00

Can someone explain to me why I had to go all the way to Asia and India to find an article on Yahoo!News about Aaron Russo's passing? I thought he would have at least got a mention in the U.S. version of Yahoo!News, being well known for producing such hits as "Trading Places" which starred Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd and "The Rose" which starred Bette Midler. I mean, after all, he had just finished working on his latest film, "America: Freedom to Fascism", a documentary that explores the connection between income tax collection and the erosion of civil liberties in America.... Oh, wait. I see why they wouldn't cover his passing. It's the same reason why they won't cover anyone else who's working to shake up the establishment: media blackout.

You can pay tribute to a great American hero and freedom fighter by purchasing, watching, and sharing his latest film, "America: Freedom to Fascism". I think I'll go pop my copy into the DVD player right now.

[Another] Quote for Today

2007-08-23T06:41:00.001-07:00

I'd rather be a red pill loser than a blue pill A-hole any day.

~John J. Smalanskas

Me, too!

So his comment makes sense, he's explaining why he'd rather live a life of truth, justice, decency, and genuine freedom (red pill) than live a life in an authoritarian world of deceit, delusion, illusion, and servitude (blue pill).

Quote for Today

2007-08-22T06:38:00.000-07:00

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."
~ Thomas Jefferson (letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823)

Today, I received both the above and below messages in my inbox. Coincidence?

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

Is our campaign for the Read the Bills Act getting results? We are certainly encouraged that Congress has taken some steps in our direction. Sen. Dianne Feinstein writes to a Downsizer:

"Like you, I believe that it is important that Senators and Representatives have a full understanding of bills before they come to a vote. You may be interested to know that a provision was included in the 'Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007' (S. 1) that requires any bill containing earmarks to be available on the internet for at least 48 hours before it can be considered by the Senate. This bill also includes a provision requiring that conference reports be available on the internet for at least 48 hours for Members to review before they may be considered. I am an original cosponsor of S. 1, which passed the Senate on January 18, 2007 by a vote of 96-2, and support these provisions."

Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama is also feeling the winds of change, saying that as President "he would post all non-emergency bills online for five days before he signed them into law, allowing Americans a chance to weigh in on the legislation." Source: Yahoo

Fine idea, Senator! It looks like you borrowed our idea of posting bills for seven days before Congress votes on them. And that raises the question: Senator Obama, why won't you introduce the Read the Bills Act?

Other members of Congress are definitely not fans of the RTBA at all. They've tried to ignore us, but thanks to our persistence have recently begun responding to our petitions. Sen. Kay Baily Hutchison writes a Downsizer,

"The legislative process in the Senate is complex and making additional requirements to read lengthy bills aloud on the Senate floor, or know the precise voting schedules in advance, could significantly hinder its ability to function practically or efficiently."

And Rep. Joe Sestak writes:

"Though the intentions of making sure every member of Congress has read, or heard read, each bill voted into law indeed has merit, it would take away precious time that members have to introduce and process legislation. This means that many bills that could greatly benefit our country would be placed on hold due to the time constraints that the Read the Bills Act would implement."

What Rep. Sestak doesn't mention is that the RTBA would also place "on hold" many bad bills that could greatly harm our country. We've seen the social, economic, and environmental devastation Big Government has inflicted. Do we really want Congress to be "efficient" in increasing the size of government by passing more and more bills?

But Sen. Hutchison and Rep. Sestak overlook a more practical point: by not reading and understanding bills in their entirety, they may end up with the opposite of what they intend. Consider a situation in Arkansas. The legislature tried to increase the marriage age to 18 with an exception for younger pregnant girls if they have parental consent. But the bill read "not pregnant" instead, allowing anyone under 18 - even infants - to get married with parental consent. A special session of the Arkansas Legislature may be called to fix the bill. Source: Yahoo

Is this efficiency?

If members of Congress don't read the bills they vote for, not only can "accidental" mistakes like this happen, but some unwanted changes could be secretly inserted.

So we urge you to tell your representatives you don't want this Arkansas fiasco repeated at the federal level. Tell them you don't want enormous bills prone to sabotage or unwanted insertions. Tell them to introduce and pass the Read the Bills Act. You can send your message here.

We also invite you to join the Read the Bills Act Coalition. Post an ad on your website or blog, and we will post a link back at the DownsizeDC.org blog. Details are found here.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

Did you know it is assumed that if Congress passes a bill, it is constitutional? It takes a court decision to render it unconstitutional. That is why it is so important to route out mistakes before a bill become law. So, what are you waiting for? Lend your support to the folks at DownsizeDC.org.

Inflation?

2007-08-19T19:15:00.000-07:00

I've gotten a preview of the newly revalued 100 dollar bill that will soon be issued by our government...

In addition, I wanted to share a definition I ran across the other day that I thought went with today's topic:

Specie Backed Money

Specie backed money is money distributed, normally as paper money, that is assigned value based on valuable minerals tied to the paper money. The idea is that with specie backed money, though the paper itself holds no true value, it represents whatever mineral is held in reserve, historically gold and silver. Holders of the paper money could theoretically exchange their bills for the gold or silver that it represented. This way, the money held a true value, while not being as bulky or tough to carry around as say gold, silver, or cows. Specie backed money has generally given way to fiat money, money that is not backed by any valuable resources. Today most currencies are fiat currencies, with values assigned by the governments issuing the bills, and holding no true values.

It's something to think about the next time you find yourself complaining about the high cost of living.

Time Off

2007-08-16T20:49:00.000-07:00

The boss has taken a week and a half off for vacation which means lots of overtime for me. Unfortunately it also means little to no time for blogging. Sorry. I may get a post or two up, but no promises until after the 26th of August.